Then again, I can't fathom what people would be doing with their money if the stock market weren't there. I imagine they might naturally wind up with some sort of...stock market.
The theory posited above is that you could try to manipulate these signals as a sort of economic warfare. If you expect that every dollar you put into our aforementioned roofing nail factory will get you minuscule or negative return, nobody's going to want to invest in building/expanding nail factories, and they'll put their cash somewhere it can grow instead. This is all well and good so long as you've got happy trading relationships with people who can sell you nails, but if one day the nails stop coming--you've got a supply chain shock until you either open new factories or find someone else willing to sell nails to you. The theory here being that if you had a LOT of goods that became tied up in a single point of failure--someone forcing that failure could create a great deal of internal instability to be exploited for geopolitical ends.
As you point out, in practice what's efficient is what can capture the highest return, not necessarily the highest return per se. If say investing in education had high returns society wide but those returns couldn't be captured, that's not an efficient use of private capital.
And if so, why is that necessarily a good thing? Why should that be our goal as society as opposed to things like minimizing child mortality, increasing literacy rates, making sure we don't have a ton of our fellow humans living on the street in misery etc etc - things that make the lives of our fellow humans better? Why is capital growth the metric we have chosen to optimize for? Surely there's better things to optimize for?
Excuse the polemic, but infinite growth with no regard for anything else is the ideology of a cancer cell - and to me that is increasingly what it feels like when we are wasting all these resources on a dying planet just to make numbers go up.
Number go up infinitely is due to inflation and that's basically just an incentive to not hoard cash indefinitely, and instead use it for something useful. But the only thing that uses up is numbers. Everything else is because people, on average, want more stuff and are willing and able to work hard to get it.
(Of course, this generally means that the markets chase the desires of those who have something valuable enough. People who don't will be marginalised by this mechanism, for sure. And of course there's lots of opportunity for people to steal or abuse powerful positions in the market to the detriment of others. Which is why a free market is not the be all and end all of organising a society, and other organisational structures exist to regulate it and to allocate resources in a less transactional manner)
There's a lot that's not captured by solely looking at dollars, like the examples that you bring up, such as quality of life, human welfare, and so on.
This is the essence of Adam Smith's often misunderstood invisible hand metaphor. Of the individual he observed: "By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Second order effects stack up and improve quality of life for more people better than trying to do so explicitly.
Multiplying capital creates abundance and that abundance allows for improved standards of living for and the means to spend excess resources in support of charitable endeavors. Growth is good because it means more abundance and opportunity. I would argue that pursuit of growth is not an ideology but a force of nature. Life is opportunistic and will expand to wherever there is fertile conditions, and often adapt even when they are not. We are part of nature and understand this intuitively, seeking growth opportunities. As an example, one is better off being part of a growing company (more wages and opportunities) than one that is stagnant or declining (fighting for scraps and survival).
But would only happen if USA decided to totally financialize all sectors of its economy and make a small set of oligarchic corporations THE load-bearing element of its strategic capacity, leading us to chase market returns even if those returns totally kneecapped our ability to build anything at all of actual value.
Good thing we haven't done that!
Any empirical support for that?
It helps as it is both a gauge of the success of the strategy, and also a lever where the process can be fine tuned, eg. slowly buying stock then strategically dumping in the right time, correlated with other external shocks can have wider effect to whole industries through controlling the public opinion on specific industries.
Sorry but... WTF are you talking about?
It rewards self-destructive behavior in favor of short-term gains. Shareholders have *zero* commitment to the companies they buy shares from and will happily switch their entire portfolios on a whim. It's essentially people chasing the new shiny thing every single day.
Let's not forget it's a known fact that people with insider knowledge will profit over everyone else.
How is that efficient in any shape or form?
> If they undercut the US companies and are willing to accept low returns on their investments, then the respective USA competition will be driven out of business by their investors, because there will be other sectors to invest in, with higher RoI.
You're basically explaining one of the reasons stocks are a horrible idea for distributing resources.
It has nothing to do with whether or not it's central or distributed, it's merely the incentives they create. It's essentially Goodhart's law on steroids.
> That system allocated resources to various monopolies who were too big to fail.
Like our banks today? Like OpenAI is trying to sell themselves as so the US government bails them out when they inevitably can't pay off their debts? Like all the other monopolies that are too big to fail?
I can't see the difference.
> turns out allocating capital based on who can make things that people want/need to buy, and do it with a profit, multiplies said capital way faster.
That assumes the stock market does that. It simply doesn't and history is proof. It's also a fact that free market capitalism has consistently done worse than before based on actual numbers.
I highly suggest you read 23 things they don't tell you about capitalism. It goes into a lot more detail and helps you understand things in a broader perspective.
If we want to improve our world we need to move past the faults of the current capitalist system and the soviet union. We need better incentives. Profit has proven to be too disconnected from actual value.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_Things_They_Don%27t_Tell_Yo...
