Like other things, stock have value because other people think they have value. Even stocks than pay dividends pay it in fiat, which only has value if other people think it has value. Ultimately, there's not much difference between stocks that pay dividends to those that don't, when you really get down to it. I suppose you could make an argument that stocks that paid dividends in food or slaves would be the only ones that had "non-Ponzi" value, since these things have value apart from any sort of value other people place on them. Other items in this category of inherent value might include guns, ammo, or alcohol.<p>Perhaps some find it scary that we collectively value some things so highly that are pretty arbitrary, but I think it's only natural. Abstractions are core to what we are as a people.<p>In short, if non-dividend paying stocks lack any value, so do most things in the world. Also, about Ponzi schemes, there's no real problem if the amount of capital flowing in increases at an exponential rate. In the last hundred years, this exponential inflow has not been a problem, so things have worked out pretty well.<p>Though, in regards to the voting rights, I do think we'll see the end of ridiculous supervoting shares, at least for awhile. After WeWork, I think the paradigm has shifted.
Step 1)<p>Sell your Google to me for $1.0.<p>Step 2)<p>Use board to increase dividends to me to 80% of cash flow.<p>Step 2) (Other party)<p>Whoops, stocks do have value even if they don't pay a dividend.<p>Article debunked.