If people know what they're buying, and they later really sell it to a willing buyer without lying to them, that's not even any kind of fraud, let alone a Ponzi scheme.
That's info asymmetry.
Ergo, lying.
Specifically by omission.
So the Ponzi essence is still there.
Have you gone to a shareholder meeting? Submitted a question to an earnings call?
It basically magnifies wealth discrepancy which is what the sociopaths want. The rest of us just try not to become poor by playing their games. Whenever everyone gets too close to fair, they invent a new game, or take the ball and go home. You know? I'm only sort of kidding. :D
who is “they”?
Like maybe we didn't kill the neanderthals, you know? I think we probably convinced them to kill each other. That's kind of our specialty.
It might be the inverse. Someone not wanting to get out of bed in the morning projecting that view onto the world.
Look up Social Darwinism. Broadly: most evolutionary explanations for social behaviour aren’t science. They’re parlour tricks. One can posit reasonable-sounding explanations for any behaviour, real or hypothetical, none of which is testable.
Example: I can construct individual-selection arguments for humans being evolved sociopaths and group-selection arguments for humans being collectivist sheep. There is truth in both statements. But their predictive value is totally dependent on the immeasurable mix and mechanics thereof, all of which is blissfully ignored, both in substance and evaluation, by this framing.
I value the time you put into explaining your position, however I dont think creative thought exercises like trying to explain why wall street is full of a-holes using evoluton is a parlour trick. Because there's no trick. It's just a thought. On a discussion forum. Where people discuss things.
There is a trick. You're claiming artistic license as a fictional narrator. That's fine! That's a thing!
But it doesn't work when presenting explanations for the real world. One in which the stock market is a "scam" whose "primary value" is "to keep the sociopaths" busy while it "magnifies wealth discrepancy which is what the sociopaths want" all while if someone other than "they" start winning "they invent a new game, or take the ball and go home" [1].
Evolutionary explanations of sociology have a long history of being deeply flawed. At best, they're arbitrary [2]. As explanations for the present state of the world, they aren't useful. As fictional devices, sure, why not.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31469336
[2] Caveat: evolutionary thinking works when one starts with real-world observations and supposes how they evolved. Cf: the evolution of altruism in humans [a]. It fails when one supposes evolutionary pressures to predict human behavior, e.g. natural selection and social competition exist, herego we should expect our leaders to be sociopaths. Observation, not supposition, before conclusion.
And since we're quoting each other, you opened with, "It might be the inverse. Someone not wanting to get out of bed in the morning projecting that view onto the world." I assure you I love getting out of bed. On the other hand, I kinda get the vibe the discussion you're having is a continuation of one you've had before with someone else and maybe you're projecting it on to me?
I checked out your profile and now I understand! Haha. Fun times. Thanks for the links.