it's also why we should be wary of anyone spouting "markets provide liquidity" dogmatically. equity markets do provide liquidity, but only a trickle is needed for a well-functioning market, but the gamblers (traders, brokers, etc.) propel a tsunami of liquidity[0], because that's what benefits the gambling mechanics. we should leave gambling to casinos and let equity markets be about involved ownership. i'd made a related point yesterday about each person having one appreciating asset to nuture is great, but not having many: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31573993 .
[0]: a similar phenomenon occurs in real estate, where only a trickle is needed, but brokers/agents try to drive sales past the natural equilibrium for their own benefit, and not the market's.
Except this is explicitly talking about private markets. You know, those places that VCs and people like Elon Musk claim companies need to be to avoid "short-termism" of public markets and have ownership be rewarded.
The reality is these money men want to be private so they never have to mark-to-market. The public markets enforce that.
i think a similar dynamic happens in PE though, which is a private market, but a very large one, so not like the illiquid, opaque private markets we'd otherwise imagine. PE firms try to inflate valuations and get out while leaving others holding the bag (i.e., take the inflated risks and therefore take the eventual losses).
In any case.
I disagree with your point. Companies that have solid fundamentals and fairly steady dividend payments do not feel like a ponzi at all. The deal is simple: you get a share, they give you a dividend. If management changes that, you can always sell the share.
Dividend payments is one of the best tools to keep a stock market (somewhat) honest.
Also, people become incredibly greedy in these situations, they think they will be able to get out of the game but keep going back for more.