1. Half true. Competition drives down prices, but not necessarily profits. For example, you can lower your prices using innovation, by achieving economies of scale, etc.
2. Over long-term, probably true. In short-term, not true. Often monopolies are formed and initially sustained by keeping prices aggressively low.
3. If you said stock investors look to maximize profits, i'd agree. Short-term? Not necessarily. Value investors like Warren Buffet are not motivated by short-term profits.
4. Stock investors offer a premium for profitable companies who can protect themselves against "threats." Government protection is one such way, I guess. Building sustainable competitive advantage is another (merit-based).
5. Your thesis rests on a premise that the government doesn't intervene in the stock market? Really? Have you heard of quantitative easing?
If you don't like the fact that big companies have a lot of power, I suggest you spend time thinking about why they have so much power, before you randomly proscribe solutions.
2. Over long-term, probably true. In short-term, not true. Often monopolies are formed and initially sustained by keeping prices aggressively low.
3. If you said stock investors look to maximize profits, i'd agree. Short-term? Not necessarily. Value investors like Warren Buffet are not motivated by short-term profits.
4. Stock investors offer a premium for profitable companies who can protect themselves against "threats." Government protection is one such way, I guess. Building sustainable competitive advantage is another (merit-based).
5. Your thesis rests on a premise that the government doesn't intervene in the stock market? Really? Have you heard of quantitative easing?
If you don't like the fact that big companies have a lot of power, I suggest you spend time thinking about why they have so much power, before you randomly proscribe solutions.