I'm responding here because Jeff's argument makes sense to me and we can call it quits, but I want to try to explain why you're totally misinterpreting my points:

Quote:
Nothing has monetary value if you refuse to sell it.

Never once have I said that the stock must have monetary value in order to have value. At the same time, I don't see that it has any other sort of value, either. To back up in your post, you kinda make my point for me:

Quote:
Its like saying that a car doesn't have any value if you don't drive it.

Correct. A car has both value in its utility (in the case of a car, its ability to get you from one place to another) and its potential resale value. Its potential resale value is based on its utility. (Even if, in some cases, that utility is awfully abstract, like making the owner feel like he looks cool.) A stock's potential resale value must also be based on its utility. That utility is the inherent value I've been talking about, and it need not be monetary in nature. Your argument so far, as far as I can fathom, is that its utility is that it can be sold for money. But the fact that it can be sold for money is based on its utility. It's like saying that Windows has the best applications because it's the best operating system, and that it's the best operating system because it has the best applications. That's a completely circular argument, and a classic logical fallacy: "circulus in demonstrando".

Again, my point is that any item must have some sort of inherent value (or utility), even if it's abstracted, in the case of currency, for example, for it to have any resale value. And my argument is that stocks are sufficiently abstracted to make their connection to the issuing company extraordinarily tenuous.