Stock price, not Karma (Score 1)

People seem to have this idea that the stock price is reflective of the "coolness" of the company and how "rad" it is. I base this on some of the above posts. In all seriousness, Google is a rad and cool company with a decent business model. I think the problem, is that people are so defensive about their beloved Google (understandably), that they ignore what the fine folks at The Economist are trying to say. This article is simply saying that buying Google is a big gamble. It has been pointed out above that the share price reflects the present value of all future dividends. I humbly throw my opinion in with Graham and Buffett that stocks should not be purchased for speculation, since speculation is a zero-sum game. Instead, dividends should be taken into account. With that in mind, let's honestly consider when Google can be expected to pay dividends in the future. Look at Microsoft: how many decades did they go for without paying a red cent in dividends? However, it has now paid off for many people. The Economist is simply making the argument that betting on returns from Google is a long, long bet given the competition and the inherent instability of the market they are in. A lot can happen between now, and when Google has a market share mature enough and safe enough to allow them to start paying back those who bet on them.