This article conflates multiple distinct mechanisms in a way that doesn't make sense. For instance, the author implies that stock returns (in the long run) are

This article conflates multiple distinct mechanisms in a way that doesn't make sense. For instance, the author implies that stock returns (in the long run) are comprised of economy-wide growth and dividends. The author provides a hypothetical example of 8% stock return being explained by 5% economy-wide return and 3% dividend return. This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, dividends are a mechanism to transfer wealth from the company to its shareholders. Emphasis on "transfer". Dividends do not magically create new wealth out of thin air. If a company decided that - all else being equal - they will reinvest profits instead of paying dividends this year, the investors' returns would not be affected. Value of the skipped dividend would simply appreciate the stock price instead (when a company pays a $1 dividend, their stock price drops by $1). Secondly, the author implies that without dividends a stock investors's returns would be constrained by economy-wide growth. This is nonsensical. You can own a company within a stagnating economy and that company can still turn a profit. Even if the economy is growing at 0%, a company might still make 10% profits per year. The connection between economic growth and company profits is not what the author believes it to be.