U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-07-2013, 07:18 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,319,071 times
Reputation: 5175

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
The USA (and the world) will grow, and more USD will be created to meet all the demands. We should never be materially limited by USD's. USD's are not wealth or resources or real goods or services. In the future we can only be limited by the productive capacity of our country (and world). We already proved this with WW2.

Of course crazy things have and can happen. But it makes no sense for a monetarily sovereign national Gov't by and for the people to confiscate private wealth like retirement accounts to pay its bills. Taxes are crazy enough!
You seem to lack comprehensive understanding of how the system works. The ability to create money is limited by certain factors. One is the ability to service the debt, and the other is confidence in the value of the money. At the point where the government is simply printing monopoly money to service debt, no one will purchase that debt and mass inflation sets in. The government cannot allow that to happen.
They must retain credibility at all costs, even if that means attaching your accounts and confiscating a share of your wealth to do it.

As we march onward into the socialism that people seem to crave to give them what they do not want to work and pay for themselves, the government need real assets to back its money creation. This same method can be used to induce deflation to offset the inflation that is inherent in deficit spending.
There is only one source left to obtain those assets, to take them from the people.
Greece was just a trial run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2013, 08:10 AM
 
29,463 posts, read 15,444,180 times
Reputation: 20012
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin View Post
The overwhelming majority of stock purchases are on the secondary market. The transaction is between two individuals, the corporation is not getting any money from stock purchases after the IPO unless they issue more shares, which investors also don't like because it dilutes the stock's value. The corporation doesn't get any money when Fred sells his shares to Tom. Only ~20% of stocks actually pay a dividend anyway.

If a company can expand and make an extra $100,000 in EBITDA, they're going to do it whether they're paying 20% taxes or 30%. 70% of $100,000 is more than 0% of $100,000.

Taxes aren't really holding back investment/expansion, weak demand is.
Get out a dictionary and look up dividend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 08:34 AM
 
8,883 posts, read 3,934,744 times
Reputation: 1720
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
You seem to lack comprehensive understanding of how the system works. The ability to create money is limited by certain factors. One is the ability to service the debt, and the other is confidence in the value of the money. At the point where the government is simply printing monopoly money to service debt, no one will purchase that debt and mass inflation sets in. The government cannot allow that to happen.
They must retain credibility at all costs, even if that means attaching your accounts and confiscating a share of your wealth to do it.

As we march onward into the socialism that people seem to crave to give them what they do not want to work and pay for themselves, the government need real assets to back its money creation. This same method can be used to induce deflation to offset the inflation that is inherent in deficit spending.
There is only one source left to obtain those assets, to take them from the people.
Greece was just a trial run.
The world wants, in fact needs USD to run and work. So much so that 1000X our yearly interest payment is traded daily throughout the world. And a good test of this sort of system is just what happens with a stress, like a world wide economic calamity. i.e. 2008. The use of USD in our world has only climbed since then. i.e. world demands for the USD has climbed. Confidence in the USD has climbed. Because if not the USD, what else? Right now there is no sensible substitute.

Now over time, over the next decade or generation, the Yuan must climb. But that will be a very long and drawn out process, not overnight. There are simply not enough Yuan in the world. And to get there the entire Chinese society and economy has to change drastically. And that cannot happen overnight. It will take a generation to move China from manufacturing to consuming. China is simply not ready for that today.

The world is growing and the need for USD is growing. There is no surplus of USD in our world today and inflation remains nominal throughout. We will continue to create debt moving forward. Has to happen. 'Unfunded liabilities' will be funded as our people gradually begin to realize that our limit is not USD, it is our productivity and total output.

Greece is not monetarily sovereign. So they indeed might be forced to take from the people. Anything we take from our people would be by choice. i.e. stupidity/ignorance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 08:52 AM
 
17,751 posts, read 15,647,793 times
Reputation: 6391
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
You seem to lack comprehensive understanding of how the system works.

There is no seeming. You just don't know how the system works. Your economic library reminds me of Don Quixote's library on the arts of Chivalry. Your booze on your breath, avuncular condescension further humiliates.


Quote:
The ability to create money is limited by certain factors. One is the ability to service the debt, and the other is confidence in the value of the money. At the point where the government is simply printing monopoly money to service debt, no one will purchase that debt and mass inflation sets in. The government cannot allow that to happen.
Based on what evidence? Seems to me taxing power and monopoly control is what is required. Kinda why the Russian ruble blew apart after the Soviet Empire collapsed. They did not even need to print sovereign debt. They just increased credit from the state bankng system which basically meant the ruble cartel was broken. Then Ukraine made its own script which meant repatriated Russian rubles. Russia had no power to tax it in.

* taxing power
* monopoly.



Quote:
They must retain credibility at all costs, even if that means attaching your accounts and confiscating a share of your wealth to do it.
And the empirical evidence laughs again. The US banking system has no credibility nor does da guberment that bailed them out(hey y'all voted them in anyway didn't ya). Yet they still have taxing power and they still have the monopoly.


Quote:
As we march onward into the socialism that people seem to crave to give them what they do not want to work and pay for themselves, the government need real assets to back its money creation. This same method can be used to induce deflation to offset the inflation that is inherent in deficit spending.
There is only one source left to obtain those assets, to take them from the people.
Greece was just a trial run.
Ah yes Greece again. Greece is more like our private debt problem, the one you have no plan to solve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 10:07 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,319,071 times
Reputation: 5175
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
there is no seeming. You just don't know how the system works. Your economic library reminds me of don quixote's library on the arts of chivalry. Your booze on your breath, avuncular condescension further humiliates.

your incoherent rambling is testimony to your lack of intelegence and your inability to formulate a credible argument.



And the empirical evidence laughs again. The us banking system has no credibility nor does da guberment that bailed them out(hey y'all voted them in anyway didn't ya). Yet they still have taxing power and they still have the monopoly.

the fact that the dollar is the world reserve currency and that the us treasury is able to still sell hundreds of billions of treasury notes at sub 1% interest is proof positive that you are either on drugs or have absoulutly no knowledge of this subject whatsoever.

ah yes greece again. Greece is more like our private debt problem, the one you have no plan to solve.

are you really that stupid??? Greece was a legal presedent in which money was stolen from peoples bank accounts in order to satisfy government debt without the consent of the people, while still trying to maintain the false credibiltiy of a democracy. If you think it cannot and will not happen here you are delusional in addition to being stupid.
[/color]

?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Michigan
2,198 posts, read 2,244,904 times
Reputation: 2091
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Get out a dictionary and look up dividend.
Perhaps you would like to explain how something that I said is wrong? Obviously you can't, because you don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe you would like to explain how companies raise investment capital by paying dividends to shareholders?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 12:43 PM
 
29,463 posts, read 15,444,180 times
Reputation: 20012
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin View Post
Perhaps you would like to explain how something that I said is wrong? Obviously you can't, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Sure, I don't mind pointing out ignorance.

First, I do want to point out something. If you read my post, you will notice that I referred to "investment" while you are talking about trading. Obviously, you don't know the difference; therefore, I will give you a link so you won't make that mistake again - What is the difference between investing and trading?

Now let's move on to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin View Post
Maybe you would like to explain how companies raise investment capital by paying dividends to shareholders?
Since you don't know the difference between investing and trading, I can understand why you don't know what a secondary offering is. A secondary offering is essentially when a company offers more stock to be traded which will raise capital. Generally speaking, the greater the dividends paid on stock issued from the IPO, as an example, the greater the demand and price, paid to the company, for stock in a secondary offering.

Secondary Offering Definition | Investopedia

:shoc ked: lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Michigan
2,198 posts, read 2,244,904 times
Reputation: 2091
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Sure, I don't mind pointing out ignorance.

First, I do want to point out something. If you read my post, you will notice that I referred to "investment" while you are talking about trading. Obviously, you don't know the difference; therefore, I will give you a link so you won't make that mistake again - What is the difference between investing and trading?

Now let's move on to this:



Since you don't know the difference between investing and trading, I can understand why you don't know what a secondary offering is. A secondary offering is essentially when a company offers more stock to be traded which will raise capital. Generally speaking, the greater the dividends paid on stock issued from the IPO, as an example, the greater the demand and price, paid to the company, for stock in a secondary offering.

Secondary Offering Definition | Investopedia

:shoc ked: lol
I very clearly discussed companies issuing new shares to raise money in my post. Try working on your reading comprehension.

Now, let's try this again since you're a little slow.

Only 15-20% of companies pay dividends. These are generally very large, old, well-funded, established companies without much growth potential. Huge oil companies like Exxon Mobile, huge utility companies like Duke Energy. Wal-Mart, Microsoft, etc. They pay dividends because they don't have anything better to do with their money. They don't have room to grow and they're out of ideas. These companies don't dilute their stock to raise cash. They have a surplus of cash and nothing to do with it. That's why they're giving it away in the form of dividends.

Companies who issue new shares after the IPO in order to raise capital are young, quickly growing companies. These companies don't pay dividends. They are growth stocks. They don't pay dividends because they reinvest their profits in growing the company. How much of a dividend does DDD pay? SSYS?

How about TSLA? Let's ask them.

Quote:
Do Tesla shares pay a dividend? Tesla has never declared dividends on our common stock. We intend on retaining all future earnings to finance future growth and therefore, do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
The other reason why companies might dilute their shares with a new offering is if they're in trouble financially and are trying to raise capital to keep the company afloat. Companies like NBG (National Bank of Greece) and Alpha Bank (another Greek bank). If they're in trouble financially and desperately need capital, do you think they're paying a dividend?

If you still don't understand, ask yourself this- why would a company that needs investment capital to grow their business GIVE CASH AWAY to investors in the form of dividends? Does that make any sense to you?

:shoc ked:

Last edited by EugeneOnegin; 11-07-2013 at 04:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 05:56 PM
 
Location: TX
795 posts, read 1,222,358 times
Reputation: 783
The discussion over dividends is not really relevant. The original point EugeneOnegin made here:

Quote:
If a company can expand and make an extra $100,000 in EBITDA, they're going to do it whether they're paying 20% taxes or 30%. 70% of $100,000 is more than 0% of $100,000.
is correct. Warren Buffett says this all the time, from his own experience. Taxes were double in the '60s and people invested. Whether the tax rate is 5% or 90% it is still the best option available.

Put it this way: taxes go up, so your investment returns decline. Okay. What else you gonna do? You either earn $X by investing or $0.00 not investing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 08:05 PM
 
17,751 posts, read 15,647,793 times
Reputation: 6391
Quote:
Originally Posted by celcius View Post
The discussion over dividends is not really relevant. The original point EugeneOnegin made here:



is correct. Warren Buffett says this all the time, from his own experience. Taxes were double in the '60s and people invested. Whether the tax rate is 5% or 90% it is still the best option available.

Put it this way: taxes go up, so your investment returns decline. Okay. What else you gonna do? You either earn $X by investing or $0.00 not investing.

This applies to those who still run a producer surplus. The dead weight is at the margins where the least productive producer near the indifference side of the curve moves into negative territory. So one cannot apply this everywhere. A tax on salt will just cause everything to rise in price as well as cause dead weight. In fact such a tax of this sort can be considered an effective increase in minimum wage.

The "enlightened" frequently state that all taxes are passed onto the consumer. This is of course not always true as you say.



A non competitive market or cartel has already driven the consumer to maximize payment. Any increase in price will result in consumer indifference so the cartel will eat the tax. If someone has $20 and not a penny more , they cannot pay more. If it costs $1 to produce and a tax of $1 is added then $21 loses the sale. The cartels will not walk away from its huge $18 surplus.


Who Pays a Sales Tax?


That is why I wonder why the tax base isn't government created cartels and monopoly income, particularly in the area of real estate. There is no dead weight on production.


Not only are the "enlightened" stumped on being wrong about taxes all being passed on, but taxes can also increase production. . The trick is to tax value that is not a product of human labor.

One example are the Sinclairs of Niihau . Taxes on their possessions have forced them to earn revenue in tourism. Called lighting a fire under their ass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top