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.
1. Look at the bank bailouts, when a company’s stock holds value for laborers, there company’s interests are not a national interest.
2. Like I said before, in certain cases like Amazon, buying stocks dramatically lifts certain board members wealth that gives them more flexibility to sell and buy back stocks and provide a stimulus to there company from there own capital.
The more important indirect reason is that the more people who store value in your stock, the more people who have the interests of your company in mind, and the more of a hold you have over them.
The bank bailouts were about preventing the financial system from collapsing, had nothing to do with laborers.
A rising stock price does absolutely nothing to the amount of capital a company has to allocate. Do you really think that an increase in Apple's stock price puts cash in their bank account for them to play with?
I own stock in Apple, they have no hold over me. I wish them well and I hope the stock price increases, but they have no hold over my life.
That's a pretty convoluted sentence, and I have no idea what you're trying to say. Can you dumb it down a bit for those of us in the cheap seats?
There are two ways buying stocks help raise the value of a company:
1. (this is your question)- the more you buy stocks, the more, in some cases, the executives who own shares gain wealth, which can be used in support of the company. .
2. The larger reason is that the more people who have valued tied up into a company’s well being, the more influence they have over public policy to promote higher profits for themselves.
The bank bailouts were about preventing the financial system from collapsing, had nothing to do with laborers.
A rising stock price does absolutely nothing to the amount of capital a company has to allocate. Do you really think that an increase in Apple's stock price puts cash in their bank account for them to play with?
I own stock in Apple, they have no hold over me. I wish them well and I hope the stock price increases, but they have no hold over my life.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Some companies, when there stocks and businesses are spread out throughout the populace, become to big to fail; much like the auto industry and the banking industry. A country shouldn’t be reliant on the well being of a corporation.
Some companies, when there stocks and businesses are spread out throughout the populace, become to big to fail; much like the auto industry and the banking industry. A country shouldn’t be reliant on the well being of a corporation.
and that was a lesson learned in the financial crisis so now the federal government actively monitors that situation. So that's not a reason to not invest in stock and certainly doesn't explain how buying stock in Apple makes Apple more valuable.
LOL are you listening to yourself? You sound like a Madoff investment sales broker. The term or phrases with the word "Value" get overused.
It sounding like that to you doesn't change the fact you have no idea what you're talking about when comparing buying stock in a company to a ponzi scheme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133
What is the value of "owning"a company if not the profits from which you can dip your hands into anytime you want?
The value of the part you own can increase and be sold, thus earning a profit. It's called a capital gain. That capital gain has value, I use it to buy fun things like beer and rent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133
When you own stocks you cant fire people, walk into the back of store, take stuff, or make any actual decisions, nor implement them. Unless you buy out majority of shares and declare yourself the CEO, you are just being scammed again into thinking you are an owner. You are not. The only thing you own is the make believe "share" that you can hopefully sell for more money one day.
Correct for the most part (a first for you) but the "share" is not make believe, and none of this validates your claim that it is a ponzi scheme.
There are two ways buying stocks help raise the value of a company:
1. (this is your question)- the more you buy stocks, the more, in some cases, the executives who own shares gain wealth, which can be used in support of the company. .
<<SNIP>>
Take Jeff Bezos, for example. When Amazon stock goes up, his personal wealth does too. How is that personal wealth used to support the company?
Why should retirees be dependent on corporate wealth.
They aren't. Many retirees have issued promissory notes, which is how many of the 97% of US businesses that are not corporations generate Capital.
Retirees are also members of limited liability companies, or investors in limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships, from which they derive income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Capitalism is a global economic system that affects all economies.
Capitalism is not an economic system.
Your inability to grasp even the basics of Economics is telling, indeed.
Capitalism is a Property Theory, one of three, that answers the basic question: Who should control Capital?
Capitalist Theory states that individuals are best suited to control Capital, because individuals are more responsive to the needs of the Market. Capitalist Theory also states that individuals will diversify and specialize, resulting in Capital being used to the utmost efficiency, which eliminates the wasteful or redundant use of Capital, which is detrimental to an economy overall.
Socialist Theory claims that government, or a bureaucracy within government, or a non-governmental organization like a union, trade association or other group should control Capital.
Communist Property Theory suggests that Capital should be controlled by the people at-large.
Capitalism has repeatedly demonstrated its superiority.
For example, when Markets demanded organic agriculture, it was precisely because the US employs Capitalist Property Theory that Capitalists immediately shifted Capital to the production of organic fruits and vegetables, grains, meats and poultry in response to the demand of the Markets.
That would never have happened under Socialist or Communist Property Theories, because as the US Department of Agriculture pointed out in 2014, organic agriculture results in lower production, so much so, that it would have required an additional 109 Million acres of crop-land to produce the same amount of crops that modern and neo-traditional agricultural methods produce.
There are only two currently competing Economic Systems, the Free Market and the Command System.
Unlike a Property Theory, an Economic System answers three basic questions:
1] What shall be produced?
2] How shall it be produced?
3] For whom shall it be produced?
The system itself is the answer to the questions, and hybrids of both systems exist. What shall be produced? The Free Market will decide, or the Command Group in a Command System will decide (the Command Group is government, a government agency or any non-governmental group like a union, trade association or other entity).
In the US, corn shall be produced, because there are Markets for corn. The Markets have also decided how corn shall be produced, using organic methods, classical farming methods and neo-traditional farming methods.
The Markets have also decided for whom corn shall be produced, as there are Markets for those who want raw corn, those who want processed corn like corn starch, corn flour, corn meal and varieties of corn syrup, canned corn, cream of corn, succotash, popcorn, corn for feed and corn for the production of alcoholic beverages.
A Command Group within the US, namely the EPA, has mandated that corn also be used for ethanol in gasoline, to the detriment of US consumers of all classes, including households and businesses.
That's why we refuse to accept the Command Economic System and Socialist and Communist Property Theories, because the groups involved always act stupidly.
If the Market had demanded ethanol -- it wouldn't -- and if Capitalists had been involved, it would have resulted in the use of sugar beets to produce ethanol, since one acre of sugar beets yields 714 gallons of ethanol, while an acre of corn only yields 354 gallons.
That is gross inefficiency, and would not exist under Capitalist Property Theory and the Free Market Economic System, and that inefficiency exists because of Command Groups.
Had you lived in the former East Bloc, you would know that the Command Groups who ran the Economic System and controlled the Capital didn't permit the growing of tomatoes.
Tomatoes have a low life-span and do not generate the revenues that cash crops like grains do, so all agricultural production was devoted to the production of high-value cash crops. If you wanted tomatoes, you had to grow them yourself in your back-yard, and the Millions who lived in grotesque apartment blocs did not have back-yards, or buy or trade for them from someone who was lucky enough to grow them in their back-yard.
The people in the East Bloc had a lower Standard of Living than people in the West, because they did not have year-round access to a wide variety of fruits and vegetables.
In spite of the Market demand for denim blue jeans, the Soviets didn't produce them, because cotton was too valuable for other uses, so I constantly traded blue jeans to Soviet border guards at the Check-Points in Magdeburg and Marienborn, and with the Soviet army officers I was with on Druzba '86.
Your claims are absurd, because "What shall we produce?" The Capital will decide," is a gross absurdity.
Capital, with the exception of Labor and draught animals, consists of inanimate objects incapable of deciding anything.
And, only someone with limited intellectual capacity would be unable to grasp the possibility that you can employ Capitalist Property Theory with the Command Economic System.
It's never been tried, but effectively the Command Group would set all the prices for goods and services, while Capitalist controlled all the Capital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLSFan
Technology didn't advance in the middle ages because no one was funding it... Not investors or the oligarchy
That is not why technology did not advance.
Technology does not require investors, it only requires visionaries and risk-takers.
And, in spite of your claims, technology was produced. Whatever problems with technology existed only existed due to the lack of an education system, and the fact that 95% of the population, including children, where involved in agricultural production.
Technology often --but not always-- requires investors to produce and distribute it, but not to develop it.
It gives him more capital to sell and buy back stocks, as well as support Amazon with his personal wealth through lobbying and other means.
So when Amazon's stock goes up Bezos sells that stock, then turns around and buys back more? How would that support Amazon, and how would that benefit Bezos aside from tax strategies? Then you're saying he somehow uses his own personal wealth to support Amazon by financing lobbying efforts, instead of Amazon financing it's own like every other large company?
You're really flailing here man, you can't answer TaxP's question because you're out of your depth so you've cranked the BS machine up another notch. In fact we were to the point where you're going to have to draw "11" with a sharpie to turn it up any higher.
They aren't. Many retirees have issued promissory notes, which is how many of the 97% of US businesses that are not corporations generate Capital.
Retirees are also members of limited liability companies, or investors in limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships, from which they derive income.
Capitalism is not an economic system.
Your inability to grasp even the basics of Economics is telling, indeed.
Capitalism is a Property Theory, one of three, that answers the basic question: Who should control Capital?
Capitalist Theory states that individuals are best suited to control Capital, because individuals are more responsive to the needs of the Market. Capitalist Theory also states that individuals will diversify and specialize, resulting in Capital being used to the utmost efficiency, which eliminates the wasteful or redundant use of Capital, which is detrimental to an economy overall.
Socialist Theory claims that government, or a bureaucracy within government, or a non-governmental organization like a union, trade association or other group should control Capital.
Communist Property Theory suggests that Capital should be controlled by the people at-large.
Capitalism has repeatedly demonstrated its superiority.
For example, when Markets demanded organic agriculture, it was precisely because the US employs Capitalist Property Theory that Capitalists immediately shifted Capital to the production of organic fruits and vegetables, grains, meats and poultry in response to the demand of the Markets.
That would never have happened under Socialist or Communist Property Theories, because as the US Department of Agriculture pointed out in 2014, organic agriculture results in lower production, so much so, that it would have required an additional 109 Million acres of crop-land to produce the same amount of crops that modern and neo-traditional agricultural methods produce.
There are only two currently competing Economic Systems, the Free Market and the Command System.
Unlike a Property Theory, an Economic System answers three basic questions:
1] What shall be produced?
2] How shall it be produced?
3] For whom shall it be produced?
The system itself is the answer to the questions, and hybrids of both systems exist. What shall be produced? The Free Market will decide, or the Command Group in a Command System will decide (the Command Group is government, a government agency or any non-governmental group like a union, trade association or other entity).
In the US, corn shall be produced, because there are Markets for corn. The Markets have also decided how corn shall be produced, using organic methods, classical farming methods and neo-traditional farming methods.
The Markets have also decided for whom corn shall be produced, as there are Markets for those who want raw corn, those who want processed corn like corn starch, corn flour, corn meal and varieties of corn syrup, canned corn, cream of corn, succotash, popcorn, corn for feed and corn for the production of alcoholic beverages.
A Command Group within the US, namely the EPA, has mandated that corn also be used for ethanol in gasoline, to the detriment of US consumers of all classes, including households and businesses.
That's why we refuse to accept the Command Economic System and Socialist and Communist Property Theories, because the groups involved always act stupidly.
If the Market had demanded ethanol -- it wouldn't -- and if Capitalists had been involved, it would have resulted in the use of sugar beets to produce ethanol, since one acre of sugar beets yields 714 gallons of ethanol, while an acre of corn only yields 354 gallons.
That is gross inefficiency, and would not exist under Capitalist Property Theory and the Free Market Economic System, and that inefficiency exists because of Command Groups.
Had you lived in the former East Bloc, you would know that the Command Groups who ran the Economic System and controlled the Capital didn't permit the growing of tomatoes.
Tomatoes have a low life-span and do not generate the revenues that cash crops like grains do, so all agricultural production was devoted to the production of high-value cash crops. If you wanted tomatoes, you had to grow them yourself in your back-yard, and the Millions who lived in grotesque apartment blocs did not have back-yards, or buy or trade for them from someone who was lucky enough to grow them in their back-yard.
The people in the East Bloc had a lower Standard of Living than people in the West, because they did not have year-round access to a wide variety of fruits and vegetables.
In spite of the Market demand for denim blue jeans, the Soviets didn't produce them, because cotton was too valuable for other uses, so I constantly traded blue jeans to Soviet border guards at the Check-Points in Magdeburg and Marienborn, and with the Soviet army officers I was with on Druzba '86.
Your claims are absurd, because "What shall we produce?" The Capital will decide," is a gross absurdity.
Capital, with the exception of Labor and draught animals, consists of inanimate objects incapable of deciding anything.
And, only someone with limited intellectual capacity would be unable to grasp the possibility that you can employ Capitalist Property Theory with the Command Economic System.
It's never been tried, but effectively the Command Group would set all the prices for goods and services, while Capitalist controlled all the Capital.
That is not why technology did not advance.
Technology does not require investors, it only requires visionaries and risk-takers.
And, in spite of your claims, technology was produced. Whatever problems with technology existed only existed due to the lack of an education system, and the fact that 95% of the population, including children, where involved in agricultural production.
Technology often --but not always-- requires investors to produce and distribute it, but not to develop it.
1. Changes absolutely nothing, Private wealth controls the well being of others, that is a problem
2. Capitalism invariably leads to a style of command, as no capitalist institution is dedicated to the idea of free markets, they are dedicated to power, which is represented as wealth.
Take processed foods, the profit motive lead producers to use this development process in order to lower costs and rise production, it was not a demand of the market.
This same problem which was later demanded to be resolved was created by the command of profit. Capitalism itself is antithetical to the free markets, as wealth is concentrated and power develops.
I’m against a command economy, but a state will always have its own interests. The United States and Britain for example, two capitalist states use public spending, taxes, and corporate state relationships in order to keep economic activity high and keep the population stable.
All in the interest of retaining power.
I’m not against some type of market system, but the concept of concentrating capital for the needs of the consumer assumes the consumer market is not a means to an end (profit).
More choices in the market by there nature distort needs.
People can have more equality in favor of less materialism.
3. I agree with inventions.
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.
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.
