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.
A ponzi scheme needs new investors to return a profit since there is no actual investment in anything that has value, new investor money is used to pay returns to old investors. If I invest in the stock of a company that doesn't return dividends, it can still return a profit because the company grow (in actual or perceived) value. It doesn't take any new investors for the stock price to rise along with the performance of a company, if it has 1,000 outstanding shares and doubles in size/sales/rev each share will be worth more and I can sell mine for a profit. This is not a ponzi scheme.
Sometimes I think "ponzi scheme" is the most overused term by people who understand the least.
LOL are you listening to yourself? You sound like a Madoff investment sales broker. The term or phrases with the word "Value" get overused.
What is the value of "owning"a company if not the profits from which you can dip your hands into anytime you want?
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.
How? Shareholders expect the company to make money and for the stock value to go up. Meeting expectations doesn't give management or the board more flexibility. If they're making money it may give them more capital to invest or return to shareholders, but they still have to demonstrate to the shareholders that their capital allocation strategy is in the shareholders' best interest.
The board is made up of shareholders. The same members have more access to capital to use.
The board is made up of shareholders. The same members have more access to capital to use.
And again that is only one part of investments.
we all understand there are other investments, we're just talking about corporations for the moment so stay on topic.
The board is made up of experienced executives who may also be shareholders. It's likely they're very small shareholders. Doesn't change anything I said about capital allocation.
Only 6% of Americans belong to unions outside government jobs. And that number will shrink fast, as they close those auto plants that make cars. Unions are a thing of the past in the private sector, and will soon be dead.
Tell me if you agree with all this:
Under Capitalism, all parties are entitled to equal power.
The worker, the business owner, and the consumer.
The workers, business owners and consumers are free to take it or leave it and or also free to form groups to protect their interests.
The business class does it with lobbyists that represent one to hundreds of business in order to see what the government can do for them.
Most bills that the business class complains about, are written by the business class.
A thread for another topic, but with Net Neutrality, the media and anti government types made it out to be politicians vs business.
The reality, like many bills, is it is corporations vs corporations trying to outspend each other to gain political favor while the rest of the country loses.
With Net Neutrality, it was corporations against other corporations. This needs to end.
Since the business class has deeper pockets, they outlawed workers organizing and even threaten to shut the company down if workers try it.
The business class pretty much owns the government then.
In Communism, the business class and politicians are one in the same and dictate policy from the top down as we see in China. The Business class in America has more in common with Communism than they do with Capitalism.
They want all the power for themselves and none for anyone else.
During the cold war when Unions were at an all time high, one of the propaganda pieces we were showered with, and yes I am that old, was how rich Americans were under capitalism and unions, and how poor they were in the Soviet Union where workers had no representation.
We are not headed there, we have been going there since the 70's.
we all understand there are other investments, we're just talking about corporations for the moment so stay on topic.
The board is made up of experienced executives who may also be shareholders. It's likely they're very small shareholders. Doesn't change anything I said about capital allocation.
Not in all cases, Bezos owns a high percentage of Amazon’s shares and as Amazon stocks increase, he gets an outsized boost to his wealth.
Either way the problem with stocks is that people’s money is directly tied with the wealth of the corporation, meaning the profits of a company are directly tied with people’s well being giving them a threatening hold on people’s lives.
Now laborers must support policies against societal interests in hopes that corporate value goes up, and the corporations have an important hold on the government for bail outs when the going gets tough.
That is the largest problem with corporate stocks.
Not in all cases, Bezos owns a high percentage of Amazon’s shares and as Amazon stocks increase, he gets an outsized boost to his wealth.
Either way the problem with stocks is that people’s money is directly tied with the wealth of the corporation, meaning the profits of a company are directly tied with people’s well being giving them a threatening hold on people’s lives.
That is the largest problem with corporate stocks.
Bezos owns 16%, not a majority, and will likely have that cut in half when he gets divorced. The vast majority of directors own a very small percentage of stock in the companies where they serve on the board.
Companies have a threatening hold on people's lives?!?!?! That's probably the dumbest thing you've written, which is quite an accomplishment.
You still haven't answered the question of how does someone buying Apple's stock increase the value of Apple?
I agree with the pink, but what you mean with the blue?
Bezos for example owns a large portion of Amazon’s shares.
As the stock goes up, he and other executives have more capital value on hand to sell or buy back stocks giving the company something of a stimulus as is concerned with the company well being.
The larger problem with stocks though is that they tie the interests of corporate executives with the entire economy meaning they can pressure the government to bail them out and get laborers to support policies they’d normally be against to raise the company’s stock value.
Bezos owns 16%, not a majority, and will likely have that cut in half when he gets divorced. The vast majority of directors own a very small percentage of stock in the companies where they serve on the board.
Companies have a threatening hold on people's lives?!?!?! That's probably the dumbest thing you've written, which is quite an accomplishment.
You still haven't answered the question of how does someone buying Apple's stock increase the value of Apple?
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.
Bezos for example owns a large portion of Amazon’s shares.
As the stock goes up, he and other executives have more capital value on hand to sell or buy back stocks giving the company something of a stimulus as is concerned with the company well being.
The larger problem with stocks though is that they tie the interests of corporate executives with the entire economy meaning they can pressure the government to bail them out and get laborers to support policies they’d normally be against to raise the company’s stock value.
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?
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.
