Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   American Budget Cuts
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 136 of 350 (606085)
02-23-2011 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by cavediver
02-23-2011 5:53 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Why would anyone buy those shares if those shares do not receive a dividend?
Many companys do not pay a dividend to stock holders. Some people wise in the market feel dividends are not a good financial move by companies.
quote:
Recent statistics show that stocks that didn't pay dividends greatly outperformed those that did. Over the past five years, a set of stocks that did not pay dividends returned 1,300%, while a set of stocks paying up to 2.4% dividends returned only 144%.
404

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 5:53 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 6:57 PM Theodoric has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 137 of 350 (606086)
02-23-2011 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by cavediver
02-23-2011 5:53 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Why would anyone buy those shares if those shares do not receive a dividend?
For resale.
Why would anyone ever buy a share that does not compensate for the risk inherent in that share?
Because they're gambling, like most stock market activity.
I know you don't see the difference, and that is what I'm complaining about.
Maybe you could complain about it by articulating a difference.
Who in their right mind would exchange an essentially risk-free dollar for a dollar share of some company, with no compensation for the risk?
A gambler, i.e. most participants in the stock market.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 5:53 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 6:48 PM crashfrog has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 138 of 350 (606089)
02-23-2011 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
02-20-2011 9:09 AM


Kindred Souls?
Nice hypothetical, based on the argument from consequences and made up numbers. Why don't you make it 50,000 jobs?
You're right. A little more research indicates that my number was off by almost 4 times. Not 50,000 jobs, RAZD, but more like 150,000 to 200,000 jobs depending on location. Amazing what $8 billion will do for employment in a region. But remember your talking not one place but 40 times that. So your talking about throwing millions of Americans out of work.
According to Representative Boehner, if the cuts necessary to balance the budget result in some job losses, then "so be it"
Hey, Mr. Logical Fallacy, what's with this strawman Republican BS?
I'm not talking about some stupid, insensitive Republican's plans to cut thousands from the public payroll. I'm talking about your proposal to throw millions of people out of their private sector jobs.
I don't give a flyin' flip what some bozo Republican has to say about much of anything and I suspect neither do you. Keep with the theme here, RAZD
In addition, money spent on military budget is essentially just make-work welfare rather than jobs that provide a return to the society.
Are you really so ignorant of economics, RAZD? You think that when GD makes an Abrams tank or Lockheed an F-35 these things just sit out in their parking lot rusting away? Like any other manufacturer of any other product they SELL them, RAZD. They sell them for a pretty good profit at that. That pays wages, increases shareholder value, retained earnings, taxes into the local school, all the usual good stuff that does indeed feed right back into the economy.
You have a pension fund? Maybe a mutual fund? If so, RAZD, you financially benefit everyday from these private sector enterprises.
"Make-work welfare rather that jobs"? My ass. Pull your head out of it RAZD.
But this isn't about economics or budgets, is it RAZD.
Every piece of high end military armament made is a dead-end product designed to kill people ...
You have an agenda. The guns-v-butter thing.
I'll not argue that one here, but it does tie nicely into your Republican strawman.
Boehner writes:
If some of those jobs are lost, so be it."
RAZD writes:
That to me is a small loss in this world of overburdened military expenditures.
There you have it, RAZD. You share a strident, callous, insensitivity for your fellow citizens with the Republicans. Willfully blind to the suffering you propose for the sake of your political agenda.
Throw families into financial peril. Throw children into near poverty.
What is it with you political idiots? These aren't real people to you? They're just so much flotsam in the way of your goal?
Whether it's from the right or from the left it's always the same isn't it?
Fuck the millions of people. Fuck the millions of children.
As long as the agenda is moving forward FUCK THEM ALL!
Your proposal sucks, RAZD.
And just like Boehner's, so does your politics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 9:09 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 7:08 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2011 7:09 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 139 of 350 (606090)
02-23-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by cavediver
02-23-2011 5:53 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Why would anyone buy those shares if those shares do not receive a dividend? What do you think drives the capital appreciation of those shares? Why would anyone ever buy a share that does not compensate for the risk inherent in that share?
You didn't ask for the motivation for trading the shares.
I know you don't see the difference, and that is what I'm complaining about. You and Crash and Rrhain the other week have very little clue about all of this and yet let rip with emotional and hyperbolic rhetoric. It's no wonder the right find such behaviour hilarious.
Then what is the difference? Please explain.
What I see is the people in charge of watching the corporate cookie jar are helping themselves to the cookies. With some of the moves towards privatization we see massive profiteering, such as the deregulation of energy in the hands of Enron. The practices that health insurance companies have been allowed to get away with has been scandalous. The gap between the rich and the middle class continues to widen while expenses (e.g. health care and education) continue to rise for the middle class.
And in fact, I totally agree with you regarding the stupid levels of board level compensation. Actually, it's not the level that I disagree with the most but the no-downside reward structure that is in place. Same with trading remuneration in the banks. I was writing and advising on this very issue 11 years ago on the back of the emerging market crisis... and nothing has changed.
I am glad we agree on this part. That is what I was originally complaining about with regard to defense budgets and health care.
By personal use, do you mean the use made of it by the pension funds?
This would apply more to privately owned companies than publically owned. This is where the owner takes out a chunk of money out of the companies coffers and puts it in his/her own coffers.
And back to my first point. Should shares not pay dividends? Who in their right mind would exchange an essentially risk-free dollar for a dollar share of some company, with no compensation for the risk?
Just so we understand that money is going out of the company for things not related to production or improvement of product. That was all I was pointing out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 5:53 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 140 of 350 (606093)
02-23-2011 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by crashfrog
02-23-2011 6:12 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Why would anyone buy those shares if those shares do not receive a dividend?
For resale.
I'm sorry but this is painful. Sell it for what?
Because they're gambling, like most stock market activity.
What do you think drives the fluctuations in the stock market?
And no, most stock market activity is not "gambling".
The ignorance here is staggering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2011 6:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 7:19 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2011 11:56 PM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 141 of 350 (606095)
02-23-2011 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Theodoric
02-23-2011 6:04 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Many companys do not pay a dividend to stock holders. Some people wise in the market feel dividends are not a good financial move by companies.
Sometimes true. But before you're ready to understand why this works, you have to understand the purpose behind the dividend. And you have to understand the nature of the companies not paying dividends. Paying a dividend will not always be the smart move. But this very much depends on the particular circumstances.
Ever heard of the dot com boom? How much dividend payout was there as those shares climbed to extraordinary levels? How much cash was made by those clever enough to understand. And how much more was lost by those that think that not paying a dividend is a sign of good thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 6:04 PM Theodoric has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 142 of 350 (606096)
02-23-2011 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by AZPaul3
02-23-2011 6:23 PM


Re: Kindred Souls?
Whether it's from the right or from the left it's always the same isn't it?
Fuck the millions of people. Fuck the millions of children.
As long as the agenda is moving forward FUCK THEM ALL!
Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing earlier today. For supposed critical thinkers, it's amazing how much ideology will dominate ones thinking. What's so stupid is that there are good arguments that can be made, but they are lost beneath the noise and bluster of naive hyperbole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by AZPaul3, posted 02-23-2011 6:23 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by AZPaul3, posted 02-23-2011 7:27 PM cavediver has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 143 of 350 (606098)
02-23-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by cavediver
02-23-2011 6:48 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
And no, most stock market activity is not "gambling".
Sure it is. Every time you buy a stock you are taking a calculated risk that it will go up in value. I don't see how it can be anything else but a gamble. If it wasn't a gamble there would be a guarantee on the investment.
The stock market works on the fact some stocks go up and some go down. If all stocks went up there would be no stock market.
The ignorance here is staggering.
You really need a basic economics class and a class on how all financial markets function. Ever hear of the commodities markets?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 6:48 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 7:28 PM Theodoric has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 144 of 350 (606100)
02-23-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by cavediver
02-23-2011 7:08 PM


Re: Kindred Souls?
What's so stupid is that there are good arguments that can be made, but they are lost beneath the noise and bluster of naive hyperbole.
Yeah, well, I have the flu and I'm being emotional and intolerant of all things right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 7:08 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 145 of 350 (606101)
02-23-2011 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Theodoric
02-23-2011 7:19 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
The ignorance here is staggering.
You really need a basic economics class and a class on how all financial markets function.
Yeah, perhaps I ought go trade derivatives for some time in what was the world's leading derivative house. Or maybe publish the first analysis of shareholder value growth of the FTSE-100, tracking every fucking company through every fucking rights- and scrip-issue. Or maybe help set in place the risk mechanisms in Barclays Capital that meant that over a decade later it was one of the only major financial institutions in the Uk not to require a bail-out....
Oh, wait

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 7:19 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 8:46 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2011 12:05 AM cavediver has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 146 of 350 (606112)
02-23-2011 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by cavediver
02-22-2011 7:20 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
cavediver a while back here said writes:
......can you think of ways in which this would lead to growth of the company, hence enabling it to capitalise on economies of scale, hence further improving efficiency?
I've been thinking about The Economy Of Scale for awhile, and originally was thinking it was a terrible, terrible thing to inflict upon humans. The mom & pop stores cannot compete with the megacorporations because of this. If nature had just been different here, we'd still have our warm neighborhood centers.
But now I am also have thinking that it is a clever way for megacorporations to shove the cost of business onto the general consumer in the form of hidden costs. The very process of harvesting millions of acres of corn at once, for example, cannot be seen immediately. Everybody is buying the cheap corn. But what are the environmental costs that someday down the road the average dude on the street is going to have to pay for? Take the fast food's reluctance to convert over to eco-friendly wrappings. Here was a blatant "not our problem - it's up to you to pay to clean up that shit" way of saving oodles of cash. Just packaging in general - it's all cost passed on to the consumer in more ways than the price of the item. The landfills getting filled will eventually be an enormous cost. I'm thinking it might turn out that the more you use economy of scale, the more you are creating a bigger problem later on down the road. Sort of a principle of conservation of total inefficiency across the whole system. Food for thought.
In other words, economy of scale might improve local efficiency, but the system as a whole is more inefficient....

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by cavediver, posted 02-22-2011 7:20 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 8:30 PM xongsmith has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 147 of 350 (606116)
02-23-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by xongsmith
02-23-2011 8:11 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
In other words, economy of scale might improve local efficiency, but the system as a whole is more inefficient....
Yep, agree with all that you say. The out-of-sight out-of-mind intangibles are rarely valued correctly, if at all. The trouble is, no matter how you package it, the average Westerner wants cheap shit, period. I've carried out far too many focus groups and in many different markets, and this is the one consistent output.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by xongsmith, posted 02-23-2011 8:11 PM xongsmith has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 148 of 350 (606122)
02-23-2011 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by cavediver
02-23-2011 7:28 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
No response that buying stocks is ultimately a gamble? Nothing to say on that?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 7:28 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 9:13 PM Theodoric has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 149 of 350 (606136)
02-23-2011 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Theodoric
02-23-2011 8:46 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
No response that buying stocks is ultimately a gamble? Nothing to say on that?
Err, yes. Given that you quoted me, I would have thought you might have noticed...
cd writes:
And no, most stock market activity is not "gambling".
As to why... well, I guess I'll have to wait till the end of my basic economics class and hopefully by then I'll know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 8:46 PM Theodoric has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 150 of 350 (606151)
02-23-2011 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by cavediver
02-23-2011 6:48 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Sell it for what?
For money, stupid. What else?
What do you think drives the fluctuations in the stock market?
Perceptions of the value of owning shares in various companies.
And no, most stock market activity is not "gambling".
Yes, it is. In any stock market, somebody is selling and somebody is buying. The sellers are selling to the buyers. Since trading stocks doesn't create value, trading stocks is a zero-sum game. If a given stock transaction would wind up making you money (say, you sell the stock for $10 more than you paid for it), then someone else must have lost the exact same amount of money.
So, in net, there's no money to be made on the stock market - only money to be passed around. The gamble is that you'll be one of the winners instead of the losers, but the available evidence is that there's no reliable heuristic to guarantee this.
Of course almost all activity on the stock market is a gamble. How could you have worked on the stock market and not have realized this?
The ignorance here is staggering.
Yeah, I know. You didn't even know that the stock market is gambling!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 6:48 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by xongsmith, posted 02-24-2011 3:10 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 153 by cavediver, posted 02-24-2011 4:44 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 155 by slevesque, posted 02-24-2011 6:31 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024