Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The most dangerous time since the Civil War
#81
(01-20-2018, 11:05 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-19-2018, 03:49 AM)Galen Wrote: You have once again proven yourself to be an economic illiterate.  Selling stock is but one way to raise capital.  There are many privately held corporations that often got their start from the savings of one or more founders.   A sole proprietorship or partnership will often save up profits in order to acquire capital equipment to improve their operations.

Which has nothing to do with the stock market. If you notice, that was the original issue on this thread.

Since when on this forum have topics been limited to the original issue of the thread? If one goes four pages back one sees that it was a political discussion.

Quote:
Galen Wrote:Individuals will often save money for future expenditures such as retirement which is much easier to do when you don't have assholes at the Fed debasing the currency and useful idiots like you cheering them on.

'Debasing the currency', as you call it, is the only way to generate consistent economic activity. If currency held its value forever, no one would be motivated to spend a dime unless it was necessary. That's a prescription for stagnation or worse.
[/quote]

You're resting under the assumption that businesses operate on the basis of spending. While it is true that one man's expenditure is an other's income. The fact is that accumulation of capital is facilitated most strongly by savings and savings is most strongly facilitated by a currency holding its value (why Germany and Japan both insisted on having a stable currency incidentally). Otherwise countries with the most debased currencies would be the most powerful ones (like say Zimbabwe or Equador--both countries whose currencies couldn't hold sufficent value and were replaced by the US dollar and in Zimbabwe's case the South African Rand [which is propped up by South Africa's large gold reserves and deposits].

(01-20-2018, 11:11 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-20-2018, 09:36 AM)Galen Wrote: ...  Taxation and inflation make it much harder for an individual to save.  As always you miss the point, which is that inflation tends to hurt those who can not own the financial assets that the rich do which was always the explicit purpose of QE which was to prop up the prices of financial assets and real estate.

Always looking at the bottom line and ignoring the top line. You can't save what you don't have to save. Economic activity creates the top line you so strongly wish to preserve, but are unwilling to create in the first place.

If the currency is debased then the value of what is saved (in the best of circumstances) only gradually declines. The fact remains however that currencies unbacked by reserves of natural resources (see South Africa or Saudi Arabia) or strong economies (Germany, Japan, China) will revert to their intrinsic value which is zero.

Inflation negates both the top line and the bottom line. Which if you knew even high school maths you'd know results in complete shut down of economic activity. Inflation is like inflamation in the body. A little bit is usually natural, too much of it is a chronic condition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_inflation

Quote:
Galen Wrote:Fucking Boomers.  In the general case your generation was too stupid to live because you are like spoiled children.

99% of the economic model currently in play can be traced directly to Ronald Reagan's economic policies. Reagan was many things, but a Boomer isn't one of them.
[/quote]

No but Reagan was largely elected by Boomers. The two youngest demographics in 1980 eligible to vote in that election were dominated by Boomers and he won them handily.

Also the hand Reagan played in the formation of the economy of today is vastly over stated. There is only so much a President can do, and in the US direct management of the economy is not one of them. Thank whatever gods may exist or Clinton and Obama would have turned the US Dollar into the Zimbabwean Dollar long ago.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#82
(01-21-2018, 05:51 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(01-18-2018, 03:32 PM)David Horn Wrote: With the exception of new stock offerings, of which there are very few, stock markets trade old shares for new money.  The capitalization of those old shares occurred in the past -- often in the distant past.  To be honest, the opposite is happening right now.  Old shares are being purchased by the corporate treasuries that issued them and are "banked" by those corporations to prop-up the price of the remaining shares.  That could be called capital retirement.

While the majority of sales on the stock market are value based speculation the main function of a corporation to offer stocks in the first place is to raise capital.  Which as Galen has pointed out elsewhere is more difficult due to inflation and taxation.

Capital retirement is utterly retarded.  I don't even know where to begin.  The purpose of having capital is to use it to produce a commodity to sell at a profit and render more capital, ad infinitum.

I'm unsure as to the reasons why corporations would buy back their stocks to prop up the price, but I know that retiring their capital is not the reason.  Unless of course the purpose is to ultimately destroy the company itself--which given the self-destructive tendencies of Boomers is not unheard of.

<SNIP>

Look, stock is either bought and sold by inventors looking to make a gain, or it's purchased by the issuing company to pump stock prices.  If the latter, then the money paid is typically reinvested in other stock, pumping that price too.  At some point, the value of the shares is dramatically less than the price of the shares, and the market drops ... sometimes precipitously.  By historic standards, that should be soon.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#83
Re: Joe Biden, street fightin man

So, basically, are we just going to replace the 2020 election with a WWE match-up between the two of them, completing the degradation of American politics, and giving us all the cathartic moment we really need?
Reply
#84
(01-22-2018, 11:57 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-21-2018, 05:51 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(01-18-2018, 03:32 PM)David Horn Wrote: With the exception of new stock offerings, of which there are very few, stock markets trade old shares for new money.  The capitalization of those old shares occurred in the past -- often in the distant past.  To be honest, the opposite is happening right now.  Old shares are being purchased by the corporate treasuries that issued them and are "banked" by those corporations to prop-up the price of the remaining shares.  That could be called capital retirement.

While the majority of sales on the stock market are value based speculation the main function of a corporation to offer stocks in the first place is to raise capital.  Which as Galen has pointed out elsewhere is more difficult due to inflation and taxation.

Capital retirement is utterly retarded.  I don't even know where to begin.  The purpose of having capital is to use it to produce a commodity to sell at a profit and render more capital, ad infinitum.

I'm unsure as to the reasons why corporations would buy back their stocks to prop up the price, but I know that retiring their capital is not the reason.  Unless of course the purpose is to ultimately destroy the company itself--which given the self-destructive tendencies of Boomers is not unheard of.

<SNIP>

Look, stock is either bought and sold by inventors looking to make a gain, or it's purchased by the issuing company to pump stock prices.  If the latter, then the money paid is typically reinvested in other stock, pumping that price too.  At some point, the value of the shares is dramatically less than the price of the shares, and the market drops ... sometimes precipitously.  By historic standards, that should be soon.

True. Former investors in the stock bought-up are not likely to simply take their  gains and buy consumer goodies. They have typically been living off the dividends, and they are likely to bid up blue-chip stocks. But buying up stock means selling  off cash reserves, which will make the company less liquid.

New offerings imply an intention of expansion through capital investment or the acquisition of other firms (as with a Pennsylvania-based general retailer buying out a somewhat-similar retailer in North Carolina in a very different market. So MNO buys out PQR and 'retires' PQR through absorption).
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#85
Bluexit

https://newrepublic.com/article/140948/b...ed-america
Reply
#86
The New Republic is a liberal rag. That being said, I'd welcome the Blue States breaking off and doing their own thing. It would be wonderful not having the millstone of the North East or Commiefornia around our necks. Maybe we can repatriate their lost citizens back to them too. I've often said I should be governor of Florida. I'd put a sign up on the state line "Welcome to Florida, No Vacancy"
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#87
(05-08-2019, 09:59 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: The New Republic is a liberal rag.  That being said, I'd welcome the Blue States breaking off and doing their own thing.  It would be wonderful not having the millstone of the North East or Commiefornia around our necks.  Maybe we can repatriate their lost citizens back to them too.  I've often said I should be governor of Florida.  I'd put a sign up on the state line "Welcome to Florida, No Vacancy"

Be careful what you wish for.  The money that pays the bills in Florida originates in the Northeast, primarily, and other coastal areas both East and West.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#88
I'd welcome being able to revert Florida back to its natural state. The Yankees here are determined to turn it into New Jersey though. Having lived in New Jersey I have no interest in Florida being New Jersey. New Jersey even in its natural state was a shit hole. Turning Florida into a shit hole is taking paradise and turning it into a shit hole.

Having lived in Illinois, it would be a red state except for Chicago. Same with Minnesota, except for Minneapolis-St.Paul it too would be a red state.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#89
(05-08-2019, 10:30 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'd welcome being able to revert Florida back to its natural state.  The Yankees here are determined to turn it into New Jersey though.  Having lived in New Jersey I have no interest in Florida being New Jersey. New Jersey even in its natural state was a shit hole.  Turning Florida into a shit hole is taking paradise and turning it into a shit hole.

Having lived in Illinois, it would be a red state except for Chicago.  Same with Minnesota, except for Minneapolis-St.Paul it too would be a red state.

Not much of America can revert to a 'natural' state until the population declines, which I do not see happening. We need to protect what we have. Florida does have the Everglades, swamps unsuited to building upon or for farming.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#90
(05-08-2019, 10:30 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'd welcome being able to revert Florida back to its natural state...

H-m-m-m.  That would be swamp, mostly.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#91
(05-08-2019, 09:45 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Bluexit

https://newrepublic.com/article/140948/b...ed-america

Excellent article. It's up to blue states to take responsibility to make our states even better than we already are than the red states. If we could repeal the federal income tax, a conservative/libertarian ideal, we'd get back the 4-times more money that we give than we get, and with that money we could finance health care, infrastructure, education, environment, social welfare, appropriate regulations, and the amenities that make cities and towns livable, through higher state taxes to make up for the lower federal taxes, and let you guys in the red states live on less government according to your philosophy, with no bail out. I don't know if such a scheme is workable, but I suppose it's an alternative to total bluexit. It certainly would be using a red-state idea, one they would not resist, to hoist them on their own petard.

Things might not be as bad as Kevin Baker says now, since he concedes that the 3 Trump rust belt states have gone over permanently to the red side. They were always shaky, but they are likely to return to majority blue. Then Illinois and Minnesota would not be left out totally in the red desert. Colorado is still shaky as a blue state too. 

The harder question is that the blue/red divide is more urban/rural than between particular states, as he points out. The blue states would have to hold on to their rural parts, and red states their urban parts, to make this scheme work. But if it's only a question of shifting who pays what, it might be possible. The rural areas of blue states are not going to oppose ending the federal income tax. Our state of Jefferson in northern CA and southern OR won't do that. But of course they'll have to deal with our stricter gun laws, which they do already. Would they secede from the blue states and join or create new red states in order to be under the rule of the Gorsuch-Kavanaugh Court that protects their "gun rights?"

He brought up the question of climate change, which red states on their own would make much worse. I wonder about that, since the red states will be living under trickle-down economics with no access to any trickle source. Their privatized way of life with no bail out will likely consign them to fast-increasing poverty and depression. Such an economic slowdown will reduce emissions. They might try to continue to intice corporations to move there with low taxes and regulations. That might have some initial success, but the lack of an educated workforce and the possible reversal of the population flow of youth back to blue cities could discourage this move. I have always thought, though, that the loss of many natural wonders now protected by the federal government from greedy tycoons could be tragic. Red state dependence on fossil fuels could backfire too if the fuels start to run out or get too expensive to mine and sell, with less revenue for their oil companies from a poor population.

Another wrinkle: unless the blue states simply refuse to pay, which is an illegal approach, then a constitutional amendment would be needed to repeal the federal income tax. So it would take a red-state/blue state agreement to accomplish this. Red staters are notoriously dishonest and selfish in public behavior (not necessarily in their private behavior), and when they realize that they won't get to feed at the federal trough anymore, they might forget their self-reliance philosophy and oppose this move. That is their modus operandi. They have no real principles at all, at least on the public political level. Just slogans and prejudices.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#92
(05-08-2019, 05:18 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(05-08-2019, 10:30 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'd welcome being able to revert Florida back to its natural state.  The Yankees here are determined to turn it into New Jersey though.  Having lived in New Jersey I have no interest in Florida being New Jersey. New Jersey even in its natural state was a shit hole.  Turning Florida into a shit hole is taking paradise and turning it into a shit hole.

Having lived in Illinois, it would be a red state except for Chicago.  Same with Minnesota, except for Minneapolis-St.Paul it too would be a red state.

Not much of America can revert to a 'natural' state until the population declines, which I do not see happening. We need to protect what we have. Florida does have the Everglades, swamps unsuited to building upon or for farming.

The difference between now and the 1950s-1980s, when Illinois tended to vote Republican, is that "blue Chicago" now includes most of the suburbs. That difference was also sometimes seen in New Jersey and Connecticut.

Minnesota and also Wisconsin today have some blue areas that are more rural.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#93
(05-08-2019, 05:33 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(05-08-2019, 10:30 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'd welcome being able to revert Florida back to its natural state...

H-m-m-m.  That would be swamp, mostly.

Yep exactly.  Escaped slaves and the Seminoles went into Florida BECAUSE in its natural state is largely undesirable land.  As for population decline...its happening already.  Just send girls to school.  Educated women have fewer children because they have more options.  Industrialization is a great contraceptive.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)