the wealthy middle class invest and make money. they gain increased security.
And if union members (who you talk about below) could forego union dues and put those same dollars into investing in their futures, they could participate more fully.
however, to up their dividends, corporations and companies feel increasing and excessive pressure to focus only on the bottom line to the exclusion of all else.
Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. No argument here. It is as it should be. If I am investing my hard earned dollars in a portion of a company, I am holding that company accountable to me.
thus, when a union tries to negotiate wages that give them maybe half of what the stockholders' income is (BEFORE their dividends), the company decides to close the division and ship the labor overseas. or they axe an entire department that's non-unionized to cut a bunch of people who were clinging to the poverty line in order to maximize the bottom line. even if they were making a sizable profit before, stock pressures drive them to make MORE profits. so instead of 1 billion they take in 2 billion. the 100 stockholders get richer so they now earn triple those other workers and their portfolios flourish. meanwhile, 1000 other americans are now out of a job totally and living on welfare. the rich people then bitch about their taxes going to support lazy people like the ones they just forced out of a job. ceo's and stockholders make out like bandits, most people involved lose their entire income.
This isn't really how it happens. Large companies have hundreds of thousands of shareholders participating in their successes and failures. Unions have created an environment which cause cost of goods sold to skyrocket, forcing jobs to be sourced overseas. There is certainly nothing wrong with a company maximizing profits. That ensures that they continue to exist and are able to continue to hire and pay their workers.
As far as "making out like bandits", there are CEOs which are rewarded in a way I think is extreme based on their performance, and I choose not to participate in taking a stake in those companies. But shareholders don't "make out like bandits". The market provides a reasonable return on investment. You take a higher risk investing in a company than you do putting your money under a mattress, and your reward is commensurate. It is not unreasonable to expect a 10% to 15% return on an investment. That is hardly making out like a bandit.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Yes. That is how we have created unprecedented prosperity.
And if union members (who you talk about below) could forego union dues and put those same dollars into investing in their futures, they could participate more fully.
Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. No argument here. It is as it should be. If I am investing my hard earned dollars in a portion of a company, I am holding that company accountable to me.
This isn't really how it happens. Large companies have hundreds of thousands of shareholders participating in their successes and failures. Unions have created an environment which cause cost of goods sold to skyrocket, forcing jobs to be sourced overseas. There is certainly nothing wrong with a company maximizing profits. That ensures that they continue to exist and are able to continue to hire and pay their workers.
As far as "making out like bandits", there are CEOs which are rewarded in a way I think is extreme based on their performance, and I choose not to participate in taking a stake in those companies. But shareholders don't "make out like bandits". The market provides a reasonable return on investment. You take a higher risk investing in a company than you do putting your money under a mattress, and your reward is commensurate. It is not unreasonable to expect a 10% to 15% return on an investment. That is hardly making out like a bandit.
ill agree the unions share a large part of the blame here. im equally critical of their role in all of this, they have priced themselves out of a job in many cases. but the market pressures to deliver on the bottom line have contributed as well, and for this reason i am very skeptical of the value and benefits of the stock market. delivering a return on stockholder investment is one thing, but it has spun out of control and i think many people who invest do not really realize what their investment is costing. i think most stockholders would be perfectly happy with a 5-10% investment return as opposed to a 15% return that sends american jobs overseas. but becos stock market speculation is so often done through agents, these effects are kept distant from investors, creating a sort of double blind. they see their stock returns go up and say "cool" without any real awareness of why or how that is occurring.
also, i take serious exception to your contention that the stock market has been the driving force behind our unprecedented prosperity. i feel the largest contributor has been the fact that we were dropped here from europe with already intact and sophisticated production values. combine that with landing on the largest plot of untapped real estate ever acquired (the continental US) and you have unlimited resources to drive a production economy sprung fully formed from british imperial practices at the dawn of the industrial revolution. basically, it was a huge stroke of luck in landing the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time. america could constantly expand and offer freebies left and right for a large chunk of time. but that potential for growth and expansion is limited and we're already starting to feel the strain. we've maxed out and now we're suffering rebellion from our serfs (latin america and venezuela) and blowback from some of the people who have a hold on one resource we are perilously short of (the middle east). free market capitalism is fine when you unlimited cheap resources to fuel growth and production, but those are running thin and we need to start exercising a bit more caution in our slavish worship of this system becos it cannot support our habits indefinitely.
also, i take serious exception to your contention that the stock market has been the driving force behind our unprecedented prosperity.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about our market economy, not exclusively the stock market. I agree that there are many contributors to our prosperity. I disagree that luck was a primary driver. As they say, you make your own luck - it didn't just happen.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Sorry, I thought you were talking about our market economy, not exclusively the stock market. I agree that there are many contributors to our prosperity. I disagree that luck was a primary driver. As they say, you make your own luck - it didn't just happen.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about our market economy, not exclusively the stock market. I agree that there are many contributors to our prosperity. I disagree that luck was a primary driver. As they say, you make your own luck - it didn't just happen.
nope, strictly about the stock market. we were lucky. what other nation in the history of the world has been simply handed such a huge piece of land to develop as they please from scratch? that's how we got rich so quick... we had no competition and no limit. now we do. the free market is not going to work indefinitely.
nope, strictly about the stock market. we were lucky. what other nation in the history of the world has been simply handed such a huge piece of land to develop as they please from scratch?
Nobody was handed the land. And the land didn't just magically produce agriculture, industry, wealth, etc...
Nobody was handed the land. And the land didn't just magically produce agriculture, industry, wealth, etc...
The market will work indefinitely as long as we can keep governments from interfering.
britian handed the land to the settlers, then we snagged it from spain and the indians. it wasnt like rome or alexander trying to conquer europe over staunch resistance. it was easy. and we landed upon it with already established agricultural practices. the industry of europe was limited by stiff competition for resources to fuel them and people to work in them. america had unlimited resources at this time (most of the US hadnt even been settled) and a constant influx of cheap labor from poor european countries. do you honestly think that none of this had anything to do with why it was so easy for american to surpass europe in terms of wealth?
by market do you mean free market or stock market? cos yes, they will both continue to make money, but they both also depend on some people being economic losers. our current setup aggravates class divides and if it goes too far, there will be a backlash. plus, we're running out of resources. what will these giant capitalist enterprises run on when we're out of oil and coal?
also, i take serious exception to your contention that the stock market has been the driving force behind our unprecedented prosperity. i feel the largest contributor has been the fact that we were dropped here from europe with already intact and sophisticated production values. combine that with landing on the largest plot of untapped real estate ever acquired (the continental US) and you have unlimited resources to drive a production economy sprung fully formed from british imperial practices at the dawn of the industrial revolution.
Let's not forget that there was cheap, like really cheap labour propping up the US economy for oh, 150 some-odd years....and since that cheap labour was outlawed in the US, there has been a constant push to find other countries to supply that cheap labour. That's why the US is against socialism...because it gives too much power to the workers and undermines the free market system. It's also why the US ends up supporting oppressive dictators and trying to overthrow democratically elected socialist governments (while preaching about "spreading democracy" and "regime change"). or something like that.
But I don't think the stock market is the root of all evil. I invest. I try to make sure my portfolio is in line with my morals and beliefs.
Comments
Yes. That is how we have created unprecedented prosperity.
And if union members (who you talk about below) could forego union dues and put those same dollars into investing in their futures, they could participate more fully.
Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. No argument here. It is as it should be. If I am investing my hard earned dollars in a portion of a company, I am holding that company accountable to me.
This isn't really how it happens. Large companies have hundreds of thousands of shareholders participating in their successes and failures. Unions have created an environment which cause cost of goods sold to skyrocket, forcing jobs to be sourced overseas. There is certainly nothing wrong with a company maximizing profits. That ensures that they continue to exist and are able to continue to hire and pay their workers.
As far as "making out like bandits", there are CEOs which are rewarded in a way I think is extreme based on their performance, and I choose not to participate in taking a stake in those companies. But shareholders don't "make out like bandits". The market provides a reasonable return on investment. You take a higher risk investing in a company than you do putting your money under a mattress, and your reward is commensurate. It is not unreasonable to expect a 10% to 15% return on an investment. That is hardly making out like a bandit.
ill agree the unions share a large part of the blame here. im equally critical of their role in all of this, they have priced themselves out of a job in many cases. but the market pressures to deliver on the bottom line have contributed as well, and for this reason i am very skeptical of the value and benefits of the stock market. delivering a return on stockholder investment is one thing, but it has spun out of control and i think many people who invest do not really realize what their investment is costing. i think most stockholders would be perfectly happy with a 5-10% investment return as opposed to a 15% return that sends american jobs overseas. but becos stock market speculation is so often done through agents, these effects are kept distant from investors, creating a sort of double blind. they see their stock returns go up and say "cool" without any real awareness of why or how that is occurring.
also, i take serious exception to your contention that the stock market has been the driving force behind our unprecedented prosperity. i feel the largest contributor has been the fact that we were dropped here from europe with already intact and sophisticated production values. combine that with landing on the largest plot of untapped real estate ever acquired (the continental US) and you have unlimited resources to drive a production economy sprung fully formed from british imperial practices at the dawn of the industrial revolution. basically, it was a huge stroke of luck in landing the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time. america could constantly expand and offer freebies left and right for a large chunk of time. but that potential for growth and expansion is limited and we're already starting to feel the strain. we've maxed out and now we're suffering rebellion from our serfs (latin america and venezuela) and blowback from some of the people who have a hold on one resource we are perilously short of (the middle east). free market capitalism is fine when you unlimited cheap resources to fuel growth and production, but those are running thin and we need to start exercising a bit more caution in our slavish worship of this system becos it cannot support our habits indefinitely.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about our market economy, not exclusively the stock market. I agree that there are many contributors to our prosperity. I disagree that luck was a primary driver. As they say, you make your own luck - it didn't just happen.
Like, as if, you're prosperous.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Huh?
nope, strictly about the stock market. we were lucky. what other nation in the history of the world has been simply handed such a huge piece of land to develop as they please from scratch? that's how we got rich so quick... we had no competition and no limit. now we do. the free market is not going to work indefinitely.
Nobody was handed the land. And the land didn't just magically produce agriculture, industry, wealth, etc...
The market will work indefinitely as long as we can keep governments from interfering.
britian handed the land to the settlers, then we snagged it from spain and the indians. it wasnt like rome or alexander trying to conquer europe over staunch resistance. it was easy. and we landed upon it with already established agricultural practices. the industry of europe was limited by stiff competition for resources to fuel them and people to work in them. america had unlimited resources at this time (most of the US hadnt even been settled) and a constant influx of cheap labor from poor european countries. do you honestly think that none of this had anything to do with why it was so easy for american to surpass europe in terms of wealth?
by market do you mean free market or stock market? cos yes, they will both continue to make money, but they both also depend on some people being economic losers. our current setup aggravates class divides and if it goes too far, there will be a backlash. plus, we're running out of resources. what will these giant capitalist enterprises run on when we're out of oil and coal?
Let's not forget that there was cheap, like really cheap labour propping up the US economy for oh, 150 some-odd years....and since that cheap labour was outlawed in the US, there has been a constant push to find other countries to supply that cheap labour. That's why the US is against socialism...because it gives too much power to the workers and undermines the free market system. It's also why the US ends up supporting oppressive dictators and trying to overthrow democratically elected socialist governments (while preaching about "spreading democracy" and "regime change"). or something like that.
But I don't think the stock market is the root of all evil. I invest. I try to make sure my portfolio is in line with my morals and beliefs.