Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: Fade on May 11, 2004, 05:41:28 AM
-
After watching the financials' on TV today, I have come to the conclusion that people who buy stocks are idiots.
One of the lead stories was about the 900,000 new jobs that were created in the US in the last seven months and what that might possibly do to the economy.
The main thought was, with so many people getting new jobs that the economy was heating up, and Greenspan was bound to raise interest rates soon.
So now the fear is, they might no longer be able to borrow money at fifty year low rates to buy more stocks, and on that fear, the market was down today by 1¼ percent. But that's not all; the rest of the stock buyers in the world apparently decided that if our market went down, then theirs needed to go down even more. related story (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1083180388315&p=1012571727088)
There was not one mention of all the new people with jobs that will be buying the products that these stocks are based on.
Deliver me from idiots.
-
Agreed! People act too fast! :-(
-
Damned twitchy daytraders.
Hell, I invest and let the damned investment ride 30 years. What used to be really annoying was this one coworker who used to come to work and talk about how a certain stock was doing EVERY damned day, It was in his IRA for crying out loud! He's not going to touch it untill he retires anyway, so what the hell does it matter what it does from day to day?
-
And Fade is a troll.
-
whabang wrote:
Agreed! People act too fast! :-(
Seconded. I've always wondered about a law which introduces a minimum time frame in which you can trade to allow markets to properly settle for a bit. I've also wondered about a law which limits access to stock market information---or at least to not tout it all over the major news networks. Stock markets are just a part of the entire economy, but from the press they gather they have become the Supreme Superbeing. Right now we've created a twitchy and nervous monster where the winner is the stock broker with the quickest reflexes, not the one with the best economic insight.
-
Cymric wrote:
whabang wrote:
Agreed! People act too fast! :-(
Seconded. I've always wondered about a law which introduces a minimum time frame in which you can trade to allow markets to properly settle for a bit.
They already banned computers for 'real-time' trading, because of this, if I am correct.
-
Cymric wrote:
Right now we've created a twitchy and nervous monster where the winner is the stock broker with the quickest reflexes, not the one with the best economic insight.
Welcome to the Free Market. :)
There are two problems with trying to limit the market. One, economic theory is far from perfect and people might even make things worse if the limits are wrongly thought out. Two, there are too many people with the Libertarian/Conservative/Monetarist notion that limiting the market - for any reason - is evil socialism and so will therefore destroy the market.
-
KennyR wrote:
There are two problems with trying to limit the market. One, economic theory is far from perfect and people might even make things worse if the limits are wrongly thought out. Two, there are too many people with the Libertarian/Conservative/Monetarist notion that limiting the market - for any reason - is evil socialism and so will therefore destroy the market.
Well, as far as I am concerned, economists are a bunch of failed applied mathematicians. I've seen MSc-theses which had me lying my head in my lap in abject shock and terror at the thought of those idiots governing the lives of billions. So in that regard I agree with your observation that economic theory is far from perfect, and that tinkering could very well make things worse than they already are. I'm not even sure whether it is possible at all to make the stock markets more robust and less subject to random jitter.
As for the other notion: I have a slight reddish streak in me, so while I think that overall, free markets are a Good Thing they should not be the definitive answer to everything. People should and must govern the market and its structure, and not the other way around. There are other issues to keep in mind besides shareholder value, ROI and making a profit.
-
Capitalism isn't there to benefit people. It's there for the benefit of those with the gold. Employed people are a liability. The fewer people working for a company, the less people that need to be paid.
As you know, too many people working produces upward wage pressure which leads to rising prices. This is called inflation and is very very bad because it unfairly penalizes people who do not work for a living, i.e. the investing classes who make their money from their money. Anything that makes money worth less is bad. Inflation does not have such a dire effect on workers because their wage is going up so a burgers worth of work today is a burgers worth of work tomorrow. However, if you just live off your money then your buying power decreases over time.
Therefore interest rates must rise. This has two beneficial effects.
a) The investing classes get to make more money when they lend their money out.
b) It makes it harder for companies to grow since loans cost more so they stop adding people.
Another positive effect is that it makes people who are on the verge of bankruptcy fall over the edge which means good deals on real estate, especially if you are one of those people that has a lot of money and don't have to work for a living.
But it does put a damper on the stock market because it means that it will be harder for companies who have to pay more in interest to post good earnings and earnings reports are what stock is all about. The only reason to buy stock is to sell it at a higher price (no sell, no gain). This is not as true of dividend stock, but who does those these days?
If you don't think you'll be able to get a better price for the stock than what you buy it for, you don't buy it.
-
Fade wrote:
One of the lead stories was about the 900,000 new jobs that were created in the US in the last seven months and what that might possibly do to the economy.
Seems that not all those jobs are necessarily be real.
soJackson Thoreau (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/enronmarch.html) doesn't think (whoever he is).
And neither does John Crudele (http://www.nypost.com/business/23936.htm) at the New York Post. Could the administration be pressuring the Labor Dept. to inflate the jobs figures? Well, it wouldn't be outside of their modus operandi. They did it with that drug bill, and with the WMD intelligence.
Interesting footnote on the Iraqi Oil embrargo at the bottom of the New York Post article.
-
@ Fluffy
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
[edit] I assume your post WAS a joke ?
-
AccyD wrote:
@ Fluffy
[edit] I assume your post WAS a joke ?
Which post; which part?
-
Seems that at least some of the jobs are real. There are a large number of jobs being spurred by government spending as in this article. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20040511/ts_washpost/a15952_2004may10)
Interesting to note that (in the latter part of the article) orders are seen to be steady or increasing for at least a year. Is this just to cover continued operations in Iraq after "soveriegnty" is handed over, or are other campaigns in the works?
-
Well IMHO after five university economics courses, economics is a crock! Things that really should (must) be done are not because they are uneconomic; things that shouldn't be done are done because they are economic. The Capitalist system and the market are poor judges of that which is why we have governments. Unfortunately too many governments are run by people who got elected by saying they would run government like a business, which they are not. (that is governments are not businesses, not that they aren't being run like one)
P.S. I have a theory which involves manipulating the velocity of money to control inflation instead of changing interest rates if anybody's interested.
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Capitalism isn't there to benefit people. It's there for the benefit of those with the gold. Employed people are a liability. The fewer people working for a company, the less people that need to be paid.
Wasn't that the transcript from "Volunteers" where Tom Tuttle played by John Candy is brainwashed by the communists? :lol:
(http://www.candy-fans.com/candy/films/volunteers/vol06.jpg)
-
T_Bone wrote:
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Capitalism isn't there to benefit people. It's there for the benefit of those with the gold. Employed people are a liability. The fewer people working for a company, the less people that need to be paid.
Wasn't that the transcript from "Volunteers" where Tom Tuttle played by John Candy is brainwashed by the communists? :lol:
(http://www.candy-fans.com/candy/films/volunteers/vol06.jpg)
Never seen it, so if it is, it's a fantastic coincidence.
Though capitalism can improve peoples standard of living, it is only a side effect and is not a necessary outcome. In fact it is quite possible (and some think it desirable) to have healthy capitalism without rising living standards for the masses. It is even possible to have capitalism and to drive down the median living standards.
-
@ FluffyMcDeath
"Capitalism isn't there to benefit people.
Bla Bla Bla.
Hogwash, Bla Bla.
More hogwash, Bla Bla!"
---------------
Spoken like a true socialist Fluffy.
Capitalism isn't there for any reason.
Capitalism is the result. The result of an ideology that people should have the freedom to pursue any legal endeavor, for their own personal gain, without any interference from another person, group of persons, or the government. With that, comes the knowledge that you are not owed something by birthright or your station in life.
As a consequence of that ideology, we have the freedom to go as far as our brains and or muscles can carry us; up or down!
You rail against people that have more than you, without the wisdom of how they got that way, or what hardships they went through to get where they are. Sure there are people that inherit wealth, property, or station, but they have the very same opportunity to lose that wealth as anyone else has to gain theirs. Look at the Commadore/Amiga - Apple comparison for example. Twenty years ago they were more or less on equal footing, yet one is still selling computers and the other one isn't. I'm sure the owners of both companies wanted to stay in business and be the top dogs in the computer business, but because of bad business decisions, Amigans are using 10 year old computers while Apple is still selling new computers, and downloadable music and over 2 million iPods.
If both companies were exposed to your philosophy, both might still be in business, but they would be selling 68020 computers to the masses, and the owners would be making $75,000 a year in salary, with the profits going into social services. When an owner died the company would be taken over by the government or sold by the government and the profits seized for the good of the people.
Fluffy, here is the difference between the US and a socialist country. When the socialist get in power, what is the first thing they do? They start passing laws that limit freedoms. Personal freedom is the first to go, because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Collective freedom is the next to go, because one day it might be more powerful than the government. The last thing they do is pass laws that stop the people from changing the form of government to something else. After a few generations go by the people have forgotten what true personal freedom is, and are frightened by the concept of it, just like an animal raised in a cage is afraid to leave when the door is opened. A good example is over in the gun control threads. I don't remember what your take on it is, but there are some people posting there that are truly afraid of guns and the freedom of anyone else owning one. It's a wonder these people don't want to ban computers, considering the damage a kid can cause writing a virus, or other types of computer related crimes.
The majority of people in the US are not afraid of personal freedoms and as a consequence we do not have laws limiting the kind of government we can have. If you wanted, you could immigrate to the US, start up a new political party based on whatever concept you like, and if enough people liked it, you could get elected. The only two offices you couldn't hold are president or vice president, but if your child were born here, he or she could. They could start a dynasty based on your political beliefs that could last for generations. The problem they or you would have, is the second you tried to take away one of the freedoms we have, you would be impeached.
Boy, this post is way too long, I'm quitting.
-
Fade wrote:
When the socialist get in power, what is the first thing they do? They start passing laws that limit freedoms.
:roflmao:
Wakey wakey!
The US is app. as free as the USSR before Gorbachev.
The US aren't a democracy anymore, but a plutocracy/theocracy.
-
And you know this by listening to Wilse or Glaucus? :laugh:
-
@Fade
And so you'd rather have a system that can be summed up as "First to get to the pie eats the whole thing. Everyone else was too slow. Tough luck."
The problems with such systems is that they are inherently unfair. Unfair systems don't last. What happens is that those who were quick or smart or just plain lucky get the edge, then they can take everything from everyone else, because nothing is there - apart from evil socialism - to stop them. Monopoly of the few, oligarchy, plutocracy, is the only outcome. The French and the Russians are at least two examples in history where the plutocracy became so unbearable that even the madness Marx dreamt up was preferable.
And you talk of people in socialist nations as dumb, timid cattle just because they aren't allowed to own guns and don't miss this "vital" right in the slightest? Why is it then that, culturally and economically, Europe is flourishing? They don't have your view on letting capitalism go and having it run by a few very rich people. They don't have your view on letting people do every single thing for themselves, including defence. And yet they seem very free.
And it's ironic really, that your attitude prevails in a country where you can get arrested without charge on anti-terrorism laws for saying "Bush is out of control" in a public place, and where every social reform is blocked by people who still think dinosaur bones were buried by Satan to lead us astray. How's that for freedom?
-
Fade wrote:
And you know this by listening to Wilse or Glaucus? :laugh:
Well, maybe I should not take them seriously anymore because they take you serious. You are acting utterly childish, Fade. I really got a déjà vu of elementary school when you started trolling about my sig.
-
@ Speelgoedmannetje
"I really got a déjà vu of elementary school when you started trolling about my sig."
-----------------
Well, you're the one that said if anything mentioned taxes, it had to be in the politics forum.
Those that live by the sword, get to change their sigs.
-
Well, you're the one that said if anything mentioned taxes, it had to be in the politics forum.
Not ANYTHING about taxes, but THREADS dedicated to taxes.
But anyhoo, it does not rectify your extremely childish behaviour.
-
I see that your sig. is now gone, so I guess that you got the point.
-
Fade wrote:
I see that your sig. is now gone, so I guess that you got the point.
No, I got bored of it.
I can get bored soon (http://www.amiga.org/images/subject/icon8.gif)
-
investing classes
-
Fade wrote:
@ FluffyMcDeath
"Capitalism isn't there to benefit people.
Bla Bla Bla.
Hogwash, Bla Bla.
More hogwash, Bla Bla!"
---------------
You were the one who seemed perplexed by the movement of the market. If it seems mysterious, it's because you have in mind an incorrect model.
Capitalism isn't there for any reason.
Capitalism is the result. The result of an ideology that people should have the freedom to pursue any legal endeavor, for their own personal gain, without any interference from another person, group of persons, or the government.
First, you are immediately wrong. Capitalism is an ideology and not a result of anything but the ideology of capitalism.
The concept of having the freedom to pursue any legal endeavour without interference from persons or governments is dependant on the definition of what is legal by other persons and particularly governments which can change the law as time goes by, so in other words it means only doing what the government lets you. Got that?
If freedom means being allowed to do anything you want so long as you are allowed to do it, then everyone in the world is free.
Fluffy, here is the difference between the US and a socialist country.
Fade, the US IS a socialist country. It is also nominally democratic (well, a republic) and capitalist. These things are not mutually exclusive.
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Capitalism isn't there to benefit people. It's there for the benefit of those with the gold.
There are benefits to people without "the gold" too. I like being able to choose who to work for, rather than having some central authority choose what I do. I like being able to choose who to buy my goods and services from, too. People who start off life with a lot of money are at an advantage, but then this is true in most if not all economic systems I've come across.
Employed people are a liability. The fewer people working for a company, the less people that need to be paid.
Saying that employed people are a liability isn't a view shared by many of the corporations that you appear to dislike. Employees make up a company, and are arguably its most important part. Of course, you are right in that there is a tendency towards getting the job done with as few people as possible, but how is this a bad thing? Should we employ people doing unnecessary work just so they can have a "job"?
As you know, too many people working produces upward wage pressure which leads to rising prices. This is called inflation and is very very bad because it unfairly penalizes people who do not work for a living, i.e. the investing classes who make their money from their money. Anything that makes money worth less is bad. Inflation does not have such a dire effect on workers because their wage is going up so a burgers worth of work today is a burgers worth of work tomorrow. However, if you just live off your money then your buying power decreases over time.
Except interest rates - that little thing which allows people to live off their money - tend to be higher than inflation, and this is just as relevant a point as saying that wage rises will increase in line with inflation. In fact, I would have thought that interest rates being higher than inflation tends to be more likely than people getting a wage rise (those evil capitalists don't like to give wage rises!), in which case, workers are more at a disadvantage from inflation.
A worker is more likely to be paying out a greater proportion of his wages for cost of living, so inflation hurts more there too (I know my rent has been rising quite rapidly the last few years - if I was a rich greedy capitalist, I wouldn't have this problem!)
-
mdwh2 wrote:
There are benefits to people without "the gold" too. I like being able to choose who to work for, rather than having some central authority choose what I do.
Socialism!=Soviet
Employed people are a liability. The fewer people working for a company, the less people that need to be paid.
Saying that employed people are a liability isn't a view shared by many of the corporations that you appear to dislike. Employees make up a company, and are arguably its most important part. Of course, you are right in that there is a tendency towards getting the job done with as few people as possible, but how is this a bad thing? Should we employ people doing unnecessary work just so they can have a "job"?
We already do it´s called bureaucracy, politics and financial sector:-)
The unlucky ones just get unempolyment benefits.
-
Dan wrote:
mdwh2 wrote:
There are benefits to people without "the gold" too. I like being able to choose who to work for, rather than having some central authority choose what I do.
Socialism!=Soviet
But socialism isn't mutually exclusive to capitalism.
If FluffyMcDeath (or whoever) wants to advocate a specific alternative to capitalism, then he should say what that alternative is. All the while it's just capitalism bashing, all I can do is pick particular examples - a centrally controlled communist society being the most common example.
-
mdwh2 wrote:
If FluffyMcDeath (or whoever) wants to advocate a specific alternative to capitalism, then he should say what that alternative is. All the while it's just capitalism bashing, all I can do is pick particular examples - a centrally controlled communist society being the most common example.
He's speaking in absolutes, which rarely exist in politics. Democracy, for instance, is far from true democracy. True socialism is communism, or anarchy, depending on viewpoint. True capitalism is not limited by anything, not even ethics; so it's a sort of non-collective fascism. I think we'd both agree that absolutes are undesirable, no? Unfortunately, there are many who don't.
Socialists, in general, are just people who believe the balance between true socialism and true capitalism should lean towards socialism, in the interests of social justice. Life without capitalism is not an option. For people who aren't insane or insanely rich, life without socialism is equally bad.
-
mdwh2 wrote:
There are benefits to people without "the gold" too. I like being able to choose who to work for, rather than having some central authority choose what I do.
Well, in this world, you can choose between two authorities: MacDonald's and Fidel Castro.
There is no future for retailers.
-
True socialism is communism,
Socialists, in general, are just people who believe the balance between true socialism and true capitalism should lean towards socialism,
What does that mean?
How far should it lean toward socialism? All the way toward communism?
Why should they prefer socialism anyway?
Is this viewpoint the reason the are so zealous? Does that justify how they always fight for socialsm, even if that means supporting what is immoral, and advocating socialism in dishonest ways?
-
First, you are immediately wrong. Capitalism is an ideology and not a result of anything but the ideology of capitalism.
Capitalism is no system.
It's more accurately described as the lack of a system such as 'communism', 'fascism' or 'socialism'.
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
First, you are immediately wrong. Capitalism is an ideology and not a result of anything but the ideology of capitalism.
Capitalism is no system.
It's more accurately described as the lack of a system such as 'communism', 'fascism' or 'socialism'.
Capitalism is not a system as you say, but requires a huge system of regulation and enforcement to make it work.
-
[color=00CC00]*Ahem*[/color]I want to know what means "investing classes"
Do I go to the "investing classes" to learn how to invest? :-D