djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2013 22:19:48 GMT -5
The only documentary of Michael Moore's that I like is called "The Corporation", in which he makes the argument that corporations, if analyzed as human beings, are ostensibly psychopathic. And I agree with him on that point. Corporations have a unique way of diffusing blame, breaking huge evils into lesser (more rationalizable) evils, causing men to lose perspective, and justifying terrible harm to society. A corporation can take 1,000 people who individually wouldn't harm a flea, and turn them into an engine that accidentally poisons a million people and then fights to the legal death to continue doing so. that isn't the central point. the central point is not how legal distance makes for immoral decisions. the central point is that the corporation is an amoral entity with a profit motive. if you combine those two things, you will get a lot of immoral things happening (and, to be clear, a fair amount of good), all utterly justifiable in terms of a balance sheet kind of analysis. A corporation has no singular conscience or sense of morality to stop it from causing harm in pursuit of its business interests. And in fact, the only real protections we have against corporate malfeasance are the media, government (i.e. regulations), and public activism. Liberals tend to be more acutely aware of the problems corporations cause, while conservatives focus more on the benefits they provide. Two sides of the same coin. the benefits and the problems are not on the same side of the coin, tho. they are really opposite sides of the same coin. i don't know any liberals that see profits as intrinsically evil. that is a common perception of "liberals", but i think it is inaccurate. but when the dividends for Nike are less than what they pay their entire Indonesian workforce, even a greedy capitalist like me can see that there is something seriously wrong with that. and so can any liberal. what i find puzzling is that conservatives often have trouble seeing that. this is why i end up on the liberal side of the argument so often. i tend to root for those that end up suffering the most and benefiting least from a given system.If you had to place me on one side or the other, I'd join the liberals on the "corporations are evil" side. It's not that corporations are evil; it's that they have no internal conscience if business happens to run afoul of people's rights. that is right. they are Amoral. i have made this argument with Paul before, and he totally missed the point. the point of an amoral entity like a machine or a corporation is not that it goes out of it's way to do incredible wrong. it is that it makes no distinction between good and evil, only between "profitable" and "profitless", or productive and unproductive. in other words, it's capacity for "caring" is a function ONLY of how it translates to profit.The arguments "But the shareholders would never let XYZ Corp. ..." or "The board would never let XYZ Corp. ..." are a happy fiction. A corporation can and will mow you down if not doing so has a significant negative impact on the bottom line. All of the forces that prevent it from doing so are external in nature. bingo. we agree completely on this, Virgil. and i am really really happy that someone else here has seen that documentary.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Apr 22, 2013 22:36:48 GMT -5
Yeah- considering that ALL my liberal friends smoke and NONE of my conservative friends smoke- maybe I should say "Tobacco Companies" are evil because hey- aren't ALL corporations evil? I find most liberals are fine with corporations as long as the corporations make an effort to appear concerned about their employees, humankind, and the planet at large. The main problem with this is that public perceptions of "being concerned about their employees, humankind, and the planet at large" doesn't always sync up with corporations that actually care about their employees, humankind, and the planet at large. The only documentary of Michael Moore's that I like is called "The Corporation", in which he makes the argument that corporations, if analyzed as human beings, are ostensibly psychopathic. And I agree with him on that point. Corporations have a unique way of diffusing blame, breaking huge evils into lesser (more rationalizable) evils, causing men to lose perspective, and justifying terrible harm to society. A corporation can take 1,000 people who individually wouldn't harm a flea, and turn them into an engine that accidentally poisons a million people and then fights to the legal death to continue doing so. A corporation has no singular conscience or sense of morality to stop it from causing harm in pursuit of its business interests. And in fact, the only real protections we have against corporate malfeasance are the media, government (i.e. regulations), and public activism. Liberals tend to be more acutely aware of the problems corporations cause, while conservatives focus more on the benefits they provide. Two sides of the same coin. If you had to place me on one side or the other, I'd join the liberals on the "corporations are evil" side. It's not that corporations are evil; it's that they have no internal conscience if business happens to run afoul of people's rights. The arguments "But the shareholders would never let XYZ Corp. ..." or "The board would never let XYZ Corp. ..." are a happy fiction. A corporation can and will mow you down if not doing so has a significant negative impact on the bottom line. All of the forces that prevent it from doing so are external in nature. And yet, liberals would never be able to understand why we conservatives might make a similar argument concerning government. It's really mind boggling. We can't trust a corporation in the free market that we could put out of business, but we're supposed to trust a government monopoly- a true monopoly (with guns)? Amazing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2013 22:42:32 GMT -5
I find most liberals are fine with corporations as long as the corporations make an effort to appear concerned about their employees, humankind, and the planet at large. The main problem with this is that public perceptions of "being concerned about their employees, humankind, and the planet at large" doesn't always sync up with corporations that actually care about their employees, humankind, and the planet at large. The only documentary of Michael Moore's that I like is called "The Corporation", in which he makes the argument that corporations, if analyzed as human beings, are ostensibly psychopathic. And I agree with him on that point. Corporations have a unique way of diffusing blame, breaking huge evils into lesser (more rationalizable) evils, causing men to lose perspective, and justifying terrible harm to society. A corporation can take 1,000 people who individually wouldn't harm a flea, and turn them into an engine that accidentally poisons a million people and then fights to the legal death to continue doing so. A corporation has no singular conscience or sense of morality to stop it from causing harm in pursuit of its business interests. And in fact, the only real protections we have against corporate malfeasance are the media, government (i.e. regulations), and public activism. Liberals tend to be more acutely aware of the problems corporations cause, while conservatives focus more on the benefits they provide. Two sides of the same coin. If you had to place me on one side or the other, I'd join the liberals on the "corporations are evil" side. It's not that corporations are evil; it's that they have no internal conscience if business happens to run afoul of people's rights. The arguments "But the shareholders would never let XYZ Corp. ..." or "The board would never let XYZ Corp. ..." are a happy fiction. A corporation can and will mow you down if not doing so has a significant negative impact on the bottom line. All of the forces that prevent it from doing so are external in nature. And yet, liberals would never be able to understand why we conservatives might make a similar argument concerning government. of course we can. i don't trust government any more than business, Paul. the only difference is that i see government as a public organ, accountable to the public....to EVERYONE. wheras business is not. they are accountable to shareholders, which is a much smaller group. NEITHER is terribly accountable- but at least i can say without hesitation that my government, no matter how shitty or grand, is MINE, and i am responsible for it's behavior. my problem with conservatives is that they seem to think that everything would be just ducky if we turned over everything to corporations. that is utter folly, imo. but i am not alone. Jefferson thought so, too.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 22, 2013 23:23:25 GMT -5
Women's suffrage was established in the US before my grandfather was born. It's ancient history. We're talking about contemporary liberalism. And the only problem modern conservatives have with birth control pills are the abortifacient subclass, which is just another form of abortion. "Abortion on demand", exactly as Paul summarized. The sum total of "women's rights" in the past six decades. There could well be several documentaries with the same name. The one I'm thinking of is definitely with Mr. Moore. One of the best scenes in the movie has a corporate P.R. officer from Pfizer showing Moore around a "Pfizer subway station". It's classic. I think you mean "more" here. And yes, exploitation of workers is one of many lurking corporate evils. But it's not as clean-cut as you'd like to make it. Nike's stock price is determined by the dividends it pays out. If Nike cuts its dividend to increase foreign employee salaries, not only do shareholders see their equity evaporate, Nike loses the ability to raise cash during future stock issuance. That happens during a liquidity crunch and suddenly X thousand Indonesians find themselves laid off on the streets of Indonesia, wishing they were making the ten cents an hour Nike paid them. Investment dollars move to competing companies. Reebok moves to fill in for a sagging Nike; Nike sales slump further; another Y thousands Indonesians find themselves on the dole. I'm not saying that this absolutely would happen or that Nike couldn't afford to be a bit more generous in paying its employees, but I'm also not going to call it "seriously wrong" on spec. Most citizens of western democracies believe that the right to vote in new figureheads every X years gives them control of the beast. It's only recently that the masses have begun to question that presumption.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2013 23:30:46 GMT -5
Women's suffrage was established in the US before my grandfather was born. It's ancient history. We're talking about contemporary liberalism. i DID mention the pill, Virgil. that was developed for commercial use in 1960. And the only problem modern conservatives have with birth control pills are the abortifacient subclass, which is just another form of abortion. . i think you need to go back and look at #6 again. what it said is that abortion on demand is the cornerstone of modern feminism, or that liberals think so, and that is completely false. feminism is a liberal trend, and it's modern incarnation started with commercially available birth control, which allowed women to CHOOSE when to become pregnant. assertion #6 is false.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2013 23:37:32 GMT -5
There could well be several documentaries with the same name. could be. but only one uses a clinical diagnosis of the corporate personality and comes back with the diagnosis: sociopath.The one I'm thinking of is definitely with Mr. Moore. One of the best scenes in the movie has a corporate P.R. officer from Pfizer showing Moore around a "Pfizer subway station". It's classic. edit: Michael Moore was INTERVIEWED for that film, and in that interview, he DOES have something to say about Pfizer- but it is not his film. i just looked it up. it is by Mark Achbar.I think you mean "more" here. edit: yes, i meant "more". good catch. by the way, i wasn't suggesting doing away with dividends. i was suggesting that they should be significantly less than what they pay Indonesian workers. And yes, exploitation of workers is one of many lurking corporate evils. But it's not as clean-cut as you'd like to make it. yes it is.Nike's stock price is determined by the dividends it pays out. false.If Nike cuts its dividend to increase foreign employee salaries wages, Virgil, salaried people are not starving, for the most part., not only do shareholders see their equity evaporate, Nike loses the ability to raise cash during future stock issuance. absolute rubbish. many many many many many corporations pay no dividends whatsoever. Google, for example, is selling for $800/share, does not pay one red cent in dividends, and it has no effect on it's ability to access capital whatsoever. That happens during a liquidity crunch and suddenly X thousand Indonesians find themselves laid off on the streets of Indonesia, wishing they were making the ten cents an hour Nike paid them. it is more than that, but i will forgive you for exaggerating on the safe side.Investment dollars move to competing companies. Reebok moves to fill in for a sagging Nike; Nike sales slump further; another Y thousands Indonesians find themselves on the dole. i think you are extrapolating based on stuff that is highly improbable. I'm not saying that this absolutely would happen or that Nike couldn't afford to be a bit more generous in paying its employees, but I'm also not going to call it "seriously wrong" on spec. Most citizens of western democracies believe that the right to vote in new figureheads every X years gives them control of the beast. It's only recently that the masses have begun to question that presumption. the WHY of this would make a very interesting discussion.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 23, 2013 0:16:17 GMT -5
Paul sayeth: "6. The chief cornerstone of women's rights is abortion on demand. Anyone that opposes abortion is against women's rights." Perhaps he should have made it explicit: "6. The chief cornerstone of women's rights (within our lifetimes) is abortion on demand. Anyone that opposes abortion is against women's rights. And yes, abortifacients also count as 'abortion on demand'." Because Google stock is nothing more than an overpriced speculative crap shoot for people with too much money. And Google has never, nor will ever, need to raise emergency capital. Unless some terrorist blows their server farms sky high, which isn't likely. You do realize that some people buy stocks to earn dividends? You realize that not everybody buys a stock based solely on the price they think they can sell it at? You realize that without dividends, the stock market would be nothing but one giant bubble, and that investors might as well be buying and selling giant inflatable toys? If that's the case, I'll have to watch it again. Civil liberties evaporating like snow in a bonfire might have something to do with it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2013 0:57:16 GMT -5
Paul sayeth: "6. The chief cornerstone of women's rights is abortion on demand. Anyone that opposes abortion is against women's rights." Perhaps he should have made it explicit: "6. The chief cornerstone of women's rights (within our lifetimes) is abortion on demand. Anyone that opposes abortion is against women's rights. And yes, abortifacients also count as 'abortion on demand'." the cheif cornerstone is not abortion on demand. it is birth control. birth control is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient. point 6 is wrong. again, i am not going to debate this further, because i have not studied feminism. however, EVERYTHING I HAVE EVER READ ON THIS SUBJECT TELLS ME I AM RIGHT (and Paul is wrong). i will leave this now for others to argue. if you bring it up again with me, i will ignore it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2013 1:04:55 GMT -5
Because Google stock is nothing more than an overpriced speculative crap shoot for people with too much money. Google has a net margin of 22%. it is not a crap shoot. it is a profit factory. And Google has never, nor will ever, need to raise emergency capital. true enough. they are making so much money, they will never have any need for bilking investors out of it. edit: ok: never is too strong a word. they won't need anyone else's money for a good long while.Unless some terrorist blows their server farms sky high, which isn't likely. You do realize that some people buy stocks to earn dividends? of course. what i object to, however, is the idea that people buy stocks ONLY for dividends. they don't.You realize that not everybody buys a stock based solely on the price they think they can sell it at? You realize that without dividends, the stock market would be nothing but one giant bubble, and that investors might as well be buying and selling giant inflatable toys? this is false, also. do you know why it is false, or can you figure it out all on your own?If that's the case, I'll have to watch it again. do that, and let me know what you see. Civil liberties evaporating like snow in a bonfire might have something to do with it. it actually has more to do with the loss of the "republic" in the founders conception. like i say, it is a really interesting topic, but kinda beyond this thread, which has to do with media issues. The Corporation is actually a good topic for the thread because it has a LOT of overlap with media issues, especially issues of censorship and propaganda.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Apr 23, 2013 6:43:15 GMT -5
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 23, 2013 7:05:29 GMT -5
*chuckle* Congratulations, paul. I see you've learned baby's hearts aren't beating at 14 days. Good for you!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Apr 23, 2013 7:08:15 GMT -5
*chuckle* Congratulations, paul. I see you've learned baby's hearts aren't beating at 14 days. Good for you! Yeah- I was a week off.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Apr 23, 2013 7:09:37 GMT -5
* Post deleted as it quoted a post that doesn't exist (deleted by poster). - mmhmm, P&M Moderator
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 23, 2013 7:14:59 GMT -5
*chuckle* Congratulations, paul. I see you've learned baby's hearts aren't beating at 14 days. Good for you! Yeah- I was a week off. No! You mean ... you were ... wrong? Just spoofin' wit' ya, paul.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 23, 2013 7:42:50 GMT -5
...none of which it has ever remitted to shareholders.
Never paid out a dividend, and the last share repurchase they had was in 2009 (correct me if I'm wrong).
Prices would still be tied to earnings. Only the earnings would be in hugs. You'd have a market average hugs per toy.
Honestly, DJ, enlighten me. If we eliminate dividends, what tangible value does common stock have? Why couldn't we just tie stock values to the populations of competing ant colonies and use that as a basis for value?
What is Google stock other than an $800.00 piece of paper that I'm hoping some guy will buy from me because it theoretically represents some underlying equity?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2013 9:26:47 GMT -5
...none of which it has ever remitted to shareholders. remitted? no. that is true. houses don't pay dividends either, right?Never paid out a dividend, and the last share repurchase they had was in 2009 (correct me if I'm wrong). never been a fan of repurchases. i like cash reserves.Prices would still be tied to earnings. Only the earnings would be in hugs. You'd have a market average hugs per toy. Honestly, DJ, enlighten me. If we eliminate dividends, what tangible value does common stock have? Why couldn't we just tie stock values to the populations of competing ant colonies and use that as a basis for value? there is a more fundamental value to securities than ant colonies. and when the price -vs- assets gets low enough, it will make them inviting takeover targets. to illustrate my point: what is the life expectancy of the average public corporation?What is Google stock other than an $800.00 piece of paper that I'm hoping some guy will buy from me because it theoretically represents some underlying equity? a share of assets in a company that has intrinsic value. the value is arguable, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. shares can also be MARGINED for borrowing purposes. this distinguishes equities from many other psuedo-investments. Virgil- this discussion is pretty far adrift from Dr. Kermit The Frog. i love it, but keep that in mind.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Apr 23, 2013 18:44:28 GMT -5
* Let's not resort to name-calling, eh? - mmhmm, Administrator I didn't. I said not researching your info make you look like a moron. I suppose I should have said ; when one doesn't research their information before posting it makes one look like a moron. But, whatever. Potaytoes, potahtoes.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 23, 2013 21:51:46 GMT -5
Nike?
But you're right. We've drifted so far off topic, I've forgotten how we even got here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2013 22:19:15 GMT -5
Nike? But you're right. We've drifted so far off topic, I've forgotten how we even got here. it is a fun topic. i love it, actually. but it is a ways away from Dr. K. and his baby murdering insanity.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 18:28:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2013 12:12:23 GMT -5
Are there more Dr. Goswells out there? Do you care? "An antiabortion activist appears to have videotaped a counselor at a Bronx clinic laughingly advising her not to trouble herself with the particulars of the late-term abortion that the woman, who was 23 weeks pregnant, said she wanted. What if the baby were born alive at home once the process was set in motion? “If it comes out, then it comes out; flush it,’’ a counselor at the Dr. Emily Women’s Health Center answered the undercover activist on the tape. She’d been working at the clinic for nearly 11 years, she said — since she was only 16." President Obama addressing Planned Parenthood on Friday. (Video) A message left on the center’s 24-hour line wasn’t returned on Sunday. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/04/28/are-there-more-abortion-doctors-like-kermit-gosnell-do-we-want-to-know/#comments
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 30, 2013 13:07:48 GMT -5
Are there more Dr. Goswells out there? Do you care? "An antiabortion activist appears to have videotaped a counselor at a Bronx clinic laughingly advising her not to trouble herself with the particulars of the late-term abortion that the woman, who was 23 weeks pregnant, said she wanted. What if the baby were born alive at home once the process was set in motion? “If it comes out, then it comes out; flush it,’’ a counselor at the Dr. Emily Women’s Health Center answered the undercover activist on the tape. She’d been working at the clinic for nearly 11 years, she said — since she was only 16." President Obama addressing Planned Parenthood on Friday. (Video) A message left on the center’s 24-hour line wasn’t returned on Sunday. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/04/28/are-there-more-abortion-doctors-like-kermit-gosnell-do-we-want-to-know/#commentsYou can't work at an abortion clinic if you believe a fetus is a human being. Her comment is just a reflection of her perceptions.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on May 13, 2013 15:07:58 GMT -5
Guilty of 3 counts of 1st degree murder.
|
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on May 13, 2013 15:12:49 GMT -5
Guilty of 3 counts of 1st degree murder.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 18:28:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 16:02:18 GMT -5
...none of which it has ever remitted to shareholders. Never paid out a dividend, and the last share repurchase they had was in 2009 (correct me if I'm wrong). Prices would still be tied to earnings. Only the earnings would be in hugs. You'd have a market average hugs per toy. Honestly, DJ, enlighten me. If we eliminate dividends, what tangible value does common stock have? Why couldn't we just tie stock values to the populations of competing ant colonies and use that as a basis for value? What is Google stock other than an $800.00 piece of paper that I'm hoping some guy will buy from me because it theoretically represents some underlying equity? i am interested also Virgil I happen to invest 90+% of my portfolio in dividend stocks Earnings are wonderful, but if they never return that value to the shareholder through dividends, then you are captive to Mr. Market....who can be a very fickle guy Stocks fall into and out of favor...whole sectors are known to fall 10-15% because one company in the sector has a bad earning projection Dividends are the reason i invest in stocks....without them, most "value" companies would be worth 60% of what they are priced at now yes...eventually the book value will rise, and the market will correct.....but in the meantime you completely destroy the market
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 13, 2013 16:21:27 GMT -5
...none of which it has ever remitted to shareholders. Never paid out a dividend, and the last share repurchase they had was in 2009 (correct me if I'm wrong). Prices would still be tied to earnings. Only the earnings would be in hugs. You'd have a market average hugs per toy. Honestly, DJ, enlighten me. If we eliminate dividends, what tangible value does common stock have? Why couldn't we just tie stock values to the populations of competing ant colonies and use that as a basis for value? What is Google stock other than an $800.00 piece of paper that I'm hoping some guy will buy from me because it theoretically represents some underlying equity? i am interested also Virgil I happen to invest 90+% of my portfolio in dividend stocks Earnings are wonderful, but if they never return that value to the shareholder through dividends, then you are captive to Mr. Market....who can be a very fickle guy Stocks fall into and out of favor...whole sectors are known to fall 10-15% because one company in the sector has a bad earning projection Dividends are the reason i invest in stocks....without them, most "value" companies would be worth 60% of what they are priced at now yes...eventually the book value will rise, and the market will correct.....but in the meantime you completely destroy the market Stocks that just "float" to some arbitrary multiple of earnings without paying dividends just don't make sense to me. Why is that piece of paper worth x dollars? Because x is roughly 15 times the earnings per share. Do any of those earnings come back to you in dividends? No. Do you have any control over how those earnings are used? No. Do your shares offer you any voting rights or a controlling interest in the company? No. They're common stock. Has the company at least shown any interest in buying them back from you? No. Not since a tiny repurchase in 2008. So I ask you again: Why is that piece of paper worth x dollars? Because x is roughly 15 times the earnings per share. Why 15 times? Why not 20 times, or 80 times? Because x is the amount that the market is paying for it. Why? Why? Why? Why not gamble with bets on the weather? Or bets on sports teams? Well, they have derivatives for doing that too now.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 13, 2013 17:07:31 GMT -5
i am interested also Virgil I happen to invest 90+% of my portfolio in dividend stocks Earnings are wonderful, but if they never return that value to the shareholder through dividends, then you are captive to Mr. Market....who can be a very fickle guy Stocks fall into and out of favor...whole sectors are known to fall 10-15% because one company in the sector has a bad earning projection Dividends are the reason i invest in stocks....without them, most "value" companies would be worth 60% of what they are priced at now yes...eventually the book value will rise, and the market will correct.....but in the meantime you completely destroy the market Stocks that just "float" to some arbitrary multiple of earnings without paying dividends just don't make sense to me. that is cool. but realize that even if it doesn't make sense to you, it makes sense to others. investing is not just about milking businesses for grocery store money. it is about a lot of other things, like increasing intrinsic valuation.Why is that piece of paper worth x dollars? Because x is roughly 15 times the earnings per share. you are only looking at earnings. that is only ONE measure of value. there are LOT of others. how about "cash on hand"? Do any of those earnings come back to you in dividends? No. Do you have any control over how those earnings are used? No. no? yes. you do. you have LITTLE control. but that is not the same as NONE.Do your shares offer you any voting rights or a controlling interest in the company? No. They're common stock. you are dead wrong here. you can vote your shares, Virgil.Has the company at least shown any interest in buying them back from you? No. Not since a tiny repurchase in 2008. why would you prefer that to having another investor buy them? that makes no sense to me.So I ask you again: Why is that piece of paper worth x dollars? Because x is roughly 15 times the earnings per share. Why 15 times? Why not 20 times, or 80 times? Because x is the amount that the market is paying for it. Why? Why? Why? Why not gamble with bets on the weather? Or bets on sports teams? Well, they have derivatives for doing that too now. if you don't know the answer, i could suggest a few books. but i think you are asking the wrong question. for me the question is: is this company increasing in value over time? this question doesn't matter to you. i find that odd. so i guess we are both puzzled, but that is because we have totally different investment objectives.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 13, 2013 17:08:27 GMT -5
again, Virgil- there are lots of investment boards here. perhaps you should move this discussion THERE.
this one is about murdering babies.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 13, 2013 17:11:38 GMT -5
the NY Times was the second publication to report this, behind the Chicago Tribune.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 13, 2013 17:47:13 GMT -5
Fair enough.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 13, 2013 17:58:57 GMT -5
|
|