0
0

CEOs Aren’t Waiting for the Tax Bill to Pass — They’ve Already Started Pocketing the Windfall


 invite response                
2017 Dec 19, 3:53am   15,275 views  84 comments

by null   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

5%

Comments 1 - 40 of 84       Last »     Search these comments

1   RWSGFY   2017 Dec 19, 10:17am  

anonymous says
Since the Senate passed its version of the tax bill on December 2, 29 companies have announced $70.2 billion in stock buybacks, a maneuver that uses company cash to buy its own shares, which then drives up the price of those shares


Good!
2   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 19, 10:23am  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
Good!


And why is that good? I thought companies were going to invest in new jobs?
3   RWSGFY   2017 Dec 19, 10:42am  

HappyGilmore says
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
Good!


And why is that good?


I own shitload of stocks, including some in the companies listed above.
4   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 19, 12:16pm  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
I own shitload of stocks, including some in the companies listed above.


Aha--at least you are up front with your--got mine, eff you attitude. Most Republicans try to pretend otherwise.
5   RWSGFY   2017 Dec 19, 12:35pm  

HappyGilmore says

Aha--at least you are up front with your--got mine, eff you attitude.


Eff who exactly?
6   anonymous   2017 Dec 19, 12:39pm  

It’s like they think that investors will just take the money they make from a stock buyback and build a giant Screwge McDuck money tower and go swimming in it.

Investors will reinvest in other companies that will expand and hire people and make new technologies to make all our lives better.

Why is it a better use of capital to take money from rich people to give poor people so they can buy NASCAR decorative plates? Besides the moral issue that you have no right to other people’s money, where’s the evidence that income inequality is a bad thing?
7   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 19, 12:40pm  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

Eff who exactly?


everyone else
8   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 19, 12:41pm  

anon_c4a2d says
Why is it a better use of capital to take money from rich people to give poor people so they can buy NASCAR decorative plates?


Because it takes labor and jobs to make NASCAR decorative plates. It creates demand. Demand creates jobs.

Capital doesn't create jobs.
9   RWSGFY   2017 Dec 19, 12:46pm  

HappyGilmore says
Satoshi_Nakamoto says

Eff who exactly?


everyone else


How does returning profits to shareholders "effs everyone else"? At what point does me getting more dividents from AT&T hurts you? Not to mention that stock ownership is very widespread. First you bitch and moan about "fat cats sitting on the money". Then you bitch and moan that "fat cats" are going to start distributing money to the wast swath of citizens who hold shares in their 401k, IRAs, Coverdell ESAs, 529s, and simple non-tax-deferred accounts. What about CalPERS? Is it bad if it gets more dividents or the stocks it holds increase in value? Why?

Which is it you find problematic? Sitting on the money or buying back shares with the money?
10   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 Dec 19, 1:32pm  

I'm buying stocks in Funeral Companies.

Since Net Neutrality repeal will kill people, and now the House just passed Tax Cuts that will kill people... There will hardly be anybody left according to the Left.

Therefore, I rate Service Corp International a buy.

#SCI
11   anonymous   2017 Dec 19, 2:01pm  

How about the people who will sell the stock so the companies can buy it back? Will they also hoard all that cash?
12   lostand confused   2017 Dec 19, 2:09pm  

Yeah right. Stock buybacks worked great for Gilead ? Dems, dems..Care to explain how free trade with no protections help the American worker-ya know like NAFTA, TPP??
13   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 19, 2:23pm  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
How does returning profits to shareholders "effs everyone else"?


It's quite simple. There is a (for all intents and purposes) fixed amount of money. If more and more goes to the top, then there is less and less left for the middle and bottom.

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
Not to mention that stock ownership is very widespread.


No, it's actually not. 52% of Americans say they own stocks.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/190883/half-americans-own-stocks-matching-record-low.aspx
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
Then you bitch and moan that "fat cats" are going to start distributing money to the wast swath of citizens who hold shares in their 401k, IRAs, Coverdell ESAs, 529s, and simple non-tax-deferred accounts. What about CalPERS? Is it bad if it gets more dividents or the stocks it holds increase in value? Why?


Sure--Calpers getting more money is good. Better would be if more jobs were created and wages on existing jobs increased.


Satoshi_Nakamoto says
Which is it you find problematic? Sitting on the money or buying back shares with the money?


Both. They both lead to less demand, fewer jobs, and lower wages.
14   anonymous   2017 Dec 19, 5:14pm  

All the Trump supporters got real quiet.
15   anonymous   2017 Dec 19, 8:22pm  

HappyGilmore says
There is a (for all intents and purposes) fixed amount of money.
False. Show me evidence that the money supply is constant.
16   anonymous   2017 Dec 19, 8:23pm  

anon_677ce says
All the Trump supporters got real quiet.
We're too busy earning a living so you can freeload off our taxes.
17   anonymous   2017 Dec 19, 8:24pm  

HappyGilmore says
No, it's actually not. 52% of Americans say they own stocks.
Sucks to be them. Maybe they should pull their head out of their ass and make some positive life choices.
18   anonymous   2017 Dec 19, 8:26pm  

HappyGilmore says
Both. They both lead to less demand, fewer jobs, and lower wages.
Then people had better get trained, work harder, and be competitive. Evolve or die.
19   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 20, 4:54am  

just any guy says
False. Show me evidence that the money supply is constant.


OK, fair enough. To be precise, the purchasing power is (for all intents and purposes) constant. If you give more purchasing power to the top 1% like this bill does, it will certainly follow that the purchasing power of the bottom 99% will fall.

(and yes, I know that overall purchasing power grows at the rate of productivity growth. Very slowly)
20   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 20, 4:58am  

just any guy says
We're too busy earning a living so you can freeload off our taxes
just any guy says
Sucks to be them. Maybe they should pull their head out of their ass and make some positive life choices.


And there's the "got mine, eff you" attitude we know and love. I'm sure this doesn't refer to the West Virginia coal miners though. They aren't lazy--the government screwed them.

21   anonymous   2017 Dec 20, 7:14am  

HappyGilmore says
And there's the "got mine, eff you" attitude we know and love. I'm sure this doesn't refer to the West Virginia coal miners though. They aren't lazy--the government screwed them.
And there's the "I know how to spend your money better than you do" attitude. Somehow you on the Left feel it's justified to rob those who have worked their ass off, made good decisions, and been prudent about saving, to redistribute to everyone else. But then again, the ends justify the means, right? Now you can feel high and mighty talking with your Leftist friends about how moral and charitable you are voting for Socialists, sniffing each other's farts, and comparing the size of your manginas. I can somehow see women being Socialist in nature because they're delicate and nurturing beings. Men? It's a disgrace to our gender. Grow some balls.
22   anonymous   2017 Dec 20, 7:18am  

HappyGilmore says


OK, fair enough. To be precise, the purchasing power is (for all intents and purposes) constant. If you give more purchasing power to the top 1% like this bill does, it will certainly follow that the purchasing power of the bottom 99% will fall.
What? Again, show me evidence that "purchasing power is constant". Money is NOT constant, so this Monopoly/fixed pie argument is bullshit. Our monetary system is debt-based and constantly grows, so it's now a matter of what YOU are going to do about getting more of it for yourself. You can sit there and complain like a bitch about your shitty situation, or you can do something about it, get retrained, etc. and go earn. Be a man.
23   anonymous   2017 Dec 20, 7:34am  

just any guy says
HappyGilmore says
No, it's actually not. 52% of Americans say they own stocks.
Sucks to be them. Maybe they should pull their head out of their ass and make some positive life choices.


Positive life choices like trump, the koch bro's, de Voss, etc., etc. who earned their money the old fashioned way. They inherited it.
24   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 20, 8:40am  

just any guy says
And there's the "I know how to spend your money better than you do" attitude.


What? Republican Presidents have spent more money by a WIDE margin than have Dems. The only difference is that Dems actually try to find a way to pay for the spending, whereas Republicans don't give a crap. They just run up the deficit.
25   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 20, 8:45am  

just any guy says
What? Again, show me evidence that "purchasing power is constant". Money is NOT constant, so this Monopoly/fixed pie argument is bullshit. Our monetary system is debt-based and constantly grows, so it's now a matter of what YOU are going to do about getting more of it for yourself. You can sit there and complain like a bitch about your shitty situation, or you can do something about it, get retrained, etc. and go earn. Be a man.


No, it's 100% true.

And please enough with the personal nonsense. It's so ridiculous. One doesn't have to be poor to realize that the current level of inequality is bad for the economy. All one has to do is have read the smallest amount of history regarding the 1930s.
26   anonymous   2017 Dec 20, 9:36am  

HappyGilmore says
just any guy says
False. Show me evidence that the money supply is constant.


OK, fair enough. To be precise, the purchasing power is (for all intents and purposes) constant. If you give more purchasing power to the top 1% like this bill does, it will certainly follow that the purchasing power of the bottom 99% will fall.

(and yes, I know that overall purchasing power grows at the rate of productivity growth. Very slowly)


False. Purchasing power is based on cost of production. Doing things like taxing corporations, taxing certain corporations more then others, favoring certain industries over others, and regulating industries in general all increase cost of production, therefore eroding purchasing power. I'm not a crazy libertarian, we have to have some regulation, but I don't have blinders and and think that the government will every be able to do a good job at it.

WTF does income inequality have to do with anything? Why does it matter if Steve Jobs was a billionaire and you only have a few thousand in the bank? I know poor people with negative net worth that have an iPhone because of Steve Jobs. Would you take away the iPhone just so you could punish Steve Jobs and make his income more equal? Oh, I know, you'll just regulate the bad stuff and keep the good stuff. All liberal arguments start with the premise that if you just give the government power over everything, they won't abuse it and will make perfect decisions in everything. This premise is false, has never worked, and has been demonstrated to be false throughout history. Therefore, all liberal arguments are false. The best you can do is only regulate / tax and only where absolutely necessary, keeping the government out of it as much as possible.

I'm sick of all these whiny posts on patnet about the tax plan. We get it, individuals are not getting as big of a tax break as corps. If I could write a tax plan, I'd drop corporate taxes to 0 and just tax individual income, even though that would mean tax increases for individuals. Just record all income from all sources, deduction == the poverty level for your family size, everyone pay X% after that, where X is equal to whatever percentage we need it to be to fund all the spending we do. I'd probably also throw in a federal property tax as I agree with Patrick on Georgism. As far as regulation, get rid of all regulatory agencies and leave it to the courts. You need to show actual harm before you can tell anybody to do anything, anything less is Fascism.
27   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 20, 10:14am  

anon_4e80d says
Purchasing power is based on cost of production


Price is only related to cost in the extreme long run. Which we never hit. In reality it is based on supply and demand.

anon_4e80d says
WTF does income inequality have to do with anything?


Great question. Let me educate you. An economy depends on consumers that both earn and spend money. This cycle can be roughly measured by velocity of money. When the inequality level grows, and wealth gets more concentrated, the velocity of money goes down. This is because wealthy people don't spend the same % of their income as do poor and middle class folks. This in turn leads to reduced demand for goods and services (people who would spend the money don't have it and the people that have it, hoard it) and reduced demand leads to layoffs and fewer jobs.

Then fewer jobs leads to a further reduction in demand, which leads to more layoffs. It becomes an evil cycle. Here is the velocity of money since 1995. Pretty ugly.



anon_4e80d says
I'm sick of all these whiny posts on patnet about the tax plan. We get it, individuals are not getting as big of a tax break as corps


That's not why most people are rightly horrified of this tax plan. The problem is that between 2/3 and 5/6 of the tax reduction is going only to the wealthy. And in order to reward the super rich donors of the Republican party, we are borrowing $1.5 Trillion additional per year. That is the problem.
28   anonymous   2017 Dec 20, 11:06am  

HappyGilmore says

people who would spend the money don't have it and the people that have it, hoard it


So we're back to the Screwge McDuck money tower again. Rich people will either spend the money, or invest it. Investing money is not "hording", it is efficiently distributing capital to other projects likely to further grow the economy, thereby producing more jobs, innovations and goods for people to enjoy.

When you take money away from someone to redistribute it to other people because they all voted and decided they get to take your money, you are creating market inefficiencies, nevermind the huge moral failings of this approach. People will say stuff like "we can't afford college, give us money for that", "we can't afford healthcare, give us money for that", "the domestic auto industry is in trouble, give us money for that".

Did colleges suddenly figure out a better way to educate more people? No. Did doctors figure out a way to diagnose your illness without ordering 10K in tests to avoid being sued? No. Did pharmaceutical companies stop getting 10 year patents for slightly tweaking the formula for a drug that's been around for 50 years? No. Did Chrysler learn to make cars that don't suck? No.

What happens when you increase demand and don't do anything on the supply side? Price skyrockets, which is what we are seeing today under the terrible policies advocated by liberals. But wait, I know, government will fix it. They'll tell colleges and doctors and car companies what to charge because that worked so well in the Soviet Union.
29   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 20, 11:18am  

anon_4e80d says
Investing money is not "hording", it is efficiently distributing capital to other projects likely to further grow the economy, thereby producing more jobs, innovations and goods for people to enjoy.


Except right now we have too much capital and too few projects. That's why interest rates are so low. Without sufficient demand, there aren't any growth projects so no new capital is needed. Right now we need less capital and more demand--that's what high inequality leads to.

anon_4e80d says
When you take money away from someone to redistribute it to other people because they all voted and decided they get to take your money, you are creating market inefficiencies, nevermind the huge moral failings of this approach. People will say stuff like "we can't afford college, give us money for that", "we can't afford healthcare, give us money for that", "the domestic auto industry is in trouble, give us money for that".


Nonsense. No inefficiencies are created by creating policies that reward labor over capital. That's what we need right now. The value of labor has been decreasing in real terms for decades. Capitalism will always tend toward inequality--it takes a counteractive force to balance it.

anon_4e80d says
What happens when you increase demand and don't do anything on the supply side?


I don't think we're in any danger of that right now. There is all kinds of idle supply right now that can easily be turned back on.

It's hilarious that you are advocating for suboptimal economy on purpose so you can buy things for cheaper. You basically are wishing for a permanent serf class to deliver your goods and services for cheap. Do they have to call you "Master" too?

anon_4e80d says
Price skyrockets, which is what we are seeing today under the terrible policies advocated by liberals.


We are? Inflation remains at historically low levels.

Oh you mean in the industries with extremely inelastic demand curves? The industries that the free market does not handle well? Yes, I would advocate some governmental regulation of those industries.
30   anonymous   2017 Dec 20, 12:05pm  

HappyGilmore says
anon_4e80d says
Except right now we have too much capital and too few projects. That's why interest rates are so low.

Interest rates are low because of QE, which was basically the government stealing from savers to bail out idiots. Corporate welfare to which I'm opposed.

HappyGilmore says
anon_4e80d says
Nonsense. No inefficiencies are created by creating policies that reward labor over capital.

Inefficiencies are created by any policy that rewards either labor or capital. That's the definition of an inefficiency in the capitalistic sense, an allocation of capital in a way other then what an efficient market would do. It's just as bad to be forcing corporations to accept unions (a benefit to labor) as it is to give cheap loans to solr companies (a benefit to capital), in terms of market efficiency.

HappyGilmore says
anon_4e80d says
You basically are wishing for a permanent serf class to deliver your goods and services for cheap. Do they have to call you "Master" too?


Don't see how Steve Jobs having more money then me makes me a serf. I'm advocating for an economy that produces goods efficiently so we can all afford them.

HappyGilmore says
anon_4e80d says
Oh you mean in the industries with extremely inelastic demand curves? The industries that the free market does not handle well? Yes, I would advocate some governmental regulation of those industries.


I wouldn't consider colleges or medical care to be extremely inelastic. People are free to become doctors or start colleges last time I checked without too much trouble besides the regulations that government puts in the way. Only issue with college costs is the cheap loans government is giving out.
31   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 20, 12:27pm  

anon_4e80d says
Interest rates are low because of QE, which was basically the government stealing from savers to bail out idiots. Corporate welfare to which I'm opposed


No, that's a fallacy believed by many in the Fed cult. Interest rates are set by supply and demand. The Federal Reserve can influence those rates, but their power is limited.

anon_4e80d says
Inefficiencies are created by any policy that rewards either labor or capital. That's the definition of an inefficiency in the capitalistic sense, an allocation of capital in a way other then what an efficient market would do. It's just as bad to be forcing corporations to accept unions (a benefit to labor) as it is to give cheap loans to solr companies (a benefit to capital), in terms of market efficiency.


The problem with that thinking is believing that a capitalistic free market is some sort of holy grail of economies. A capitalistic free market rewards capital over labor naturally. To improve economic performance, there must be restrictions placed to lessen capital reward and improve rewards to labor.


anon_4e80d says
Don't see how Steve Jobs having more money then me makes me a serf. I'm advocating for an economy that produces goods efficiently so we can all afford them.


Well, nobody is saying that Steve Jobs having more money than you makes you a serf. I'm glad to hear you are advocating for an economy that produces goods that everyone can afford. That's not what we have now, nor is it what a unregulated free market will produce.


anon_4e80d says
I wouldn't consider colleges or medical care to be extremely inelastic.


Reality disagrees with you.
32   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 20, 12:36pm  

And before you try to characterize my post as saying capitalism sucks and I'm in favor of communism--don't bother.

Capitalism and free markets are much preferred over state run economies. They're just not perfect. We can do better by understanding the limitations of free markets and capitalism and implementing policies that help to mitigate some of the undesired aspects of free markets.
33   bob2356   2017 Dec 20, 12:37pm  

anon_4e80d says
Did colleges suddenly figure out a better way to educate more people? No. Did doctors figure out a way to diagnose your illness without ordering 10K in tests to avoid being sued? No. Did pharmaceutical companies stop getting 10 year patents for slightly tweaking the formula for a drug that's been around for 50 years? No. Did Chrysler learn to make cars that don't suck? No.

What happens when you increase demand and don't do anything on the supply side? Price skyrockets, which is what we are seeing today under the terrible policies advocated by liberals


That is the biggest mish mosh of meaningless junk you have ever posted.
34   bob2356   2017 Dec 20, 12:46pm  

HappyGilmore says
Well, nobody is saying that Steve Jobs having more money than you makes you a serf. I'm glad to hear you are advocating for an economy that produces goods that everyone can afford. That's not what we have now, nor is it what a unregulated free market will produce.


There is no such thing as an unregulated free market, there never has been and there never will be. As soon as a market reaches the point where there are big players they start using the political system to hinder competition and enhance themselves. Always has been, always will be. Note the big league ultra rich libertarians never have a problem with subsidies for themselves or regulations that hinder competition while crying their eyes out about big government.

Large corporations are like small children and satellites. They need adult supervision or they wander off and get into trouble.
35   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 20, 1:14pm  

bob2356 says
There is no such thing as an unregulated free market, there never has been and there never will be.


Good points. Very true.
36   anonymous   2017 Dec 20, 1:30pm  

HappyGilmore says
Oh you mean in the industries with extremely inelastic demand curves? The industries that the free market does not handle well? Yes, I would advocate some governmental regulation of those industries.


My argument is flawed here. I was thinking of markets with barriers to entry. Still my point remains, if there are few constraints on entry into the market, inelastic demand does not require regulation. For instance, everybody needs to eat food. The demand curve for food is extremely inelastic. But since anybody can start a grocery store or a farm, food is cheap since when there is excess supply the price will always approach the cost of production in an efficient market.

I do agree that in industries where there are significant barriers to entry, and I would probably only limit this to ones with physical barriers unless you can think of a good counter example, you need regulation. For instance, there's only so many radio frequencies, so we need government to regulate who gets to use it. But even then, it's a terrible situation to be in, I think there was a huge spectrum reserved for ham radio up until a few years ago. Probably just doing 20 year lease spectrum auctions for whoever wants to bid would be the most efficient way to allocate.

To expand on my point about why medical and college costs are so high, I would argue that flawed government policies that try to grant greater access to services by aiding demand are the cause for 2 reasons. First, more money for demand + constant supply == higher cost. Economic 101. But supply isn't really constant in these cases. We have more doctors, hospitals, and colleges then ever. So the explanation is more complex I think.

I think another big reason for the spike in cost is because the government policies designed to help people afford these things also make people price insensitive. For instance, the government does not tax the portion of my income that I spend on health insurance through my company. If I recall correctly, I think my company pays 20K a year for my health insurance, in addition to all the money I contribute. If they didn't pay this, presumably I would receive it as income. But if I received it as income, it would be taxed at 35% (at least!) so it would really only be around 13K. So I prefer that my company buy health insurance for me.

But if that 20K was taxed either way, I might ask for the money in cash so I could shop around or even self insure my medical costs. I might decide to just buy a catastrophic policy and pay the rest out of pocket. If I'm paying out of pocket, then I become price sensitive. This would force providers to compete for my business, at least for non-emergency procedures, which would lower prices overall. (And a law passed requiring all medical prices be published and the same for everyone would go a long way too).

Same for college. When you're 18 and getting 50K in student loans, expecting some amazing career after you graduate, you probably aren't thinking about how long its going to take you to pay it off if you wind up like most Fem Studies majors waiting tables after graduation. If instead college loans were hard to come by because they could be defaulted on (another terrible government policy to not allow this). people might consider paying out of pocket, or just reading some books, or doing a career that doesn't require college (these still exist believe it or not!). In the case of loans, because students can default, lenders would probably give better rates for careers likely to be able to pay off the loan, which would encourage idiot young people to pick a better major, and there'd probably be discounts for good grades as well, forcing them to study.

Instead now you have a system where everybody thinks they have to go to college, and they think they can afford it too because of the loans! (not really.) Only they get there and find it's not for them and either flunk out or barely pass, then they have to flip burgers after having wasted 4-6 years of their life they could have been working in a field better suited for them, with the added fun of 50K+ in student loans they can never get rid of. Liberals are so filled with compassion aren't they!
37   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 20, 1:53pm  

anon_4e80d says
Same for college. When you're 18 and getting 50K in student loans, expecting some amazing career after you graduate, you probably aren't thinking about how long its going to take you to pay it off if you wind up like most Fem Studies majors waiting tables after graduation. If instead college loans were hard to come by because they could be defaulted on (another terrible government policy to not allow this). people might consider paying out of pocket, or just reading some books, or doing a career that doesn't require college (these still exist believe it or not!). In the case of loans, because students can default, lenders would probably give better rates for careers likely to be able to pay off the loan, which would encourage idiot young people to pick a better major, and there'd probably be discounts for good grades as well, forcing them to study.

Instead now you have a system where everybody thinks they have to go to college, and they think they can afford it too because of th...


You're making a bunch of contradictory arguments here. On the one hand you seem to be advocating for less government and more free choice, but in the next breath you are saying that people are too stupid to understand whether they need to go to college or not. Government isn't forcing anyone to go to college--they are just providing assistance to those who WANT to go to college. So that college is AVAILABLE to anyone. Hopefully you are not arguing that a college education should only be available to those people who got lucky enough to be born into a rich family. Equal opportunity for everyone to succeed. Not equal outcomes as is often misportrayed by conservative strawman arguments.

On the medical care-the argument that having health care drives up demand I find silly. I have never known anyone who enjoyed going to the Dr. Maybe hypochondriacs. But they go to the ER anyway if they don't have insurance. US healthcare is ridiculously expensive--many times more expensive than any other 1st world nation. And guess what--all those other countries have MORE government in their healthcare. Not less. I think there is a lesson to be learned there.
38   zzyzzx   2017 Dec 20, 3:50pm  

HappyGilmore says
I thought companies were going to invest in new jobs?


AT&T is giving out $1000 employee bonuses because of the new tax plan.
39   HappyGilmore   2017 Dec 20, 4:12pm  

zzyzzx says
HappyGilmore says
I thought companies were going to invest in new jobs?


AT&T is giving out $1000 employee bonuses because of the new tax plan.


That's nice and all, but it's 0 new jobs.
40   anonymous   2017 Dec 20, 8:12pm  

anon_e144f says
Positive life choices like trump, the koch bro's, de Voss, etc., etc. who earned their money the old fashioned way. They inherited it.
Straw man. What about all of the millions of successful people, such as myself, who have earned the money they make through good decisions and hard work? You like to find the exceptions to justify your argument and make it fit your narrative. Anyone with $100 can invest money in the stock market. It's not reserved for the rich, so stop with the beta male arguments of "wo is me".

Comments 1 - 40 of 84       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions