by null ➕follow (0) 💰tip ignore
Comments 1 - 40 of 84 Next » Last » Search these comments
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!
Satoshi_Nakamoto saysGood!
And why is that good?
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.
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?
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
Eff who exactly?
everyone else
How does returning profits to shareholders "effs everyone else"?
Not to mention that stock ownership is very widespread.
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?
There is a (for all intents and purposes) fixed amount of money.False. Show me evidence that the money supply is constant.
All the Trump supporters got real quiet.We're too busy earning a living so you can freeload off our taxes.
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.
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.
False. Show me evidence that the money supply is constant.
We're too busy earning a living so you can freeload off our taxesjust 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.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.
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.
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.
HappyGilmore saysNo, 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.
And there's the "I know how to spend your money better than you do" attitude.
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.
just any guy saysFalse. 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)
Purchasing power is based on cost of production
WTF does income inequality have to do with anything?
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
people who would spend the money don't have it and the people that have it, hoard 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".
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.
anon_4e80d saysExcept 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 saysanon_4e80d saysNonsense. 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 saysanon_4e80d saysYou 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 saysanon_4e80d saysOh 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.
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
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.
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.
I wouldn't consider colleges or medical care to be extremely inelastic.
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
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.
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.
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...
I thought companies were going to invest in new jobs?
HappyGilmore saysI thought companies were going to invest in new jobs?
AT&T is giving out $1000 employee bonuses because of the new tax plan.
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 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,236,462 comments by 14,788 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, clambo, DemocratsAreTotallyFucked, Patrick, RC2006 online now