Live data from Hacker News

Fed Ends Zero-Rate Era

bloomberg.com

351–360 of 361 posts

Re: Fed Ends Zero-Rate Era

#351
post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The shareholders are rent-seeking. They should be taxed as if it was normal income. They don't provide an real value to the company, its output or consumers. For the most part, they are a determent to all outside themselves (specifically their holdings).

Shareholders don't provide value? Then why do companies sell stock? That makes no sense.

Shareholders do not provide value. They provide a 1 time infusion of cash in exchange for a future return of either increased value of their stock or dividends. They only infuse cash when the stocks are released either at IPO or later offering of new stock.

The reason stocks are sold is due to cost of capital. A company can make money in a few ways. First is they make a product or service and receive money from customers. Second, they can IPO or some other form of shareholder investments. Third they could finance their needs either with a direct loan or through bond issuance.

Now, most bonds are considered junk if they are from a small company, especially one where people are working out of their garage. This means the debt has a rather high rate (because people think you're going to default). So now you've got to find a buyer (requires middlemen and their costs) that's will to bet on you. Good luck (no seriously I'd prefer this over opening my company to an IPO).

Bank financing is hard to get for pretty much the same reason that bonds are junk. Unless you can show positive cash flow for a few years (you know with your just formed startup and a dream), you probably not going to get a loan. It is due to this that often people, including Elon Musk, self-debt finance via credit cards. Again, ridiculously expensive lending terms.

Let's say you are making money. That's great, you're in the top 40% of startups. You are now constrained by the amount of money you make. If you make 100k a year, but need 1mil to bring a new product to market, we'll see you in 10 years (probably more like 13 with taxes removed over those years).

This brings us to stocks. Find people that are a) suckers, b) chumps or, and good luck o' bearer of dreams, c) actual believers in your product/service. They buy at the IPO price. Your company gets a percentage because the financial house that offered your stock takes a chunk. VCs might cash out after their sale moratorium ends. But after all of this you have a pile of money. That 1mil product is probably doable now. So is an office complex with open floors, and a coffee machine and free lunches and a dog kennel for when your employees just need to feel something that proves they're alive.

You also have an asset to back bonds. So you can, after a small period of time, issue bonds.

At no point did the shareholders add a penny in value to your product directly. They are just there hoping to the FSM that they can leave your stock at some point with a gain. They DO GET TO BITCH. They can have you legally removed from your own company because you have a long view that says in 10 years doing X, Y, Z will increase this companies value 100 fold, but it won't help (probably will hurt) the next 3 quarters.

As a stock holder I can say this about other stock holders. Fuck'em. They get 10-50% return for literally parking their money. As they have more capital related income, they should be taxed as income (outside of reasonably tax-protected vehicles like retirement plans).

Re: Fed Ends Zero-Rate Era

#352
post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shareholders don't provide value? Then why do companies sell stock? That makes no sense.

Shareholders do not provide value. They provide a 1 time infusion of cash in exchange for a future return of either increased value of their stock or dividends. They only infuse cash when the stocks are released either at IPO or later offering of new stock. The reason stocks are sold is due to cost of capital. A company can make money in a few ways. First is they make a product or service and receive money from custo…

> As a stock holder I can say this about other stock holders. Fuck'em. They get 10-50% return for literally parking their money. As they have more capital related income, they should be taxed as income (outside of reasonably tax-protected vehicles like retirement plans).

Word. As a TSLA stockholder with >10K shares, I couldn't care less if it went to 0. It was a gamble, and only because I believed in what Elon was trying to do.

Re: Fed Ends Zero-Rate Era

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because as soon as you can get a risk free rate of return, (savings) then why would someone invest in a half brained start up that has a low probability of any return, when you could get a risk free return. The FED has reduced interest rates to drive spending in startups, lending, housing market, and the stock market. But don't worry, .5% is only a start, we have a ways to go before Unicorns start to starve.

> Because as soon as you can get a risk free rate of return, (savings) then why would someone invest in a half brained start up that has a low probability of any return, when you could get a risk free return. Because startups, while they may have a low probability of return, have a high potential upside, whereas low-risk (and essentially zero-risk, like US government debt) investments have fairly locked-in maximums a…

You should look into the probability of those high returns. The media likes to remind you of the Facebook / twitters/ google, but those are just one in thousands.

Something like ~90% of startup fail. http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilpatel/2015/01/16/90-of-start...

So you have a one in ten chance. If you pick a startup that fails, I doubt you will be able to reclaim any of your investment. It's not like you can get liquid, when things start to go in the wrong direction.

Pick wisely.

Re: Fed Ends Zero-Rate Era

#354
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statists love their euphemisms My irony detector has just exploded. Can you direct me to a completely-unregulated minarchist free-for-all market where I can buy one that merely poisons me and everyone in a hundred-mile radius? Because at least it would actually work.

You have to pay extra for the poison. This is libertarian land, dude. NOTHING is free, even poison.

The poisonous version was cheaper to make than the non-poisonous one, last I heard. So the company decided to go with poisonous ones in order to meet Q4 financial goals.

Re: Fed Ends Zero-Rate Era

#355
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. The Marxism school of thought is one of fantasies, of free lunches from artful arrangement of resources. The problem is that this persistent belief stretches from hard core far-left socialist/communists right up to the centre right of political thought (though I despise the left/right denomination, I use it here to illustrate fashionable thinking). Eventually, beliefs will have to change - anything that can't g…

>The Marxism school of thought is one of fantasies, of free lunches from artful arrangement of resources. Actually the Marxist school of thought is one of economic self-determination. That ideal went badly wrong with the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Even so. Economic freedom - specifically the moral right of the working classes to benefit from the economic value of their labour - is the bedrock con…

The labor theory of value is a valueless theory.

I've never, ever seen a credible argument that saya capitalism is based on the elimination of a persons right to their labour value. That sounds terribly like some undergraduate student publication or occupy chant.

Capitalism is about the freedom to control and own capital - it's not a 'social conceit', capital refers to assets, whether physical in the for,s of factories and farms, or others, such as inventions and savings. The ability to freely allocate capital and follow ones free economic agency is the greatest engine for eliminating poverty the world has ever known, despite its obvious and some,times major flaws.

Re: Fed Ends Zero-Rate Era

#356
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. The Marxism school of thought is one of fantasies, of free lunches from artful arrangement of resources. The problem is that this persistent belief stretches from hard core far-left socialist/communists right up to the centre right of political thought (though I despise the left/right denomination, I use it here to illustrate fashionable thinking). Eventually, beliefs will have to change - anything that can't g…

Where should I begin reading if I wanted to know more?

Well, that depends if you want to reinforce existing beliefs or challenge them with new ones.

After much reading from Smith to Marx to Keynes, it's my personal beliefs that the classical economists had it right and much of the 20th century thinking was wrong. To my mind, the experiences of the 20th century pretty much lay out that case, particularly with the twin a/b test of East/west Germany.

If you want a complete history of economic thought according to he Austrian school, then 'An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought' gives a thorough background from Ancient times to now on the evolution of economic thought and how people came up with the answers to puzzles like why is water essentially valueless as compared to gold when one is life and death and the other essentially useless. Going back deep into the original philosophers and coming forward helps to understand why thinking is the way it is.

The other book I recommend for people is 'The road to serfdom' by F.A. Hayek. This gives a thorough and as-yet unanswered critique as to why socialism in all its forms fails, and why it is an inherently unstable system that always leads to dictatorships and loss of wealth (hint: feature not bug) But these speak to my own beliefs which are decidedly no longer mainstream. Like many I studied this in undergraduate and masters courses but the explanations never really settled with me so I kept on reading. If you want to understand what the mainstream economic thinking is, just pick up a Krugmsn article and keep reading because most mainstream publications are wedded to the idea that governments can plan and manipulate economies into prosperity.

Re: Fed Ends Zero-Rate Era

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason many economists are unsure or against the minimum wage is not because they're some agents of bourgeoisie capitalists, but because arguments in favor of it tend to be moral, not economic. For instance, here's a case for the minimum wage presented by an (otherwise very knowledgeable, I'll grant) Post-Keynesian economist: http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-e... It's pretty weak. The fi…

> The reason many economists are unsure or against the minimum wage is not because they're some agents of bourgeoisie capitalists, but because arguments in favor of it tend to be moral, not economic. All policy arguments are moral. Economics (to the extent it is a useful, predictive, empirical science) can tell you what outcomes to expect from what actions, but not tell which actions should be preferred, without firs…

I agree that they should not tell what outcomes should be preferred, but they absolutely should tell what policies should be preferred in order to achieve a given outcome.

Re: Fed Ends Zero-Rate Era

#360
post #337
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Competition drives prices down, [...] Tell that to Google and Facebook bidding on programmers.. Or people trying to buy real estate in London.

London's planning process is dysfunctional, and the housing supply is nowhere near keeping up with demand.

Yes. And in this case, competition (on the demand side) drives up prices.
Post reply on HN