121–130 of 177 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean, "giving them means to live in a tent near an Amazon fulfilment centre."
Who is forcing them to work at Amazon? Their lives are clearly better working there than if Amazon had never existed. If conditions are so bad that these employees live in tents, why not quit and.... oh wait.... live in tents (now with less money).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily, and not in the long term. You can buy stocks with no expectation they will increase in value (or even maintain value) if the dividend yield is high enough. And stocks have value because of this - the assumption in any stock, even one currently without a dividend, is that eventually it will pay out some form of a dividend to its holders. You may buy a stock hoping it will will rise in value, but that…
There are plenty of stocks that no one ever expects any distribution or dividend from, but they know it represents a claim on real value (assets and incomes) in the business, and that there is a market where they can resell it for more money if the value of the underlying assets increase. All the incomes may go back into the business but that doesn't mean they don't increase real value.
It's impossible to assess, of course, but the true value of any equity is the net present value of the future cash it will generate for its holders. Full stop. Equity holders don't care about value in the business that won't translate into dollars coming out of the stock at some point in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you're straight-up stealing, you have to persuade people to hand over their money. The way you do that is by convincing them that what they're getting in return is valuable. Unfortunately people tend make value assessments that I think are horrible, and that causes entire industries to pivot in ways I don't like. For example, I love Nintendo's $60 games that come with plenty of content and no microtransactions…
I'm quite sure people that don't spend thousands of dollars (or even a penny) on microtransactions aren't the minority.
"Whales" - the term for those spending thousands - although few in numbers, are the ones accounting for most of the profit.
https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-whales-of-microtrans...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you play the stock market (telling phrase there), are you not making a bet that your stock will increase in value?
Not necessarily, and not in the long term. You can buy stocks with no expectation they will increase in value (or even maintain value) if the dividend yield is high enough. And stocks have value because of this - the assumption in any stock, even one currently without a dividend, is that eventually it will pay out some form of a dividend to its holders. You may buy a stock hoping it will will rise in value, but that…
Are you not then still betting that the stock continues to offer dividends / offers them at the same rate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you're straight-up stealing, you have to persuade people to hand over their money. The way you do that is by convincing them that what they're getting in return is valuable. Unfortunately people tend make value assessments that I think are horrible, and that causes entire industries to pivot in ways I don't like. For example, I love Nintendo's $60 games that come with plenty of content and no microtransactions…
I'm quite sure people that don't spend thousands of dollars (or even a penny) on microtransactions aren't the minority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily, and not in the long term. You can buy stocks with no expectation they will increase in value (or even maintain value) if the dividend yield is high enough. And stocks have value because of this - the assumption in any stock, even one currently without a dividend, is that eventually it will pay out some form of a dividend to its holders. You may buy a stock hoping it will will rise in value, but that…
How is the long term not gambling ? No one knows what going to happen tomorrow let alone in ten plus year. My bet is: it all comes down to risk tolerance. In the long term some forms of investments have shown, historically, to be consistently less risky, or more risky, than others.
More to point: most studies show that you do best in investing simply by having money invested for long periods, and being diversified to mitigate secular risk. That wouldn't work in gambling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketvalue.asp Market value definition: > obtained by multiplying the number of its outstanding shares by the current share price The reality of selling has nothing to do with it. It's just a math equation.
Investopedia should not be your source of truth. While you can get quality education for free on the internet in various subjects(math, CS, biology) - financial markets is not one of them. Market value is exactly what the parent asserted it is, and the source of truth for that is your bank. If you are long 500k shares of AAPL and the quote is $100 - your bank will not consider you to have $50mil liquid assets. They k…
Apple traded 21,583,997 shares today. Aggressively selling 500,000 shares (less than $100 million dollars worth) might move the market in this stock by perhaps 1%, certainly not anywhere near 10%.
I'm beginning to see how delusional it is to think you can make money by producing something useful or of value in people's lives. That's for lusers. Instead mess with the neural pathways of a large population such that they just give you their money.
Unless you're straight-up stealing, you have to persuade people to hand over their money. The way you do that is by convincing them that what they're getting in return is valuable. Unfortunately people tend make value assessments that I think are horrible, and that causes entire industries to pivot in ways I don't like. For example, I love Nintendo's $60 games that come with plenty of content and no microtransactions…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily, and not in the long term. You can buy stocks with no expectation they will increase in value (or even maintain value) if the dividend yield is high enough. And stocks have value because of this - the assumption in any stock, even one currently without a dividend, is that eventually it will pay out some form of a dividend to its holders. You may buy a stock hoping it will will rise in value, but that…
> if the dividend yield is high enough Are you not then still betting that the stock continues to offer dividends / offers them at the same rate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the long term not gambling ? No one knows what going to happen tomorrow let alone in ten plus year. My bet is: it all comes down to risk tolerance. In the long term some forms of investments have shown, historically, to be consistently less risky, or more risky, than others.
Gambling and investing both involve risk, but they're not the same thing, and there's important differences. In particular, in most gambling, the sum of returns to participants is less than the amount wagered by all parties, whereas in equity investment it's generally / historically the opposite. Additionally, whereas gambling is generally fairly time-bounded, investing isn't, and in fact often rewards longer holds v…