91–100 of 153 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not giving the whole picture if you don't mention that IBM's market cap has seen very significant decline over that time period. IBM has been producing insane cash-flow over this period and their strategy was to pay out dividends/buybacks rather than to invest in new markets Is IBM even getting bailout money? What does IBM have to do with the bailouts?
IBM may or may not be a good example, but I think the overall critique holds here. Stock buy backs weren't a thing until a SEC rule change in the 80's, this is a relatively new phenomenon and not intrinsic to a functioning market. Home Depot could have given their employees massive raises with the amount they've spent on buybacks (15 billion in buybacks in February 2019 alone). With ~400,000 employees, that could be…
Replace dividend with buyback or v versa and everything else is true, except for forced dividend tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more subtle now, though, and harder to be aware of. Back in the day, robber-barons simply exploited the working class through substandard working conditions, and outright theft of money or property [citation needed]. Now, though, you need a deep understanding of global monetary policy, tax law, and labor laws to be able to connect the dots. So I would argue that now is different from earlier times in his…
That's the craziest part of all of this. The exploited actively support the politicians who cause maximum exploitation and vilify those who would actually help them. It's insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDP is per year. Analogous to a person making $100k/yr with a $110k mortgage. Edit: Although perhaps not that analogous because is this even technically "debt"?
What if we alter that analogy to a person who makes 100k/yr with a 110k mortgage, and next year they make 101k with a 115k mortgage, and next year they make 102k with a 120k mortgage, and so on?
One interesting fact I learned the other day: IBM did 140 billion in stock buy backs in the last decade. They have a 100 Billion dollar market cap. I think that is a bit of what we have going on right now. A system propped up by injected cash, which works for now because everyone plays along. Most of this injected money goes into the pockets of the rich, who are the ones holding the assets that the FED is bailing out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the Bank of Japan who decide the borrowing rates, so, not problem in that regard.
Ok, but they don't control inflation. At some point, I think it's obvious that printing money becomes counterproductive. But where exactly is that line?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard to disentangle monetary policy from political policy. They are strongly interlinked.
Sure but what does it matter if it's "monetary policy" or "political policy"? They work hand in glove and as @mywittyname aptly states above: "...I feel like the wealthy in this country have developed the perfect scheme for leeching the wealth from this country." The perfect scheme involves a bailout mechanisms without question. And too many Americans are falling for the scheme with hands out for a piece of welfare f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not giving the whole picture if you don't mention that IBM's market cap has seen very significant decline over that time period. IBM has been producing insane cash-flow over this period and their strategy was to pay out dividends/buybacks rather than to invest in new markets Is IBM even getting bailout money? What does IBM have to do with the bailouts?
IBM may or may not be a good example, but I think the overall critique holds here. Stock buy backs weren't a thing until a SEC rule change in the 80's, this is a relatively new phenomenon and not intrinsic to a functioning market. Home Depot could have given their employees massive raises with the amount they've spent on buybacks (15 billion in buybacks in February 2019 alone). With ~400,000 employees, that could be…
Each company can decide how they pay their employees. If Home Depot had wanted to pay their employees with stock options, they would have been free to do so.
It turns out it usually works out best for both the company and the employees to receive a fixed amount of cash. If the employee wants to use the cash to buy shares or options, that's up to them.
One interesting fact I learned the other day: IBM did 140 billion in stock buy backs in the last decade. They have a 100 Billion dollar market cap. I think that is a bit of what we have going on right now. A system propped up by injected cash, which works for now because everyone plays along. Most of this injected money goes into the pockets of the rich, who are the ones holding the assets that the FED is bailing out…
I watched an interview on YouTube with Stephen A. Schwarzman from 'The Blackstone Group' which was really eye opening. There is a part where he explains how to multiply ROI on any investment using bank loans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kThTbLUQdU When you take into account that the credit is printed by banks out of thin air (and more so given the latest 0% reserve requirement), it's not difficult to see why the…
http://www.direxion.com/leveraged-inverse-etfs
https://www.proshares.com/3xetfs/
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020816/top-1...
Look at something like TQQQ, which is 50% FAAAMIN stocks 3x. Was a 488% return in the last 5 years till the crash, now its at 330%. Regular QQQ is only up 192%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not giving the whole picture if you don't mention that IBM's market cap has seen very significant decline over that time period. IBM has been producing insane cash-flow over this period and their strategy was to pay out dividends/buybacks rather than to invest in new markets Is IBM even getting bailout money? What does IBM have to do with the bailouts?
IBM may or may not be a good example, but I think the overall critique holds here. Stock buy backs weren't a thing until a SEC rule change in the 80's, this is a relatively new phenomenon and not intrinsic to a functioning market. Home Depot could have given their employees massive raises with the amount they've spent on buybacks (15 billion in buybacks in February 2019 alone). With ~400,000 employees, that could be…
Buybacks and dividends are essentially equivalent. This comment shows a distinct lack of understanding. Of course home depot could return their profits to employees, but then it wouldn't be a business. Home depot's sole reason for existing is to return money to shareholders. If they don't do that leadership would be fired.