191–200 of 204 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That doesn't mean that the system as it exists is good. The system as it exists isn't perfect. Maybe listening to those coming at it with a fresh perspective gleaned from youth would benefit society a bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If, over the long term, CAPEX spendings do not produce profits, it means that the purchased assets did not produce enough payoff to compensate for their depreciation charges. You could argue with the accounting depreciation rules (i.e. how much needs to be written off per year, i.e. you think the asset is longer lived than the accounting rules say), but the general idea stands - it is a sign of bad capital allocation…
>> If, over the long term, CAPEX spendings do not produce profits, it means that the purchased assets did not produce enough payoff to compensate for their depreciation charges. Even if CAPEX generates profits, if the returns were lower than your capital cost then company would have been better off not investing and returning that instead to shareholders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We would expect it under certain circumstances. One explanation could be falling interest rates. Lower rates on bonds incentivize investors to take on more risk (moving more money into equities) in order to still meet their return targets.
Another is share buybacks (which I think are entirely fine). Same amount of profits (DCF + discounted terminal value) spread over fewer shares implies a higher share price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the same, and had to ask some friends to provide another point of view: If a company like amazon generates very little corporate profit, is that unproductive growth? Aggregate corporate profits are not the only stat that matters when discussing economic growth/value.
> If a company like amazon generates very little corporate profit, is that unproductive growth? Of course not. There would be more employees, more taxes paid, more buildings being built, more assets, etc. thus more money going into the economy. I've always dreamed that companies should run with zero profit (like the outdoor store co-ops like REI or MEC in Canada). They could price their products so they don't make an…
You are against join stock companies, but not interest bearing loans/bonds or arbitrarily high salaries for managers? Why?
For a more balanced view, you can turn to JP Morgan's Guide to the Markets. It's a reliable summary of actual data so you can draw your own conclusions. https://am.jpmorgan.com/blob-gim/1383407651970/83456/MI-GTM_...
One of my main points is that you need to look beyond earnings per share to see the bigger trend. What slide/s would you use from the JP Morgan Guide that is better than the St. Louis Fed chart I featured? * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=qx3r The Chart on Page 7 looks fantastic but it is earnings per share, not total profits before taxes. The question I would ask is why the stock market graph looks so differen…
Profit also involves some major accounting nuances. In SAAS, for instance, advertising costs resulting in customer acquisitions are generally accounted for upfront, reducing accounting profits in the period of acquisition. This is opposed to other industries, where investments are more easily capitalized and then charged over their useful life.
I find this scary and telling. "It is too early to say where the bottom is to this recession, but we have reason to believe the Millennials and Generation X do not have the resources to purchase the stock that Baby Boomers want to sell at prior market highs. With Corporate profit growth unmasked and the Baby Boomer’s transition into retirement, it seems unlikely that stocks will make a quick return to their prior lev…
[flagged]
You've done this repeatedly:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21725642
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21597613
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21594517
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22705734
and we've warned you before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21732554.
Continuing will get you banned, so please don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Ah the misguided enthusiasm of youth. You'll grow up, don't worry. It will amaze you how much smarter your "boomer" parents get as you get older.
I'm sure you meant it in an avuncular way, but that doesn't translate so well on the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah the misguided enthusiasm of youth. You'll grow up, don't worry. It will amaze you how much smarter your "boomer" parents get as you get older.
This crosses into personal attack. Please don't do that, regardless of what someone else posted. I'm sure you meant it in an avuncular way, but that doesn't translate so well on the internet. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's banter, it's common on the internet, it's been common on the internet for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really dislike seeing comments like this on HN, just utter lack of foresight into just the basics of economics or even just commenting. What "companies" are you talking about? What does CEO pay have to do with the subject at hand?
I'm genuinely asking questions about why the economy and setup is the way it is, and why can't we change it to something better. Everything can be improved, and we should strive to improve everything. I'm very aware of companies that operate very well without making a profit. They add a lot of value to society, the employees get paid and they're even expanding (MEC in Canada). But no profit. Nobody who doesn't work t…
It's very hard defend the argument "CEO pay represents a huge surplus".
How much value does that CEO being by his skills/decisions? Why would he be hired with the salary he receives (that he does not get to decide) if he didn't create more value than what he costs? It's just like any other employee, except a more competitive space and where decisions have larger profit effects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This crosses into personal attack. Please don't do that, regardless of what someone else posted. I'm sure you meant it in an avuncular way, but that doesn't translate so well on the internet. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No, that's not a personal attack. "Ok Boomer" is personal attack in a lot of places, but I guess not here... It's banter, it's common on the internet, it's been common on the internet for decades.