Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[georgephillip]

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

Dividends alone is not a determining factor.

Again... you own a share of the company itself. That has value, even without dividends. Warren Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, pays no dividends. But the company itself has grown. That growth has value. You as owner, have part ownership in that company, which has value.


Let's spin this around into something easier.

I own a house. Do I get dividends? No. But that house is an investment. Why? Because it has value that increases. Even without dividends showing me direct value, I know that over time property values do increase. Again... why? Because we all know that people need places to live. We can look at the history of property values, and see the increase.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Now I am NOT saying... 'there is no speculation'. Again, everything has some amount of speculation. Democrats could take over my city, and put in place section 8 housing in my area, and the value of my house will drop like a rock. It could happen.

Government could put in place terrible protectionism, that could kill the auto market, and the car company I own shares in, could close.

But again, there is a huge difference between speculating on a real assets, and a ponzi scheme that has no assets.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Even if the car and food company are not paying dividends?

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"So when one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"What's wrong with that is a lot of stocks don't pay dividends and why are you an owner of a company if the company never pays the so-called owners?

"that's exactly how it works because when a stock doesn't pay dividends, there is no monetary connection between the revenues and profits of the company and the actual shares."

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Ridiculous. And I can prove it, by simply owning that stock, and seeing it's value increase in proportion to the profits of the company. Which it does. I own shares of Berkshire Hathaway.

There is always a monetary connection between revenues and profits of the company, and the actual shares.

Again... as long as there is an underlying asset, it simply can't be a ponzi scheme. The defining aspect of a ponzi scheme, is the fact there are no assets.

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Market value or par value?
Google currently trades for over $1200, but the corporation states in writing it doesn't pay dividends, there are no voting rights, and the par value of GOOG is only $0.001 per share. "The value of a stock is just an idea. It is something completely cerebral and imaginary. Real money on the other hand, is finite, traceable, and ...what investors ultimately care about."

How true is the statement that the stock market is essentially a Ponzi scheme? - Quora

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

Assuming there's always a Greater Fool

"The Greater Fool Theory is the notion that even when an asset is fully valued or overvalued, there is room for that asset's value to increase even further because there are 'greater fools' out there to push prices up purely due to hype or speculation."

The Greater Fool Theory — Steemit

 

[LeftofLeft]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Isn’t this how socialist countries run their companies? “Accountable” means accountable to the supreme leaders.

 

[basquebromance]

nothing in america is free. if you are getting something without paying for it, see a taxpayer and thank him! everyday!

 

[georgephillip]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Isn’t this how socialist countries run their companies? “Accountable” means accountable to the supreme leaders.

sn’t this how socialist countries run their companies? “Accountable” means accountable to the supreme leaders.

Would that be shareholders?
Exclusively??

Constituency statute - Wikipedia

"A constituency statute is a term in US corporate law for a rule that requires a board of directors to pay regard to the interests of all corporate stakeholders in their decision making.

"A constituency statute is intended to give directors of corporations the discretion to balance the interests of stakeholders, rather than have to solely focus on maximizing shareholder value in a way that could damage the long-term sustainability of the enterprise."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dividends alone is not a determining factor.

Again... you own a share of the company itself. That has value, even without dividends. Warren Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, pays no dividends. But the company itself has grown. That growth has value. You as owner, have part ownership in that company, which has value.


Let's spin this around into something easier.

I own a house. Do I get dividends? No. But that house is an investment. Why? Because it has value that increases. Even without dividends showing me direct value, I know that over time property values do increase. Again... why? Because we all know that people need places to live. We can look at the history of property values, and see the increase.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Now I am NOT saying... 'there is no speculation'. Again, everything has some amount of speculation. Democrats could take over my city, and put in place section 8 housing in my area, and the value of my house will drop like a rock. It could happen.

Government could put in place terrible protectionism, that could kill the auto market, and the car company I own shares in, could close.

But again, there is a huge difference between speculating on a real assets, and a ponzi scheme that has no assets.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Even if the car and food company are not paying dividends?

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"So when one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"What's wrong with that is a lot of stocks don't pay dividends and why are you an owner of a company if the company never pays the so-called owners?

"that's exactly how it works because when a stock doesn't pay dividends, there is no monetary connection between the revenues and profits of the company and the actual shares."

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Ridiculous. And I can prove it, by simply owning that stock, and seeing it's value increase in proportion to the profits of the company. Which it does. I own shares of Berkshire Hathaway.

There is always a monetary connection between revenues and profits of the company, and the actual shares.

Again... as long as there is an underlying asset, it simply can't be a ponzi scheme. The defining aspect of a ponzi scheme, is the fact there are no assets.

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Market value or par value?
Google currently trades for over $1200, but the corporation states in writing it doesn't pay dividends, there are no voting rights, and the par value of GOOG is only $0.001 per share. "The value of a stock is just an idea. It is something completely cerebral and imaginary. Real money on the other hand, is finite, traceable, and ...what investors ultimately care about."

How true is the statement that the stock market is essentially a Ponzi scheme? - Quora

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

Assuming there's always a Greater Fool

"The Greater Fool Theory is the notion that even when an asset is fully valued or overvalued, there is room for that asset's value to increase even further because there are 'greater fools' out there to push prices up purely due to hype or speculation."

The Greater Fool Theory — Steemit

If their $50 earnings are projected to hit $60 next year and $72 the year after, does that mean new buyers are "greater fools"?

 

[georgephillip]

nothing in america is free. if you are getting something without paying for it, see a taxpayer and thank him! everyday!

Would that taxpayer be among the richest ten percent of Americans?

Free Lunch - David Cay Johnston - Book Review

"'Free Lunch' consists of 26 chapters, each a case study of a corporation enriching itself through lax or solicitous government: beggar-thy-neighbor state and local tax breaks to lure businesses, government subsidies for sports stadium construction, electricity deregulation and so on."

Imho, rich people have been getting things without paying for them for as long as the USA has existed.

Over much of that time corporations have expanded their power largely through the courts.

Warren is calling for a democratic (congressional) reassessment of the political leverage corporations, and the investor class they fund, have acquired over the majority of Americans across the past two hundred years.

 

[georgephillip]

Even if the car and food company are not paying dividends?

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"So when one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"What's wrong with that is a lot of stocks don't pay dividends and why are you an owner of a company if the company never pays the so-called owners?

"that's exactly how it works because when a stock doesn't pay dividends, there is no monetary connection between the revenues and profits of the company and the actual shares."

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Ridiculous. And I can prove it, by simply owning that stock, and seeing it's value increase in proportion to the profits of the company. Which it does. I own shares of Berkshire Hathaway.

There is always a monetary connection between revenues and profits of the company, and the actual shares.

Again... as long as there is an underlying asset, it simply can't be a ponzi scheme. The defining aspect of a ponzi scheme, is the fact there are no assets.

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Market value or par value?
Google currently trades for over $1200, but the corporation states in writing it doesn't pay dividends, there are no voting rights, and the par value of GOOG is only $0.001 per share. "The value of a stock is just an idea. It is something completely cerebral and imaginary. Real money on the other hand, is finite, traceable, and ...what investors ultimately care about."

How true is the statement that the stock market is essentially a Ponzi scheme? - Quora

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

Assuming there's always a Greater Fool

"The Greater Fool Theory is the notion that even when an asset is fully valued or overvalued, there is room for that asset's value to increase even further because there are 'greater fools' out there to push prices up purely due to hype or speculation."

The Greater Fool Theory — Steemit

If their $50 earnings are projected to hit $60 next year and $72 the year after, does that mean new buyers are "greater fools"?

If their $50 earnings are projected to hit $60 next year and $72 the year after, does that mean new buyers are "greater fools"?

Ask Liz

Elizabeth Warren puts a giant tech breakup billboard in San Francisco’s face

What happens to the Biggest Fools when capitalism's inherent bubbles inevitably POP?

 

[Third Party]

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Would that require them to..


spec·u·late
/ˈspekyəˌlāt/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1.
   form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
   "my colleagues speculate about my private life"
   
   Similar:
   conjecture
   
   
   theorize
   theorized that the atolls marked the sites of vanished volcanoes" data-hw="theorize" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-url="/search?rlz=1C1PRFI_enUS784US784&sxsrf=ACYBGNQszNq2Sy8fH4i7oKmHktshgSaofg:1571873851052&q=define+theorize&forcedict=theorize&dictcorpus=en-US">
   
   form theories
   
   hypothesize
   
   
   make suppositions
   
   postulate
   
   
   guess
   
   
   make guesses
   
   surmise
   
   
   think
   
   
   wonder
   
   
   muse
   
   
   
2. 2.
   invest in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.
   "he didn't look as though he had the money to speculate in stocks"

speculate - Google Search

Obviously, a guy like you, with no money, doesn't need to worry about buying any stocks.

Leave the speculating to others.

Obviously, a guy like you, with no money, doesn't need to worry about buying any stocks.

Leave the speculating to others.

"'The U.S. financial markets had always been either corrupt or about to be corrupted.' – Michael Lewis, Flash Boys"

Wall Street has Always Been Corrupt…

So is the WWF-but it survives and thrives.

 

[LeftofLeft]

nothing in america is free. if you are getting something without paying for it, see a taxpayer and thank him! everyday!

Would that taxpayer be among the richest ten percent of Americans?

Free Lunch - David Cay Johnston - Book Review

"'Free Lunch' consists of 26 chapters, each a case study of a corporation enriching itself through lax or solicitous government: beggar-thy-neighbor state and local tax breaks to lure businesses, government subsidies for sports stadium construction, electricity deregulation and so on."

Imho, rich people have been getting things without paying for them for as long as the USA has existed.

Over much of that time corporations have expanded their power largely through the courts.

Warren is calling for a democratic (congressional) reassessment of the political leverage corporations, and the investor class they fund, have acquired over the majority of Americans across the past two hundred years.

Assessing Political leverage of the corporations? This coming from the side that has no problem of American tax dollars being routed through public service Union dues. Go assess that first. Then assess corporate cronyism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Ridiculous. And I can prove it, by simply owning that stock, and seeing it's value increase in proportion to the profits of the company. Which it does. I own shares of Berkshire Hathaway.

There is always a monetary connection between revenues and profits of the company, and the actual shares.

Again... as long as there is an underlying asset, it simply can't be a ponzi scheme. The defining aspect of a ponzi scheme, is the fact there are no assets.

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Market value or par value?
Google currently trades for over $1200, but the corporation states in writing it doesn't pay dividends, there are no voting rights, and the par value of GOOG is only $0.001 per share. "The value of a stock is just an idea. It is something completely cerebral and imaginary. Real money on the other hand, is finite, traceable, and ...what investors ultimately care about."

How true is the statement that the stock market is essentially a Ponzi scheme? - Quora

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

Assuming there's always a Greater Fool

"The Greater Fool Theory is the notion that even when an asset is fully valued or overvalued, there is room for that asset's value to increase even further because there are 'greater fools' out there to push prices up purely due to hype or speculation."

The Greater Fool Theory — Steemit

If their $50 earnings are projected to hit $60 next year and $72 the year after, does that mean new buyers are "greater fools"?

If their $50 earnings are projected to hit $60 next year and $72 the year after, does that mean new buyers are "greater fools"?

Ask Liz

Elizabeth Warren puts a giant tech breakup billboard in San Francisco’s face

What happens to the Biggest Fools when capitalism's inherent bubbles inevitably POP?

Liz is one of the greatest fools we have.

 

[Andylusion]

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

Dividends alone is not a determining factor.

Again... you own a share of the company itself. That has value, even without dividends. Warren Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, pays no dividends. But the company itself has grown. That growth has value. You as owner, have part ownership in that company, which has value.


Let's spin this around into something easier.

I own a house. Do I get dividends? No. But that house is an investment. Why? Because it has value that increases. Even without dividends showing me direct value, I know that over time property values do increase. Again... why? Because we all know that people need places to live. We can look at the history of property values, and see the increase.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Now I am NOT saying... 'there is no speculation'. Again, everything has some amount of speculation. Democrats could take over my city, and put in place section 8 housing in my area, and the value of my house will drop like a rock. It could happen.

Government could put in place terrible protectionism, that could kill the auto market, and the car company I own shares in, could close.

But again, there is a huge difference between speculating on a real assets, and a ponzi scheme that has no assets.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Even if the car and food company are not paying dividends?

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"So when one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"What's wrong with that is a lot of stocks don't pay dividends and why are you an owner of a company if the company never pays the so-called owners?

"that's exactly how it works because when a stock doesn't pay dividends, there is no monetary connection between the revenues and profits of the company and the actual shares."

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Ridiculous. And I can prove it, by simply owning that stock, and seeing it's value increase in proportion to the profits of the company. Which it does. I own shares of Berkshire Hathaway.

There is always a monetary connection between revenues and profits of the company, and the actual shares.

Again... as long as there is an underlying asset, it simply can't be a ponzi scheme. The defining aspect of a ponzi scheme, is the fact there are no assets.

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Market value or par value?
Google currently trades for over $1200, but the corporation states in writing it doesn't pay dividends, there are no voting rights, and the par value of GOOG is only $0.001 per share. "The value of a stock is just an idea. It is something completely cerebral and imaginary. Real money on the other hand, is finite, traceable, and ...what investors ultimately care about."

How true is the statement that the stock market is essentially a Ponzi scheme? - Quora

Market value, is the only value.

See the problem shows up in your own post.

"Real money on the other hand, is finite, traceable, and ...what investors ultimately care about"

But real money has no value itself, except what you can trade it for.... such as stock.

Money itself only has a market value. We know this because money itself can go up and down in value. Point being, there is nothing in this world that has 'inherent' value. All value is a market value. It's all worth, only what other people are willing to exchange it for.

Money itself, has no more value to it, than what someone is willing to exchange for it..... just like stock has no value except for what people are willing to trade it for.

ALL THAT SAID...

When you said that Google has no voting rights... I found that rather unlikely.

Google Stock: A Tale of Two Share Classes (GOOG, GOOGL)

So a little background: There are different classes of shares. Class B, are the insider shares. These have 10 votes each, and are not sold publicly.

Class C shares, are the lowest class, and have no voting rights.

Class A shares, have voting rights. If you want voting rights, you can buy shares with them.

As for dividend payments...

You never know if the policy might change. Apple never paid a dividend from 1976 to 2011. Now they pay dividends.

More importantly, not paying dividends didn't stop people from owning stock in Apple, and making really good returns on it, from 1976 to 2011.

So I don't see a problem.

What is interesting just in thinking about it... it's fascinating how many hundreds of times left-wing people on here have complained about corporations giving money to the shareholders. Now you are pointing to companies that don't pay out to shareholders, and complaining about those companies.

Is there anything any company can do, that you won't find fault with? Just curious.

 

[Andylusion]

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Would that require them to..


spec·u·late
/ˈspekyəˌlāt/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1.
   form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
   "my colleagues speculate about my private life"
   
   Similar:
   conjecture
   
   
   theorize
   theorized that the atolls marked the sites of vanished volcanoes" data-hw="theorize" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-url="/search?rlz=1C1PRFI_enUS784US784&sxsrf=ACYBGNQszNq2Sy8fH4i7oKmHktshgSaofg:1571873851052&q=define+theorize&forcedict=theorize&dictcorpus=en-US">
   
   form theories
   
   hypothesize
   
   
   make suppositions
   
   postulate
   
   
   guess
   
   
   make guesses
   
   surmise
   
   
   think
   
   
   wonder
   
   
   muse
   
   
   
2. 2.
   invest in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.
   "he didn't look as though he had the money to speculate in stocks"

speculate - Google Search

Obviously, a guy like you, with no money, doesn't need to worry about buying any stocks.

Leave the speculating to others.

Obviously, a guy like you, with no money, doesn't need to worry about buying any stocks.

Leave the speculating to others.

"'The U.S. financial markets had always been either corrupt or about to be corrupted.' – Michael Lewis, Flash Boys"

Wall Street has Always Been Corrupt…

Ah bull. This is just a ranting of a whiny person that does not know how the system works, and because he doesn't know, assumes the worst in everyone involved.

The greed and envy, is coming from the people on the outside, being bitter they are not on the inside.

Tell the worthless trash that wrote that BS crap, to first get a job in Wall St, learn how the system works, and after working their 5 years, then tell me that everyone is terrible and explain why.

Why do stupid people, keep finding the most ignorant of noise makers, and pretend they have a clue what is going on?

"This guy is yelling about Wall St! I'm yelling about Wall St! He must be smart, because he's yelling about the same people I am!"

Garbage.

 

[Andylusion]

Can't believe I waded through 14 pages on this thread. George, are you feeling underpaid for the value you provide to your employer and this is the way you hope to extract more money from the company you work for?

After you and Warren successfully ruin the USA, are you going after China or Russia with this scheme, because you can be damn sure neither of those countries operates like Europe (which you seem extremely fond of).

How expensive are one-way tickets to Spain? Brush up on your Spanish.

Is capitalism working well for you, OMG?
If so, I suspect you are among the investor class.

Well yeah. That's how you stop being poor.

If you never join the investor class, then you will be poor until you die.

That's not a problem of the investor class... that's a problem of you being stupid.

All smart people are investors. ALL.... ALL smart people are investors.

Not investing, by definition, makes you an idiot..... unless you are a monk somewhere with a vow of poverty, or something.

Instead of crying, and whining about investors.... stop being an idiot, and become an investor yourself.

A janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune and left most of it to his library and hospital

And stop spamming the thread. If you don't cut it out, I'll have you reported, and your posts removed.

This is a forum for discussion... not you doing cut and paste every post.

 

[basquebromance]

half of Crosby Stills Nash and Young endorsed Warren. that's two thirds of Crosby Stills And Nash

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

GeorgePhillip, I am not an investor - sorry. I'm just a blue collar guy who spent his life working in law enforcement and corrections, I never made enough to be an investor.

If Europeans want to allow, or mandate, such practices in their countries, that's up to them.

 

[georgephillip]

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Would that require them to..


spec·u·late
/ˈspekyəˌlāt/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1.
   form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
   "my colleagues speculate about my private life"
   
   Similar:
   conjecture
   
   
   theorize
   theorized that the atolls marked the sites of vanished volcanoes" data-hw="theorize" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-url="/search?rlz=1C1PRFI_enUS784US784&sxsrf=ACYBGNQszNq2Sy8fH4i7oKmHktshgSaofg:1571873851052&q=define+theorize&forcedict=theorize&dictcorpus=en-US">
   
   form theories
   
   hypothesize
   
   
   make suppositions
   
   postulate
   
   
   guess
   
   
   make guesses
   
   surmise
   
   
   think
   
   
   wonder
   
   
   muse
   
   
   
2. 2.
   invest in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.
   "he didn't look as though he had the money to speculate in stocks"

speculate - Google Search

Obviously, a guy like you, with no money, doesn't need to worry about buying any stocks.

Leave the speculating to others.

Obviously, a guy like you, with no money, doesn't need to worry about buying any stocks.

Leave the speculating to others.

"'The U.S. financial markets had always been either corrupt or about to be corrupted.' – Michael Lewis, Flash Boys"

Wall Street has Always Been Corrupt…

So is the WWF-but it survives and thrives.

So is the WWF-but it survives and thrives

But unlike the WWF, Wall Street fraud has the capacity to crash the global economy (again)

How Wall Street cost you $70,000

 

[georgephillip]

nothing in america is free. if you are getting something without paying for it, see a taxpayer and thank him! everyday!

Would that taxpayer be among the richest ten percent of Americans?

Free Lunch - David Cay Johnston - Book Review

"'Free Lunch' consists of 26 chapters, each a case study of a corporation enriching itself through lax or solicitous government: beggar-thy-neighbor state and local tax breaks to lure businesses, government subsidies for sports stadium construction, electricity deregulation and so on."

Imho, rich people have been getting things without paying for them for as long as the USA has existed.

Over much of that time corporations have expanded their power largely through the courts.

Warren is calling for a democratic (congressional) reassessment of the political leverage corporations, and the investor class they fund, have acquired over the majority of Americans across the past two hundred years.

Assessing Political leverage of the corporations? This coming from the side that has no problem of American tax dollars being routed through public service Union dues. Go assess that first. Then assess corporate cronyism.

Assessing Political leverage of the corporations? This coming from the side that has no problem of American tax dollars being routed through public service Union dues. Go assess that first. Then assess corporate cronyism.

It's no contest

This Graph Shows Which Political Party Corporate America Loves the Most

 

[georgephillip]

Market value or par value?
Google currently trades for over $1200, but the corporation states in writing it doesn't pay dividends, there are no voting rights, and the par value of GOOG is only $0.001 per share. "The value of a stock is just an idea. It is something completely cerebral and imaginary. Real money on the other hand, is finite, traceable, and ...what investors ultimately care about."

How true is the statement that the stock market is essentially a Ponzi scheme? - Quora

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

Assuming there's always a Greater Fool

"The Greater Fool Theory is the notion that even when an asset is fully valued or overvalued, there is room for that asset's value to increase even further because there are 'greater fools' out there to push prices up purely due to hype or speculation."

The Greater Fool Theory — Steemit

If their $50 earnings are projected to hit $60 next year and $72 the year after, does that mean new buyers are "greater fools"?

If their $50 earnings are projected to hit $60 next year and $72 the year after, does that mean new buyers are "greater fools"?

Ask Liz

Elizabeth Warren puts a giant tech breakup billboard in San Francisco’s face

What happens to the Biggest Fools when capitalism's inherent bubbles inevitably POP?

Liz is one of the greatest fools we have.

Liz is one of the greatest fools we have.

Trump borrowing from China to pay Chinese company hit by his trade war with China up to $560 million

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

Assuming there's always a Greater Fool

"The Greater Fool Theory is the notion that even when an asset is fully valued or overvalued, there is room for that asset's value to increase even further because there are 'greater fools' out there to push prices up purely due to hype or speculation."

The Greater Fool Theory — Steemit

If their $50 earnings are projected to hit $60 next year and $72 the year after, does that mean new buyers are "greater fools"?

If their $50 earnings are projected to hit $60 next year and $72 the year after, does that mean new buyers are "greater fools"?

Ask Liz

Elizabeth Warren puts a giant tech breakup billboard in San Francisco’s face

What happens to the Biggest Fools when capitalism's inherent bubbles inevitably POP?

Liz is one of the greatest fools we have.

Liz is one of the greatest fools we have.

Trump borrowing from China to pay Chinese company hit by his trade war with China up to $560 million

And he beat one of the smartest women in America.

What happens to the Biggest Fools when capitalism's inherent bubbles inevitably POP?

Our economy will still be miles ahead of your favorite commie economies.

 

[georgephillip]

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Would that require them to..


spec·u·late
/ˈspekyəˌlāt/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1.
   form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
   "my colleagues speculate about my private life"
   
   Similar:
   conjecture
   
   
   theorize
   theorized that the atolls marked the sites of vanished volcanoes" data-hw="theorize" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-url="/search?rlz=1C1PRFI_enUS784US784&sxsrf=ACYBGNQszNq2Sy8fH4i7oKmHktshgSaofg:1571873851052&q=define+theorize&forcedict=theorize&dictcorpus=en-US">
   
   form theories
   
   hypothesize
   
   
   make suppositions
   
   postulate
   
   
   guess
   
   
   make guesses
   
   surmise
   
   
   think
   
   
   wonder
   
   
   muse
   
   
   
2. 2.
   invest in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.
   "he didn't look as though he had the money to speculate in stocks"

speculate - Google Search

Obviously, a guy like you, with no money, doesn't need to worry about buying any stocks.

Leave the speculating to others.

Obviously, a guy like you, with no money, doesn't need to worry about buying any stocks.

Leave the speculating to others.

"'The U.S. financial markets had always been either corrupt or about to be corrupted.' – Michael Lewis, Flash Boys"

Wall Street has Always Been Corrupt…

Ah bull. This is just a ranting of a whiny person that does not know how the system works, and because he doesn't know, assumes the worst in everyone involved.

The greed and envy, is coming from the people on the outside, being bitter they are not on the inside.

Tell the worthless trash that wrote that BS crap, to first get a job in Wall St, learn how the system works, and after working their 5 years, then tell me that everyone is terrible and explain why.

Why do stupid people, keep finding the most ignorant of noise makers, and pretend they have a clue what is going on?

"This guy is yelling about Wall St! I'm yelling about Wall St! He must be smart, because he's yelling about the same people I am!"

Garbage.

Ah bull. This is just a ranting of a whiny person that does not know how the system works, and because he doesn't know, assumes the worst in everyone involved.

The greed and envy, is coming from the people on the outside, being bitter they are not on the inside.

Tell the worthless trash that wrote that BS crap, to first get a job in Wall St, learn how the system works, and after working their 5 years, then tell me that everyone is terrible and explain why.

Why do stupid people, keep finding the most ignorant of noise makers, and pretend they have a clue what is going on?

Who are you yelling about?
Michael Lewis?

Michael Lewis - Wikipedia

"Lewis subsequently enrolled at the London School of Economics and received an MA in economics in 1985.[6][7]

"Lewis was hired by Salomon Brothers, stayed for a while in New York for their training program, and then relocated to London where he worked at Salomon's London office as a bond salesman for a few years.[8]

"Writing[edit]

"Lewis described his experiences at Salomon and the evolution of the mortgage-backed bond in Liar's Poker (1989).

" In The New New Thing (1999), he investigated the then-booming Silicon Valley and discussed obsession with innovation. Four years later, Lewis wrote Moneyball (2003), in which he investigated the success of Billy Beane and the Oakland A's. In August 2007, he wrote an article about catastrophe bonds, titled 'In Nature's Casino', that appeared in The New York Times Magazine.[9]"

If so, I suspect Michael has a better understanding of how Wall Street works than you and I do (not to mention Trump and Rudy)