Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[AzogtheDefiler]

Georgie only thought the rich could invest. LMAO! Idiot

Georgie any idiot can post pics. How about an original thought or two?

Georgie any idiot can post pics. How about an original thought or two?

Original thought?
Do you mean am I capable of thinking about something no one has ever thought of before?
No.
This is a board for political opinions not original thoughts.
Since there are many publishing regularly on the Internet who share my opinions and are more qualified than I to opine on these subjects, I link my beliefs to sources that I believe support my opinions.
Why would anyone post regularly online without taking advantage of the wealth of information existing there?

So you would rather post other people’s thoughts? I ll explain why because you’re dumb. No one clicks on or reads your links. No one. You’re wasting your time. This is one of your few posts that I read because they were actually your words.

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

My working years were also spent in blue collar employment.
Those years began in the mid-sixties when a single minimum wage job would provide enough income to pay the entire rent on an apartment with enough left over the maintain a 7 year-old car. Today a single minimum wage job pays for homelessness, and I blame tax and trade policies over the past half-century that have privileged capital over labor.

Yeah, same experience here. A job in a restaurant, fry cook or even dishwasher in the early '60's in L.A. county, California, would enable a guy to have a car, an apartment, a child or 2 at home, and the wife at home to take care of the kids. It's the inequality of wealth that's changed which now greatly favors the billionaires...not democrat good, republican bad or vice versa that's being drilled into us.

 

[LeftofLeft]

In all seriousness, this is a crony capitalism dog whistle that socialists use. Warren is doing this to appeal to her Capitalist-hating voter base but is also sending messages to Corporations that if they want to be left off the naughty list, it’s time to pay now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In all seriousness, this is a crony capitalism dog whistle that socialists use. Warren is doing this to appeal to her Capitalist-hating voter base but is also sending messages to Corporations that if they want to be left off the naughty list, it’s time to pay now.

The best way to stay off her naughty list is to beat her like a drum......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

My working years were also spent in blue collar employment.
Those years began in the mid-sixties when a single minimum wage job would provide enough income to pay the entire rent on an apartment with enough left over the maintain a 7 year-old car. Today a single minimum wage job pays for homelessness, and I blame tax and trade policies over the past half-century that have privileged capital over labor.

Yeah, same experience here. A job in a restaurant, fry cook or even dishwasher in the early '60's in L.A. county, California, would enable a guy to have a car, an apartment, a child or 2 at home, and the wife at home to take care of the kids. It's the inequality of wealth that's changed which now greatly favors the billionaires...not democrat good, republican bad or vice versa that's being drilled into us.

Tiny apartments, cheap cars, 6 channels on the black and white.
Weren't competing with 20 million unskilled illegal aliens.
California hadn't turned into a socialist petri dish yet...….

 

[SAYIT]

Georgie only thought the rich could invest. LMAO! Idiot

Georgie any idiot can post pics. How about an original thought or two?

Georgie any idiot can post pics. How about an original thought or two?

Original thought?
Do you mean am I capable of thinking about something no one has ever thought of before?
No.
This is a board for political opinions not original thoughts.
Since there are many publishing regularly on the Internet who share my opinions and are more qualified than I to opine on these subjects, I link my beliefs to sources that I believe support my opinions.
Why would anyone post regularly online without taking advantage of the wealth of information existing there?

So you would rather post other people’s thoughts? I ll explain why because you’re dumb. No one clicks on or reads your links. No one. You’re wasting your time. This is one of your few posts that I read because they were actually your words.

32,000 posts over 10 yrs and only 5,000 ratables, probably half of which were "funnies" as in "the post is STUPID, GP." Nobody takes the bitter commie seriously … nobody.

 

[SAYIT]

Do you understand that in the days of Feudalism....that is when organizations needed a "Royal" charter to exist...right?

I understand this Royal Turd will not be in the White House much longer...

Only a bit more than another 5 years, GP ... hang in there.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Georgie only thought the rich could invest. LMAO! Idiot

Georgie any idiot can post pics. How about an original thought or two?

Georgie any idiot can post pics. How about an original thought or two?

Original thought?
Do you mean am I capable of thinking about something no one has ever thought of before?
No.
This is a board for political opinions not original thoughts.
Since there are many publishing regularly on the Internet who share my opinions and are more qualified than I to opine on these subjects, I link my beliefs to sources that I believe support my opinions.
Why would anyone post regularly online without taking advantage of the wealth of information existing there?

So you would rather post other people’s thoughts? I ll explain why because you’re dumb. No one clicks on or reads your links. No one. You’re wasting your time. This is one of your few posts that I read because they were actually your words.

32,000 posts over 10 yrs and only 5,000 ratables, probably half of which were "funnies" as in "the post is STUPID, GP." Nobody takes the bitter commie seriously … nobody.

Georgie is a parasite.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

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.

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Ponzi scheme - A Simple Explanation of the Concept

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Not even close, by definition.

ot even close, by definition.

Close enough to convince all rational people.
Not so sure about mindless Trump toadies.

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

"The fact is:

1. What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors. Profits from buying and selling stocks come from other investors who are buying and selling stocks. When one investor buys low and sells high, another investor is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher."

Again you could put anything in there.

Profits from buying and selling oil come from other investors who are buying and selling oil.
Profits from buying and selling homes come from other investors who are buying and selling homes.
Profits from buying and selling government bonds come from other investors who are buying and selling government bonds.
Profits from buying and selling land come from other investors who are buying and selling land.

As I have said before, ultimately everything of value, only has that value, because someone somewhere is willing to exchange money for it.

Stocks are no different than any other investment in the world.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

I don't blame corporations for not investing. I chose not to for reasons beyond the discussion here. If one does invest and improves their investments over time, I'm happy those folks are doing well.

I have what I want from life. My home tucked away in the Rocky Mountains, a wife I love dearly, a teenage daughter who always does her best to improve herself. I never wanted much. I'm a simple guy with simple needs.

All that said George, I do not believe workers have the right to be on the board to determine the directions the corporation makes. Plus, show me how you're going to do the same thing for public agencies. Wouldn't they be entitled to the same as those workers in private business sector?

Why should a corporation with over a billion in income have to get a federal charter for? What is the purpose for it?

I also must ask, what if these huge corporations tell the government "hell no" and move to a new country to base their operations from?

I'm not saying the current system is perfect, but let government force control of those companies to change is a recipe for disaster. Government has a proven track record of making things worse.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Poor people have been getting things without paying for them for a long time, too.

Thing is, the policies Warren insists we need, and you blindly parrot, will only put people out of work and dependent on government.

Despite what you've been led to believe, that is not a good thing.

Poor people have been getting things without paying for them for a long time, too.

Thing is, the policies Warren insists we need, and you blindly parrot, will only put people out of work and dependent on government.

Despite what you've been led to believe, that is not a good thing.

How did FDR respond when the owners of capital could not or would not provide jobs during the Great Depression?

Green New Deal - Wikipedia

Bad example. FDR's policies dragged out the great depression. In fact, FDRs policies caused a recession inside the great depression.

Similarly, the Green New Deal would only screw us over.

Bad example. FDR's policies dragged out the great depression. In fact, FDRs policies caused a recession inside the great depression.

FDR's New Deal put millions of Americans back to work when capitalists CRASHED the global economy in 1929. A Green New Deal would have a similar effect; however, rich parasites among the US investor class would not be among those who benefit.

First, off FDR's new deal, was entirely policies that Hoover had in place, before FDR came to power. They didn't restart the economy under Hoover, and certainly didn't under FDR.

Second, as we have posted the research on this before, by most estimates, the policy by FDR not only did not put people back to work, but likely dragged out the recession for decades.

Third, FDR's second New Deal, which was implemented from 1935 to 36, caused a recession during the great depression. Clearly the policies had a negative effect, and only the most foolish and ingnorant can't see what doesn't conform to their partisan belief system.

Forth, you are the most stupid of all partisan bigots, if you really think that investors will not benefit from the green new deal.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Poor people have been getting things without paying for them for a long time, too.

Thing is, the policies Warren insists we need, and you blindly parrot, will only put people out of work and dependent on government.

Despite what you've been led to believe, that is not a good thing.

Poor people have been getting things without paying for them for a long time, too.

Thing is, the policies Warren insists we need, and you blindly parrot, will only put people out of work and dependent on government.

Despite what you've been led to believe, that is not a good thing.

How did FDR respond when the owners of capital could not or would not provide jobs during the Great Depression?

Green New Deal - Wikipedia

Less reliable, more expensive energy…...just what we need to grow our economy...…..DURR

Less reliable, more expensive energy…...just what we need to grow our economy...…..DURR

Greedy *****.

Greedy bitches.

 

[Andylusion]

Georgie only thought the rich could invest. LMAO! Idiot

Georgie any idiot can post pics. How about an original thought or two?

Georgie any idiot can post pics. How about an original thought or two?

Original thought?
Do you mean am I capable of thinking about something no one has ever thought of before?
No.
This is a board for political opinions not original thoughts.
Since there are many publishing regularly on the Internet who share my opinions and are more qualified than I to opine on these subjects, I link my beliefs to sources that I believe support my opinions.
Why would anyone post regularly online without taking advantage of the wealth of information existing there?

So you would rather post other people’s thoughts? I ll explain why because you’re dumb. No one clicks on or reads your links. No one. You’re wasting your time. This is one of your few posts that I read because they were actually your words.

Agreed. Links are useful for backing up an opinion.

But if you are just using links, like you are a walking billboard for some website.... then I usually blow past your post, and at best post an flippant meme or something back.

If I want to read some partisan propaganda website, I would be at that website, instead of here.

 

[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

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.

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.

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Ponzi scheme - A Simple Explanation of the Concept

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Not even close, by definition.

ot even close, by definition.

Close enough to convince all rational people.
Not so sure about mindless Trump toadies.

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

"The fact is:

1. What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors. Profits from buying and selling stocks come from other investors who are buying and selling stocks. When one investor buys low and sells high, another investor is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher."

What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Self-cannibalizing Ponzi scheme characteristic of the greediest society ever to inhabit planet Earth.

"This is actually a negative-sum situation because the underlying company isn’t involved in the transaction.

"The investors are just cannibalizing each other for profits, and there are fees attached to every transaction.”

"Ah, cannibalizing each other for profits—now this is starting to sound like an American enterprise! It says it right there on our flag, 'America: Cannibalizing each other for profits since 1776!'"

Ponzi World (Over 3 Billion NOT Served): The Stock Market Ponzi Scheme. Occupy Deep Karma.

 

[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

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.

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.

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Ponzi scheme - A Simple Explanation of the Concept

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Not even close, by definition.

ot even close, by definition.

Close enough to convince all rational people.
Not so sure about mindless Trump toadies.

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

"The fact is:

1. What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors. Profits from buying and selling stocks come from other investors who are buying and selling stocks. When one investor buys low and sells high, another investor is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher."

What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always

Are you sure you want to bring family into this discussion, Porky?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Ponzi scheme - A Simple Explanation of the Concept

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Not even close, by definition.

ot even close, by definition.

Close enough to convince all rational people.
Not so sure about mindless Trump toadies.

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

"The fact is:

1. What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors. Profits from buying and selling stocks come from other investors who are buying and selling stocks. When one investor buys low and sells high, another investor is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher."

What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Self-cannibalizing Ponzi scheme characteristic of the greediest society ever to inhabit planet Earth.

"This is actually a negative-sum situation because the underlying company isn’t involved in the transaction.

"The investors are just cannibalizing each other for profits, and there are fees attached to every transaction.”

"Ah, cannibalizing each other for profits—now this is starting to sound like an American enterprise! It says it right there on our flag, 'America: Cannibalizing each other for profits since 1776!'"

Ponzi World (Over 3 Billion NOT Served): The Stock Market Ponzi Scheme. Occupy Deep Karma.

You still whining because your pals lost the Cold War? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Ponzi scheme - A Simple Explanation of the Concept

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Not even close, by definition.

ot even close, by definition.

Close enough to convince all rational people.
Not so sure about mindless Trump toadies.

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

"The fact is:

1. What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors. Profits from buying and selling stocks come from other investors who are buying and selling stocks. When one investor buys low and sells high, another investor is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher."

What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always

Are you sure you want to bring family into this discussion, Porky?

Yes, I want to mention your basement living arrangements.

Stick it to the man!!!

 

[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.

/——-/ Unless employees own significant shares of stock or are invested in a privately held company, they have no say in how the company is run. Don’t like it? Then quit and work somewhere else.

/——-/ Unless employees own significant shares of stock or are invested in a privately held company, they have no say in how the company is run. Don’t like it? Then quit and work somewhere else.

What's wrong with any of the following, Loon?

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]"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

/——-/ Unless employees own significant shares of stock or are invested in a privately held company, they have no say in how the company is run. Don’t like it? Then quit and work somewhere else.

/——-/ Unless employees own significant shares of stock or are invested in a privately held company, they have no say in how the company is run. Don’t like it? Then quit and work somewhere else.

What's wrong with any of the following, Loon?

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]"

Warren needs to test out her "plan" on her own corporation first.

Until then, she can buzz off.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

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.

Can you say that in Mandarin?

"The Chinese economy advanced 6.0 percent year-on-year in the September quarter of 2019, slowing from a 6.2 percent expansion in the previous quarter and compared with market expectations of 6.1 percent.

"It was the weakest growth rate since the first quarter of 1992, amid persistent trade tensions with the US, weakening global demand and alarming off-balance-sheet borrowings by local governments. GDP Annual Growth Rate in China averaged 9.39 percent from 1989 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 15.40 percent in the first quarter of 1993 and a record low of 3.80 percent in the fourth quarter of 1990."

China GDP Annual Growth Rate | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

Can you say that in Mandarin?

Commie economies suck, in Mandarin.

The Chinese economy advanced 6.0 percent year-on-year in the September quarter of 2019​

If you believe those numbers, you're even dumber than I first suspected.

If you believe those numbers, you're even dumber than I first suspected.

You believe this useless POS?

Source: Trump 'seething' about Cohen, says 'he's a liar' - CNN Video

Yes, Commie lies about statistics are just like Cohen.

That's rich.
A capitalist WHINING about lies.

Wall Street Is the Definition of a Ponzi Scheme (Literally)

"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) defines a Ponzi scheme as '[a]n investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.'

"The stock market is a Ponzi scheme.

"A Ponzi scheme is the stock market.

"Some may argue that a Ponzi scheme usually involves lying to the investor.

"But Wall Street has that in spades as well.

"Most investors don’t understand that they own literally nothing.

"They don’t know that they are simply gambling.

"And they don’t know that their profit relies on everyone still believing the fraud is real."