Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 4 Nov 2009 08:32 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:48:55 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:40:32 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:25 -0800, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:02:38 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru(a)devnull.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>> My sentiment as well, but someone has to run run the country and try to >>>>>> balance the budgets. It would help the west if we all stopped exporting >>>>>> jobs to China, but you can blame global multinationals for that, who >>>>>> have no interest other than shareholder value. >>>>> >>>>> No business is run as a charity. All businesses do what they have to >>>>> do to compete and survive. And shareholders hire boards and executives >>>>> exactly to maximize the value of their stocks; wouldn't you? So, given >>>>> all that, tax policy should be structured to do the most good, which >>>>> includes creating jobs so that people have earnings so that they can >>>>> pay taxes. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Also, with all the common dissing of shareholder value one must not >>>>forget one thing: Who started the company and who sunk money into it? >>>>Right, shareholders. They take risks and, rightfully, they want to be >>>>rewarded for taking those risks. At least in America. >>> >>>That's true for IPOs. But after that, the stocks usually become poker >>>chips in a big gambling operation that's disconnected from the >>>company's real performance. Nobody much buys stocks for dividends any >>>more. >> >>THe do expect the company to grow. Profits turned back into growth or >>turned back to the shareholder, either way the shareholder's worth >>increases. > >Most stockholders don't get value from the company's profits. They get >it from selling their stock to others. The value of the stock is >largely perceptive, sometimes driven only by the positive feedback of >its own increase or decrease in the market. When you buy a share of >stock on the market, the company gets no investment from that >purchase, except for IPOs and new issues. The dot.com boom had lots of >cases of stocks increasing wildly in value as the underlying companies >had massive losses on absurd business models. > >The stock market is mostly a gambling pool, with a house cut. House cut? How is it extracted and who gets it and how? Inquiring minds want to know. > >John >
From: John Larkin on 4 Nov 2009 09:50 On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:32:35 -0800, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:48:55 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:40:32 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:25 -0800, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:02:38 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru(a)devnull.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> My sentiment as well, but someone has to run run the country and try to >>>>>>> balance the budgets. It would help the west if we all stopped exporting >>>>>>> jobs to China, but you can blame global multinationals for that, who >>>>>>> have no interest other than shareholder value. >>>>>> >>>>>> No business is run as a charity. All businesses do what they have to >>>>>> do to compete and survive. And shareholders hire boards and executives >>>>>> exactly to maximize the value of their stocks; wouldn't you? So, given >>>>>> all that, tax policy should be structured to do the most good, which >>>>>> includes creating jobs so that people have earnings so that they can >>>>>> pay taxes. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Also, with all the common dissing of shareholder value one must not >>>>>forget one thing: Who started the company and who sunk money into it? >>>>>Right, shareholders. They take risks and, rightfully, they want to be >>>>>rewarded for taking those risks. At least in America. >>>> >>>>That's true for IPOs. But after that, the stocks usually become poker >>>>chips in a big gambling operation that's disconnected from the >>>>company's real performance. Nobody much buys stocks for dividends any >>>>more. >>> >>>THe do expect the company to grow. Profits turned back into growth or >>>turned back to the shareholder, either way the shareholder's worth >>>increases. >> >>Most stockholders don't get value from the company's profits. They get >>it from selling their stock to others. The value of the stock is >>largely perceptive, sometimes driven only by the positive feedback of >>its own increase or decrease in the market. When you buy a share of >>stock on the market, the company gets no investment from that >>purchase, except for IPOs and new issues. The dot.com boom had lots of >>cases of stocks increasing wildly in value as the underlying companies >>had massive losses on absurd business models. >> >>The stock market is mostly a gambling pool, with a house cut. > >House cut? How is it extracted and who gets it and how? Inquiring >minds want to know. > >> >>John >> Brokerage and asset management fees. And the more subtle extraction of value from the system by can't-lose automated trading, inside deals, VC parasitism, and management cut-outs. In Las Vegas at least you get free drinks. Whining minds are answered. John
From: JosephKK on 4 Nov 2009 09:52 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:23:31 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru(a)devnull.com> wrote: >> >>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>>> Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-) >>>> >>> My sentiment as well, but someone has to run run the country and try to >>> balance the budgets. It would help the west if we all stopped exporting >>> jobs to China, but you can blame global multinationals for that, who >>> have no interest other than shareholder value. >> >> No business is run as a charity. All businesses do what they have to >> do to compete and survive. And shareholders hire boards and executives >> exactly to maximize the value of their stocks; wouldn't you? So, given > >It depends on whether they maximise the long term value of their stocks >by genuine management skill and organic growth or talk the price up with >a well constructed pack of lies and then dump the stock at peak market >leaving real long term investors to carry the can. The dot.com boom was >a pretty good example of that scam. > >> all that, tax policy should be structured to do the most good, which >> includes creating jobs so that people have earnings so that they can >> pay taxes. > >No disagreement there. And simpler tax systems are better - but you do >have to do something smart to make sure that working harder always >creates a monotonically improving situation for most people. > >> We all want free market >>> economics, but business is now too powerfull for the good of nations. >> >> Business is 100% of all economies. Business has to be powerful because >> it creates wealth and stuff. As long as businesses compete, the more >> powerful the business side of the economy, the better off everybody >> is. The miserable nations suffer from too little business, not too >> much. > >Remind me how it was that we ended up having to bail out banks with vast >amounts of taxpayers money? Heads we win - tails you lose casino banking. > >The increasing volume of high frequency trades looks like it will be the >next variant on the theme of too big to fail high loss city trading >MFUs. Around 70% of US stock transactions are now high speed programmed >trades parasitic on the businesses they purport to be dealing in. UK >experts are worried that the trend will totally destabilise the markets. > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8338045.stm > >They have found a new high stakes pass the parcel gambling game. > >Regards, >Martin Brown A little behind the times are you?
From: John Larkin on 4 Nov 2009 09:53 On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:18:07 -0800, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:24:05 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:32 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>[...] >>> >>>>> Jobs? The current health care bill penalizes employers who don't >>>>> provide government-approved health care. So, when you make it a >>>>> greater and greater pain to employ people, the easy, obvious, and only >>>>> solution is to outsource, to export jobs, to hire fewer workers. So >>>>> of course there'll be fewer jobs. I, personally, will create fewer >>>>> jobs. I guarantee it. >>>> >>>> I'll probably hold the line at about 20 employees and do more >>>> outsourcing and contracting. ... >>> >>> >>>When they go through with the net receipts tax thing in CA where >>>salaries are supposedly non-deductible the others will do exactly the >>>same. >> >>There are idiots claiming that a 5% net receipts tax is no more >>burdensome than a 10% tax on profits. 5 is smaller than 10, don't you >>see? >> >>John > >I'll bet not a damn one of them has _ever_ been legitimately (ever >actually having a profit) in business. Have you? John
From: JosephKK on 4 Nov 2009 10:08
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:39:24 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:57:57 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >wrote: > >>On Nov 2, 5:22 pm, ChrisQ <m...(a)devnull.com> wrote: >>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>> > Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-) >>> >>> My sentiment as well, but someone has to run run the country and try to >>> balance the budgets. >> >>You meant "unbalance," right? >> >>> It would help the west if we all stopped exporting >>> jobs to China, but you can blame global multinationals for that, who >>> have no interest other than shareholder value. We all want free market >>> economics, but business is now too powerfull for the good of nations. >>> Finding the right balance is not a job I would want. >>> >>> But heck, what would I know, being in europe ?... >> >>Businesses powerful? Businesses are lucky to make 10%. So if you try >>to take an extra 10%, they leave (or die). Outsourcing is just >>capital fleeing oppression. > >Both the oil companies and the health insurance companies run ballpark >4% profit on revenues. And most people hate them for that 4%. > >John Only after the funky accounting. Nobody really knows how profitable really big business is except some of their accountants. |