Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure, but you still would have made more if you invested a set amount of money in costco over walmart. Walmart and all it's assets are a much larger operation, but bigger isn't necessarily better.

P/E ratios don't indicate the earnings of shareholders. They indicate the price of units of production (measured in currency) for the company in question. So new companies that are promising, like Costco, will often see elevated P/E ratios due to demand caused by investors trying to get in early.

Sure, but if you look at the growth rate, you still would have made more money if you invested in costco, over walmart. Sure many experts currently believe that costco stock is overvalued and walmart stock is undervalued, making walmart stock potentially the better buy IF their values follow. But costco has a very consistent record of performance.

Some investment professionals base this on a feel good feeling when you buy costco stock. It does perform well, and it appears to do it in a morally responsible way.

Andrew1975 wrote:

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure, but you still would have made more if you invested a set amount of money in costco over walmart. Walmart and all it's assets are a much larger operation, but bigger isn't necessarily better.

P/E ratios don't indicate the earnings of shareholders. They indicate the price of units of production (measured in currency) for the company in question. So new companies that are promising, like Costco, will often see elevated P/E ratios due to demand caused by investors trying to get in early.

Sure, but if you look at the growth rate, you still would have made more money if you invested in costco, over walmart. Sure many experts currently believe that costco stock is overvalued and walmart stock is undervalued, making walmart stock potentially the better buy IF their values follow. But costco has a very consistent record of performance.

Stock investment is also not about making a quick buck but rather investing in high growth opportunities over time (unless you're a day trader). Costco has a much great chance of imploding then walmart. This conversation is kinda silly and pointless.

Indeed, I listed them as a good example. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Even still, I don't consider stockholders to be a measure of success or quality. Stockholders are frequently driven by superstition, rumormongering, and other negative things.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure, but if you look at the growth rate, you still would have made more money if you invested in costco, over walmart. Sure many experts currently believe that costco stock is overvalued and walmart stock is undervalued, making walmart stock potentially the better buy IF their values follow. But costco has a very consistent record of performance.

Some investment professionals base this on a feel good feeling when you buy costco stock. It does perform well, and it appears to do it in a morally responsible way.

There's also the tendency of new companies to grow in comparison to more established firms that have often hit a plateau.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure, but you still would have made more if you invested a set amount of money in costco over walmart. Walmart and all it's assets are a much larger operation, but bigger isn't necessarily better.

P/E ratios don't indicate the earnings of shareholders. They indicate the price of units of production (measured in currency) for the company in question. So new companies that are promising, like Costco, will often see elevated P/E ratios due to demand caused by investors trying to get in early.

Sure, but if you look at the growth rate, you still would have made more money if you invested in costco, over walmart. Sure many experts currently believe that costco stock is overvalued and walmart stock is undervalued, making walmart stock potentially the better buy IF their values follow. But costco has a very consistent record of performance.

Stock investment is also not about making a quick buck but rather investing in high growth opportunities over time (unless you're a day trader). Costco has a much great chance of imploding then walmart. This conversation is kinda silly and pointless.

Yeah, I'm not sure what part of consistent record of performance you are missing here? costco has throughout it's history provided strong returns, usually stronger than wallmarts.

There's also the tendency of new companies to grow in comparison to more established firms that have often hit a plateau.

Would you consider costco a new company? Yeah, they are not sears, but they have been around for awhile. Walmart started in the 60's and was led by Sam Walton, the guy drove the same old truck to work almost until the day he died. Walmart really changed after his sons death in a plane crash. Costco has been around since the mid 80's. So really they new walmart is not so much older than Costco.

Another real good example of the Rich using political influence to make money can be seen in the Medical field, especially Big Pharma. GlaxoSmithKline sells AIDS medication for $18 dollars a day in the US, but is sells it everywhere else for $.40 a day. Why? because there are generic competitors in those markets. The generic competitors are not available in US markets because of federal regulation. Big Pharma is one of the highest profit operations in the US. So to those that say the government only helps the poor, you really need to think again.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Last year Barclay Bank paid its top 200 executives about £550 million in remuneration and emoluments. In 2009 Barclays Bank paid the UK Government £113 million in tax.

We've doshed out £200 billion in quantitative easing (printing money) to make the banks' lives easier. That is coming back to the public in the form of inflation.

You can't look at figures like that and say the UK is doing well out of Barclays Bank.

I read this a while back..

http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/3566/investing-strategy/should-uk-adults-be-given-shares-in-bailedout-banks.html

The fact of the matter is, even if you take a bad example (Barclays) If they continue to pay back £113m in tax per year without requring more public money, then yes, the UK will make money. Profits are up for almost all of the bailed out banks, If they continue on a steady upwards route then Gordon will have done something right for once, and then the cash will come back in to the government. RBS was the worst of the lot, and im pretty sure the Labour government was behind that merger with Halifax as they seemed to have an agenda to pass our money north of the border, but thats by the by.

Educated intelligent professionals who actually work in the industry would doubtless agree in a strong majority that the bank bail out was either a good idea, or at the worst a necessary evil. People who have no full understanding of the situation no doubt think it is a terrible idea and we should all make placards and march about it. Who do you think deserves to be labelled an idiot here? Some of the best educated people in the country, our leaders and statesmen who understand the complexities of economics or the masked tits with anarchist slogans painted on their shirts?

And whats wrong with calling class warriors buffoons? They are. I mentioned nobody on the forum, just made a generalisation about a group I find to be ridiculous. You wouldnt have an issue if i called the BNP buffoons or the Klu Klux Klan buffoons now would you? Class warriors and anarchist types have a pre determined loathing for the people they see as "the other side" and an absurd "eat the rich" mentality, usually obtained via the medium of parental indoctrination. Why do you constantly try to badger me into "respecting" people who I clearly have no respect for? I have about as much interest in socialising with the anarchist thugs who smashed the city up and urinated on the war memorials as I have with the Klu Klux Klan to be fair.

mattyrm wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Last year Barclay Bank paid its top 200 executives about £550 million in remuneration and emoluments. In 2009 Barclays Bank paid the UK Government £113 million in tax.

We've doshed out £200 billion in quantitative easing (printing money) to make the banks' lives easier. That is coming back to the public in the form of inflation.

You can't look at figures like that and say the UK is doing well out of Barclays Bank.

I read this a while back..

http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/3566/investing-strategy/should-uk-adults-be-given-shares-in-bailedout-banks.html

The fact of the matter is, even if you take a bad example (Barclays) If they continue to pay back £113m in tax per year without requring more public money, then yes, the UK will make money. Profits are up for almost all of the bailed out banks, If they continue on a steady upwards route then Gordon will have done something right for once, and then the cash will come back in to the government. RBS was the worst of the lot, and im pretty sure the Labour government was behind that merger with Halifax as they seemed to have an agenda to pass our money north of the border, but thats by the by.

Educated intelligent professionals who actually work in the industry would doubtless agree in a strong majority that the bank bail out was either a good idea, or at the worst a necessary evil. People who have no full understanding of the situation no doubt think it is a terrible idea and we should all make placards and march about it. Who do you think deserves to be labelled an idiot here? Some of the best educated people in the country, our leaders and statesmen who understand the complexities of economics or the masked tits with anarchist slogans painted on their shirts?

And whats wrong with calling class warriors buffoons? They are. I mentioned nobody on the forum, just made a generalisation about a group I find to be ridiculous. You wouldnt have an issue if i called the BNP buffoons or the Klu Klux Klan buffoons now would you? Class warriors and anarchist types have a pre determined loathing for the people they see as "the other side" and an absurd "eat the rich" mentality, usually obtained via the medium of parental indoctrination. Why do you constantly try to badger me into "respecting" people who I clearly have no respect for? I have about as much interest in socialising with the anarchist thugs who smashed the city up and urinated on the war memorials as I have with the Klu Klux Klan to be fair.

So the fact that they should be paying 113m in tax on the regular gives them an excuse to get bailed out and not pay the bail out. I'd tale a few mil from the govenment if all I had to ever pay was the taxes I would be paying anyway. Where do I sign up?

Are class warriors only lower class and hate the rich? Because I've seen a lot of examples of class warfare where it appears to me the rich have declared war on everyone else, and they aren't just protesting and waving signs. They are taking peoples security blankets.

Yeah, I'm not sure what part of consistent record of performance you are missing here? costco has throughout it's history provided strong returns, usually stronger than wallmarts.

Over evaluation is an implication of a coming lack of said consistency. Investing in them in the mid 80s would certainly be a win (though I couldn't find when they actually went public). Our conversation has covered both long term and short term investment interchangeably with you implying both and implying immediacy in their value as an investment (they aren't great currently since the stock is likely to fall more then it is to rise).

We should keep our timelines straight when discussing such things.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yeah, I'm not sure what part of consistent record of performance you are missing here? costco has throughout it's history provided strong returns, usually stronger than wallmarts.

Over evaluation is an implication of a coming lack of said consistency. Investing in them in the mid 80s would certainly be a win (though I couldn't find when they actually went public). Our conversation has covered both long term and short term investment interchangeably with you implying both and implying immediacy in their value as an investment (they aren't great currently since the stock is likely to fall more then it is to rise).

We should keep our timelines straight when discussing such things.

Well I admitted that right now it might not be the best time to invest in Costco, But I also said had you invested (which would be past tense) you would have done better. Short term or long term in the past they would have been a good investment. Right now there is a lot of speculation that there is a Costco bubble. Only the future can tell, some bubbles never pop, because they are not bubbles. Historically both costco and walmart stock have boggled investment gurus. Costcos always seams to over valued and walmarts under valued. There are theories, but all you can say is that's how they trade.

There is possible looming future inconsistency, but historically they have been consistent.

Some people think walmart is an untouchable juggernaut, but people used to think the same about Sears and JC Penny's.

Walmart is the number 1 private sector employer at a staggering 2.5mil employees. Most of these jobs pay below the poverty line and have little benefits. Welfare rates vary but some list it as high as 60% of walmart workers are on welfare. That means everyone that pays taxes is subsidizing healthcare for walmart....It's not such a great deal anymore is it? The CEO of walmart gets paid the equivalent of 800 times his average employee! That is just one of the executives.

2.5 mil jobs is a lot of job creation, but when you consider all the small businesses they have destroyed there is most likely a net employment loss.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Would you consider costco a new company? Yeah, they are not sears, but they have been around for awhile.

Not really. Founded in '83 IPO in '03 if I recall correctly.

mattyrm wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Last year Barclay Bank paid its top 200 executives about £550 million in remuneration and emoluments. In 2009 Barclays Bank paid the UK Government £113 million in tax.

We've doshed out £200 billion in quantitative easing (printing money) to make the banks' lives easier. That is coming back to the public in the form of inflation.

You can't look at figures like that and say the UK is doing well out of Barclays Bank.

I read this a while back..

http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/3566/investing-strategy/should-uk-adults-be-given-shares-in-bailedout-banks.html

The fact of the matter is, even if you take a bad example (Barclays) If they continue to pay back £113m in tax per year without requring more public money, then yes, the UK will make money. Profits are up for almost all of the bailed out banks, If they continue on a steady upwards route then Gordon will have done something right for once, and then the cash will come back in to the government. RBS was the worst of the lot, and im pretty sure the Labour government was behind that merger with Halifax as they seemed to have an agenda to pass our money north of the border, but thats by the by.

Educated intelligent professionals who actually work in the industry would doubtless agree in a strong majority that the bank bail out was either a good idea, or at the worst a necessary evil. People who have no full understanding of the situation no doubt think it is a terrible idea and we should all make placards and march about it. Who do you think deserves to be labelled an idiot here? Some of the best educated people in the country, our leaders and statesmen who understand the complexities of economics or the masked tits with anarchist slogans painted on their shirts?

And whats wrong with calling class warriors buffoons? They are. I mentioned nobody on the forum, just made a generalisation about a group I find to be ridiculous. You wouldnt have an issue if i called the BNP buffoons or the Klu Klux Klan buffoons now would you? Class warriors and anarchist types have a pre determined loathing for the people they see as "the other side" and an absurd "eat the rich" mentality, usually obtained via the medium of parental indoctrination. Why do you constantly try to badger me into "respecting" people who I clearly have no respect for? I have about as much interest in socialising with the anarchist thugs who smashed the city up and urinated on the war memorials as I have with the Klu Klux Klan to be fair.

The issue I have with you calling class warriors buffoons is threefold.

1. There is no such group as a class warrior. It's a designation you have invented for yourself to designate left leaning people with whom you disagree. It's too broad on the one hand, OTOH you are ignoring the existence of right wing class warriors.

The KKK and BNP are clearly differentiated, self-identifying organisations, which members actively join.

2. Related to 1. The BNP and KKK are outspoken against various core human rights. Your "class warriors" however are often (as in this case) simply making economic arguments which you disagree with.

3. Related to 2. Economic arguments are fairly technical and not open to easy proofs, so there is no reason to call people buffoons because they take a different view to yours. They may have more knowledge in the subject, or just have a different viewpoint.

In short, the way you use the term is basically insulting and trolling left wingers on the forum.

I don't care whether you respect people, but you are not allowed to troll people. It is against the rules.

If you disagree with these ideas, please contact some other moderators or the site owners for clarification.

Meh, I'm not even what I would call left-winged. I just think our tax system is disastrously designed, and favors those with lots of wealth due to its insane amount of loopholes.

Unless one wants to argue that thinking that many CEOs don't deserve their bonus and severage packages means that I'm left-winged? But then, that has nothing to do with the fundamentals of left or right wing economic ideology. One can be a devout capitalist and still say that a company is wrong for giving a bad CEO bonuses he didn't deserve. Doing that goes against the general capitalistic ideals in the first place.

Melissia wrote:Meh, I'm not even what I would call left-winged. I just think our tax system is disastrously designed, and favors those with lots of wealth due to its insane amount of loopholes.

Unless one wants to argue that thinking that many CEOs don't deserve their bonus and severage packages means that I'm left-winged? But then, that has nothing to do with the fundamentals of left or right wing economic ideology. One can be a devout capitalist and still say that a company is wrong for giving a bad CEO bonuses he didn't deserve. Doing that goes against the general capitalistic ideals in the first place.

That's where you fall into the trap, a pure capitalist doesn't believe that anyone should have restrictions as to how much they make, high or low. They let the market dictate it and leave it at that.

I personally think it's none of my business what a privately held company decides to pay their CEO's, it's not my decision to make.

Thank Woodrow Wilson for our tax system.

No, pure capitalism says that the purpose of a company is to make profits. These tactics are detrimental to that purpose.

Melissia wrote:No, pure capitalism says that the purpose of a company is to make profits. These tactics are detrimental to that purpose.

Where are you getting that from? Profits are merely the end.

The dictionary definition of capitalism?

Definitions of capitalism vary quite widely from person to person, but there a consistent aspect throughout history: In capitalism, property and capital are privately owned and utilized to create goods and services for profit.

Giving bonuses ONTOP of the salary to someone for doing a bad job only encourages them to continue doing a bad job, after all there's no incentive for them to do better-- they're already being rewarded for slacking off and doing poorly, so why bother doing well? A manager who consistently does poorly reduces the profits of the company.

Melissia wrote:These tactics are detrimental to that purpose.

As can be easily discerned through minimal research, there are number of highly profitable corporations that engage in said practices.

As I said earlier, I think you're substituting "detrimental to profits" for "immoral" or "something that I don't like".

Stormrider wrote:
That's where you fall into the trap, a pure capitalist doesn't believe that anyone should have restrictions as to how much they make, high or low. They let the market dictate it and leave it at that.

There's no such thing as pure capitalism, and I sincerely doubt that anyone who might, conceivably, benefit from such a system (broadly, pure unfettered exchange) would actually want it put into place. At some point the amalgamation of wealth leads naturally to something that doesn't favor a capitalist economy.

There's no such thing as pure capitalism, and I sincerely doubt that anyone who might, conceivably, benefit from such a system (broadly, pure unfettered exchange) would actually want it put into place. At some point the amalgamation of wealth leads naturally to something that doesn't favor a capitalist economy.

True, true. Pure Capitalism would eat itself.

dogma wrote:As can be easily discerned through minimal research, there are number of highly profitable corporations that engage in said practices.

And they are profitable despite these practices, not because of them.

Stormrider wrote:That's where you fall into the trap, a pure capitalist doesn't believe that anyone should have restrictions as to how much they make, high or low. They let the market dictate it and leave it at that. I personally think it's none of my business what a privately held company decides to pay their CEO's, it's not my decision to make.

How 'private' is a company that gets direct payments from the government, tax breaks that smaller companies don't get, special laws passed hindering new entrants to the marketplace, special laws mandating use of their products, special laws giving people money to buy their products but not other newer ones, special laws to disallow contracts they don't like, special laws immunizing them from criminal charges even for outright fraud and huge negligent destruction, and all of the other shennanigans large companies engage in now? How can you say that the market is deciding executive salaries when there isn't any market force there - you have holding companies pulling tricks with ownership so that most of the people who own stock have little or no say in the makeup of boards of directors, who then vote themselves and their cronies huge bonuses that aren't tied to anything the person actually does for the company.

Large companies in the US are FAR from any sort of free-market enterprise, when you can cause not only your company but the entire economy to fail but have the government come in and use other people's money to mitigate your failure and preserve your hundreds of millions in bonuses, you're not even in the same book as 'let the market decide'.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Stormrider wrote:That's where you fall into the trap, a pure capitalist doesn't believe that anyone should have restrictions as to how much they make, high or low. They let the market dictate it and leave it at that. I personally think it's none of my business what a privately held company decides to pay their CEO's, it's not my decision to make.

How 'private' is a company that gets direct payments from the government, tax breaks that smaller companies don't get, special laws passed hindering new entrants to the marketplace, special laws mandating use of their products, special laws giving people money to buy their products but not other newer ones, special laws to disallow contracts they don't like, special laws immunizing them from criminal charges even for outright fraud and huge negligent destruction, and all of the other shennanigans large companies engage in now? How can you say that the market is deciding executive salaries when there isn't any market force there - you have holding companies pulling tricks with ownership so that most of the people who own stock have little or no say in the makeup of boards of directors, who then vote themselves and their cronies huge bonuses that aren't tied to anything the person actually does for the company.

Large companies in the US are FAR from any sort of free-market enterprise, when you can cause not only your company but the entire economy to fail but have the government come in and use other people's money to mitigate your failure and preserve your hundreds of millions in bonuses, you're not even in the same book as 'let the market decide'.

Didn't say it was perfect, but again, it's not my call as to how much a CEO gets paid. We have a severely mixed economy, with kabals of corporatists and politicians in collusion with each other.

Corporatism is definitely not capitalistic. But, again, neither in direct intervention of a government into said business.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You make a series of unsupported assumptions that have no relationship to reality. A large part of the problem is that "politician" was never meant to be a career.

The aristocratic, life long political, and land owning group known as the founding fathers will disagree with you now.

They risked everything to give birth to a different kind of system - one that stripped them of their aristocracy. They were midwives to the birth of new nation and could hardly step aside and bid the infant 'run!'... Many served as 'politicians' perforce, and not from preference. Most also had primary occupations that paid the bills. You should maybe read the Federalist Papers.

I completely agree that the system favors the rich. I'm not entirely convinced that it's a bad thing, though.

The design of the "tax break" system is to encourage high-earners to invest more and take risks with their wealth. While it may not seem "fair," it's intended to help make people invest more in the economy, not to narrow the income gap between classes. Now the government has to decide whether to continue with the current model and reward entrepreneurship and innovation, or to adopt a more conservative plan that will curb economic growth and reduce inflation.

Hawkward wrote:The design of the "tax break" system is to encourage high-earners to invest more and take risks with their wealth.

As has been proven time and time again in the past decades, they don't.

Melissia wrote:As has been proven time and time again in the past decades, they don't.

Melissa, let me ask you this way. If you have more money to spend, are you going to spend more money?

Hawkward wrote:

Melissia wrote:As has been proven time and time again in the past decades, they don't.

Melissa, let me ask you this way. If you have more money to spend, are you going to spend more money?

That's a bad comparison. I'm not already rich.

Giving money to poor, working class, or middle class people means yes, they will spend it. Those who have more money already are far less likely to spend it.

Melissia wrote:

Hawkward wrote:

Melissia wrote:As has been proven time and time again in the past decades, they don't.

Melissa, let me ask you this way. If you have more money to spend, are you going to spend more money?

That's a bad comparison. I'm not already rich.

You're probably in the top 10%, globally speaking.

Nope, I'm not... and that's only if you count the money I have from FAFSA this year.

Melissia wrote:
That's a bad comparison. I'm not already rich.

Giving money to poor, working class, or middle class people means yes, they will spend it. Those who have more money already are far less likely to spend it.

Rich people are human, Melissia. They react to incentives just like poor people. When people have access to more money, it doesn't matter whether or not they're already rich; they'll feel the urge to spend their money. Invest it into the economy.

Even if they don't spend the money, though, a rich person just putting his money in the bank stimulates the economy. It allows banks to give out loans - not only to other rich people, but to poor people, the middle class and the working class. Banks will lend money, people will spend THAT money, and the amount of cash in the money supply increases. With more money in the system, people are able to hire others to do jobs. People can buy luxuries. The money that they pay for things they don't need is then given to another person, who can use it to hire another person to work for him, or just to put it in the bank, which can then loan out more money, and then even more cash is in the money supply.

This is a simplistic model, but economists agree on the basics: people respond to incentives.

The sweet irony of the US rich v poor debate. 5% of the world's population controls 80% of its wealth and resources. Many Americans are in that 5%.