Devil or Angel, Whichever You Are

[BigRedBuster]

can we all agree that the problem is not making the employers rich, it is making the shareholders rich? what do they provide to a company or the economy? furthermore, they often handicap a business by not being able to see past the next quarter.

 

Pardon me if I took this question as meaning he doesn't see any benefit private investment makes to a business or economy. I have never said anything about wanting a loosely regulated Wall Street. I agree that can cause major problems for the country.

 

However, private investment in everything from the small mom and pop business on main street to the largest corporations in the world is a major part of not only our economy but the world economy. Without that.....um......we have no economy.

 

Unless, I guess we could have the government just own everything and a congressional committee decide where government money will be invested. Yeah....I would love to live in that type of country.

[carlfense]

I think some of the disagreement is what people mean when they say "private investment." That could mean your mom and pop small business owners who choose to buy new machinery to expand their business . . . or it could mean the money shufflers in NYC who have no actual involvement in the operation of a business.

 

I think (but I don't know for sure) that sd is talking primarily about the latter.

[BigRedBuster]

I think some of the disagreement is what people mean when they say "private investment." That could mean your mom and pop small business owners who choose to buy new machinery to expand their business . . . or it could mean the money shufflers in NYC who have no actual involvement in the operation of a business.

 

I think (but I don't know for sure) that sd is talking primarily about the latter.

My comments and questions about his post still remain.

[carlfense]

Unless, I guess we could have the government just own everything and a congressional committee decide where government money will be invested. Yeah....I would love to live in that type of country.

You're too smart to engage in this kind of hyperbole. Literally no one is saying this . . . and I'd be absolutely stunned if more than 1% of Americans want that.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Unless, I guess we could have the government just own everything and a congressional committee decide where government money will be invested. Yeah....I would love to live in that type of country.

You're too smart to engage in this kind of hyperbole. Literally no one is saying this . . . and I'd be absolutely stunned if more than 1% of Americans want that.

 

Hey....I'm just trying to understand his question. He asked, what benefit private investors provide to business and the economy. That question, implies that he sees no benefit. So...if there is no private investment, where is the investment going to come from....the government? Does he think we need no investment of any kind?

[carlfense]

 

 

Unless, I guess we could have the government just own everything and a congressional committee decide where government money will be invested. Yeah....I would love to live in that type of country.

You're too smart to engage in this kind of hyperbole. Literally no one is saying this . . . and I'd be absolutely stunned if more than 1% of Americans want that.

 

Hey....I'm just trying to understand his question. He asked, what benefit private investors provide to business and the economy. That question, implies that he sees no benefit. So...if there is no private investment, where is the investment going to come from....the government? Does he think we need no investment of any kind?

 

Hopefully he explains what he meant . . . but I suspect that it hinges on the distinction that I noted (and you disregarded) above.

[sd'sker]

I think some of the disagreement is what people mean when they say "private investment." That could mean your mom and pop small business owners who choose to buy new machinery to expand their business . . . or it could mean the money shufflers in NYC who have no actual involvement in the operation of a business.

 

I think (but I don't know for sure) that sd is talking primarily about the latter.

absolutely. venture capitalist that actually want to see a company grow are great. distant shareholders (people involved with hedge-funds or sharing commodities, such as oil, they never see or own) are not so good. they are just making money by having money and have little interest otherwise. and they are the ones that own shares as a commodity rather than as a direct interest.

 

not sure why brb got a bee up his bonnet for something that should be considered so non-controversial. maybe i should have specified more when i said shareholders. but, i know of plenty of companies that have been hamstrung by shareholders who have only purchased stock in the company, and not really invested directly into the company.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Unless, I guess we could have the government just own everything and a congressional committee decide where government money will be invested. Yeah....I would love to live in that type of country.

You're too smart to engage in this kind of hyperbole. Literally no one is saying this . . . and I'd be absolutely stunned if more than 1% of Americans want that.

 

Hey....I'm just trying to understand his question. He asked, what benefit private investors provide to business and the economy. That question, implies that he sees no benefit. So...if there is no private investment, where is the investment going to come from....the government? Does he think we need no investment of any kind?

 

Hopefully he explains what he meant . . . but I suspect that it hinges on the distinction that I noted (and you disregarded) above.

 

I didn't disregard it.

[BigRedBuster]

 

I think some of the disagreement is what people mean when they say "private investment." That could mean your mom and pop small business owners who choose to buy new machinery to expand their business . . . or it could mean the money shufflers in NYC who have no actual involvement in the operation of a business.

 

I think (but I don't know for sure) that sd is talking primarily about the latter.

absolutely. venture capitalist that actually want to see a company grow are great. distant shareholders (people involved with hedge-funds or sharing commodities, such as oil, they never see or own) are not so good. they are just making money by having money and have little interest otherwise. and they are the ones that own shares as a commodity rather than as a direct interest.

 

not sure why brb got a bee up his bonnet for something that should be considered so non-controversial. maybe i should have specified more when i said shareholders. but, i know of plenty of companies that have been hamstrung by shareholders who have only purchased stock in the company, and not really invested directly into the company.

 

So, a publicly owned company does not benefit from someone buying their stock even if it's a hedge fund?

 

And, for the record, I completely agree there are times when stock holders cause problems for a company.

[sd'sker]

 

 

I think some of the disagreement is what people mean when they say "private investment." That could mean your mom and pop small business owners who choose to buy new machinery to expand their business . . . or it could mean the money shufflers in NYC who have no actual involvement in the operation of a business.

 

I think (but I don't know for sure) that sd is talking primarily about the latter.

absolutely. venture capitalist that actually want to see a company grow are great. distant shareholders (people involved with hedge-funds or sharing commodities, such as oil, they never see or own) are not so good. they are just making money by having money and have little interest otherwise. and they are the ones that own shares as a commodity rather than as a direct interest.

 

not sure why brb got a bee up his bonnet for something that should be considered so non-controversial. maybe i should have specified more when i said shareholders. but, i know of plenty of companies that have been hamstrung by shareholders who have only purchased stock in the company, and not really invested directly into the company.

 

So, a publicly owned company does not benefit from someone buying their stock even if it's a hedge fund?

 

And, for the record, I completely agree there are times when stock holders cause problems for a company.

 

honestly, i am sorry i said anything at all. i did not know a flip remark would haunt me as such.

 

if you want, you can tell me what benefit they provide. to me, it looks like a pretty big ponzi scheme with little interest in the actual company. i mean, the dow is blowing up, and we still have a jobless recovery.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

 

if you want, you can tell me what benefit they provide

 

As a stock holder on different levels I benefit in many ways, here are some off the top of my head:

It helps my 401(k) grow, along with millions of other Americans.

It helps my IRA grow, along with millions of other Americans

It helps support my parents pensions, along with millions of other Americans.

[BigRedBuster]

And, i didn't "get a bee up my bonnet". I'm simply asking for clarification.

 

To me, there are two groups of people in this world that cause problems in the economy.

 

a) People who think there should be no regulation. Everything is great in the business world and big business never does anything wrong and as long as a company is making money, everything is great.

 

b) Big business is the major problem in the world, it is destroying everything we like. And, more specifically, that is the rich people who invest in those companies because they don't care about anyone but them and their money.

 

Reality is somewhere in between. We smartly regulated stock market is essential to our economy.

[sd'sker]

you guys are really missing my point if you think i am talking about your average joe stock holder. those people are fine. they have no pull on the company and they could not manipulate the market.

 

brb, you could have just answered my questions instead of responding with more questions.

 

i think gm is the perfect example of what i am talking about. instead of investing in the future and making cars people actually wanted to buy (like ford), they were so concerned about next quarter profits, they would just offer rebates. essentially mortgaging their future with no plan when they got there. they utilized practices of diminishing returns until they went bankrupt. or had to be bailed out by the government, something no one really wants for a car maker.

 

but, i still would like to know what advantage hedge funds provide other than making a few rich and manipulating the markets.

[NUinID]

And, i didn't "get a bee up my bonnet". I'm simply asking for clarification.

 

To me, there are two groups of people in this world that cause problems in the economy.

 

a) People who think there should be no regulation. Everything is great in the business world and big business never does anything wrong and as long as a company is making money, everything is great.

 

b) Big business is the major problem in the world, it is destroying everything we like. And, more specifically, that is the rich people who invest in those companies because they don't care about anyone but them and their money.

 

Reality is somewhere in between. We smartly regulated stock market is essential to our economy.

+1

[tschu]

you guys are really missing my point if you think i am talking about your average joe stock holder. those people are fine. they have no pull on the company and they could not manipulate the market.

 

brb, you could have just answered my questions instead of responding with more questions.

 

i think gm is the perfect example of what i am talking about. instead of investing in the future and making cars people actually wanted to buy, they were so concerned about next quarter profits, they would just offer rebates. essentially mortgaging their future with no plan when they got there. they utilized practices of diminishing returns until they went bankrupt. or had to be bailed out by the government, something no one really wants for a car maker.

 

but, i still would like to know what advantage hedge funds provide other than making a few rich and manipulating the markets.

 

The scary thing is that even after 2008, we still have no regulations on derivatives markets. It's like we learned nothing.