I've been thinking ...

creepycoug

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

1to392831weretaken said:

I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?

I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.

I think this sums of my view of Wall Street most succinctly. I think the type of investors who should be rewarded are like those, for example, who got in on Amazon or Microsoft early. My wife has always gotten stock awards from the various firms she's worked for and those companies have mostly done well and the stock increases in value. The Malarkey part of the markets is beyond me and I can't possibly begin to understand its purpose or benefit to society. It's not "rent seeking" if you will, but it doesn't add anything of value or increase productivity.

That's really my view. Since the markets are a part (and not apart) of our public lives, we? need to ensure that participants are not abusing it and fucking it up.

If the average guy believes he's always going to be on the ass-end of the Malarkey, then he's going to start investment his money elsewhere, including in his mattress.

YellowSnow

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

1to392831weretaken said:

I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?

I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.

I think this sums of my view of Wall Street most succinctly. I think the type of investors who should be rewarded are like those, for example, who got in on Amazon or Microsoft early. My wife has always gotten stock awards from the various firms she's worked for and those companies have mostly done well and the stock increases in value. The Malarkey part of the markets is beyond me and I can't possibly begin to understand its purpose or benefit to society. It's not "rent seeking" if you will, but it doesn't add anything of value or increase productivity.

That's really my view. Since the markets are a part (and not apart) of our public lives, we? need to ensure that participants are not abusing it and fucking it up.

If the average guy believes he's always going to be on the ass-end of the Malarkey, then he's going to start investment his money elsewhere, including in his mattress.

Part of me wishes all stocks had to pay a dividend. I mean that's what a share is, right - i.e., a stake in the firm - and if you're a part owner you should realize some of the profits. But at the same Tim, I understand that companies need to re-invest profits in things that will help drive future bidness.

creepycoug

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

1to392831weretaken said:

I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?

I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.

I think this sums of my view of Wall Street most succinctly. I think the type of investors who should be rewarded are like those, for example, who got in on Amazon or Microsoft early. My wife has always gotten stock awards from the various firms she's worked for and those companies have mostly done well and the stock increases in value. The Malarkey part of the markets is beyond me and I can't possibly begin to understand its purpose or benefit to society. It's not "rent seeking" if you will, but it doesn't add anything of value or increase productivity.

That's really my view. Since the markets are a part (and not apart) of our public lives, we? need to ensure that participants are not abusing it and fucking it up.

If the average guy believes he's always going to be on the ass-end of the Malarkey, then he's going to start investment his money elsewhere, including in his mattress.

Part of me wishes all stocks had to pay a dividend. I mean that's what a share is, right - i.e., a stake in the firm - and if you're a part owner you should realize some of the profits. But at the same Tim, I understand that companies need to re-invest profits in things that will help drive future bidness.

I poasted a video of Mr. Wonderful who makes this very point. Find it; watch it.

But, I'll say, company's with real growth potential should be reinvesting that cash in the bindess. You would not have wanted MS paying a dividend in the 90s. No sir.

doogie

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

1to392831weretaken said:

I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?

I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.

I think this sums of my view of Wall Street most succinctly. I think the type of investors who should be rewarded are like those, for example, who got in on Amazon or Microsoft early. My wife has always gotten stock awards from the various firms she's worked for and those companies have mostly done well and the stock increases in value. The Malarkey part of the markets is beyond me and I can't possibly begin to understand its purpose or benefit to society. It's not "rent seeking" if you will, but it doesn't add anything of value or increase productivity.

That's really my view. Since the markets are a part (and not apart) of our public lives, we? need to ensure that participants are not abusing it and fucking it up.

If the average guy believes he's always going to be on the ass-end of the Malarkey, then he's going to start investment his money elsewhere, including in his mattress.

Part of me wishes all stocks had to pay a dividend. I mean that's what a share is, right - i.e., a stake in the firm - and if you're a part owner you should realize some of the profits. But at the same Tim, I understand that companies need to re-invest profits in things that will help drive future bidness.

I poasted a video of Mr. Wonderful who makes this very point. Find it; watch it.

But, I'll say, company's with real growth potential should be reinvesting that cash in the bindess. You would not have wanted MS paying a dividend in the 90s. No sir.

Would have made no difference to me

creepycoug

doogie said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

1to392831weretaken said:

I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?

I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.

I think this sums of my view of Wall Street most succinctly. I think the type of investors who should be rewarded are like those, for example, who got in on Amazon or Microsoft early. My wife has always gotten stock awards from the various firms she's worked for and those companies have mostly done well and the stock increases in value. The Malarkey part of the markets is beyond me and I can't possibly begin to understand its purpose or benefit to society. It's not "rent seeking" if you will, but it doesn't add anything of value or increase productivity.

That's really my view. Since the markets are a part (and not apart) of our public lives, we? need to ensure that participants are not abusing it and fucking it up.

If the average guy believes he's always going to be on the ass-end of the Malarkey, then he's going to start investment his money elsewhere, including in his mattress.

Part of me wishes all stocks had to pay a dividend. I mean that's what a share is, right - i.e., a stake in the firm - and if you're a part owner you should realize some of the profits. But at the same Tim, I understand that companies need to re-invest profits in things that will help drive future bidness.

I poasted a video of Mr. Wonderful who makes this very point. Find it; watch it.

But, I'll say, company's with real growth potential should be reinvesting that cash in the bindess. You would not have wanted MS paying a dividend in the 90s. No sir.

Would have made no difference to me

Well, we all know what happened to you Mr. 20% profit.

doogie

“You never go broke taking a Profit” they like to say

HHusky

doogie said:

“You never go broke taking a Profit” they like to say

“I always sold too early.”

Pitchfork51

Way too much malarkey