Political Discussion

In my small experiment pretending to be part of the capitalist class, I opened up a Robinhood account. When I looked at it this morning and noticed I had a 40% return. I had a reaction that made me think about how the stock market and economy aren’t related. I just wanted to keep all that money in there, but sitting there how does it contribute to the economy? Does it encourage other to give the company money? That value sits in my account? Does that money I spent on the stock go directly to the company?
 
Dtknuckles said:
Does that money I spent on the stock go directly to the company?
Click to expand...
It really depends, actually. If the company itself is selling stock then yes. However, more often than not your money goes to the seller of the stock itself with a % going to your intermediary.
 
Dtknuckles said:
In my small experiment pretending to be part of the capitalist class, I opened up a Robinhood account. When I looked at it this morning and noticed I had a 40% return. I had a reaction that made me think about how the stock market and economy aren’t related. I just wanted to keep all that money in there, but sitting there how does it contribute to the economy? Does it encourage other to give the company money? That value sits in my account? Does that money I spent on the stock go directly to the company?
Click to expand...
Oh my dear. I adore you, but why did you have to drop these questions on me today, while I'm horribly busy.

How buying a stock contributes to the economy is a big thing to unpack. It's technically supposed to be good because you are supposed to be investing in a stock due to the value of the company. And that company's value is something that you should have researched and realized that they have a great company. You think that their company is so great that you have decided that you want to own a piece of this company because either they pay dividends or you think they are going to either keep or increase in value. It's really not a bad thing to buy stock. It's the idea that stockholder dividends are more important that business solvency is when people get in trouble--and largely why a lot of things suck right now.
 
I’m working on a device similar to Alexa called askNola. It won’t do any kind of home automation because it’s entirely too busy for that shit but you can just say, “Hey Nola,...” and ask it any serious question and get a thoughtful response replete with citations to take and beat other people on the internet over the head with.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
On that note, not political per se, but is anybody following this crazy GameStop story? Like a hot new club being promoted by Stefon, this story has everything: Redditors being accidentally heroic out of spiteful motivations, Elon Musk, the Mets, hedge funds, videogame stores, and more.
Click to expand...
DAN CORTEZ

Lol. But yes, the folks in the stocks thread have been discussing it thoroughly this week.
 
nolalady said:
Oh my dear. I adore you, but why did you have to drop these questions on me today, while I'm horribly busy.

How buying a stock contributes to the economy is a big thing to unpack. It's technically supposed to be good because you are supposed to be investing in a stock due to the value of the company. And that company's value is something that you should have researched and realized that they have a great company. You think that their company is so great that you have decided that you want to own a piece of this company because either they pay dividends or you think they are going to either keep or increase in value. It's really not a bad thing to buy stock. It's the idea that stockholder dividends are more important that business solvency is when people get in trouble--and largely why a lot of things suck right now.
Click to expand...

I honestly didn’t put much effort into my decisions because I was investing so little. Basically the price of a record. But it grew when I had success. I guess my biggest question is how does my purchase contribute to the actual business. My hunch is that it contributes to the amount of capital they have access to. However when I sell they owe it back to me. I;m sure there are middle men involved like @Tyr mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Dtknuckles said:
I honestly did put much effort into my decisions because I was investing so little. Basically the price of a record. But it grew when I had success. I guess my biggest question is how does my purchase contribute to the actual business. My hunch is that it contributes to the amount of capital they have access to. However when I sell they owe it back to me. I;m sure there are middle men involved like @Tyr mentioned.
Click to expand...
So this is a very good question, but one that has a VERY complex answer. So allow me to respond in generalities. But keep in mind, these statements are not always true as this is a very multi-layered area.

When you invest or purchase stock in a company, for the most part, you become a small part of the company itself. You become an owner (in a sense) or a stakeholder in the company. But when you do invest, you're not contributing to that company in the traditional sense, like if you were to donate to an organization or an NPO. Your purchase (can) assist with the increasing of the overarching value of the company itself. Basically allowing the company to leverage that rise in value to either increase its footprint, reinvest into the structure, or borrow against the increase in value. It also is a direct reflection of a company's overall financial health, earnings potential, and financial forecast.

When you invest in a company, generally, you are indicating that the company has some semblance of value, whether tangible or financial (sometimes also moral, etc.) to you. On a large enough scale, multiple investors purchasing stock in a company contribute to its overall financial standing. Unfortunately, for retail investors (people like you and I), we barely ever move the needle on a company's overall value. You'd have to get a significant amount of retail investors buying significant shares of the company's stock in order for it to register at all. Institutional investors are where most companies see the biggest difference to their overarching value. We won't even get into some of the more top echelon types of investors here, but suffice to say that unless you're purchasing multiple hundreds of thousands of shares in a company, they likely will never know you exist beyond the public earnings calls/meetings/etc.

Does this answer your question fully?
 
Also, just because I'm sensing where a subsequent question may head, the reason many larger companies cater to their shareholders is in part due to what was stated above. If shareholders are pleased with their returns, the company's financial stability, and bottom line they are more likely to retain and even increase the stock they hold in the company itself. Its why you see so many corporate entities focusing primarily on the financial performance and bottom line when reporting to their board. Many executives at larger corporations also receive bonuses or increases in compensation (liquid or not) when a company is performing well and returns to shareholders are beating projections, etc. etc.

There's also an optics aspect to it for some companies. Since publicly traded companies MUST (legal requirement) generate a public earnings report (covering profitability, financial standing, stability, etc.) most organizations strive to keep their shareholders pleased. All of that is public information and is covered by the media/analysts extensively, so companies want to ensure they are getting favorable press.

In this thread, we oftentimes see the end-result problems of what this 'bottom-line driven' management style creates. Namely, a focus on profits over people, margins over ethics, and the sense that the only thing that should matter to executives are the dollar amounts flowing in and out of an organization.
 
Tyr said:
I disagree with you on several points here. The overarching one being the “fuck you and do it” approach from the left. All that would accomplish is short term gains and long term pushbacks that would be more extreme than they even are today. It’s an aggressive form of ‘let’s stoop to their level and hope they accept it’ thinking and tbh it’s the last thing we need more of in politics.
Click to expand...

Honestly it strikes me as the only thing that will make the right sit back and take notice of and maybe slow down. This whole "let's be civil while they savage us" has failed, very, very hard. The proper response to McConnel's shitbaggery when it came to Obama's Supreme Court pick should have been overwhelmingly aggressive, should have totally fucked McConnell and anyone who backed him. Instead....it was a slight murmur of disapproval. "oh you're not playing fair mitch, bad form old boy". Just like Obama doing nothing against Russia on his last days, leaving that for Hillary to deal with when she won. Oooops.

If you've got a suggestion that will make the right act they care about a civil society, but doing nothing or acting politely is doing nothing.
 
Tyr said:
Also, just because I'm sensing where a subsequent question may head, the reason many larger companies cater to their shareholders is in part due to what was stated above. If shareholders are pleased with their returns, the company's financial stability, and bottom line they are more likely to retain and even increase the stock they hold in the company itself. Its why you see so many corporate entities focusing primarily on the financial performance and bottom line when reporting to their board. Many executives at larger corporations also receive bonuses or increases in compensation (liquid or not) when a company is performing well and returns to shareholders are beating projections, etc. etc.

There's also an optics aspect to it for some companies. Since publicly traded companies MUST (legal requirement) generate a public earnings report (covering profitability, financial standing, stability, etc.) most organizations strive to keep their shareholders pleased. All of that is public information and is covered by the media/analysts extensively, so companies want to ensure they are getting favorable press.

In this thread, we oftentimes see the end-result problems of what this 'bottom-line driven' management style creates. Namely, a focus on profits over people, margins over ethics, and the sense that the only thing that should matter to executives are the dollar amounts flowing in and out of an organization.
Click to expand...
If big money investors are the ones that really trun the heads o the execs in the company, what is the benefit of being a publicly traded stock? Us little guys seem like we are just parasites chipping of a penny or two and not really contributing much. I bet us small time guys barely have a percentage of ownership combined.
 
Joe Mac said:
The problem is that to lie you just need a camera and YouTube.

Quality journalism costs money and as no one buys the paper anymore they have to find a way monetise their content and paywalls are preferable to click bait stories to maximise advertising revenue.

On another note am I the only person who misses sitting down for a mid morning brew and reading the paper?
Click to expand...

When I moved to Montreal by myself in 1994, I would spend my Saturday mornings by walking to a random café to have coffee and read the newspaper. This is how I ended up exploring the city over that first year.

EDIT: I don't read the physical paper anymore but I do pay $10 per month to keep my local paper going digitally. It was bought out by a journalist coop a few years ago. Good impartial local news is so important.
 
Last edited:
Just like the PPP, the money for hospitals is being mismanaged to the point that it's putting a lot of rural hospitals in jeopardy. Rural hospitals tend to treat a lot poorer people with extremely limited access to any medical care at all. Some of these hospitals are the only access that people have to any doctors within a 100 mile radius.

Under the CARES Act, funding can be used to prevent, prepare for and respond to the coronavirus or to help with expenses or losses caused by COVID-19. The problem is in the details, which Congress left to HHS.

HHS has primarily managed concerns by publicly releasing responses to more than 100 frequently asked questions. Those responses have sometimes contradicted previous guidance from the agency, leaving health care providers confused about how money can be used and what the agency would seek to claw back. The whipsawing guidance has covered a range of topics, including how health care providers could calculate losses from the pandemic and whether they could use the money to pay for long-term capital improvement projects such as new heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems.

“Hospitals’ challenge right now is keeping their doors open and paying their debts,” said Carrie Cochran-McClain, vice president of government affairs and policy for the National Rural Health Association. “There is not enough flexibility to help providers really use the funds as Congress intended for the kinds of things that they need to address for COVID.”
www.propublica.org

How the CARES Act Forgot America’s Most Vulnerable Hospitals

COVID-19 relief was meant to give a lifeline to hospitals, especially the small, rural facilities that struggled to stay open before 2020. But in states like Oklahoma, problems created by confusing guidelines could cause harm long after the pandemic.
www.propublica.org www.propublica.org
 
this is an interesting read. i find it a little bit to simplistic to put it all to liberalism and especially too nonchalantly doing away with the discrimation of minorities, but there are some good points in there
www.zeit.de

Liberalism in the U.S.: "We Know Now What Happens When You Go To the Extreme"

The United States can only recover if it renounces extreme liberalism, argues bestselling author Patrick Deneen. He also believes racism is ultimately a class issue.
www.zeit.de www.zeit.de
 
Jan said:
this is an interesting read. i find it a little bit to simplistic to put it all to liberalism and especially too nonchalantly doing away with the discrimation of minorities, but there are some good points in there
www.zeit.de

Liberalism in the U.S.: "We Know Now What Happens When You Go To the Extreme"

The United States can only recover if it renounces extreme liberalism, argues bestselling author Patrick Deneen. He also believes racism is ultimately a class issue.
www.zeit.de www.zeit.de
Click to expand...
This is perfectly sums up Right and Left liberalism. One party chose to liberate society by touting free market politics (which we didn't have back then and still don't have now), the other party chose to liberate society from all racial, ethnic, and sexual oppression.

Both parties have a non-liberal side, but in the recent past, it was the liberal side of their agenda that tended to win. On the right, what tended to win was the free market agenda of Ronald Reagan. On the left, though, it wasn't the economically solidaristic pro-labor side of the equation, but the support of social issues – the progressivism that culminated in gay marriage and the push for transgender normalization.

And this. Our current system is doing active damage to our society and it is echoed in our children.
Deneen: the 1950s are not coming back. It doesn't seem likely that we're going to have strong labor unions in the future. Global capitalism makes it very difficult. Nor does it seem likely we will see the re-emergence of a strong basis for family or civil society. Yet we know from social science that children who grow up in stable families do better in every social category. If you want to talk about social justice and equal opportunity, but don't pay attention to things like family formation and supporting families, then you're ignoring one of the biggest and most obvious ways to improve the life prospects of ordinary citizens.
 
nolalady said:
This is perfectly sums up Right and Left liberalism. One party chose to liberate society by touting free market politics (which we didn't have back then and still don't have now), the other party chose to liberate society from all racial, ethnic, and sexual oppression.

Both parties have a non-liberal side, but in the recent past, it was the liberal side of their agenda that tended to win. On the right, what tended to win was the free market agenda of Ronald Reagan. On the left, though, it wasn't the economically solidaristic pro-labor side of the equation, but the support of social issues – the progressivism that culminated in gay marriage and the push for transgender normalization.

And this. Our current system is doing active damage to our society and it is echoed in our children.
Deneen: the 1950s are not coming back. It doesn't seem likely that we're going to have strong labor unions in the future. Global capitalism makes it very difficult. Nor does it seem likely we will see the re-emergence of a strong basis for family or civil society. Yet we know from social science that children who grow up in stable families do better in every social category. If you want to talk about social justice and equal opportunity, but don't pay attention to things like family formation and supporting families, then you're ignoring one of the biggest and most obvious ways to improve the life prospects of ordinary citizens.
Click to expand...
Yes , that are exactly the points why i linked this interview and that echoed many points you and @Joe Mac were making before. The only problem i have with what i see in many others that argue more for the pro-labor side is the overt dismissal of progressive politics. I don't agree that racism , misogynism and Homophobie can completely be reduced to class issues. So while the 50s had stronger unions etc. and a less rampant capitalism life was much harder for everyone Not being a white, straight male. There has to be a way to reconnect the economically solidaristic with the socially progressive on the left and not play one against the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top