Entitlement mentality

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=pri_dk]

If it’s any consolation, Romney’s taxes may not have cost him much in percentage of income, but his tax rate will cost him the election.[/quote]

I do not dislike Romney, I may even vote for him if Dems are projected to take house & the Senate. It’s the tax system that I dislike.

[markmax33]

[quote=flu][quote=markmax33]Kcal – There are two types of business in America.

1. Crony Capitalism – where people get sweetheart GOV contracts, manipulate the GOV for business advanatages, etc. Haliburton is crony capitalism. The banks are crony capitalism.

2. Real Capitalism – that doesn’t prey on the taxpayer. Apple, Google, Facebook, etc are examples of real captilism. They created a product everyone wanted with ingenuity.

They should outright tax the crony capitalism companies 100% and they should leave the tax rate at 0 for the real capitalism companies. Unfortunately there is a push and pull to put everyone in these groups into the same tax bracket because they are making money. I see why the democrats and republicans are so split on this notion. The democrats see people getting rich off of BS loopholes and want those rich people to share what they effectively stole from every tax payer and the rich that made money legitametly don’t want to be taxed because they will have to kill jobs and won’t be able to compete as well at a higher tax rate.
The democratic position’s flaw is that they want to expand the GOV power which will eventually expand GOV contracts to the crony capitalism crew. This will reduce the competitveness of other businesses as regulations are added because the democrats feel they are getting ripped off and need more taxes. It’s quite a trap.

I’m not defending the republicans either, just explaining why the democrat mentality is flawed.[/quote]

[quote=flu]
Ha ha ha… Facebook isn’t example of crony capitalism/??
[/quote]

No Facebook created a product that everyone uses and has advertising targeted at people that could never be done before in any other media. Facebook has a legitimate product to sell at this time. You are simply wrong and trying to argue with no facts.

[quote=flu]
Do you really think facebook, zynga, linkedin, angie’s list, groupon are really worth billions in valuation by itself and had no intervention from i-Banks that have pumped and pumped these companies to astronomical valuations, with the intent of trying to convince people like you to purchase shares in these companies so that they and their traders can’t make a killing?
[/quote]

Yes I think some of these companies have very legitimate uses. I never mentioned Groupon as viable company, nor I do I feel they are viable. They really aren’t even a tech company when you think about it. They are an advertising company using tech in an inefficient manner.

Znyga however is going to be huge. I don’t think you understand the atmosphere for gambling in this company or worldwide or how Zynga could corner the market overnight. Online poker regulation is already passed.

[quote=flu]
You’re serious, right? You’re serious that groupon, which is bleeding red, and has no shot at being profitable is worth 15billion, essentially worth more than Motorola Mobility all by itself without any of this so called “crony capitalism” that you rail against.
[/quote]

Never said Groupon, I agree they have a flawed business model. They need to automate business acquistion costs to actually become a “tech company” and get rid of that workforce. There will probably be a successful Groupon-like business model one day. It’s probably not that company.

[quote=flu]
And before you give me a lecture about your mba qualifications, and your thesis, yada yada yada, a good portion of my relatives work as i-Bankers, have underwritten a lot some of these IPOS, and for that matter are currently on the sell side of for these i-Banks to pump up these companies.
[/quote]

I’m sorry but I actually understand the business models and wouldn’t talk about them if I didn’t. I have a pretty good track record for picking the great ones and avoiding the bad ones. I haven’t listened to 1-minute of analyst speak and I never have. I come to my conclusions based on society around me and how they are using products and potential I see based on that. It works great thanks!

[quote=flu]
All these dreams of making riches in “stock” an “ipo” is basically a desire to support the very system that you and a lot of other folks who depend on those 401k accounts/etc railing against. That’s why I find it really ironic that people would slam wall street at yet have such interest at owning 401k/stock/stock options/etc… The only difference, I suspect, is really what side of the fence you happen to be on at any time… The side that the ibank happens to be pumping or the side of the fence that the ibank happens to be dumping…

Pot meet kettle.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure Apple and Google, the only two companies I listed have very strong business models and methods of making money. I didn’t endorse many of the companies you listed above and don’t really believe in them because I know nothing about them. Zynga I have listed before for many insider reasons, IE, I understand the legal atmosphere for online gambling regulation and I have studied other huge markets and I know what’s going to happen.

You’re really off topic with your comments anyway. You just try to start a fight to start a fight. I hope the readers don’t fall for you games again.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=markmax33]
You’re really off topic with your comments anyway. You just try to start a fight to start a fight. I hope the readers don’t fall for you games again.[/quote]

Markmax: Except he wasn’t. He’s making an excellent point, but you’re just unable to see it. Google “Frank Quattrone” and “Credit Suisse First Boston” and you’ll see an incredibly glaring example of crony capitalism (as well as insider trading and influence peddling).

I grew up in Silicon Valley before it was Silicon Valley and I knew Sand Hill Road as a place to ride our bikes before Kleiner Perkins and the rest of the VC outfits moved in. My uncle worked at Merrill Lynch in San Francisco, a good friend’s mom worked as a partner at Sonsini in Palo Alto doing diligence on tech deals and another friend of mine worked at Montgomery Street Securities in SF back in the day. I know the seamy, money-grubbing side of the tech world, because I heard about it every day.

The first internet bubble, the one that burst in 2000, was fueled by a combination of greed, ignorance and stupidity. The “smart money” (greed) was in first and made a killing due to guys like Frank Quattrone handling the IPOs and directing traffic. The “dumb money” (ignorance and stupidity) was the rest of us poor schmoes who didn’t really have a clue, but were told that the sky was the limit on tech IPOs and you had better invest fast or you were gonna get left behind (sound familiar?). We all know how that ended. It was a group of select, well-placed individuals and banks that made a killing and got out before the whole house of cards collapsed. If that ain’t crony capitalism, I don’t know what is.

And, if you think Facebook really merits a $100B market cap, well, have I got some stock for you!

I’ll give you a little leeway because you’re young and clearly don’t know how the tech world operates, but get your facts straight before you pop off, alright?

[Anonymous]

There will always be some shenanigans in the business world. There will always be ups and downs in the markets.

I gotta agree with mm33’s basic point here:

Silicon Valley, although imperfect, is the “good” kind of capitalism. The kind that our economy should be built upon.

Facebook’s share price? Whatever. It has almost nothing to do with government policy.

On the other hand, Haliburton’s share price has almost everything to do with government policy.

[markmax33]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=markmax33]
You’re really off topic with your comments anyway. You just try to start a fight to start a fight. I hope the readers don’t fall for you games again.[/quote]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Markmax: Except he wasn’t. He’s making an excellent point, but you’re just unable
to see it.
[/quote]

He was completely off topic. I was trying to give examples, maybe you don’t agree with the examples, of companies that made money from a real business. It had nothing to do with the validity or manipulation of the IPO market and stocks. I was trying to make a distinction between a business that actually offered something VS a company that only takes from society and peddles political influence to profit. He was completely off topic. If you don’t like my examples of publically traded companies there are many privately traded companies too that haven’t participated in the stock market. I am trying to illustrate a very subtle point that most Americans are clueless about.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Google “Frank Quattrone” and “Credit Suisse First Boston” and you’ll see an incredibly glaring example of crony capitalism (as well as insider trading and influence peddling).

I grew up in Silicon Valley before it was Silicon Valley and I knew Sand Hill Road as a place to ride our bikes before Kleiner Perkins and the rest of the VC outfits moved in. My uncle worked at Merrill Lynch in San Francisco, a good friend’s mom worked as a partner at Sonsini in Palo Alto doing diligence on tech deals and another friend of mine worked at Montgomery Street Securities in SF back in the day. I know the seamy, money-grubbing side of the tech world, because I heard about it every day.

The first internet bubble, the one that burst in 2000, was fueled by a combination of greed, ignorance and stupidity. The “smart money” (greed) was in first and made a killing due to guys like Frank Quattrone handling the IPOs and directing traffic. The “dumb money” (ignorance and stupidity) was the rest of us poor schmoes who didn’t really have a clue, but were told that the sky was the limit on tech IPOs and you had better invest fast or you were gonna get left behind (sound familiar?). We all know how that ended. It was a group of select, well-placed individuals and banks that made a killing and got out before the whole house of cards collapsed. If that ain’t crony capitalism, I don’t know
what is.
[/quote]

Ok great I wasn’t talking about any of this. The companies during the internet bubble that actually provided value are above where they were during the tech days. It should be very clear to the average american who the failures were going to be.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, if you think Facebook really merits a $100B market cap, well, have I got some stock for you!
[/quote]

Facebook is getting paid $125/user for exclusive marketing rights to the users with very specific information about the user for the rest of their lives. The average Facebook user is probably 30. I haven’t done all of my research but for less than a 1/2 cent a day for the rest of their lives you can invest in marketing company with gaurenteed specific traffic. You are nuts not to consider this as a valid investment. This is why the over 50 crowd can’t judge up and coming companies very well. They don’t realize how dependent the youth are on it.

I haven’t decided to buy Facebook yet, but I have not doubt based on the initial numbers they have a very valid business model. If Google turned a massive profit on search alone, Facebook will be big, maybe bigger. Notice how Google is trying to force people into Google plus and redoing terms all of a sudden?

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I’ll give you a little leeway because you’re young and clearly don’t know how the tech world operates, but get your facts straight before you pop off, alright?[/quote]

I’m very confident in my abilities and you shouldn’t really be considering these risky stocks either at your age.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Some people STILL don’t get it, even after all we’ve been through the past few decades.[/quote]

Cable TV, hybrid cars, iPhones, viagra, heart-stents, GPS, facebook, effective treatments for AIDS, and ubiquitous granite counter-tops.

The past few decades have been hell.

We even had this “internet” thing – where people anonymously argue with each other about just how the world is going to end.

Here’s a website for ya, just in case you run out of things to be hysterical about:

http://first-world-problems.com/%5B/quote%5D

Try this, instead:

“The broad facts of income inequality over the past six decades are easily summarized:

The years from the end of World War II into the 1970s were ones of substantial economic growth and broadly shared prosperity.
Incomes grew rapidly and at roughly the same rate up and down the income ladder, roughly doubling in inflation-adjusted terms between the late 1940s and early 1970s.
The income gap between those high up the income ladder and those on the middle and lower rungs — while substantial — did not change much during this period.
Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened.
Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly.
The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”).
Wealth (the value of a household’s property and financial assets net of the value of its debts) is much more highly concentrated than income, although the wealth data do not show a dramatic increase in concentration at the very top the way the income data do.
Data from a variety of sources contribute to this broad picture of strong growth and shared prosperity for the immediate postwar generation, followed by slower growth and growing inequality since the 1970s. Within these broad trends, however, different data tell slightly different parts of the story, and no single source of data is better for all purposes than the others.”

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629
—————–

Just to reiterate, once again, I am not opposed to the kind of “investing” that grows our economy — direct investments in businesses that create goods and/or provide services that benefit society. The things you’ve mentioned were created by companies that designed, built, and/or improved upon things. By all means, we should encourage this type of investment. That being said, buying up houses that already exist just so you can charge end-users rent and make a profit does not qualify as the type of investment that benefits society, in general.

[Coronita]

[quote=pri_dk]There will always be some shenanigans in the business world. There will always be ups and downs in the markets.

I gotta agree with mm33’s basic point here:

Silicon Valley, although imperfect, is the “good” kind of capitalism. The kind that our economy should be built upon.

Facebook’s share price? Whatever. It has almost nothing to do with government policy.

On the other hand, Haliburton’s share price has almost everything to do with government policy.[/quote]

So are we distinguishing between good croynism versus bad cronyism 🙂
Pri, I think whati find ironic is that there is this notion that “wall street” is bad in one aspect and then good when it is using the same dirty techniques to prop up companies that you and mm are defending. Clearly neither of you have been at ground zero at a startup or how these games are played. The days of some enginerd sitting in a garage inventing something and going public have long past. Though that is what the media , VC, and wall street want you to believe.

Allan mentions quattrone, do you understand what he got away with. And it wasn’t just him. The same banks that were underwriting these hot shot ipos were also influencing the sell side of the house that were rating and providing all those projections and price targets and buy recommendations. It was a huge conflict of interest and it worked and proped up a lot of these tech companies so that banks and the vc’s could make a killing.

These tech ipos are no different than halliburton. Halliburton gets help from gov.
These darling ipos get a nice pump and dump from wall street firms under the guise of something “cool”. Don’t like thesystem, dont play in the game. It is is as simple as that.

[blahblahblah]

Facebook is the new MySpace.

Discuss.

[Anonymous]

[quote=flu]So are we distinguishing between good croynism versus bad cronyism :-)[/quote]

We are distinguishing between private cronyism and public/government cronyism.

[quote]Clearly neither of you have been at ground zero at a startup or how these games are played.[/quote]

Clearly you don’t know me or my career history. Why do you think I have too much time to post on the internet all day? Hint: I’m not a government employee.

[quote]Allan mentions quattrone, do you understand what he got away with.[/quote]

Yes, he probably broke the law. He probably got away with something, but we have to respect all aspects of the law and accept the outcome. There should have been more laws at the time against specifically what he did; there have since been laws passed to prevent that sort of thing and there probably should be a few more.

But that’s a mater of regulation of private business, not direct government business. Halliburton has checks written to it straight from the US Treasury. Even Quattrone never got that.

What Allan did not mention are the millions of Silicon Valley employees and billions of consumers that benefit from this economy. If Allan’s parents still own the house he grew up in, his family probably has done pretty well from the Silicon Valley economy.

I’d be happy to accept a Quattrone type scam every year if it meant we could sustain the economic growth that has taken place in Silicon Valley over the past few decades.

The system can and should be tuned, but overall it works remarkably well. The benefits outweigh the downsides by many orders of magnitude.

[quote]These darling ipos get a nice pump and dump from wall street firms under the guise of something “cool”. Don’t like the system, dont play in the game.[/quote]

Your last sentence has me confused.

Notice I have no comments on your Facebook IPO thread. I don’t play in the game. It’s my choice not to. You have the same choice. Everybody does.

But I have to pay taxes, and so does everybody else.

[markmax33]

[quote=flu][quote=pri_dk]There will always be some shenanigans in the business world. There will always be ups and downs in the markets.

I gotta agree with mm33’s basic point here:

Silicon Valley, although imperfect, is the “good” kind of capitalism. The kind that our economy should be built upon.

Facebook’s share price? Whatever. It has almost nothing to do with government policy.

On the other hand, Haliburton’s share price has almost everything to do with government policy.[/quote]

So are we distinguishing between good croynism versus bad cronyism 🙂
Pri, I think whati find ironic is that there is this notion that “wall street” is bad in one aspect and then good when it is using the same dirty techniques to prop up companies that you and mm are defending. Clearly neither of you have been at ground zero at a startup or how these games are played. The days of some enginerd sitting in a garage inventing something and going public have long past. Though that is what the media , VC, and wall street want you to believe.

Allan mentions quattrone, do you understand what he got away with. And it wasn’t just him. The same banks that were underwriting these hot shot ipos were also influencing the sell side of the house that were rating and providing all those projections and price targets and buy recommendations. It was a huge conflict of interest and it worked and proped up a lot of these tech companies so that banks and the vc’s could make a killing.

These tech ipos are no different than halliburton. Halliburton gets help from gov.
These darling ipos get a nice pump and dump from wall street firms under the guise of something “cool”. Don’t like thesystem, dont play in the game. It is is as simple as that.[/quote]

America’s engine is the small business and they don’t have stocks and aren’t manipulated or doing the manipulating. I was trying to make an everyday example of an everyday company that was cleaner than the others. Take everyday small businesses instead and then my point should be clear.

[markmax33]

[quote=CONCHO]Facebook is the new MySpace.

Discuss.[/quote]

Obviously not, MySpace never monetized it’s user base through advertising. MySpace was never more than speculation. Facebook has monetized the user base already. If you think the two are even remotely related you are sadly mistaken.

$5.72 Billion in revenue:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-to-grab-72-of-social-network-ad-revenue-in-2012/5010

[no_such_reality]

“Allan mentions quattrone, do you understand what he got away with. And it wasn’t just him”

The same thing Pelosi and half congress gets away with? Okay kidding aside, both are equally dispicable.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]There will always be some shenanigans in the business world. There will always be ups and downs in the markets.

I gotta agree with mm33’s basic point here:

Silicon Valley, although imperfect, is the “good” kind of capitalism. The kind that our economy should be built upon.

[/quote]

Pri: And I’m sure those self-same “shenanigans” were the cause of the Crash of 2008? You’re also missing the larger point, as Markmax did.

It wasn’t isolated “shenanigans” during the tech run-up. It was pervasive, endemic and systemic, just as it was prior to the 2008 crash. It’s tied to perverse incentives and arguing that Silicon Valley provides “good” capitalism also misses the point: It’s all of a piece.

Wall Street does largely perform it’s function (efficient allocation of capital), but when the incentives get skewed in favor of short-term, bonus-driven programs, well, you get predictable results, whether it was the tech boom or the mortgage meltdown.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=markmax33]
Facebook is getting paid $125/user for exclusive marketing rights to the users with very specific information about the user for the rest of their lives. The average Facebook user is probably 30. I haven’t done all of my research but for less than a 1/2 cent a day for the rest of their lives you can invest in marketing company with gaurenteed specific traffic. You are nuts not to consider this as a valid investment. This is why the over 50 crowd can’t judge up and coming companies very well. They don’t realize how dependent the youth are on it.

I haven’t decided to buy Facebook yet, but I have not doubt based on the initial numbers they have a very valid business model. If Google turned a massive profit on search alone, Facebook will be big, maybe bigger. Notice how Google is trying to force people into Google plus and redoing terms all of a sudden?

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I’ll give you a little leeway because you’re young and clearly don’t know how the tech world operates, but get your facts straight before you pop off, alright?[/quote]

I’m very confident in my abilities and you shouldn’t really be considering these risky stocks either at your age.[/quote]

Markmax: You should keep this post to review after you lose your ass on Facebook. The comment about my age is also funny, because it’s all of a piece with “it’s different this time”, “it’s the NEW economy, stupid” and “they’re not making any more land”. For someone who ostensibly has an MBA, you sure don’t seem to have a good handle on either Finance or Accounting. The FUNDAMENTALS DO NOT CHANGE.

Not that it really matters. In the investment business, you’re what is known as dumb money. That was the point of my examples regarding the tech boom/bust, but you’re clearly TOO SMART to understand them. By the time you “get in on” Facebook, the smart money is long gone.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I’ll give you a little leeway because you’re young and clearly don’t know how the tech world operates, but get your facts straight before you pop off, alright?[/quote]

Turns out markmax is 32 years old. I thought he was 17 or 18. When did 32 become an age where one gets a pass because of their youth? Not long ago, that was an age where one was expected to have a pretty firm grip on things.

[Author]

Posts