Entitlement mentality

[Anonymous]

[quote=zk]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.[/quote]

At 32 he would at least be able to recognize a little sarcasm or a tongue-in-cheek comment.

[Anonymous]

Allan, I think we are in violent agreement mode again.

But let’s not use a few car accidents as evidence that the entire highway system is worthless.

We should constantly strive to improve highway safety. We should constantly strive to eliminate fraud from our financial systems.

Both systems work really well. Both are marvels of the modern age.

[markmax33]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Funny guy, I lay out how the business will be successful and you don’t even evaluate it and you call me names. You could atleast look at the numbers and tell me why my assumptions were wrong. Companies are doubling social media advertising in 3 years and it means nothing to you. I bet you said this about Google when it IPO’ed for $60/share and now stands at ~$550.

If you understood the history of social media from the AOL instant messenger and people’s “profile” all the way through MySpace to the guys that have actually monetized you it, you would get it. How about you give me a dollar for every $ increase in share prices in 3 years and I’ll give you a dollar for every dollar of loss. There is demand for this stuff and it is a viable business with a viable way to make money that will only get better through location and more pinpoint advertising. Meet me at George’s in La Jolla in on 2/06/2015 @ 5pm. I’ll be buying you a steak dinner with my winnings.

You seem to forget there are a whole lot of 20s and 30s that use this thing that have stock accounts too. You seem to forget they are going to put money into it. The pump and dump doesn’t work for Apple or Google for good reasons.

[markmax33]

[quote=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.[/quote]

If the whole system is gamed at the same time equally by an exterior group of people, are the players on the playing field still not even? You seem to be missing my point. You seem to be missing the simplified example I am trying to make.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=markmax33][quote=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.[/quote]

Funny guy, I lay out how the business will be successful and you don’t even evaluate it and you call me names. You could atleast look at the numbers and tell me why my assumptions were wrong. Companies are doubling social media advertising in 3 years and it means nothing to you. I bet you said this about Google when it IPO’ed for $60/share and now stands at ~$550.

If you understood the history of social media from the AOL instant messenger and people’s “profile” all the way through MySpace to the guys that have actually monetized you it, you would get it. How about you give me a dollar for every $ increase in share prices in 3 years and I’ll give you a dollar for every dollar of loss. There is demand for this stuff and it is a viable business with a viable way to make money that will only get better through location and more pinpoint advertising. Meet me at George’s in La Jolla in on 2/06/2015 @ 5pm. I’ll be buying you a steak dinner with my winnings.

You seem to forget there are a whole lot of 20s and 30s that use this thing that have stock accounts too. You seem to forget they are going to put money into it. The pump and dump doesn’t work for Apple or Google for good reasons.[/quote]

Markmax: Don’t get your knickers in a twist, Francine, I wasn’t insulting you. You ARE dumb money, and you make that very point in your reference to the Google IPO. Do yourself a favor and see who was in on the “ground floor” of that IPO (i.e. the “smart money”) and then who followed as the stock rocketed (the “dumb money”). You keep saying that you have an MBA and understand the metrics of an IPO, but you’ve clearly never done any diligence on one, or you’d know to avoid Facebook.

I don’t discount the 20 and 30-somethings out there, but I think you’re giving them far more credit in terms of investment decision making then they actually have. I employ both 20 and 30-something engineers (no undergrads in the bunch, either MS or PhD) and I can tell you that they’re not stampeding out to buy Facebook stock when it becomes available.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=zk]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.[/quote]

At 32 he would at least be able to recognize a little sarcasm or a tongue-in-cheek comment.[/quote]

Pri: Reference to his age was more focused on his not understanding the history of Silicon Valley and how business is done there.

It’s also interesting that we’re not discussing how Silicon Valley 1.0 (not Web 1.0) was built with Uncle Sam’s money, specifically DoD and DARPA. That dirty little secret isn’t mentioned much.

[markmax33]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Markmax: Don’t get your knickers in a twist, Francine, I wasn’t insulting you. You ARE dumb money, and you make that very point in your reference to the Google IPO. Do yourself a favor and see who was in on the “ground floor” of that IPO (i.e. the “smart money”) and then who followed as the stock rocketed (the “dumb money”). You keep saying that you have an MBA and understand the metrics of an IPO, but you’ve clearly never done any diligence on one, or you’d know to avoid Facebook.

I don’t discount the 20 and 30-somethings out there, but I think you’re giving them far more credit in terms of investment decision making then they actually have. I employ both 20 and 30-something engineers (no undergrads in the bunch, either MS or PhD) and I can tell you that they’re not stampeding out to buy Facebook stock when it becomes available.[/quote]

Don’t worry my knickers don’t get twisted. I’m not afraid to fire back either if people don’t make sense.

In your infinite wisdom, how would facebook’s $/user not have significant marketing value for years to come…GO! I’m not the one not willing to listen to counterpoints. You are the one ignoring numbers and facts. I don’t for one second doubt there are pumpers and dumpers at the beginning. At some point they all get washed out though. Under your theory there would be infinite pumpers and dumpers and they don’t take their profits immediately. Notice I never gave you my investment strategy as to when I would buy. You seem to have been making some assumption that you could read this 32 year-old’s mind. I have never bought the day or days(s) right after an IPO when the retarded pump and dump schemes are activated. I generally wait until the stock has leveled out and go from there. I know what you are saying and I have never fallen for it. It’s kind of silly to suggest that I have.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=markmax33]
If the whole system is gamed at the same time equally by an exterior group of people, are the players on the playing field still not even? You seem to be missing my point. You seem to be missing the simplified example I am trying to make.[/quote]

Markmax: I NEVER said that the WHOLE system is gamed (you obviously did not read the very comment of mine you appended).

Rather, I said that the system LARGELY fulfills it’s function, but that if you create a perverse incentive structure, perverse results will follow, i.e. the tech bust and the mortgage meltdown.

You need to be more flexible and less dogmatic and doctrinaire in your thinking.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]It’s also interesting that we’re not discussing how Silicon Valley 1.0 (not Web 1.0) was built with Uncle Sam’s money, specifically DoD and DARPA. That dirty little secret isn’t mentioned much.[/quote]

Yes and no, I’d say.

For example, government research did a lot to advance of the initial development of microprocessor technology, but the billions that Intel spent paying engineers and building massive fabrication plants in the past few decades came from private investment.

[markmax33]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=markmax33]
If the whole system is gamed at the same time equally by an exterior group of people, are the players on the playing field still not even? You seem to be missing my point. You seem to be missing the simplified example I am trying to make.[/quote]

Markmax: I NEVER said that the WHOLE system is gamed (you obviously did not read the very comment of mine you appended).

Rather, I said that the system LARGELY fulfills it’s function, but that if you create a perverse incentive structure, perverse results will follow, i.e. the tech bust and the mortgage meltdown.

You need to be more flexible and less dogmatic and doctrinaire in your thinking.[/quote]

Yes but your comment had nothing to do with my point. I was responding to your unrelated comment and you never once gave any sort of credible backup for attacking certain tech IPOs and other companies with solid fundamentals. I’m still waiting how $125/facebook user for infinite marketing isn’t going to be a massive success. If you think about location marketing potential it’s going to be even bigger. They will eventually be able to automatically negotiate the price of an item with you as you stand infront of it as you try to walk away. It’s coming, it’s going to be huge.

[markmax33]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]It’s also interesting that we’re not discussing how Silicon Valley 1.0 (not Web 1.0) was built with Uncle Sam’s money, specifically DoD and DARPA. That dirty little secret isn’t mentioned much.[/quote]

Yes and no, I’d say.

For example, government research did a lot to advance of the initial development of microprocessor technology, but the billions that Intel spent paying engineers and building massive fabrication plants in the past few decades came from private investment.[/quote]

This gets to my point that we shouldn’t have one tax rate for all businesses or rich people. It should be scaled on their “capitalism measure” (yet to be invented). Intel would pay some fee for getting a boost from the GOV and it would taper off over time as they have made their own investments. You would have to balance it by the amount of lobbying in Washington they do and how many sweetheart GOV contracts they have. I know Intel has many as nearly every GOV employee probably has an Intel chip inside of his CPU.

I would like to theoretically discuss a measurement that nobody has ever discussed instead of saying, the rich need to pay their fair share and arbitrarily setting the rate and increasing all the time.

Maybe you have to cap Haliburton at 80% taxes or whatever, even though those a-holes should pay 100% tax as they do nothing but suck from the economy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]It’s also interesting that we’re not discussing how Silicon Valley 1.0 (not Web 1.0) was built with Uncle Sam’s money, specifically DoD and DARPA. That dirty little secret isn’t mentioned much.[/quote]

Yes and no, I’d say.

For example, government research did a lot to advance of the initial development of microprocessor technology, but the billions that Intel spent paying engineers and building massive fabrication plants in the past few decades came from private investment.[/quote]

Pri: Uncle Sugar spent billions in the Valley, and also funneled massive sums through Stanford, Cal and the NLs (Lawrence-Berkeley and Lawrence-Livermore). While I’d definitely agree that private investment put up huge money, in many cases it was generally following the government outlays.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=markmax33][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=markmax33]
If the whole system is gamed at the same time equally by an exterior group of people, are the players on the playing field still not even? You seem to be missing my point. You seem to be missing the simplified example I am trying to make.[/quote]

Markmax: I NEVER said that the WHOLE system is gamed (you obviously did not read the very comment of mine you appended).

Rather, I said that the system LARGELY fulfills it’s function, but that if you create a perverse incentive structure, perverse results will follow, i.e. the tech bust and the mortgage meltdown.

You need to be more flexible and less dogmatic and doctrinaire in your thinking.[/quote]

Yes but your comment had nothing to do with my point. I was responding to your unrelated comment and you never once gave any sort of credible backup for attacking certain tech IPOs and other companies with solid fundamentals. I’m still waiting how $125/facebook user for infinite marketing isn’t going to be a massive success. If you think about location marketing potential it’s going to be even bigger. They will eventually be able to automatically negotiate the price of an item with you as you stand infront of it as you try to walk away. It’s coming, it’s going to be huge.[/quote]

Markmax: Again, and this time with feeling: THE FUNDAMENTALS DO NOT CHANGE. Stop reading the marketing fluff and dig into the due diligence. Do a financial workup wherein you compare Facebook metrics versus Google metrics (including accounting fundamentals, “acid testing”, etc) at this point in the respective company lives. Read ALL of the footnotes, annotations and marginalia. Read ALL of the disclosures. Read ALL of the waivers, disclaimers and CYA legalese.

The original tech bust is extremely instructive and even you opined that the average American should’ve known which companies would succeed and which would fail. They clearly didn’t and largely because emotion replaced reason and hype replaced performance. The Facebook IPO and underwriting guidelines are a very interesting read and one I doubt you’ve delved into, because your comments show a complete lack of depth from an investigative standpoint. Again, you’re someone who represents having an MBA, but seems to lack even the most rudimentary Accounting/Finance skills or understanding.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Markmax: Here’s Facebook’s SEC S-1 filing: http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512034517/d287954ds1.htm

Have fun.

[sreeb]

[quote=kcal09]Sooo…now we know that Mitt plays a mini-tax [/quote]

Mitt appears to be paying $3M per year. That is a lot more than I pay.

How much should one person have to pay?

I don’t feel I get the government I want and I resent my much smaller bill.

I find it disturbing when I read that 80% of the population thinks the rich don’t pay their “fair share” while 50% of the population pays nothing at all. Lots of people who pay nothing at all think that those who do pay don’t pay enough? How is that right?

Why would Mitt even stay in the US?

[Author]

Posts