[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
So yes when you buy a Ford share you are giving them your hard earned money which they in turn put to work investing in harder assets…like robots (or perhaps jobs for the robot company). When you only buy one share you are only contributing a small amount, individually insignificant can quickly become collectively significant.[/quote]

No, you’re not giving them a dime. You’re paying someone else who owns a share of Ford a few bucks. Only when Ford issues new shares or sells treasury stock are you providing any capital for robots.

I’m not saying that it’s an inefficient market. Only that the vast majority of invested capital has almost no effect on job creation or business expansion.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
So yes when you buy a Ford share you are giving them your hard earned money which they in turn put to work investing in harder assets…like robots (or perhaps jobs for the robot company). When you only buy one share you are only contributing a small amount, individually insignificant can quickly become collectively significant.[/quote]

No, you’re not giving them a dime. You’re paying someone else who owns a share of Ford a few bucks. Only when Ford issues new shares or sells treasury stock are you providing any capital for robots.

I’m not saying that it’s an inefficient market. Only that the vast majority of invested capital has almost no effect on job creation or business expansion.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
So yes when you buy a Ford share you are giving them your hard earned money which they in turn put to work investing in harder assets…like robots (or perhaps jobs for the robot company). When you only buy one share you are only contributing a small amount, individually insignificant can quickly become collectively significant.[/quote]

No, you’re not giving them a dime. You’re paying someone else who owns a share of Ford a few bucks. Only when Ford issues new shares or sells treasury stock are you providing any capital for robots.

I’m not saying that it’s an inefficient market. Only that the vast majority of invested capital has almost no effect on job creation or business expansion.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
So yes when you buy a Ford share you are giving them your hard earned money which they in turn put to work investing in harder assets…like robots (or perhaps jobs for the robot company). When you only buy one share you are only contributing a small amount, individually insignificant can quickly become collectively significant.[/quote]

No, you’re not giving them a dime. You’re paying someone else who owns a share of Ford a few bucks. Only when Ford issues new shares or sells treasury stock are you providing any capital for robots.

I’m not saying that it’s an inefficient market. Only that the vast majority of invested capital has almost no effect on job creation or business expansion.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
You do realize that passive income is crucial to a healthy expanding economy? It is not just simply gambling (save commodities), but provides capital to people who have no money but good ideas. Without people making investments (looking for passive income), we would have no economic development. We would have only a fortified wealthy class untouchable by the up and coming innovators. Only in America can you have a good idea with no collateral and have someone lend you millions. Therefore, we should not want to tax either passive income or labor income, but should encourage both.[/quote]

To a great extent, that is hogwash. If you log into your etrade account, and purchase 100 shares of Ford, it does nothing to further economic development. It has no effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant. It provides no new capital. Same logic applies to the billions of dollars that are traded daily on the world’s exchanges for common stocks, mutual funds, ETF’s or the secondary markets for fixed income securities. IPO’s, initial direct investments in new companies provides that capital. A tiny fraction of the total invested capital.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
You do realize that passive income is crucial to a healthy expanding economy? It is not just simply gambling (save commodities), but provides capital to people who have no money but good ideas. Without people making investments (looking for passive income), we would have no economic development. We would have only a fortified wealthy class untouchable by the up and coming innovators. Only in America can you have a good idea with no collateral and have someone lend you millions. Therefore, we should not want to tax either passive income or labor income, but should encourage both.[/quote]

To a great extent, that is hogwash. If you log into your etrade account, and purchase 100 shares of Ford, it does nothing to further economic development. It has no effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant. It provides no new capital. Same logic applies to the billions of dollars that are traded daily on the world’s exchanges for common stocks, mutual funds, ETF’s or the secondary markets for fixed income securities. IPO’s, initial direct investments in new companies provides that capital. A tiny fraction of the total invested capital.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
You do realize that passive income is crucial to a healthy expanding economy? It is not just simply gambling (save commodities), but provides capital to people who have no money but good ideas. Without people making investments (looking for passive income), we would have no economic development. We would have only a fortified wealthy class untouchable by the up and coming innovators. Only in America can you have a good idea with no collateral and have someone lend you millions. Therefore, we should not want to tax either passive income or labor income, but should encourage both.[/quote]

To a great extent, that is hogwash. If you log into your etrade account, and purchase 100 shares of Ford, it does nothing to further economic development. It has no effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant. It provides no new capital. Same logic applies to the billions of dollars that are traded daily on the world’s exchanges for common stocks, mutual funds, ETF’s or the secondary markets for fixed income securities. IPO’s, initial direct investments in new companies provides that capital. A tiny fraction of the total invested capital.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
You do realize that passive income is crucial to a healthy expanding economy? It is not just simply gambling (save commodities), but provides capital to people who have no money but good ideas. Without people making investments (looking for passive income), we would have no economic development. We would have only a fortified wealthy class untouchable by the up and coming innovators. Only in America can you have a good idea with no collateral and have someone lend you millions. Therefore, we should not want to tax either passive income or labor income, but should encourage both.[/quote]

To a great extent, that is hogwash. If you log into your etrade account, and purchase 100 shares of Ford, it does nothing to further economic development. It has no effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant. It provides no new capital. Same logic applies to the billions of dollars that are traded daily on the world’s exchanges for common stocks, mutual funds, ETF’s or the secondary markets for fixed income securities. IPO’s, initial direct investments in new companies provides that capital. A tiny fraction of the total invested capital.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
You do realize that passive income is crucial to a healthy expanding economy? It is not just simply gambling (save commodities), but provides capital to people who have no money but good ideas. Without people making investments (looking for passive income), we would have no economic development. We would have only a fortified wealthy class untouchable by the up and coming innovators. Only in America can you have a good idea with no collateral and have someone lend you millions. Therefore, we should not want to tax either passive income or labor income, but should encourage both.[/quote]

To a great extent, that is hogwash. If you log into your etrade account, and purchase 100 shares of Ford, it does nothing to further economic development. It has no effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant. It provides no new capital. Same logic applies to the billions of dollars that are traded daily on the world’s exchanges for common stocks, mutual funds, ETF’s or the secondary markets for fixed income securities. IPO’s, initial direct investments in new companies provides that capital. A tiny fraction of the total invested capital.

[SK in CV]

Lots of broken campaign promises…but this

[quote=Veritas] refuses to keep his promises about ending the war..[/quote]

isn’t one of them. He has done almost exactly as advertised.

[SK in CV]

Lots of broken campaign promises…but this

[quote=Veritas] refuses to keep his promises about ending the war..[/quote]

isn’t one of them. He has done almost exactly as advertised.

[SK in CV]

Lots of broken campaign promises…but this

[quote=Veritas] refuses to keep his promises about ending the war..[/quote]

isn’t one of them. He has done almost exactly as advertised.

[SK in CV]

Lots of broken campaign promises…but this

[quote=Veritas] refuses to keep his promises about ending the war..[/quote]

isn’t one of them. He has done almost exactly as advertised.

[SK in CV]

Lots of broken campaign promises…but this

[quote=Veritas] refuses to keep his promises about ending the war..[/quote]

isn’t one of them. He has done almost exactly as advertised.

[SK in CV]

[quote=threadkiller]Just had to jump in and say I doubt every landlord has a business license. I made a u-turn in front of a bunch of apartments today, did I break the law? Ok maybe it was a 3 point turn.[/quote]

You’re probably right. But I haven’t seen any discussion here of a business license.

[Author]

Posts