View Single Post
Old 02-27-2009, 01:03 AM   #21
Darth Avlectus
@Darth Avlectus
I'd buy that for a dollar
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: My pervert mansion
Posts: 4,397
Current Game: A dirty old man.
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
If any ďso-calledĒ expert knew what the market was going to do they would not be blabbing about it in the media. They would invest their money and then set back and watch the money roll in.
Mmm, yes and in it for himself, yes. Knows whaen to walk away, yes.

For the economy, not so much...any economist knows that to horde or put $$$ in a bank acct causes circulation to stop...Investing is obviously different as ther is some form of liability and risk and such...what do you think has been happening lately?

[quote]Yes, the market is self-correcting. If we do nothing it will correct itself eventually. That is not going to help people losing their jobs, retirement, homes and medical coverage. [quote] TRue but what it does do is let the wound bleed out and flood out the undesirable 'contaminants' and 'infections'.

Now if we got into material/equipment or other physical property investment...I don't know enough to tell you much there. I'd actually invite enlightenment here.

Iíd say yes and no. Iím sure some stocks are very undervalued at the moment. Iím also sure there are some stocks that are still overvalued and require further corrections. Being able to evaluate the difference between the two decides if you make money or lose money in the market.
[Warning]: if you draw another +/-1 card, I will be forced to enact assassination protocols.

I will have to agree with Yar-El to a certain minor degree, but perhaps not for the same reason. Uncertainty is a driving force in the markets and Obamaís vision of the future breeds uncertainty among investors.
Because most average people cannot detach themselves emotionally to intellectually analyze what goes on and why. Hint: It's always either good or bad with these folks depending upon the current trend

[quote] However, I completely disagree with the idea that the market could be manipulated to such a degree. I also disagree with companies and investors losing money on purpose.[quote]

True suddenly taking off with a significant chunk of $$$ would be delayed in its effect. Take too much and you'll be sorry, when it suddenly halts and fingers all point at you.

Still, the company recently pillaged would have a wobbling teetering effect in its performance until it needed a bailout or it crashed.
That and they are already so filthy rich they can take $$ and run--and cover their tracks.

That makes no logical or business sence and any CEO that would do it would soon be looking for another job. They donít keep their jobs by making political points, their only concern is making the stockholders money.
Oh? Then how do you explain the gold market? I see gold at a rather low price right now. Now is a good time to "buy". However, unless you actually have the real physical thing in your hands, it is just numbers on paper.
As well I see all those commercials advertising to "buy your gold now 'cuz YOU need the ca$h now". Clever in these hard times. Once these companies have all the physical product they can get (within reason...probably on a margin of diminishing returns ), they will jack up the price and sell again.

I could be wrong about it as it may not overlap w.r.t. investments and performance as it is for just running a business, BUT:
Is it not also possible to run at a loss for a period to shave off competition?
That is a little incentive...albeit not great incentive but enough if it will make business easier and less competitve so you own the majority of business in a market. It's illegal, yes, but that didn't stop some.

Originally Posted by Web Rider View Post
I'm not against the system, I'm against the way it's used and the mindset people have in it. Treating companies like their job is to make you money and not make a good affordable product and take care of their employees is one of the things that is destroying American companies.
Hmm. I do seem to recall that it was once said "without personal integrity and responsibility, it falls apart". It was a prominent economist who said it if I do recall correctly.

You'd need to be one for true meritocracy if you are to make sense of the horribly misplaced logic in this nation.

And "fantastic growth" is what our economy doesn't need. It needs stable, reliable growth, not 20 years of growth followed by 5 years of depression. Innovation is produced by competition, not the stock market.
True, sorta. Still, government fails for the same reason free market enterprise can. Human nature. Managing, financing, planning, governing, regulating. I'm just not sure of any real way to go about this that would continue to last.

Originally Posted by Web Rider View Post
It is. Like the stock market, most private companies that live only to make money will do so, they will build, and rise, and grow and make profits, and then crash hard and fast. It may take 20 years, but making absurd profits at the expense of labor and quality will always do this. Labor eventually gets sick of it, and consumers switch in a heartbeat when something better comes along.

I'm not saying companies shouldn't make money, they should. I'm just saying that they shouldn't be sacrificing labor and quality to do so.
Well, also clients can be fickle in a market championing freedom of choice. I'm sure that plays in as a factor. (Just something to consider! ) I may have a little here that I can share in terms of personal experience, though I am not sure how relevant it is overall. The main thing I'd wish to convey is how sometimes consumers are not loyal and thus depending upon them is a very precarious proposition for surviving. ...If you'd care to hear it.

True that companies which do this kind of unethical behavior continuously will inevitably crash hard. You reap what you sew. These are also the type I'd consider to undercut more honest companies.

Also, why are we relegating this to just producers? Why not service providers? I am sure everyone here has a story or two about that.
If not, I would recommend listening to Clark Howard on "Customer NO-Service".

Ideally, by having the people who run companies pay their employees enough to afford the products they're producing. It's a mindset change and that's the hardest of them al.
True, however when larger competitors have a greedy mindset, it does both set a bad example and it sets in a hostile environment that one quickly realizes survival by means of underhanded competitive methods may be necessary to remain.

That's how it all gets botched, sadly. Someone gets ahead and starts turning the stakes reeeeeal nasty.

The stock market inflates the value of certain goods through making them appear profitable to people who are uninvested in the system. It provides ONLY financial capital, nothing more.
Ah. I knew there was a reason I stayed the hell away from it.

Originally Posted by mur'phon View Post
I think that vision is unrealistic as long as there are no incentives for bosses to do so. I have yet to see people do things not to their own benefit, and unless they start valuing the good feeling of paying their employees more than the cost of doing so (which I have little hope will happen), I don't see how things will change. The fact that the market would punish companies who didn't aim to maximize profit makes the scenario even less likely.
Sad, isn't it?

Good point, though. As long as it appears there is no real incentive to build trust in employees and consumers, also, they will continuously 'push the envelope' in any way they can, only to straighten up their act to try again down the road. You can throw all the rules and regulations you want at these people, but that will not stop them from taking advantage if they ever see openings of any kind. Skimping, ripping off longtime loyal customers, bribing (though this works only if the one on the other end actually takes the bribe), exploiting employees or hiring illegals who can't lodge complaints and keeping as many of those as possible to undercut business and avoid costs and taxes.

Originally Posted by Web Rider View Post
It's not, up till the 60's that's what most companies did. If you pay your workers enough so that they can afford your product, it essentially means they're paying themselves. You don't have to pay them enough to buy a new one every day, but when a person feels they can afford what they're making, they're going to be happier about making it.
Change is bad. Especially like this. While you points that doing the right thing actually shows through time (just ask Smuckers Jam company) is rare that it will catch on and gain any kind of traction--we live in turbulent and greedy times.

In other markets where consumers are fickle, what ends up being the case is that you must be as slippery as them if not more-so if you want to catch their business. Case in point: The current VG Console wars. Many just simply got a Wii or a Xbox360 because they wanted a new game system, yet could not afford the cost of a PS3 (or just would not pay that much).

The obvious rebuttle for the competitors of PS3 was that since theirs was a superior system (capability potential wise), was for them to keep on making it comfortable for the game producer companies to make titles. Game 'library' is what lures customers eventually I noticed. Make your minimal level systems adequate but affordable, and provide the games.

However, they all seem to nickel and dime you to death with accessories and unlockable content, and as is becoming a new trend, online service w/ the console. I still think home computers will continue to have the edge here though.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,