meazza Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 yeah. i'm thinking that's not a ringing endorsement for your investment services. i always thought most of the big players in your field are cokeheads. And doctors aren't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 yeah. i'm thinking that's not a ringing endorsement for your investment services. i always thought most of the big players in your field are cokeheads. Nah they're mostly boozers and potheads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Yeah I already came to that conclusion,. Same, I never ask you anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 And doctors aren't? nope. but that appears to be a concession to my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 And doctors aren't? No they're pill poppers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 nope. but that appears to be a concession to my point. What does that have to do with amateurs staying away from financial markets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Instead of the Fed making lower interest loans available to banks, there needs to be some other way to pump money into the economy. Like from the bottom up instead of top down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Hillary On Being Paid $675,000 to Speak to Goldman Sachs: 'That's What They Offered' http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-on-being-paid-675000-to-speak-to-goldman-sachs-thats-what-they-offered/article/2000896/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=20160203_TWS-blog-hillary-goldman-sachs-speech-2_twitter&utm_content=TWS Goldman lobbyists, VPs, CEO's wife are all Hillary donors http://washex.am/20tmKKA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Instead of the Fed making lower interest loans available to banks, there needs to be some other way to pump money into the economy. Like from the bottom up instead of top down. Like lowering taxes in order to increase consumer spending power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Like lowering taxes in order to increase consumer spending power? usually more than negated by Fines, fees, and increases in regressive taxes like sales taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Like lowering taxes in order to increase consumer spending power? On the middle class, yes No, I won't define middle class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 On the middle class, yes No, I won't define middle class You are so !@#$ing useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 You are so !@#$ing useless. Oh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 There is a simple reason why postpartum analysis of any financial crisis will show the little guy getting hurt. The little guy shouldn't be in the financial markets in the first place. Financial markets aren't rigged against the little guy any more than the airline markets are rigged against the little guy. Financial markets are all about the quickest access to information. Nothing more, nothing less. One of these days I would like one of you to explain to me why its unfair for Goldman Sachs to have better information on the markets when they spend billions to develop their information networks, but not unfair for Boeing to have better capability to manufacture an airplane. It's not unfair to have better information, but how they use it and abuse it... Abacus cadabacus.... MBS fraud Conflicts between their research and trading divisions Sending wrong information by "error"...cough! cough! And on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Goldman wrote: "We are always wary of guiding for mean reversion. But, if we are wrong and high margins manage to endure for the next few years (particularly when global demand growth is below trend), there are broader questions to be asked about the efficacy of capitalism." In other words, profit margins should naturally mean-revert and oscillate. The existence of fat margins should encourage new competitors and pricing cycles that cause those margins to erode; conversely, at the bottom of the cycle, low margins should lead to weaker players exiting the business and giving stronger companies more breathing space. If that cycle doesn't continue, something strange is taking place. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/goldman-sachs-says-it-may-be-forced-to-fundamentally-question-how-capitalism-is-working What this essentially says, but GS certainly won't be this direct, is that if wages continue to stagnate and productivity continues to rise, inequality will continue to worsen. Despite all of the claptrap about crazy Sanders and Trump, I believe this is what is driving their populatiry. Also, I think what Rhino was trying to state, though it goes back to the late 1970s, there has been a class war waged against most workers for the past 36 years in order to suppress their bargaining power. Corporate margins are high because wages are stagnant. If corporations fail to share the benefits from productivity gains, then one must question the system.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 It's not unfair to have better information, but how they use it and abuse it... Abacus cadabacus.... MBS fraud Conflicts between their research and trading divisions Sending wrong information by "error"...cough! cough! And on.... How the hell is goldman trading at 161 a share? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 It's not unfair to have better information, but how they use it and abuse it... Abacus cadabacus.... MBS fraud Conflicts between their research and trading divisions Sending wrong information by "error"...cough! cough! And on.... Goldman doesn't deal with retail investors, but I'm sure you know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 What this essentially says, but GS certainly won't be this direct, is that if wages continue to stagnate and productivity continues to rise, inequality will continue to worsen. Despite all of the claptrap about crazy Sanders and Trump, I believe this is what is driving their populatiry. Also, I think what Rhino was trying to state, though it goes back to the late 1970s, there has been a class war waged against most workers for the past 36 years in order to suppress their bargaining power. Corporate margins are high because wages are stagnant. If corporations fail to share the benefits from productivity gains, then one must question the system.... And this as part of what you said? https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity The buyback wave has gotten so big, in fact, that even shareholders—the presumed beneficiaries of all this corporate largesse—are getting worried. “It concerns us that, in the wake of the financial crisis, many companies have shied away from investing in the future growth of their companies,” Laurence Fink, the chairman and CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, wrote in an open letter to corporate America in March. “Too many companies have cut capital expenditure and even increased debt to boost dividends and increase share buybacks.” Why are such massive resources being devoted to stock repurchases? Corporate executives give several reasons, which I will discuss later. But none of them has close to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority of their pay, and in the short term buybacks drive up stock prices. In 2012 the 500 highest-paid executives named in proxy statements of U.S. public companies received, on average, $30.3 million each; 42% of their compensation came from stock options and 41% from stock awards. By increasing the demand for a company’s shares, open-market buybacks automatically lift its stock price, even if only temporarily, and can enable the company to hit quarterly earnings per share (EPS) targets. As a result, the very people we rely on to make investments in the productive capabilities that will increase our shared prosperity are instead devoting most of their companies’ profits to uses that will increase their own prosperity—with unsurprising results. Even when adjusted for inflation, the compensation of top U.S. executives has doubled or tripled since the first half of the 1990s, when it was already widely viewed as excessive. Meanwhile, overall U.S. economic performance has faltered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 So you're not good with economics, writing, or science. What is it exactly that you are good at? The benefits (faults?) of a liberal arts education. I'm terrible with economics. No denying it, I never had the patience for it in college despite most of my college friends ending up in the financial sector after graduation. I took (and somehow passed) micro and macro intro classes but that's about as far as my economics education went. Math is by far and away my weakest area, which is why econ and higher physics weren't in my academic wheelhouse (yet chemistry always was fun and made sense to me for some reason). Thankfully I'm in a field where I don't have to use much of either, but I do wish I had a better footing in both those areas now that I'm in my 30s. If for no other reason than helping find my footing when I dive into some of the more fringe research subjects for work. It would also help me in dealing with some folks in my business who are quite sharp in those areas (and also help with those in my business who aren't as sharp and believe science and physics cannot explain turbulence... ). And my writing is for shite, though somehow people find it entertaining. Not sure why but my guess is most of my readers have a high amount of alcohol or THC in their systems when they read me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 On the middle class, yes No, I won't define middle class Why just the middle class? If lower taxes will pump more money into the economy why not reduce taxes for everyone? And why won't you define the middle class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts