5 ms·

On the one hand, the ability to usefully interact with the stock market is very limited for the majority of people, as they do not have the extra income to inve

On the one hand, the ability to usefully interact with the stock market is very limited for the majority of people, as they do not have the extra income to invest. It's very much a system in which the lower class do not get to meaningfully benefit from most the time. On the other hand, the companies will be made of people, expand by hiring new people, and pay these people with those profits, so much of the money will make it to people. Companies making lots of money is not a problem. Companies saving vast amounts of it in war chests is, IMO (depending on how they save it), as it's effectively removing it from the economy. I really hope Apple and Google's massive saving are stored by being reinvested in some way and aren't just entirely removed from the economy, because that would be a shame. I suppose even if they were just stored in a bank that would be used as capital for loans, so maybe it's not that bad.

WalterBright 4y ago
> Companies saving vast amounts of it in war chests is, IMO (depending on how they save it), as it's effectively removing it from the economy. Nobody saves money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. All the money is invested, all of it. Even money in a checking account is invested. (The banks invest it, that's why they offer free checking accounts. They're not a charity.) The majority of people do invest in the stock market. > the lower class is not the majority. Even so, brokers like Robinhood have made it easy for anyone with a phone to invest.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Nobody saves money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. All the money is invested, all of it. Russian oligarchs invested vast amounts of money into super yahts and luzury London real estate, which sits empty 360 days a year. Is that productive investment?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    I bet you own some toys you don't use, too. A yacht and a luxury apartment ain't worth spit in the context of the global economy. Besides, they might be good investments.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      The original question was - is the money in corporate warchests being used productively or is it lost to the economy. Noone has demobstrated it is beong used productively. O am illustrating that some investments are terrible for the economy.
- kbenson 4y ago
  > Nobody saves money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. Why do I feel like you're reading half my comments and responding to that? > The majority of people do invest in the stock market. You're right. A slight majority, at less than 60%, based on sourced I found. Is that where we're at now? As long as you're part of that almost 60% then it's all good? > brokers like Robinhood have made it easy for anyone with a phone to invest. And my point is that many people don't have enough extra income to be able to usefully benefit from this, regardless of how much easier it's become. Someone that can only afford $100 a month to invest will see far less benefit than someone that can afford to invest $1000 a month, yet the person than can afford $1000 a month is likely not making 10x the income. Expecting everyone to be able to benefit equally from stock market gains is ridiculous, yet suggesting people buy stock if they are worried about too much profit being directed towards companies is suggesting the problem is solved by by that, and is thus itself ridiculous.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > Expecting everyone to be able to benefit equally from stock market gains is ridiculous That's your strawman. > many people don't have enough extra income And yet people find the income to buy lottery tickets, go to the movies, go to the bar, etc. Investing does mean giving up some of this spending. > Someone that can only afford $100 a month to invest will see far less benefit Of course. But they are also seeing far more benefit than not investing. Remember that Gamestop stock craze a year ago? Many people playing that game were very low income people, including kids. Somehow they did have money to invest, when they thought it was worthwhile.
    - kbenson 4y ago
      > That's your strawman. If it's a strawman than your original statement was a non-sequitur, as I cover below. > Of course. But they are also seeing far more benefit than not investing. I believe your statement was that people can invest in the stock of these companies that would theoretically be getting most the profit to get "your share" of the profits, as opposed to it being slurped up by the wealthy. This isn't about benefiting in some small way, it's about the benefit not ending up disproportionately in the hands of those that already have it. That was the context in which your statement of how you can just buy stock to get your share was made, because that's what this thread of the conversation was about. > Remember that Gamestop stock craze a year ago? Many people playing that game were very low income people, including kids. Somehow they did have money to invest, when they thought it was worthwhile. You mean the bunches of young people that took out loans to invest, or took their saving from living at home with their parents that they could have used to actually become independent? Is that what we're encouraging now? Because that was my take on that situation. A bunch of desperate people taking a risky gamble that happened to pay off, at least for some.

WalterBright 4y ago

> Companies saving vast amounts of it in war chests is, IMO (depending on how they save it), as it's effectively removing it from the economy. Nobody saves money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. All the money is invested, all of it. Even money in a checking account is invested. (The banks invest it, that's why they offer free checking accounts. They're not a charity.) The majority of people do invest in the stock market. > the lower class is not the majority. Even so, brokers like Robinhood have made it easy for anyone with a phone to invest.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Nobody saves money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. All the money is invested, all of it. Russian oligarchs invested vast amounts of money into super yahts and luzury London real estate, which sits empty 360 days a year. Is that productive investment?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  I bet you own some toys you don't use, too. A yacht and a luxury apartment ain't worth spit in the context of the global economy. Besides, they might be good investments.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    The original question was - is the money in corporate warchests being used productively or is it lost to the economy. Noone has demobstrated it is beong used productively. O am illustrating that some investments are terrible for the economy.
kbenson 4y ago
> Nobody saves money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. Why do I feel like you're reading half my comments and responding to that? > The majority of people do invest in the stock market. You're right. A slight majority, at less than 60%, based on sourced I found. Is that where we're at now? As long as you're part of that almost 60% then it's all good? > brokers like Robinhood have made it easy for anyone with a phone to invest. And my point is that many people don't have enough extra income to be able to usefully benefit from this, regardless of how much easier it's become. Someone that can only afford $100 a month to invest will see far less benefit than someone that can afford to invest $1000 a month, yet the person than can afford $1000 a month is likely not making 10x the income. Expecting everyone to be able to benefit equally from stock market gains is ridiculous, yet suggesting people buy stock if they are worried about too much profit being directed towards companies is suggesting the problem is solved by by that, and is thus itself ridiculous.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > Expecting everyone to be able to benefit equally from stock market gains is ridiculous That's your strawman. > many people don't have enough extra income And yet people find the income to buy lottery tickets, go to the movies, go to the bar, etc. Investing does mean giving up some of this spending. > Someone that can only afford $100 a month to invest will see far less benefit Of course. But they are also seeing far more benefit than not investing. Remember that Gamestop stock craze a year ago? Many people playing that game were very low income people, including kids. Somehow they did have money to invest, when they thought it was worthwhile.
  - kbenson 4y ago
    > That's your strawman. If it's a strawman than your original statement was a non-sequitur, as I cover below. > Of course. But they are also seeing far more benefit than not investing. I believe your statement was that people can invest in the stock of these companies that would theoretically be getting most the profit to get "your share" of the profits, as opposed to it being slurped up by the wealthy. This isn't about benefiting in some small way, it's about the benefit not ending up disproportionately in the hands of those that already have it. That was the context in which your statement of how you can just buy stock to get your share was made, because that's what this thread of the conversation was about. > Remember that Gamestop stock craze a year ago? Many people playing that game were very low income people, including kids. Somehow they did have money to invest, when they thought it was worthwhile. You mean the bunches of young people that took out loans to invest, or took their saving from living at home with their parents that they could have used to actually become independent? Is that what we're encouraging now? Because that was my take on that situation. A bunch of desperate people taking a risky gamble that happened to pay off, at least for some.