|
Grex > Agora46 > #15: Socially REsponsible Investing (long) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 104 responses total. |
pvn
|
|
response 75 of 104:
| 
Jul 7 06:10 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, some folk use a trained monkey.
|
pvn
|
|
response 76 of 104:
|
Jul 7 06:10 UTC 2003 |
...but it has to be a borrowed monkey.
|
gull
|
|
response 77 of 104:
|
Jul 7 14:33 UTC 2003 |
As one commentator put it, "if market timing worked, we'd all know it,
because the person who figured it out would own just about everything by
now."
|
klg
|
|
response 78 of 104:
|
Jul 7 16:19 UTC 2003 |
re: "#71 (rcurl): mdw is correct: the purpose of the stock exchange
is to raise capital for business ventures..."
Which would be the case for initial offerings, but not for the buying &
selling of existing shares/bonds held by the public.
and: "The ventures for making money without supporting productive
business are called casinos."
Or, in many areas, public schools (and various other government
enterprises).
|
tod
|
|
response 79 of 104:
|
Jul 7 16:51 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 80 of 104:
|
Jul 7 17:55 UTC 2003 |
What, is EnRon really selling at 4 cents a share. Heck, buy
a 100 or so. YOu can only lose $400, unlike those that bought it
first low price of $19/share.
|
janc
|
|
response 81 of 104:
|
Jul 7 18:45 UTC 2003 |
Dunno about the state of Washington. The state of Texas has no income tax
(I actually spent some time trying to figure out where to get state tax
forms the first year I lived there). They have high sales taxes and do
a crappy job of funding their schools, resulting in noticably crappy schools.
Sure was nice not having to file a tax return though.
|
tod
|
|
response 82 of 104:
|
Jul 7 19:26 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 104:
|
Jul 7 19:44 UTC 2003 |
klg is, as usual, confused and just shooting off his mouth. Schools and
government programs are *non-profit* and are not "ventures for making
money".
|
tod
|
|
response 84 of 104:
|
Jul 7 19:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 85 of 104:
|
Jul 7 19:59 UTC 2003 |
I've heard that Washington's public schools are kind of crappy compared
to Michigan's. I have also heard that Washington has dismal public
services. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? It's hard to say.
Seattle is less of a hole than Detroit but that could have nothing to
do with public services or tax rates or whatever. *shrug*
|
klg
|
|
response 86 of 104:
|
Jul 7 20:10 UTC 2003 |
Thank you, Mr. tod. We wonder why Mr. rcurl believes that schools and
other so-called governmental and non-profit organizations do not (in
his words) "make money." We seem to recall sending significant
payments to federal, state, and local governments on an all-too regular
basis. Also, when I was employed in a voluntary hospital there seemed
to be an obsession with "making money." Perhaps Mr. rcurl does not pay
taxes. Perhaps hospitals no longer have that concern. Perhaps we are
out of touch.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 87 of 104:
|
Jul 7 20:30 UTC 2003 |
No, you are out of touch. Of course schools pay their faculty, who are
employees carrying out the non-profit functions. But the school makes no
profit from this. No one would buy stock from them on the stock exchange
as they pay no dividends (and of course don't even issue stock).
|
tod
|
|
response 88 of 104:
|
Jul 7 21:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 89 of 104:
|
Jul 8 00:34 UTC 2003 |
There is an actual bus service that works from Seattle and north.
|
klg
|
|
response 90 of 104:
|
Jul 8 01:55 UTC 2003 |
Mr. tod.
Based on Mr. rcurls analysis (i.e., that the government and its
institutions are not interested in making money), we believe we may pay
our taxes government bills in seashells.
klg
|
senna
|
|
response 91 of 104:
|
Jul 8 02:30 UTC 2003 |
Detroit's schools are really benefitting from that income tax, aren't they?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Perhaps what is really needed is an anlysis of
revenues versus expenses. Correlating income tax with school success is very
shakey, to me.
|
slynne
|
|
response 92 of 104:
|
Jul 8 02:53 UTC 2003 |
I meant social services. Sorry I wasnt more clear.
The problems with Detroit's schools run deeper than just money,
unfortunately.
|
scg
|
|
response 93 of 104:
|
Jul 8 06:20 UTC 2003 |
re 91:
To raise money with any tax, there has to be money to raise. For
Detroit, where the racial segregation (and thus income segregation) boundaries
tend to follow city boundaries, an income tax may well be able to raise more
than a property tax, because an income tax can tax those who commute in from
the suburbs. But that could also hurt the city, since it gives people an
incentive to earn their income in the suburbs rather than in the city, so
Detroit's city income tax can't be very much. If Detroit's tax funding is
limited to sources within Detroit, they're not going to be able to raise much
no matter what they tax.
|
pvn
|
|
response 94 of 104:
|
Jul 8 06:40 UTC 2003 |
But the "solution" to the problem in Detroit (and DC which has the
highest per pupil spending) is to throw more money at it, right?
And where does that money come from?
The purpose of a common stock company is two fold, as a force multiplier
(business is war) and to distribute risk. Lets say I have 10 dollars
with which to buy 10 beads at 1 dollar each to trade with the indians
and I think trading with the indians while risky will result in a
profit. I can trade my 10 dollars for 10 beads and trade with the
indians and get goods which I trade for money for a profit of say 100
cents per year (not bad). I might also get scalped and lose my 10
beads, but I don't really care at that point. However, if I have such a
great idea for making money, I convince a million people to buy a
million shares of common stock at 10 dollars each, can buy the beads at
10 cents each because of the volume, and pay 100 people to trade the
beads for 1 dollars worth of goods where 10 of the hundred are scalped,
90 succeed, build a private army to protect the traders, well, you do
the numbers. Lets say I am the holder of on 10 dollar share. I can
hold the share and get the now 7 dollar per year profit - greater return
on investment (ROI) and no potential loss of life, or I can sell the
share now for 12 dollars (double the ROI were I to risk life and try to
do the bead deal on the small scale myself) to sombody else willing to
wait the full year - who doesn't get the same profit as an IPO investor,
but still doesn't risk life. That in the simplest form is the purpose
of stocks.
|
scott
|
|
response 95 of 104:
|
Jul 8 06:48 UTC 2003 |
I find it pretty funny that some people see the stock market as a way to make
money off unethical businesses while somehow not ending up tainted themselves.
Especially people who make a big deal about ethics in other areas.
|
pvn
|
|
response 96 of 104:
|
Jul 8 07:02 UTC 2003 |
I think the point the investors in socially responsible funds and/or
companies are trying to make is that it is possible to make money by
investing in "ethical" companies. (You give a lot away about your bias
by using the phrase "make money off".)
In the long run you make money by investing in profitable companies.
It is a self correcting mechanism and has little to do with social
consciousness. You make money dealing with a company that is ethical in
that it pays fair money to its suppliers on a timely fashion and gives
good value to its customers thus generating a profit.
|
scott
|
|
response 97 of 104:
|
Jul 8 07:08 UTC 2003 |
What's so biased about the phrase "make money off"? I made a lot of money
off developing software, and more recently I made a lot of money off selling
my house.
|
pvn
|
|
response 98 of 104:
|
Jul 8 07:23 UTC 2003 |
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
|
scott
|
|
response 99 of 104:
|
Jul 8 11:10 UTC 2003 |
I had a college prof who used to give that "exercise for the students" line.
Didn't take long for me to figure out that he was either too lazy or stupid
to come up with an explanation by himself.
|