Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Could Spawn Thousands of Milionaires

Hugh Pickens writes "Retuers reports that the world's No. 1 online social network is preparing for a blockbuster initial public offering that could create thousands of millionaires as Facebook employees past and present begin hatching plans on how to spend their anticipated new wealth. 'There's been discussions of sort of bucket list ideas that people are putting together of things they always wanted to do and now we'll be able to do it,' says one former employee who expects his shares to be worth $50 million and is planning to book a trip to space with Virgin Galactic that would cost $200,000 or more. 'It's been a childhood dream.' Another group of Facebook workers has begun laying the groundwork for its own jungle expedition to excavate a relatively untouched site of Mayan ruins in Mexico that sounds like Raiders of the Lost Ark. But for many of Facebook's staffers, the IPO will provide the means to pay off school loans and buy a house or new car and many homeowners and real-estate agents are eagerly anticipating a surge of new buyers that could push prime real estate to new heights. 'If a Facebook guy buys a house and wants to remodel it, maybe the contractor will buy another car,' says Buff Giurlani. 'Maybe the realtor will put a car in. There's a trickle-down effect.'"

434 comments

  1. Yeah right. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is exactly what everyone needs, a bunch of people believing they are going to be rich soon.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:Yeah right. by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the only way you can sell tech IPO's nowadays.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Yeah right. by lightknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nonsense. This article only serves as a warning for everyone to prepare 'new' prices for when it actually does IPO. Read the article...these people speak of trickle-down economics, but they're really salivating at the prospect of luring an idiot into their store with waaaay too much money and apparently very little common sense. Long-lost relatives and forgotten friends will come running with their hats in their hands, doing what they can to get some of that money.

      A fool and his money, soon parted. And you've got the cream of the crop of thieves reporting in here...let's see...real-estate agents...car salesmen....home contractors....all we're missing are some dead-end charities and a handful of political operatives, and that money will be gone.

      Fun on two levels: 1.) there's only one IPO, not a dozen of them in quick succession (don't expect the good times to last) 2.) I still question what Facebook's worth will be in 3 years.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    3. Re:Yeah right. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sarcasm is truly lost on anything related to stock market, or US economy in general.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    4. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a pump and dump. Although out in the open, in the press, with reputable banks doing it, so people are misled.

    5. Re:Yeah right. by conlaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Someone needs to tell these dreamers:
      1. Read the terms of the document giving you the shares to see when they vest;
      2. Figure out where you'll get the money to buy the shares so you can sell them (sometimes you can do a cashless exchange but you have to know
      a. who will arrange this for you, and
      b. how much money it's going to cost you to have someone make the exchange
      3. Realize that there are insider lock out periods after the IPO and before and after every quarterly report (any employee with options is an insider)
      4. Profit? ?

    6. Re:Yeah right. by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I still question what Facebook's worth will be in 3 years.

      For anyone thinking Facebook will necessarily still be significant in three years, I have one word to say:

      MySpace

      Sure, maybe Facebook will remain a massive success and control most of the social-media market. Then again, maybe it won't be anything more than an old, burnt-out, irrelevant website inhabited mainly by bands that haven't been successful in years (if ever) and teenagers.

    7. Re:Yeah right. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and I would say there is a lot more reasons to believe that FB is past its prime then to think that it is a company about to sky-rocket to new heights of wealth and success.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    8. Re:Yeah right. by MBC1977 · · Score: 1

      "And you've got the cream of the crop of thieves reporting in here...let's see...real-estate agents...car salesmen....home contractors....all we're missing are some dead-end charities and a handful of political operatives, and that money will be gone"

      Kinda stereotyping there dont'cha think? Not that there is not unscrupulous individuals in any profession; but only a foolish businessman does not plan for potential customers (especially ones who soon will or may have the cash to afford your products and services).

      --
      Regards,

      MBC1977,
    9. Re:Yeah right. by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      Well as long as all the fund managers puts FB in their 401K portfolio for their clients they have done their job. Your 401K will be the biggest bagholder.

    10. Re:Yeah right. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Ya but, don't you feel lucky? Last one to sell out is a rotten egg!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    11. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. Figure out where you'll get the money to buy the shares so you can sell them (sometimes you can do a cashless exchange but you have to know
      a. who will arrange this for you, and
      b. how much money it's going to cost you to have someone make the exchange

      1.You know how I can tell you've never had stock options?
      2. Brokers will do that for their usual trade commission.

    12. Re:Yeah right. by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      We are the 99, err... 98%!

      --
      I8-D
    13. Re:Yeah right. by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

      In the future Wall Posts and Communication will be to Facebook what Searches are to Google, just a means to do their real business. Pimping your virtual a$$ out for to whoever pays the most.

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
    14. Re:Yeah right. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I still question what Facebook's worth will be in 3 years.

      Sure, maybe Facebook will remain a massive success and control most of the social-media market.

      If by some chanec the Facebook model is successul, you can bet that a whole lot of imitators will spring up to dilute the pool water.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. Trickle down? by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As opposed to the spending that would have been done had the money not been looted from the workers to begin with. If we're serious about getting out of the recession, perhaps we ought to do something radical like beef up worker protections and protections for small businesses.

    As for FB, my bet is still that it goes the way of MySpace before too long.

    1. Re:Trickle down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      As for FB, my bet is still that it goes the way of MySpace before too long.

      Especially when the staff is off playing Raiders of the Lost Ark in the Yucatan.

    2. Re:Trickle down? by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      "looted from the workers" - in what way? The workers made an investment in time and effort and now they will reap the rewards for their patience. In what way were they "looted"?

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    3. Re:Trickle down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As for FB, my bet is still that it goes the way of MySpace before too long.

      Mod parent up. It's about time for the next big fad...all we have to do is figure out what it is.

    4. Re:Trickle down? by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the OP was thinking about Zynga......where you give up your options or face termination....was an article about that recently...

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    5. Re:Trickle down? by poena.dare · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "As for FB, my bet is still that it goes the way of MySpace before too long."

      I'm hoping for something more mature, but the internet has this way of recycling ideas...

      "There was a kind of ghostly teenage DNA at work in the Sprawl,
      something that carried the coded precepts of various short-lived
      sub cults and replicated them at odd intervals."

    6. Re:Trickle down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The managers of 401k fund xyz will by these shares, face book is ok but where is the business model? Its on its way down and its an ipo, and presumably the creators are top 5 of the top 10 wealthiest people in the planet, maybe have already sold their positions. It is a good medium for advertising but even with deals look at group on.

    7. Re:Trickle down? by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I really hope those Zynga employees quit. If someone came to me and said "give us your millions in stock or lose your $60,000 a year job" I'd laugh in their face. Who would be dumb enough to give up the stock? If they did give up the stock Zynga should have fired them anyway for being dumb and giving up the stock, obviously the employee had very poor decision making skills.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    8. Re:Trickle down? by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      Of course, the "millions in stock" won't be worth much after everyone quits.

    9. Re:Trickle down? by nightcats · · Score: 1

      anyone else notice (this is very common, too) that the presentation of the trickle-down theory here is pre-loaded with "Maybe's"??? Maybe this, maybe that, maybe, maybe, maybe. And believe it or not, the young people of this nation (especially) have had their fill of shit-and-maybe sandwich.# Occupy!

      --
      Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
    10. Re:Trickle down? by markass530 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      IF you think FB is going away, what's going to replace it?? So many people here talk about how lame facebook & myspace are without having ever used them. Yea I'm a huge computer nerd, and Yea I facebook a lot. Doing so just landed me a job offer in michigan (yuck) with REALLY Good pay (yay!) so don't hate. The reason mypsace died is because it WAS Lame. it became filled with high school kids forwarding retarded chain letters, flashing lights, stupid songs, etc. It wasn't easy to stop all the stupid shit. Facebook is clean, streamlined. Easy to weed out the dumb shit (They've gotten A LOT better at this, a year or two ago it was starting to be a problem). Facebook isn't going anywhere because nothing will replace it. Google+ Is actually pretty sweet, but it's not enough to make (Most people) ditch their FB accts.

    11. Re:Trickle down? by ubrgeek · · Score: 3, Funny

      Zynga must be salivating with the new potential: Johnny has sacrificed a captured enemy and sent you a human heart as gift!

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    12. Re:Trickle down? by hedwards · · Score: 2

      I'd be lying if I suggested that it was something other than wishful thinking. I would have thought that it would have already collapsed given the blatant disrespect that FB has for the users.

    13. Re:Trickle down? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Zynga would be on example. But it things like the interest rates being well below inflation, 401k plans that mostly offer up subpar investments with ridiculously huge fees. The Federal reserve printing money to keep the moneyed class in fine wines while completely ignoring the effects that it has on small businesses and individual investors. Not to mention congress critters that are completely immune to insider trading laws.

      Where precisely do you think all this money to invest comes from? Here's a hint, it's not workers setting aside for retirement.

    14. Re:Trickle down? by DesScorp · · Score: 0

      As for FB, my bet is still that it goes the way of MySpace before too long.

      Google+ says "I wish".

      Love him or hate him, Zuckerberg is the closest thing to a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or Larry Ellison right now, a visionary, domineering personality with a lot of insight about technology possibilities and a keen business sense. Facebook isn't going anywhere. If anything, like the companies those other men started, it'll probably only grow and buy up other companies to expand its reach.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    15. Re:Trickle down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are all these people clicking ads and thus making FB money?

      Seriously, I've been on FB when it was open only to .edu accounts and I've never clicked an ad. In fact, the ads are generally very useless compared to Google AdWords. And... I gotta say, FB is starting to take up less and less of my screen time. If I check it once a week, that's it.

      Maybe I'm an outlier or maybe I'm an early adaptor, either way, I can't be the only one that's "over" FB. Twitter is now my thing.

      That being said, FB will go public and like Google will make a lot of people rich.

    16. Re:Trickle down? by sourcerror · · Score: 2

      Facebook is not worthless but it's overpriced. (Look and their price/earning ratio.)

    17. Re:Trickle down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize this wouldn't be money FB had before, right? Well by your comment you don't. The whole purpose of this ipo is to infuse new money into the company.

      This isn't to say FB could pay more (granted I have no idea what their payroll is) but an ipo isn't using existing funds. In fact with the new money from the stock they could raise their pay rates, higher more empoloyees or both.

    18. Re:Trickle down? by markass530 · · Score: 1

      you greatly underestimate how lazy people are

    19. Re:Trickle down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hope those Zynga employees quit. If someone came to me and said "give us your millions in stock or lose your $60,000 a year job" I'd laugh in their face. Who would be dumb enough to give up the stock? If they did give up the stock Zynga should have fired them anyway for being dumb and giving up the stock, obviously the employee had very poor decision making skills.

      They can't legally keep the stocks to sell them off if they aren't employed by Zynga.

    20. Re:Trickle down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new to this whole "Internet" thing. Go research the dot com bubble, then read up on fads and human psychology. You'll change your mind pretty quick. Zuckerberg is no visionary. He just got lucky that his modified myspace took off. If he's got half a brain, he'll realize this success is temporary and be sure not to get divorced or develop a coke habit that burns through all his cash.

    21. Re:Trickle down? by jo42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Love him or hate him, Zuckerberg is the closest thing to a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or Larry Ellison right now

      What a load of BULLSHIT. DoucheBagBerg is the cause of the biggest invasion of privacy and shallowness of society to-date. In no way has he, or facebook, contributed any technology or any forward progress in the computer industry whatsoever.

    22. Re:Trickle down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the part where if they lose their job, the stock goes with it anyway.

      If you've ever been granted options in a company (or actually read the terms of the ones you've been granted), you'd know they vest over time. If you leave (by choice or otherwise) the company before your stocks vest, you lose them. It's common to find terms indicating that if you leave the company before the IPO, then even the stocks that have vested _must be purchased within xx days of your leaving at a price set by the company_ or, again, lose them without compensation.

      My guess is that Zynga's terms are even less favourable. If they're so cavalier about their employee's treatment now, they probably weren't overly generous back when they were handing out these "stock options".

    23. Re:Trickle down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only would have to give up their unvested stock. Any stock that had already vested is untouchable as far as the employee is concerned. But you might have X units of stock vesting on a 4 year schedule, and if this is year 2 when you could stand to lose years 2, 3, and 4.

    24. Re:Trickle down? by mr_stinky_britches · · Score: 1

      as usual you have oversimplified...

      if they don't give it up, they get fired and never get the stock.

      --
      Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
    25. Re:Trickle down? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I think that there's room for a social media fad for every generation. It's a new mistake we can make growing up that technology has enabled in just the last couple of decades. I went through it back in the Geocities/Angelfire days, but there are more suckers born every minute. In the future it will be something we'll just have to try (but not always succeed) to keep the new generations off of, like cigarettes, but since social media is nowhere near as addictive it should remain a small industry, like the various BonziBuddy-clones and adware toolbars that still exist today.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    26. Re:Trickle down? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right but he is a brilliant businessman and a visionary in the area of digitally milking people like dumb cattle.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    27. Re:Trickle down? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Who would be dumb enough to give up the stock?

      They're unvested options. Zynga is basically saying stay and don't get the stock, or get fired and don't get the stock (since you lose all unvested stock options upon leaving the company, same as anywhere else). They're "graciously" allowing them to keep their jobs since the options aren't guaranteed to them by their employment contract. They're still dicks, but let's not blame the employees subject to such a demand.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    28. Re:Trickle down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that what was actually happening was that employees were being demoted for underperformance rather than terminated, and as part of the demotion they lost unvested stock options, which they also would have lost had they been terminated. i hope i don't need to explain the difference between "millions in stock" and "unvested stock options"...

    29. Re:Trickle down? by elbonia · · Score: 1

      To be fair it isn't Zuckerberg but the stupidity of Facebook's users. No one at FB forced people to post information from their most private thoughts to their bowel movements to the web.

    30. Re:Trickle down? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Are they allowing them to keep their jobs? Are they signing a contract that states "Zynga guarantees to keep you as an employee for XX months if you sign over your stocks"?

      Doubt it. Sounds like Zynga's horribly shady, think I'd go elsewhere, Zynga probably looks pretty good on a resume.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  3. Thousands of millionares? by mikkaboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    So maybe the 1% will become the 1.1%?

  4. Bull by Spad · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's not a "trickle-down effect", it's just economics. If *I* buy house and want to remodel it, then I might get someone to do it, who will - shock, horror - be paid for it and they might then spend that money on something. That's how our economy works.

    The idea that because these people will have lots of (potential) money in the form of Facebook shares means that they're going to spark some kind of economic boom is ludicrous; sure, some of them might go on spending sprees, others will probably invest it, others will keep all their shares in the hope the prices will go higher, but on average it won't make any significant difference to the economy as a whole.

    1. Re:Bull by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      If *I* buy house and want to remodel it, then I might get someone to do it, who will - shock, horror - be paid for it and they might then spend that money on something.

      You suggest that people do things for money ?!??!?!?!?!?

      --
      -- no sig today
    2. Re:Bull by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the way the economy works is you can't afford a house, so a bank put you in debt and gave the money to a developer. So when you want to remodel, you take out an additional loan or renegotiate your current loan and pay cash to a contractor who is maxxed out on his credit cards. He takes your money and gives it back to the bank to pay down his debt, and so the slavery continues. And here you were thinking you were going to break out of your servitude by remodeling because you were fooled by greed into thinking that house prices will go up forever and there will be eternal demand for homes - especially taking into account the inverted population pyramid.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Bull by wanzeo · · Score: 2

      The idea that because these people will have lots of (potential) money in the form of Facebook shares means that they're going to spark some kind of economic boom is ludicrous

      Yes. I think a better idea is to ask where all this "new" money is coming from. Ultimately, it comes from average people, most of whom have no idea that their money is being used to buy Facebook stock. But the contractor whose bank is buying Facebook stock is not going to benefit at all from rich people playing in the rainforest or joyriding into space.

      This is the reality of our economy, all of the wealth at the top comes from the bottom, but not all of the wealth at the top trickles down to the bottom.

    4. Re:Bull by trout007 · · Score: 1

      You have to follow the money. The shares will only be worth what someone is willing to pay for them. With the easy money policy we have I'm sure big wall at guys are going to take that free money and buy shares. But where does the real wealth come from? Since the money was created from nothing it just adds to the money supply which devalues everyone else's dollars. So basically with the help of the Federal Reserve these people are getting rich off of the everyone holding dollars. Isnt crony capitalism great!

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    5. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      especially taking into account the inverted population pyramid

      I am assuming you are talking about the US, so what is this inverted population pyramid you are speaking of (look for 2010)? This here is an inverted population pyramid. I completely agree with your comment, though, it is just that the population in the US is not going to shrink anytime soon.

    6. Re:Bull by MacTO · · Score: 1

      The bigger problem is that shares are not equivalent to cash. First you have to sell them. To sell them, you need buyers. Any significant sell off will reduce the value of the shares.

      Of course trickle down economics doesn't work anyway. Someone with 5 or 6 million has 10 times the median family income. That doesn't mean that they spend ten times as much as that median family. The situation becomes even more absurd if you have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Rich people have the benefit of saving simply on the merit that it's almost impossible to honestly spend it.

    7. Re:Bull by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      No, the way the economy works is you can't afford a house, so a bank put you in debt and gave the money to a developer. So when you want to remodel, you take out an additional loan or renegotiate your current loan and pay cash to a contractor who is maxxed out on his credit cards.

      - well, that's the unfortunate consequence of Keynesian policies pursued by government that is trying hard to live way beyond its means and make you poor in the process pretending to save you from you.

      Real economy works by people paying for items they buy with savings, and in a real working economy credit is mostly used for production, because it's supposed to earn interest.

      Money sinks (houses, cars, TVs, etc.), don't earn interest, that's why this 'consumer' economy is failing.

    8. Re:Bull by RichardSP · · Score: 2

      You should say "you can't afford a house." and stop. This idea of being a victim of your choice to buy something you can't afford is juvenile.

    9. Re:Bull by sqldr · · Score: 1

      Trickle-down economics was the primary cause of the irish famine. When you have an entire population of tenants utterly dependent on their landlords, all it takes is a couple of years of crop failure and you get to see what happens when the landlords themselves run out of money - everyone starves. The other word for it is "fuedalism".

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    10. Re:Bull by sqldr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes, I'm a victim of the requirement to have somewhere to live when I retire. I had this requirement as a juvenile, and I still have it now as an adult.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    11. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here's me thinking it was potato blight destroying crops of potatoes that caused it. With insufficient food to go around some people are sure to starve. Whatever the distribution system there wasn't enough food, if it had been distributed evenly then everybody would starve surely?
      Of course it wasn't helped by the fact that the British government of the day didn't actually believe there was a famine initially, potato blight (which they'd never encountered before) being as believable as UFOs to many I suppose. As is typical certain wingnuts claimed it was a conspiracy to allow change of laws.

      Back on topic the story looks much like propaganda (or PR if you prefer) from a source that wishes to maintain the huge income disparity in the US. Even given what I stated above about everybody starving if insufficient resources are spread equally I do believe the disparity needs fixing.

      TL:DR lack of food causes famines and amazingly corporate news agencies are fans of corporations.

    12. Re:Bull by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it's called voluntary servitude. Note the "voluntary" part. Nobody forced you to buy shit you can't afford.

    13. Re:Bull by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

      OMG, you mean they finally passed bill H.R. 2506, aka "The Retirees Must Live in Houses They Own or Be Executed" bill?! God damn it, I lobbied tirelessly against that bill. I mean I pointed out that retirees can live in inexpensive houses, in apartments, or somewhere anyone else can. And they _still_ passed it!?!?!!

      KHAAAAAAAAN!!!!

    14. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the way the economy works is you can't afford a house, so a bank put you in debt and gave the money to a developer.

      You might do that. I won't. I have no idea why people do. I wish they wouldn't, because housing would be a lot less expensive if people had to bid with money they have, rather than money they have plus money a bank loaned them.

      I live in a suburb of a large east coast US city. I can't afford to live down town. I can afford to live in a suburb because my wife and I both have high paying jobs. If I drive another ten miles away from the city, housing is half the cost. If I drive 30 miles, housing is a tenth of the price. I get the appeal of not having a commute, but I wonder why people take out huge loans for houses when an extra 30 minutes commuting will allow you to save a half a million dollars in intrest.

    15. Re:Bull by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Why? I can afford quite a few houses and have no debt at all. I was trying to make a point which you missed, pedant. Can't see the forest for the trees eh?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    16. Re:Bull by sqldr · · Score: 4, Funny

      here in europe, what you call "liberals", we call "normal people".

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    17. Re:Bull by evilviper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yes, I'm a victim of the requirement to have somewhere to live when I retire. I had this requirement as a juvenile, and I still have it now as an adult

      No, you're a victim of wanting to own a house in a horendously expensive area.

      There are plenty of depressed areas. Detroit is the one people hear about the most, but there are LOTS of others. Because there are few or no jobs available in the area (after a plant closing, or whatnot) homes are very nearly given away. I think everyone can muster $1,000 for a place to live, and a little bit more for maintenance. No slavery needed. If you're already set for retirement, the problem of no jobs is a non-issue, and the savings is huge.

      That's not the only choice, either. Here in CA, moving to Arizona or Colorado after retirement is pretty common.

      And if you insist on living in an expensive area, you still have options. Moving out a bit further from the city centers always helps. Living high-density, ala condos or long-term apartment rental might end up cheaper. There's even the option of mobile homes.

      So, you're not a slave of needing a place to live. You're a slave of your desire to live in a certain style and location.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    18. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here in europe, what you call "liberals", we call "normal people".

      Yes, and look at the mess Europe is in right now.

    19. Re:Bull by zenasprime · · Score: 2

      Your solution is to buy a home (which is probably in desperate need of replair) in the slums where there are no jobs? That doesn't even make any sense. o.O

      I live in a modest home, under 100k in 1999, and I make six figure salary. My neighborhood wasn't "horendously expensive" but my taxes are, they are currently higher then my mortage payment. At the height of the housing bubble there was a money grab by the local government, they had everyone's home reassessed and bumped up the taxes considerably. Now we are paying taxes on homes that are assessed at almost double what they were previously all so that a cabal of republicrats could snatch up land via eminant domain and grant overprices development contract to their friends and family. That people can't afford their homes in my neighborhood now has very little to do with wanting to own an oversized and over priced house and all to do with corruption within the government and unscrupleous businessmen who control it.

    20. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that explains why you are the brink of collapse.

    21. Re:Bull by sqldr · · Score: 1

      In my last place, I was mugged on my own street. I was burgled. There was a guy a floor above me. A schitzphrenic who wasn't taking his meds, who was throwing rubbish out of his windows, and beer bottles at passers by. I would like to live in a place where people respect others the way I respect them.

      You're in America! I'm in London, where property prices are ridiculous. I'm spending £1100/month to rent a place that would cost me 240000 quid to buy. I CAN'T move out of the city, because that's where my jobs are. I'm happy for you. you've got your fucking house and you like to gloat from your "trickle-down" economy (the other word for that is "feudalism".. it's not good for economics). You're either rich enough to live in orange county, stupid enough to live in an area where your life is in danger, or dumb enough to waste your time on slashdot whilst you evidently made it. Congratulations motherfucker. I WORK for a living.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    22. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your home is 100K in 99 then with inflation it would be near 155K. At best if your property taxes are high you would pay 2%, which is tax deductible. That's about $255 a month. A 100K loan with 10% down @ 30 years would be more than $650/month. What exactly what is your monthly payment for taxes and what is your monthly payment for your home because something is not adding up.

    23. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, some of Europe is on the verge of a USA-2008-style financial apocalypse. If memory serves, when that happened over there, nobody survived; fire from the heavens and everything.

      Seriously though, as a result of their current financial straights, they're introducing proper financial regulation and EU-wide* controls on government spending. What did you guys do to sort out your financial crisis?

      * Everywhere apart from the UK

    24. Re:Bull by iB1 · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of catching a train?

    25. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Detroit has been niggerfuxeted. Bad comparison.

    26. Re:Bull by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Your solution is to buy a home (which is probably in desperate need of replair) in the slums where there are no jobs? That doesn't even make any sense. o.O

      Town that have a labor surplus aren't "slums". I singled out Detroit as being entirely different than most cases, NOT my suggestion.

      If you're retiring, which you specifically mentioned, the lack of jobs should be a total non-issue for you.

      And no, the fact that they're incredibly cheap is not a reflection of them requiring non-trivial repairs... Once it's clear there's no market for them, giving them away becomes a better option than the banks paying to maintain them.

      I live in a modest home, under 100k in 1999, and I make six figure salary.

      Fair enough, but then why are you even replying to a comment about being perpetually in-debt to a bank on mortgage and credit card? For that matter, why are you even in-debt if your annual salary exceeds your entire mortgage, and you've had about 12 years now? I don't understand that one. Making over 100k and can't put 5% of your salary towards your house, and just pay it off? Instead staying in-debt and needing to service that debt for years and years?

      My neighborhood wasn't "horendously expensive" but my taxes are, they are currently higher then my mortage payment.

      I also can't figure out the math on that one, unless you're bundling HOA fees or some other fees in with the property taxes on your home.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    27. Re:Bull by evilviper · · Score: 1

      In my last place, I was mugged on my own street.

      Then find a new place, or help organize and clean-up your neighborhood. For the crappy neighbors, complain to the landlord. In living spaces as well, supply and demand works just fine, so threaten to leave and see what happens.

      I'm spending £1100/month to rent a place that would cost me 240000 quid to buy.

      I'm paying slightly less than that to rent, in an area where buying the cheapest of homes costs more than twice that (plus HOA fees, taxes, etc). So what? Welcome to the world. The US is an expensive place to live, too, if you don't want a painfully long daily commute.

      My solution? Rent a decent place and work for a while (rather than getting a huge mortgage I'd be paying on forever) and then in a few years, move away to a nice cheap spot with decent property prices... Not $1,000, but still very, very cheap...

      I'm happy for you. you've got your fucking house and you like to gloat from your "trickle-down" economy (the other word for that is "feudalism".. it's not good for economics).

      I don't have a house, and I'm not gloating about anything, except for being smart enough not to over-leverage myself into slavery, all for the dogmatic belief that one needs to own their own home in an insanely pricey area.

      You're either rich enough to live in orange county, stupid enough to live in an area where your life is in danger, or dumb enough to waste your time on slashdot whilst you evidently made it.

      Orange county has fairly cheap places to live too, including some unsightly neighborhoods you clearly wouldn't want to be seen in. The more expensive houses are more of a status symbol than practical places to live, avoid that, and you can do fine.

      "Dangerous areas" are vastly overblown. At least here in the US, the cheapest places to live happen to be the same places where not-so-white people congregate. It's mostly racism that people avoid those areas. High crime rates tend to be a reflection of fewer young, single people, and a lot of unemployed, retirees, and large families in the area, because most crime is familial. In short, the father who flipped out and murdered his whole family, wouldn't have behaved any differently if he could have afforded a nicer home, so you're really not much better off.

      I WORK for a living.

      As do I. I just made smart enough decisions that I'm comfortable and secure, and obviously have some ideas about how I can stretch my money to ridiculous proportions.

      Honestly, no matter how much money you're making, I'm sure there are people living on less. People are bad with money and get stuck in a rut of spending every last penny they earn, and making themselves feel poor and financially unstable, to sustain their lifestyle... It's always a good idea to take a big step back and figure out how those making less than you, are making ends meet... you might well find that you could be comfortable spending far less money. And you should really do it while you're making good money, rather than being suddenly forced into it one day, when you no longer are, and need to suddenly learn, and without a safety net to help the transition.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    28. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here in europe, what you call "liberals", we call "normal people".

      in the u.s. we call liberals "normal people", everyone else are right wing, bible pounding, war loving, anti-abortion (although capital punishment and killing the population in innocent countries is alright), gun toting freaks we try to avoid if possible.

  5. The smart ones... by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... will sell their stocks ASAP. Social networking is the next bubble and those who hold on to their stock as speculators will end up taking a bath. I would recommend the first ones who get their stock sell it within a month or less and then figure out what they want to do for a real job once the bubble bursts.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:The smart ones... by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Typically employees can't sell their shares until at least six months post-IPO. Which, yes, can put you in a very bad position if you start spending "your" money right after the IPO in anticipation of the future wealth, and then the stock tanks and you're now in debt.

    2. Re:The smart ones... by CtownNighrider · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't all of them selling their stock make the price plummet?

    3. Re:The smart ones... by houghi · · Score: 0

      It would be fun if ALL decide to first quit their job and then sell their stock.
      It would be fun for me. No more facebook anymore as well as no millionaires.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:The smart ones... by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wouldn't all of them selling their stock make the price plummet?

      Possibly. That depends on how much of the original stocks are distributed to the employees versus how much is sold to raise money, and how much is sold in the IPO. The total percent owned by employees could potentially be a small portion of the total volume.

      If, for some reason, the employees actually held most of the total sock volume, then yes if they sold it off immediately that would be bad for the price.

      Though frankly I'd be astonished if it was worth anything at all by 2016.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    5. Re:The smart ones... by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

      can put you in a very bad position if you start spending "your" money right after the IPO in anticipation of the future wealth, and then the stock tanks and you're now in debt.

      That is an excellent point. We don't know how financially knowledgeable most of the employees who will receive stocks are. They may well be taking advice from fools and end up believing themselves filthy rich before they ever see any actual money from their stock.

      Even worse would be if employees invest in it for their retirement accounts. Back when I worked at CompUSA (back when it was American-owned and publicly traded), I knew someone who invested heavily in company stock for his retirement. Thankfully I was not that person, although I was tempted. The company folded before he reached retirement, as I recall - I just don't know if he got anything back from the buyout.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:The smart ones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because if everyone quit Facebook would just be left to rot and no one would give a damn...
       
      Another dumb fucking Slashtard trying to look witty. Fail.

    7. Re:The smart ones... by somersault · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Social networking itself is not the bubble. Facebook might die out, but it needs a real competitor first. Saying social netsorking will die out is like saying word processing applications will die out. Sure, they may turn into digital scribes with us just speaking what we want to write or something, but the basic function they provide is something that lots of people find useful, and will continue to find useful. Even Slashdot itself is a kind of social network, all web forums are. People like to share news and ideas.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:The smart ones... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      More important question is, wouldn't the fact that Facebook is not all that valuable make the price plummet?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    9. Re:The smart ones... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Depends on how they do it. The clever ones bought the Goldman Sachs fund that was backed by a privately sold share in Facebook a while ago. After GS hyped the fund sufficiently, they quietly started dumping them and palming them off on ordinary investors. Some of those may be able to dump their stock at the IPO, others will hang onto them too long. The smart investors already made their 100+% ROI in a couple of months effectively risk free and are now moving on to the next bubble, while keeping this one hyped for just long enough that the plebs don't realise that it's already burst.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:The smart ones... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      A company doesn't have to be valuable for a share to be valuable, you just have to be able to persuade someone that the company will become valuable in the future.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:The smart ones... by OracleMcSnackers · · Score: 1

      Perhaps one should consider hedging employee shares with put options during the lockup period.

    12. Re:The smart ones... by iamhassi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wouldn't be much of an IPO if the employees already owned most of the company.

      The IPO will kill Facebook. They will be publicly owned and have shareholders to answer to, shareholders who want the company to make more money. Facebook will have to charge more for their worthless advertising, charge game and app developers, and eventually even charge users, even $1 a month from each user would be 500 million a month revenue. People will eventually tired of it and move to whatever the next Facebook is.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    13. Re:The smart ones... by durdur · · Score: 2

      There were quite a few people in the 1999-2000 tech boom who exercised their stock options and kept (rather than immediately sold) their shares, expecting they would go even higher. The problem is, the exercise is treated as a taxable gain. So if the stock later tanks, you have a big tax bill and no money to pay it.

    14. Re:The smart ones... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      During the .com bubble, some people got fucked over by their stock options. Generally, you exercise and sell your options at the same time and pay short-term capital gains. If you exercise and hold, you can pay long-term capital gains, when you finally sell. However, you're still taxed on the income (number of shares * (strike price - option price)) even if the stock since dropped to 0. (Deductions for capital losses are limited to $3,000 per year).

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    15. Re:The smart ones... by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Social networking itself is not the bubble

      I beg to differ.

      Facebook might die out, but it needs a real competitor first

      Not necessarily. Products have previously risen and fallen in terms of hype and excitement without being replaced.

      Saying social netsorking will die out is like saying word processing applications will die out

      Word processors are important business tools. Facebook is not.

      I think a better comparison for facebook is the segway human transporter. Remember how much hype went to "IT" before we knew what "IT" was? Then we found it cost $5,000 and almost nobody was interested any more. It didn't need to be replaced by anything, because we realized it wasn't that important to begin with and it wasn't much better than options we already had.

      Similarly, facebook isn't really that important, and not any better than options we already had.

      Even Slashdot itself is a kind of social network

      And slashdot is, undoubtedly, dying. It just didn't reach the large number of readers/victims that facebook had, so nobody really paid that much attention to it's demise.

      People like to share news and ideas.

      Which, strangely enough, we were able to do before facebook, and we can still do without facebook.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    16. Re:The smart ones... by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Oh, I wouldn't worry too much if I were an FB employee, I would use that stock to take up all sorts of unsustainable debt (and then I'd use that for all sorts of insane spending and hopefully some smart real investment), and then if the thing fails, I wouldn't pay anything back.

      US economy today gives all the wrong incentives, so you know it at some point the Fed and Congress will be bailing out States and towns and more private companies, so why not go overboard, you won't have to repay anything anyway.

      If you live in the society that allows people like Corzine to steal billions while taxing those who actually work for living, at least take advantage of it.

    17. Re:The smart ones... by somersault · · Score: 1

      The fact that we were social networking before the internet ks not why social networking will die, it's exactly why it will keep on going in whatever form. The internet is the most convenient form for large groups to interact though.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    18. Re:The smart ones... by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      You might want to review your formula. If the option price is less then the strike price this would result in a negative number, which implies the federal government is paying you with a negative tax - which there are not. Basically, if you want the lower long term capital gains you are going to have to take a risk.

      On the other hand, if your borrowed funds to pay to exercise your stock options (i.e. margin) you could end up owing your stock broker a pile of money.

    19. Re:The smart ones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone depending on stocks for retirement is foolish. One could save diligently and, through no fault of their own, the market tanks, and their hard earned money vanishes. The stock market is a casino.

    20. Re:The smart ones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot dying?!? Such blasphemy.

    21. Re:The smart ones... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Social networking itself is not the bubble. Facebook might die out, but it needs a real competitor first.

      Yes and no.

      but the basic function they provide is something that lots of people find useful, and will continue to find useful.

      No. Communicating with other people is the useful part. Social networking is a very specific subset of that, and not one that provides any real value, other than being a popular fad.

      Even Slashdot itself is a kind of social network,

      Congratulations, you've succesfully underminded your own statement by redefining the term to include, well, everything and anything. Sorry, we had e-mail and instant messaaging, and image sharing from the very beginning of the internet... the internet itself is the real underlying "social network" of which you speak, and yes, it won't go away. Anything and everything that fits the real definition of "social networking" however, most certainly can go away at a moments notice, with nothing to replace it, and life will go on.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    22. Re:The smart ones... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1
      First of all, do you realize who you just wrote a reply to? You just replied to me, damn_registrars, who you previously made a policy of not replying to. Why are you getting all wishy-washy and flip-floppy on us?

      I would use that stock to take up all sorts of unsustainable debt

      I don't know how stocks work in your imaginary world, but here in the US you have to sell your stocks to make money off of them - unless of course they are paying dividends. And as someone else pointed out, companies usually prohibit their employees from selling their stocks immediately after an IPO, so facebook employees likely won't have the freedom you just assumed they would have. But nice try anyways.

      and then if the thing fails, I wouldn't pay anything back

      I guess if that is what you believe, so be it. You would be in for a surprise when reality attacks you.

      If you live in the society that allows people like Corzine to steal billions while taxing those who actually work for living, at least take advantage of it.

      Just because you don't want to pay taxes doesn't mean that people who actually think about the matter share your opinion. If you don't want to pay taxes, just go talk to the accountants who do taxes for the richest people in this country, as they pay the lowest effective income tax rates of anyone (including, in many cases, a rate of zero).

      But of course, that isn't what you're hear to bitch about, is it? You have some other axe to grind, it just isn't clear what it is.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    23. Re:The smart ones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying social netsorking will die out is like saying word processing applications will die out

      Word processors are important business tools. Facebook is not.

      Not sure when you last checked, but social networks are and have been increasing their importance as business tools.

    24. Re:The smart ones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm facebook and twitter (and wikileaks) have changed history and whether or not Slashdotters consider it a FAD, it is hugely significant. Every big organization has a Facebook presence.

      As a pay-to-play marketing space it is huge and there has been no exodus of users from Facebook to Google+ or Diaspora or anything else. FB is a good communications platform because so many people use it. It is nothing like a Segway which very few people use.

    25. Re:The smart ones... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Yes, we've had messageboards etc since the start of the internet, but a lot of people didn't use them or know about them, and often would be talking to strangers rather than friends. I don't see your definition of social networking disappearing either. There are many things that we could lose and "life will still go on", but that doesn't mean people are going to stop doing them. I've never seen the point in things like keeping a blog, having a MySpace page or using Twitter, but I actually find Facebook useful.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    26. Re:The smart ones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      facebook not a business tool? yeah right, just like google advertising and amazon are just a fad.

    27. Re:The smart ones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let me correct the whole issue by saying, that

      1. products might rise and fall, but social services aint, they are only morphing, or becoming unaffordable for private sectors (see: letters vs. emails, hard wire phone vs. cell phone etc.) - the NEED for the service wont go away.
      2. facebook will still fall, since in at least 2 generations, nobody will really understand, why you have to have your social account on a single website, and cant really just set up a social network server if you want to, as you do with websites, emails, or nowadays (hooray!) also jabber. which means
      3. not a competitor will destroy facebook - a competitor might only take over its fate - but the standardizing of protocols, decentralizing services, like we did with email and stuff, and establishing libraries. you can already see that in some feeble projects like diaspora - which instead of standardizing went the way of implementing - are generating resonance. we see g+ silently waiting for fb to tumble. but we have still no common protocols, because honestly said, i think the people with the means do achieve these tasks still need more "rawmaterial" to study, because they might be more thinkers, than doers.

      there is still the possibility that facebook will do this by itself. which would be the wisest choice for them, which i still do not hope personally. becoming "one" of the social network providers for a social network protocol is a survival strategy very well demonstrated by other companies in other software service areas which became dominant in their own area by opening to competition to keep themselves alive.

    28. Re:The smart ones... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      First of all, do you realize who you just wrote a reply to? You just replied to me, damn_registrars, who you previously made a policy of not replying to. Why are you getting all wishy-washy and flip-floppy on us?

      I think roman_mir can identify with this scene with respect to you.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    29. Re:The smart ones... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Slashdot dying?!? Such blasphemy.

      Quick, someone check with Netcraft!

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    30. Re:The smart ones... by makomk · · Score: 1

      Income tax is paid on the difference between the option price and the share price at the time you exercise your options, but you only actually see any money from them when you sell your options. So you can end up with a huge income tax bill for income you never saw a penny of. In the case of options which restrict your ability to sell the shares after exercising them, you can even end up paying income tax on income you couldn't possibly ever have seen a single penny of.

    31. Re:The smart ones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've said it before... the stock market is literally just gambling with a different name. There's different rules, nuances, and loopholes, but in the end, it's just gambling. You're taking your money, putting it on something, and hoping that the roulette wheel lands on your number.

      The saying is that sooner or later, the house wins. Same here on average. You'll get a handful of people who make ridiculous money, but for every stock market millionaire, there tends to be far, far, far more people in the hole.

      Some people live off the stock market, some people live off the horse races or whatever. Gambling is gambling, and I don't particularly want to gamble with my money. I don't care if there's a lot better chance of not losing everything if you know how to play the game good, on the same vein I'm not going to drop my paycheque at the casino if I'm good at counting cards.

  6. Trickle Down Effect? by rogueippacket · · Score: 0

    You mean investment, don't you? That thing the United States forgot all about amidst slashing budgets to hand out bailouts?

  7. No, that is not how it works by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instead, IF this were to even happen, and I thought trickle down economics died when Reagan's body finally followed his brain, then what would REALLY happen is that the 1% become 0.9%.

    Average income, ever heard of it? Well, average income is the total of all income divivded by the number of people with an income. The more people have a high income, the more people need to make a low income to compensate.

    If you got 10 people and they average an income of 1000 then the total is 10.000. But if one of them makes 10.000, then the average is still a 1000 as long as the others make zero.

    Now, do a fun lookup. Research the average wage in the US and look up how much say a Bill Gates make. Then realize how many people are begging on the street so Bill Gate can be so rich.

    That is how the whole 1% vs 99% works. And more people becoming millionaires doesn't do anything but make far more people poor.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:No, that is not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because the entire species is all as rich as we were 10,000 years ago. Sigh.

    2. Re:No, that is not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "Begging on the so Bill Gates can be so rich". It's begging on the street *while* Bill Gates is so rich, and there is an abject lesson there. You make less begging than you do by being CEO and founder of a critical piece of corporate technology, also how many people do beggars employ vs. how many people are employed by Bill Gates's enterprises.

    3. Re:No, that is not how it works by pentalive · · Score: 1

      Except it is not a zero sum game. The average income itself is not set in stone. It can rise. If 10 people are making 1000 each. and one gets a raise, none of the others are forced to take a pay cut. If 10 people are making 1000 each and one gets fired, the rest don't get an automatic raise. If 10 people are making 1000 each and a new one gets hired (now 11 people) the are no pay cuts for the original workers.

    4. Re:No, that is not how it works by joocemann · · Score: 1

      You don't know about pie, clearly.

    5. Re:No, that is not how it works by Alex+Belits · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Average income does not rise for a very, very long time -- there is slow and somewhat uneven inflation, but same job's salary buys same things, so it's just inflation, and therefore US economy is a zero-sum game.

      It also can be seen by the importance of advertising in modern US economy -- when products are already known to the consumers, spending on advertising is the closest thing a company can do to biting a chunk out of a competitor.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    6. Re:No, that is not how it works by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Research the average wage in the US and look up how much say a Bill Gates make. Then realize how many people are begging on the street so Bill Gate can be so rich.

      Nobody is begging on the street so Bill Gates can be so rich. It's not zero-sum.

    7. Re:No, that is not how it works by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      The hypocracy being, the protesters sitting in the public parks, parks paid for with taxpayer money

      Zuccotti Park is privately owned. That's why it was chosen, it wasn't subject to NYC's public park curfew laws.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    8. Re:No, that is not how it works by iserlohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's hypocritical that you know what the problem is but you're bitching about the people that are actually raising awareness of the problem.

    9. Re:No, that is not how it works by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Correction: average income for most of the population. Crazy things happening on top, stay on top, and don't even go far enough to affect domestic production -- it's import, IP, defense and other bullshit.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    10. Re:No, that is not how it works by atriusofbricia · · Score: 2

      Instead, IF this were to even happen, and I thought trickle down economics died when Reagan's body finally followed his brain, then what would REALLY happen is that the 1% become 0.9%.

      Average income, ever heard of it? Well, average income is the total of all income divivded by the number of people with an income. The more people have a high income, the more people need to make a low income to compensate.

      If you got 10 people and they average an income of 1000 then the total is 10.000. But if one of them makes 10.000, then the average is still a 1000 as long as the others make zero.

      Now, do a fun lookup. Research the average wage in the US and look up how much say a Bill Gates make. Then realize how many people are begging on the street so Bill Gate can be so rich.

      That is how the whole 1% vs 99% works. And more people becoming millionaires doesn't do anything but make far more people poor.

      Without resorting to what are basically number games, explain to me precisely how Bill Gates being rich automatically makes someone else poor. Do you believe that there is this fixed pool of wealth and that the only way for me to have more is for you to have less?

      To answer your unstated rhetorical question concerning how many people are begging on the street so Bill Gates can be rich: The answer is zero. Not a single person is begging on the streets so a rich person can be rich.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    11. Re:No, that is not how it works by Surt · · Score: 1

      It's not a zero sum game, because your premise that same job's salary buys the same things is completely untrue.
      Nobody had a job that could pay for a computer with a gigaflop of performance 60 years ago. Today, virtually all jobs can pay for that.
      Likewise, many jobs today pay off a home that could not have before (ignoring slight dip recently due to housing bubble/global financial meltdown).

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    12. Re:No, that is not how it works by Surt · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If Bill Gates hadn't exploited a monopoly, the pie would have been bigger for everyone. As you said, it's non zero-sum, and he was a net cost to the system.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    13. Re:No, that is not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10,000 years ago, the difference between poor and rich was not as dramatic as it is nowadays.

    14. Re:No, that is not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would you rather have, one quarter of a pie that is 2CM in diameter, or one eighth of a pie that is 2M in diameter?

      A zero sum game implies that all pies are the same size and never grow. In reality economies grow, and the pie is therefore always increasing in size. Sure your 2% of the pie might decrease to 1.8% when it grows, however your total wealth has not decreased, and may in fact have increased.

      Proving that economies are not a zero sum game is rather simple. Imagine yourself living 100 years ago to today, supposing your income today is the same as your income would be relative to those times (adjusted for inflation, etc.) You probably wouldn't own a car (only the very rich did) and you probably wouldn't have indoor plumbing.

      Today's low income earners have more wealth than those of high income back then, because the pie is much bigger today.

    15. Re:No, that is not how it works by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      It's not a zero sum game, because your premise that same job's salary buys the same things is completely untrue.

      It is for all products that continued to exist over the whole time or were replaced with comparable equivalents.

      Nobody had a job that could pay for a computer with a gigaflop of performance 60 years ago. Today, virtually all jobs can pay for that.

      The utility of a computer for a modern user is nowhere close to the utility of having such a device 60 years ago (when most of the benefit would come from the fact that no one else has it). For practical purposes, computer provides the same amount of improvement in a life of a modern person, a piece of furniture or home appliance would 60 years ago, so if for comparison purposes a computer was replaced with, say, a couch of comparable value, you would find that situation with couches was not any different 60 years ago.

      Likewise, many jobs today pay off a home that could not have before (ignoring slight dip recently due to housing bubble/global financial meltdown).

      This is actually the opposite to situation with computers. A quality of modern house (and of a suburb where it is located, and cost of maintaining it, and expected lifetime before it has to be torn down) is so ridiculously low, and so much undermines its utility, everyone is worse off because higher quality housing is no longer affordable to rent or buy. Smart people buy houses because even if the house can not outlive the loan, total loan payments are less than rent. Stupid people buy houses because they see it as "investment" despite the fact that such a house is nothing but an oversize, overpriced consumer product. Neither end up in a situation superior to anything that happened before this ridiculous housing boom in the second half of 20th century.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    16. Re:No, that is not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure I'll have to disagree with you there, as 10,000 years ago the difference between poor and rich was between "slave" and "self-appointed god-king".

    17. Re:No, that is not how it works by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      What you are talking about is a scarcity mindset. Studies show it is not that simple as wealth can be created by people being more productive as well as technological advances. The governments simply print more and banks create it out of thin air with debt. With more Chinese buying more and living better it helps other chinese be less idle. Why is it Americans have more things than other people? Wealth is being created because of effenciency. In a recession the opposite is true except for the wealthy. Pent up demand and cheaper prices and cheaper wages fixes the problem and starts the cycle over. Bill Gates did indeed get money almost out of thin air as a pc could increase productivity many times over! The cost for dos and Windows even with all its faults paid for itself for businesses.

    18. Re:No, that is not how it works by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Privately owned... by the 1%?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    19. Re:No, that is not how it works by 0123456 · · Score: 0

      Do you believe that there is this fixed pool of wealth and that the only way for me to have more is for you to have less?

      In my experience, the left actually do believe that. Mostly because they believe the nonsensical Marxist labour theory of value.

      They really are that retarded, even when the world around them blatantly disproves that Marxist claptrap.

    20. Re:No, that is not how it works by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      I ran across this while metamoderating, someone modded you "offtopic. I don't see it.

      But I do see a glaring mistake on your argument -- the average income is much higher than the median income.

    21. Re:No, that is not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The price of housing/rent is demand driven and therefore shares a direct relationship with home sales. Millionaires buy property all the time, pouring fuel on the fire of the real estate bubble & driving the lower class further and further in to the boonies, and closer & closer to the ghetto. It's called "gentrification".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

      When a facebook programmer get's a million dollars and buys a house in the overpriced suburbs of Palo Alto/Orange County, there is a delayed yet cascading impact where the prices of adjacent properties go up as a consequence.

      As a consequence of the BMW parked in the driveway.
      As a consequence of the illegal immigrant weeding the garden.
      As a consequence of the Latina nanny driving the kids to school.
      As a consequence of the lack of a rusty pickup in the front yard on cinder blocks.

      Maybe this compels his neighbors to "cash out" of the CA real estate game and move to Brookings Oregon and buy a nice little cottage on the ocean.

      The problem is, people try to stuff as much of their net worth in to their home as possible due to tax incentives and a perception that "real estate always goes up lol". Trouble is, Myspace Tom cashed out of the market 2 years ago and his new neighbor's McMansion is cramping his property value's style. His property taxes go up, but he was already living paycheck to paycheck because he's already financed up to the gills on all his toys/trips on Russian Rocket Ships sitting next to boy band superstars. He has no choice to sell his house except the market is falling out from under him because all of his neighbors do the same thing at the same time. To relive the stress he decides to celebrate his recently found 2nd ammendment rights(Oregon interpretation) and buy a Walther P22 target pistol.

      Before you know it, he's holding yard sale's and making trips to the pawn shop to pay this month's mortgage, the neighborhood is starting to look like a ghetto and so him and his Tech IPO neighbors all start selling what Tech Sector stock they left on the table. Their 401(k) suddenly plummets in value as the computerized trading kicks in and Myspace Tom eventually runs out of Jetski's to pay his bills with. He misses a credit card payment because it's unsecured debt and it's a low priority and skips the electric bill while he's at it. His daughter get's hypothermia from the cold and the medical bills add on to the pile. Suddenly his credit score is shot, his remaining consumer debt has the interest rates hiked making his minimum payments double what he used to not be able to afford.

      He gets an "insultingly low offer" on his house which would leave him upside down so he decides to try to weather the storm and wait for the market to recover. After all, "you haven't lost any money until you sell". The debt collectors are harassing him, and he's started hitting the bars, but he can't find a way to get what he paid for out of the house. He's not going to lower his asking price to bring in more buyers because "Hey, Real estate always goes up!" remember? Eventually a debt collector tells him he can borrow against his 401(k) to pay his bills. He justifies doing this to himself because he heard on the news the federal reserve is about to lower interest rates if he can just hang on a little bit longer. He cashes out the 401(k), makes another month's payment only to watch in horror as the markets are non-responsive to the news about the Fed cutting rates. DJIA went up 1% the day after but all gains were lost by the time he could update his house's listing a week later.

      Finally he sells his house at a loss and still has $50K left on the mortgage he owes. Unfortunately, he's been unemployed for several years so his skills are already obsolete, and there isn't much of a Tech Sector in "Brookings" but his wife says she'll divorce his loser ass if he tries to disrupt their children's education by taking them back down to gang-land California to grow up. For the next 6 months he uses borrowed money fro

    22. Re:No, that is not how it works by tgd · · Score: 1

      Hypocritical? The problem is the hypocracy.

      As far as I'm concerned they're the problem, not what they're protesting.

    23. Re:No, that is not how it works by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Not really, housing, education, healthcare, childcare became much more expensive.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A (lecture by Elizabeth Warren, professor of business law)

    24. Re:No, that is not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By Canadians. Brookfield Properties.

    25. Re:No, that is not how it works by skegg · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, reality is a little more grim than theory: Wealth inequality in the United States
      From the above link:

      According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive.

      And may I add some speculation:
      Many uber-rich have undeclared wealth residing in any number of the world's tax havens. I suspect the above statistics do not take into account those undeclared monies. In other words: for the 99% of us, things are even more shite than the shite we think they are.

    26. Re:No, that is not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the crap that passes for economic understanding on Slashdot. How fucking stupid are you. Did you ever take a class on economics, Micro or Macro?

      I suspect you are just parroting what you leaned at the Occupy Loserfests.

      Gawd, I can't say enough how fucking stupid you and all your fellow losers are.

      I really hope thing come down to shooting because I'll start with fucks like you.

    27. Re:No, that is not how it works by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      Nobody had a job that could pay for a computer with a gigaflop of performance 60 years ago. Today, virtually all jobs can pay for that.

      That's because the technology has advanced, reducing the price, not because wages are rising dramatically.

    28. Re:No, that is not how it works by Surt · · Score: 1

      It's two different ways of looking at the same thing. You could say the same thing about the loom driving down the price of clothing, but what's the point?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    29. Re:No, that is not how it works by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Real wealth lies in finite resources like oil and land. True wealth is held this way, and the pie is finite. Everything else is piss, and the value you place on it is only personal.

    30. Re:No, that is not how it works by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I'm a socialist in the sense that I hold that finite natural resources should serve to the benefit of all beings that occupy earth; and that no invention, like money, can be used to manipulate such resources into the control and exploit of the few. I'm not saying you owe me half of your iphone if you've got one and I don't... that's petty trash like most products. But we all deserve an equal share of the resources upon which we live, and the immoral sequestering of those resources that preceded our lives should be dismantled.

      You can have your mansion. You can have your bentley. Ethically, nobody gives a fuck about your silly concepts of prestige and class. I still deserve 1/7billionth of the water, land, and air available, and if you take some from me to do something else, compensation is due. This is not just my own perspective but that of Thomas Jefferson in his writings as well. At no point should our nationally held lands have been privatized and capitalized; WE THE PEOPLE have yet to receive fair compensation for the privatized exploit that has been drawn from such sources of absolute wealth.

      In a libertarian fantasy of competition and survival, I'd put a bullet in you.

    31. Re:No, that is not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell? Nice ending I guess.

    32. Re:No, that is not how it works by makomk · · Score: 2

      Do you believe that there is this fixed pool of wealth and that the only way for me to have more is for you to have less?

      In theory that doesn't have to be true. In practice, the easiest way to get wealthy is to skim off money that would otherwise have gone to other people, whether it's through skimming people's pension schemes through excessive fees on their 401(k)'s or running pump-and-dump-style IPOs or even just getting a monopoly and charging every business in the country through the nose for your product like Microsoft did. (In fact, I think economically speaking it may well be the only way to become individually wealthy even though there's no fixed pool of wealth.)

    33. Re:No, that is not how it works by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Yeah when the sum rises it's called inflation. And look at whose adjusted wealth goes up with inflation and whose stays roughly the same.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    34. Re:No, that is not how it works by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Oh I don't think you'd like 1/7 billionth of the available resources...the fact that you have access to a computer says that many people are living in poverty or even starving in the 3rd world for you to have your (nothing special by 1st-world standards) wealth. It's exploitation all the way down, the oligarchs at the top and the 3rd world slave labor at the bottom. I remember that in the early 2000s, Snopes.com calculated that if all the world's wealth were divided equally among the population, we'd each have about $20.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    35. Re:No, that is not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At any point in time, there is a finite amount of wealth in existence. When person A possesses part of this wealth, it necessarily prevents person B from possessing it. It's really not rocket science. The fact that the amount of wealth in existence is not constant has no bearing on this simple truth. The fact that an economy is not a zero sum game has no bearing on this simple truth. If there are X dollars, and I have Y dollars, then necessarily there are only X-Y dollars remaining in existence for others to have. That there might be X-Y+Z (where Z need not be positive) dollars in the future doesn't change the fact that in any given moment, Bill Gates is in fact responsible for people begging in the streets. I'll fall for your absurd accounting the day the sickening wealth of the few has made all of us wealthy, because you know, it's not a zero sum game.

    36. Re:No, that is not how it works by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      As a type of product, clothing made of mass-produced fabric has greater utility than hand-woven one -- it's easy to replace, so people do not have to wear and maintain worn out clothing. Lower price is in this case sufficiently lower to become a feature of the product, however in all other ways the products are somewhat equivalent, and are used by all people in a similar manner, so comparison is valid.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    37. Re:No, that is not how it works by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      "Housing, education, healthcare, childcare" can't "become more expensive", they are (along with food and transportation, that don't get "more expensive" any slower) essentials that must be used to calculate the value of the currency (with CPI and such). If it looks like they are more expensive, it means that currency is devalued, not the other way around.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    38. Re:No, that is not how it works by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      My guess is that people are having less children, so they spend less on education, healthcare, and childcare. Also, if people go without healthcare because it's too expensive, its weight gets lower in CPI.

    39. Re:No, that is not how it works by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      My guess is that people are having less children, so they spend less on education, healthcare, and childcare.

      1. You will get the same numbers if you count childcare and education cost as a part of child's cost of living instead of parent's.
      2. If people indeed had less children on average, population would stop growing.

      Also, if people go without healthcare because it's too expensive, its weight gets lower in CPI.

      They certainly don't pay any less for health insurance.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    40. Re:No, that is not how it works by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Money and wealth are NOT the same thing. Take the square footage of available land and divide that by 7bn and you might start to make sense in my topic.

  8. Re:Thousands of millionares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More likely the 1.00000012%

    And once the facebookers blow their fortunes on space travel and the rest, it'll be back down to the 1% again.

  9. Sell Sell Sell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cash in the initial boom then run like hell, before investor realize they've bought yet another fiction...

    1. Re:Sell Sell Sell by poormanjoe · · Score: 1

      Tulip mania!

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
  10. Trickle down doesnt mean you deify the wealthy. by sethstorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That doesnt mean you treat the people on top like deities while treating regular US citizens with contempt.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Trickle down doesnt mean you deify the wealthy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no one does this, outside of your imagination.

      What it does mean is that you don't demonize the people on top, which actually does happen, all too frequently.

      Envy is a motherf*cker.

  11. RE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm "revenue of $1.6 billion in the first half of 2011" so say 4 billion annual revenue and valued at over 100 billion... Think they are over-valued already? Ya...

  12. What money? by unassimilatible · · Score: 4, Informative

    The money will come from an IPO, not "stolen" from any workers (my understanding is that FB actually pays their workers and does not use slave labor). Investors - many if not most of them will likely be these poor little "workers" you speak of and their pension funds - will buy the stock on IPO day.

    There are ways to make money apart from someone else handing you a paycheck.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:What money? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1, Troll

      Where do you think, those money come from? They are created by Federal Reserve for the purpose of being given to "investors" (in the form of margin loans on other stocks, plus whatever is scraped off them by intermediate financial companies), thus being injected into economy with no product backing them. This causes inflation, and unless everyone else's salary is immediately changed to compensate, money indeed end up being stolen from everyone in the long term.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    2. Re:What money? by aix+tom · · Score: 2

      Well. What should an "IPO" be about anyway?

      The original goal of the stock market would be to get *investors* to give their money that the company can *invest* in some future technology/whatever, so that the investors then get a share of that when the company makes money of that technology/whatever.

      So, basically, Facebooks business plan is to take the investors money and go blow it away on toys? Yeah, that will be really great for the future value of their stock.

    3. Re:What money? by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wall Street investors don't make money, they take it. You think those dollars are just appearing out of nowhere? If you "make" a million bucks off an IPO, it's because you sold your shares to a sucker who paid more than they're worth. Or maybe your a fund manager, and you just take a few percent off every American's retirement fund every year, as payment for your "skill" at investment (even though you're all but certain to underperform the index in the long run).

      Buying and holding a stock for dividends or growth are legit. Venture capital and angel investments are legit. But this IPO pump-n-dump crap is a scam. It's theft. Ditto mutual fund fees and high frequency trading. The robber barons at Wall Street are just siphoning off tiny bits of everyone else's savings every day. It's nice and slow, so you won't notice, but in aggregate it's enough money for them to live like gods.

    4. Re:What money? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and so ipo has become the endgame for investors to get out rather than to get _investment_ money into the company.

      realistically they don't seem to need an ipo, in the sense that there's nothing they could buy with that 100 billion that would further their business and they don't need the money to keep in operation.

       

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:What money? by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

      So, basically, Facebooks business plan is to take the investors money and go blow it away on toys? Yeah, that will be really great for the future value of their stock.

      No, I believe that is the plan of FB employees who already have FB stock. You know, those poor workers the OP claimed were being stolen from?

      --
      Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    6. Re:What money? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could explain where you think he's wrong, so we can all laugh at you.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:What money? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      (my understanding is that FB actually pays their workers and does not use slave labor).

      You might want to try getting hold of someone from the "Facebook translation dept". Facebook's translations opened them up to millions of new users....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    8. Re:What money? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      That the federal reserver isn't going to randomly conjure a bunch of money just for facebook. They drive a slow persistent hum of inflation (which is preferable to deflation), which has been humming along at under 4% for over a decade. The argument that everyones salary need increase by that amount immediately is sort of silly, but is clearly intended to be hyperbolic, it needs to increase by that amount, but 3-4% yearly salary increases are the norm everywhere I've been since 2000 (some years less, some years more, but well, inflation has been under 3 most of that time).

      The federal reserve is also private banks, when they cause inflation they depreciate the value of their own money too (and they decrease the relative value of *debt* which by the way, is kind of important if you have credit card or mortgage or student loans or federal bonds debt, because decreasing the value of that debt effectively increases your net worth).

      The money for facebooks IPO will come from people who have control of money moving from somewhere and into facebook under the assumption that they will get some sort of return on investment better than they currently get. Whether or not you think facebook will be able to make any money is another matter entirely.

      Note that printing money (or electronically conjuring it) doesn't necessarily cause inflation either. You need to increase the supply of currency to keep up with population growth (kinda... it's more complex than that, but that conveys the point well enough) or else you're reducing the per person currency available, which, well, causes deflation. For the US it's even more complicated because the dollar is so widely held, and with the economic situation world wide a lot of poorer places are seeing their money flee into the dollar (taking dollars away from Americans essentially), but even deflating that at a rate of 3-4%, while paying 2% interest (us 10 year bonds), so a net deflation of 1- 2% is still preferable to being in nigerian currency or bonds or, apparently, greek bonds.

    9. Re:What money? by iserlohn · · Score: 0

      Tripe, as opposed to your Randist fantasies.

    10. Re:What money? by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Reread my post. I said nothing of the kind. Where exactly do you think those funds to buy IPO shares come from? And moreover who do you think it is that typically snaps up most of those shares?

      As far as the workers at FB go, I'd be shocked if when all is said and done if the shares actually represent a fair appraisal of their work and the risk they took working for an outfit that could have gone belly up before they saw any money from an IPO.

    11. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you have more than 25 investors you're required to go public. That simple. Simply having more than 25 people in management is enough to do this.

    12. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if, after an IPO, the stock value continues to rise, is it still theft?

      Is it legit to hold stock for growth and then sell it at a later date? Isn't it "theft" if the value of the stock goes down after that? After all, you're selling it to some sucker who wanted its value to go up...

    13. Re:What money? by Dripdry · · Score: 0

      I am sick of hearing this. "In the long run"? Show us numbers. Frankly, those are manipulated statistics. They don't take into account 1) The fact that a fund changes managers a number of times over its lifetime. 2) Most funds haven't been in existence long enough to have an "in the long run" track record. 3) You CANNOT (and this is my business, so I know) repeat CANNOT buy a pure index. There is no way to do it without a fee or without some rather questionable strategies for the fund.

      Don't parrot Barron's or Money or WSJ or Kramer or whatever "money guru" is writing a book this week. They're just selling you a line, a culture that keep fees rolling into wire houses and (more importantly to them) investors on edge to keep watching their show/reading their books/magazines, trading on emotion.

      Funds have a place, a fantastic place, in risk reduction (you just need to know a fair amount/be plugged into enough info to have a good chance at choosing the better ones, and that includes finding the correct fund strategies [and YES, I know retail strategies are bollux compared to the high end market, but hey that's what we've got to work with]). Stocks have a place, too, as risky investments in an individual company. Annuities (insurance), Closed ends, bonds, commodities, gold bullion, arbitrage, whatever.... they all have their place for diversification and strategy.

      Sometimes it doesn't even matter if a fund doesn't perform "as well as the index." (by the way, WHICH index?) Often, it's more about people staying calm and invested (or was until the most recent set of bubble-icious crazy markets, cross fingers there) and not making large, costly mistakes due to emotion. Funds help dampen volatility and help keep emotions in check to a certain extent.

      To some people performance takes priority (usually analytics, who would tend to read this site), but I can't tell you how many clients have come to us who care less about that extra few percent we squeeze out above our fees and the market, they care more about that number on their statement going down. People have been shown to have a higher emotional reaction to a negative event than to a similarly positive event (-50K vs +50K). It makes most people risk averse in terms of the market, whatever they may tell you (cultural, social issues here, beyond he scope of this). In the end, it's sad to say, but people are driven by either greed or fear.

      Also, fund fees are justified if you're finding the right funds. We have a fund that charges 3.5% annual management fee, and you know what? It beats the fucking pants off of EVERY SINGLE ONE of its peers in their entire morningstar category. Hands down, without question. Look at returns minus fees over the long run, and you'll easily screen out the lion's share of all the yahoos who can't tell their profit/loss statements from a hole in the ground. Of course, each of these can be debated, and I welcome that, but these blanket assumptions that average investors make (sorry, I'm making an assumption there about you) are so wildly half-informed that it's no wonder we have so many retirement funds that have been "decimated by the market crash!" They weren't decimated by the market. They were decimated by a lack of prudent financial habits, a lack of planning, and the uninformed investor who didn't seek enough financial education or hire a solid professional to advise them, not fees or IPOs or HFT or any of the other scapegoats out there. Also, this "race to the bottom" idea is also evident in the whole "fees" argument, of which Vanguard is an absurd champion (look at their funds, they suck almost universally over the long term, except for a handful of their bond funds). I find it hilarious that we talk about the race to the bottom on Slashdot, how it's terrible, and yet when it saves one of us a dollar we're all for it. Kind of hypocritical (addressing the group, not you exactly).
      People have to get paid something for their advice and their insight, their education and hard work about

      --
      -
    14. Re:What money? by sdnoob · · Score: 1

      agreed. just a cash grab for yukerberg & co.. time to cash in before it (not "if it") implodes.

      i'd rather they stay private but facebook is in the same situation as google was before their ipo.. large enough that they were facing additional reporting requirements, similar to a public company so some of the benefits of being private were gone.

    15. Re:What money? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yep,

      but I think that by going "public" without ipo - that means doing the additional requirements on reporting - yukkerberg&co could have made a bunch of money regardless by selling stock to whoever they wanted, that kind of "you can't have this" marketing would have created great demand for the stocks that were available - imagine if the only way to invest in it was to find some employee who had options.

      and then the stock wouldn't be used for pump'n'dump daytrading, could just go totally oldschool with it, only printed stocks that changed hands in physical form. or maybe use it as basis for facebook currency(like, in that case if you were holding the 'stock' and the value went up, you'd be able to get more cash against it). at least that would have been something new.

      are they going to pay dividends? that's one thing about nokia vs. apple stock. one has paid out a ton of money during last decade, whilst the other has not.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    16. Re:What money? by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      All of these financial pyramid schemes are created with free money. If people had to save to invest their own money (overproduction minus under-consumption) and governments didn't manipulate money prices and didn't counterfeit currency, the interest rates would have been much higher and there would have not been all of this nonsense and unhealthy business practices.

    17. Re:What money? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Somebody confuses an IPO with quantitative easing is well grounded in economics?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:What money? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "People have been shown to have a higher emotional reaction to a negative event than to a similarly positive event (-50K vs +50K)."

      Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it's an irrational emotional reaction: investments are supposed to go up, not down. That's what they're for.

    19. Re:What money? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      I mean, seriously: that's kind of like saying that people have more of an emotional reaction to a bridge falling down, rather than staying up, the way it's supposed to.

    20. Re:What money? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "This causes inflation, and unless everyone else's salary is immediately changed to compensate, money indeed end up being stolen from everyone in the long term."

      Precisely. That time factor is why government and banks are not nearly as bothered by inflation as everyone else: when they get and spend the money, it is at current market value. It isn't until later, when it is in the hands of others, that inflation devalues it.

      I think that is one of the primary reasons why government and banks have been clinging so tightly to Keynesian economics, even though Keynesian policy has time and again (for many decades now) been proven to damage the economy.

    21. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the Fed inflates money, so these people who want to live in such lavish, like gods, aren't so damn powerful and screw the general populous. Let them have their money, but as long as it's made worth less, their power won't stick.

    22. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an excellent point. Unless they're going to diversify and get into, say, the electric car business or something, this money is just going toward another ponzi scheme. Early investors will do all they can to pump the price up, then sell when they figure the company's hip image is going to crash and all their customers flock to the next big fad.

      Meanwhile, other start-ups with good ideas will suffer because the money's not there for them. The stock market has turned into a great big scam where there's nearly zero incentive for honest people to invest long term anymore. It's all high speed and day trading moving everything now. The insiders fleece all the money from the naive who don't realize this yet.

    23. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, look! Nekulturny boy is back!

      BTW, it's not likely that the Federal Reserve is going to issue money for Facebook's IPO... but, you're an idiot, and wouldn't know.

    24. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually less is being siphoned off now than was before. The difference is now computers are doing it, and few humans are required (so those few humans get quite rich), whereas before it was tons of humans each taking a little. The stock market is an unbelievably low-margin business right now. You can see this, for example, in the bid-ask spread of stocks.

    25. Re:What money? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      The Federal reserve doesn't buy IPOs.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    26. Re:What money? by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

      Keynesian economics dictates deficit spending in bad times and paying down the debt in good times. Problem is, politicians never think times are good enough to pay down the debt.

    27. Re:What money? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      So, basically, Facebooks business plan is to take the investors money and go blow it away on toys? Yeah, that will be really great for the future value of their stock.

      That's basically what Google has done - and it hasn't hurt their stock noticeably.

    28. Re:What money? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The value of a theory is in its ability to predict. And to the best of my knowledge, Keynesian economics (and what you might call proto-Keynesian, which used many of the same principles but before Keynes made it a formal school of economics), over the last 80 years, has failed to predict even ONE major economic event. Even when economists in other schools did.

      In fact, some of the failures of followers of Keynes' theories (or principles Keynes later adopted) have been rather spectacular: the claim by Irving that the economy was doing wonderfully, the very day before the crash of '29, their utter failure to predict what the economy was like immediately after WWII (they were 180 degrees wrong), their claims that what we now call "stagflation" was impossible (until it actually happened in the 70s), its failure to predict any problems at all around the 2001 recession or the 2008 crash (both times saying "Come on in! The market's fine!")

      I mean, it's almost laughable. It's time we got rid of government officials who insist on following provably failed economic policies, and get somebody in there with some actual sense.

    29. Re:What money? by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      Goddamn I wish I had some mod points right now. I think you're the first person I've seen here on slashdot who understands that point.

    30. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as the workers at FB go, I'd be shocked if when all is said and done if the shares actually represent a fair appraisal of their work and the risk they took working for an outfit that could have gone belly up before they saw any money from an IPO.

      What on earth are you talking about? I don't care how good of a programmer you are. A few years worth of work is not worth millions of dollars.

      And what kind of risk did they take? Perhaps you're taking slightly less in salary than you could at some other company where there are no options, but even at a startup in the bay area you are paid very, very well if you are a talented programmer. (I personally can attest to this.) For most people, the worst that could happen is that their options turn out to be worthless, and they still have their salary from those years of work. The only true cost is the opportunity cost of going to some other company where the options turned out to be not worthless.

      The only possible exception is if you exercised your options early. (There are tax advantages to doing this. Basically you can buy your stock before the company is public, before you can sell it to anyone, and even before you're fully vested.) In this case, if the options turn out to be worthless, you've lost that money. I have done this twice (with the first startup it was the right thing to do; too early to tell yet with the second startup), and imho it's a reasonable thing to do if it's not too much money. But personally I wouldn't risk any more than $10K.

    31. Re:What money? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      IPO itself would not accomplish much if no one buys the new stock. And certainly the employee stockholders, who will be only be able to sell their stock much later, rely on others' willingness to pay for their stock then.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    32. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are ways to make money apart from someone else handing you a paycheck.

      That's it. That's the problem. People like you thinking there is some way to make money other than doing something for it. As if the money has actual value when it's totally worthless except for when I agree to give you something for it.

    33. Re:What money? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      The Federal reserve doesn't buy IPOs.

      No, it just issues loans to people who do (and a chain of banks and brokerages along the way).

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  13. Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only real 'trickle down' is in production, not in consumption. People who invest their savings into businesses create opportunity for new products, new services, new jobs and new investments for others. That's the only real trickle down and what is called 'trickle down' in modern society is no such thing. 'Trickle down' based on spending is very limited, very narrow and is sporadic (so somebody spends a few hundred thousand dollars today, he is not going to spend the same amount tomorrow).

    Besides, any spending that takes place disperses the investment capital and makes it less likely to be used as an investment. The real trickle down is working very well, but it's working in China, not in US or Europe. It's working where people invest and produce.

    As a side note any taxes also destroy investment capital and prevent economy from growing for the same reason - this stuff is not used for meaningful production, only to subsidize consumption one way or another.

    --

    PS. I said it on 16th of September that holding deposits in banks has become dangerous, because banks will just steal the deposits.

    On October 25, 2011 MF Global reported a $191.6 million quarterly loss as a result of trading on European government bonds. On October 31, 2011 MF Global filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Depositors lost money, not 'investors' or traders - depositors. The bankers are now stealing deposits as I said they would, so stay clear of banks.

    1. Re:Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bankers are now stealing deposits as I said they would, so stay clear of banks.

      which is exactly what banks will do if there are no effective regulations to stop them from doing it. so how will your lord and savior ron paul prevent this from happening by removing all regulations?

    2. Re:Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      You are a shill but you can't change the reality. The reality is that before all of the regulations and the Fed existence and before FDIC the banks never failed institutionally, as in - they never had a government giving them free money and preventing any potential competition. Banks are now your government but that only happens when government meddles with business, but it's inevitable. Once government starts 'regulating business', it means it's there to steal power and sell it and the business that is closest to the trough (the Fed) becomes the government. Since it becomes a part of government that is not beholden to the voters, it can steal without any impunity. The correct solution is to get rid of all regulations and protections and stop destroying the money.

      But you know that, the reason why you sniff out every one of my comments is because you are an AC shill.

    3. Re:Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet most investments do nothing of the sort. The role of capital in capitalism has become grossly perverted as top-heavy corporations take on even more-top heavy brass with payouts for malpractice that dwarf most union's pensions for 40 years of labor.

      Your capital buys hammers. Hammers alone cannot build a house. Labor builds a house. Labor with hammers build a house twice as fast, with twice as many houses being built. But if twice as many houses are built, won't they be worth half as much? Management buys spoons for the labor force then rewards themselves for "preserving value". R&D is cut at corporation after corporation, ensuring that their labor will never go forth with a better spoon.

      --

      You're right on the banks. Take a look at Bank of America (a *real* bank, unlike MF Global which was an investment broker) dumping all their toxic waste derivatives into the FDIC-insured depository branch where they can exchange them for deposited cash and if anything goes wrong, well, mommy gubment will save them and the CEO gets a huge payout to convince him to provide "stable leadership" in these "trying times" as he finds the next iceberg to ram the company into.

    4. Re:Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reality is that before all of the regulations and the Fed existence and before FDIC the banks never failed

      wow, you really are an idiot. your lord ron paul has sucked out whatever you previously had resembling a brain and replaced it with the notion that the free market, left with no controls whatsoever, is somehow incapable of failure or deceit?

      The correct solution is to get rid of all regulations

      that is pure insanity. we've been consistently getting rid of regulations as it is, which lead us to the mess we are in.

      you sniff out every one of my comments

      that is a bald-faced lie. there are plenty of comments you have written that nobody has replied to. just because i reply as AC, doesn't mean that every AC reply to your comments is from me. of course, your lord and savior ron paul probably told you otherwise, and you believe everything he says without question.

    5. Re:Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Before the Fed (which was instigated by the business community who wanted the regulation), the economy was extremely volatile and risky (which business hated). We didn't have recessions and expansions - we had booms and busts where people were filthy rich one month and then begging for food the next.

      Once government starts 'regulating business', it means it's there to steal power and sell it and the business that is closest to the trough (the Fed) becomes the government. Since it becomes a part of government that is not beholden to the voters, it can steal without any impunity.

      That's overstating it a bit. Before the Fed you still had very powerful people controlling the economy - see any Bio of JP Morgan.The Fed was also created to remove power from people like that.

      I like Ron Paul. He brings up some very interesting points and I agree the Fed system needs to be tweeked. But when I read what Ron Paul and the things you have written, there's an obvious lack of knowledge of pre-Fed economic history.

      If you haven't read this yet, read Lords of Finance. It's about the Post WWI World Economic collapse and has a wonderful explanation of why we can't be on the gold standard, btw.

      I would honestly like to see your take on it. - you're a sharp person who just needs to take a break from the Ron Paul Kool-Aid.

    6. Re:Trickle down by Ly4 · · Score: 1

      The only real 'trickle down' is in production, not in consumption.

      Yeah - that's while all the .com companies are doing so well, they produced something. The fact that there were not any customers was just a side note (the preceding lines are sarcasm, in case that isn't obvious).

      That's an insanely simplistic model you're spewing there. Reality is more of a balancing act, with investment meeting demand. At the moment, there is no shortage of investment capital, but high unemployment and other factors have really put a crimp on the demand side of the equation.

      Henry Ford understood this balance - that's why he raised his worker's salaries. These days, we get a lot of pressure to keep capital gains and other taxes on the wealthy low, mostly from folks who do not understand this balance.

    7. Re:Trickle down by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      As a side note any taxes also destroy investment capital and prevent economy from growing for the same reason - this stuff is not used for meaningful production, only to subsidize consumption one way or another.

      I'd argue that various kinds of public infrastructure (depending on where you live, this can include parts of transportation, power, communications, education, health care) are quite fundamental to be able to have any production at all.

      You can of course be of the opinion that leaving all of that up to the private market would be more efficient (based on what I've seen, I'd disagree with that), but saying that any taxes by definition only subsidize consumption is several bridges too far, as far as I'm concerned.

      --
      Donate free food here
    8. Re:Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yeah - that's while all the .com companies are doing so well, they produced something.

      - no, the .com bubble was spawned by the federal reserve, the culprit of the time was Greenspan and as he was flooding the market with cheap money and lowering interest rates, the same principles applied at the time, the investment funds didn't know where to find any meaningful return that would not be negative (and the real interest rate has been negative for a very long time now, certainly more than 2 decades).

      The cheap money gave people the wrong incentives, the .com bubble was created the same way that the agriculture equities bubble before the great depression, the housing bubble of two-thousand's and the final currency/bond bubble that's being inflated now. It's all in the hands of the federal reserve and their ability to counterfeit currency. .com companies weren't producing anything much of value, buying pencils at $1 and selling for 50 cents on line and having a business model that basically said: we'll make it up in volume was disastrous then, as it is today, but the people were buying the .com bubble just as readily and weren't able to admit it was a bubble in the same way that the house mortgages were bought and nobody wanted to admit that was a bubble.

      Same thing is happening with US bonds right now, and it's funny how people are thinking that sovereign debt of a nation that prints currency as defense against is non-existent economy, all because of faith in government's ability to do something...

      Let's put it this way: if the currency is weakening now, you don't want to be in that currency. But you don't buy Treasuries in that currency, because those Treasuries are the exact same thing as that currency, as they pay in that currency.

      The shortage of the investment capital is due to the money printing and negative return rates that are artificially created by the governments. The real interest rates today are insanely high, but that's what markets figure - if the amount of money that can be printed is infinite, then there is no reason why return rate on real investment shouldn't be set infinitely high as well.

      That's why no business can get a loan and only governments are swimming in worthless cash, since they print it.

      As to Henry Ford - the guy was working in a sound monetary system, no federal reserve and no income taxes.

      I actually have a few things written about it as well.

    9. Re:Trickle down by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reality is that before all of the regulations and the Fed existence and before FDIC the banks never failed institutionally, as in - they never had a government giving them free money and preventing any potential competition

      No, they went bust individually and people who happened to have accounts with those banks suddenly found that they were broke. Loans owed to the bank would be transferred to whoever bought them from the bankruptcy, but people in credit at the bank would have their savings wiped out. Customers had no way of evaluating how safe banks were, because the banks were not required (by evil regulations) to disclose how much capital they had nor what form it took.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Infrastructure is only meaningful in any way if it can make the people more productive. Clearly productivity has nothing to do with the jobs programs that government is involved in. Any infrastructure projects that gov't does (all those roads, etc.), those are just money sinks if they are not demanded by the actual business requirement, and there is no business requirement at this point in US or Europe. There is no business requirement and you should go up in this thread, I wrote about the real interest rates and lack of real investment and the reasons behind it.

      Since there is no investment capital at acceptable interest rates for business in these countries, there is no business requirement, there will be no new business and anything you believe is necessary and should be done as an investment by the government will not make US businesses more productive, because those businesses will not exist anyway.

      Gov't jobs programs are make shift jobs and money sinks - work for the sake of work.

      You can build all the houses and bridges and roads you like, you can spend your entire life building them, but if the business cannot operate in your environment you won't have ANY return on that so called 'investment'. When there is a real demand and real capital investment infrastructure gets build, because it is necessary to increase efficiencies and productivity. Gov't does not need to build it, if the environment is conducive to production, those things are built. US is broke and so are many other European nations, there is no money and there is no reason to do these projects except to continue providing the government with reasons for further spending and existence and to pretend the economy is doing something while destroying the currency.

    11. Re:Trickle down by brit74 · · Score: 2

      Ha, you sound like such a "always blame the government" libertarian. Stocks form a bubble because people are betting on their future value. Stop the nonsense about how the fed creates all the problems in the economy. We had plenty of bubbles long before the fed go involved in anything. Or did the US Fed cause the Tulip Bulb bubble in 1637, too?

    12. Re:Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Banks competed and some went bust. That's a good thing - prevents a bad bank from continuing bad practices. You don't like banks going bust? Well, your government doesn't like it either, that's why it has destroyed your productivity and will destroy your currency - to keep appearance of a working bank system.

      What is funny is that it seems you are arguing for regulated banking, saying that without regulations the banks fail, yet you admit that banks used to fail individually, but not institutionally. But today, with all the regulations (and there are tens of thousands of regulations) and with all the regulatory bodies (hundreds of them), the banks are failing institutionally and globally because of all of the governments sticking their noses where they don't belong - business and money.

    13. Re:Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      when I read what Ron Paul and the things you have written

      there is a big difference between roman_mir and his lord and savior ron paul. ron paul, on rare occasions, says things that make at least a little bit of sense. roman_mir, however, ignores those statements completely and goes only with the bits he loves the most.

      its really a cult of opportunity for him.

      there's an obvious lack of knowledge of pre-Fed economic history

      roman_mir isn't even knowledgeable on current economic history, or for that matter, history (or economics) in general. why would he he knowledgeable on pre-fed economics?

      If you haven't read this yet, read Lords of Finance [amazon.com]. It's about the Post WWI World Economic collapse and has a wonderful explanation of why we can't be on the gold standard, btw

      that counters his assumptions and faith that he has acquired as a full-time ron paul cultist. asking him to read that is similar to asking him to read the communist manifesto, or asking the pope to read the origin of species.

      I would honestly like to see your take on it

      I'll give it to you right now - he'll tell you it is wrong, full of lies, and total crap. it is purely heretical to him.

      you're a sharp person

      sharp in comparison to what? a plastic colander?

      just needs to take a break from the Ron Paul Kool-Aid

      but ron paul kool-aid is the only kool-aid approved by his lord almighty ron paul for use at services at the church of ron paul. and truly devout ron paul cultists such as roman_mir not only drink it as their only kool-aid, but go a step further and consume it as their only beverage. you might as well ask him to abstain from drinking anything, ever.

    14. Re:Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Or did the US Fed cause the Tulip Bulb bubble in 1637, too

      - not the US Fed obviously, but the same idea exactly - people threw everything into tulip growing and flooded the market, and the tulips went down in value relative to everything else. That's what the Fed is doing with the currency, why is that a surprise?

      As to the .com - you can go back and check the gov't set interest rates and the money expansion, the return rate was negative, today it's even worse. Again, how is that a surprise?

    15. Re:Trickle down by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Most corporations are not part of some conspiracy ... they cut R&D because they see that overpopulation, resource limits and reduction in income share of labour caused by automation make investment a bad business decision. Their customers are increasingly going away, why invest?

      We are living in the age of peak everything and automation ... we should start getting less concerned about growth and more about distribution and stability. The market won't take care of unemployment unless technology finds a way to reduce energy cost by an order of magnitude and a synthetic oil process which can produce below the cost of natural oil 10 years ago ... even that will only buy us a little time with automation making labour increasingly irrelevant.

    16. Re:Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Labor doesn't build houses. Houses are built as a result of capital investment and organization of tools, labor, land, etc. Labor is just part of equation and it's a diminishing part, as the capital is able to replace plenty of labor, so one guy with an excavator replaces hundreds of people with shovels.

      But if twice as many houses are built, won't they be worth half as much?

      - not if your money supply grows. You would be correct if the money supply staid the same, that's what USA had in 19 century - prices were falling as dollar was strengthening.

      But if the dollar is nothing but a piece of cloth/paper or even just a few bytes in a computer, and it is growing at a whim of a politician or a banker, then the prices are going to go up in that fiat currency, as the supply of it is basically infinite and it's growing without any restraint.

      Again, with the houses, just like with .com bubble, agriculture equity bubble in 1929 and the bond bubble today, it's all about the dollar supply that keeps going up, and the reason for it is because it has no sound foundation, nothing prevents it from growing.

    17. Re:Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "it can steal without any impunity"

      That word ... I do not think it means what you think it means ... you probably meant to say "it can steal WITH impunity", meaning it can steal without there being any consequences or punishment.

      Language - not horribly difficult to use properly.

    18. Re:Trickle down by brit74 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh please. I've seen experiments in classrooms involving pretend stocks and pretend money and bubbles still form. Once a stock starts to go up, people jump on it hoping to make a buck. And there was *no* control or fluctuation of the money supply in these experiments. So why do bubbles form? Two simple reasons:

      (1) People want to earn money.
      (2) People are based their predictions of the future on past experience. This means if a stock went up in the past, they expect it to do well in the future. While not everyone falls prey to this all the time, it happens often enough in a market to cause the population, in general, to make very bad decisions, and drive the economy into bubbles.

      not the US Fed obviously, but the same idea exactly - people threw everything into tulip growing and flooded the market
      No that's not "the same idea exactly" because it happens without government intervention, it happened in the free market, and THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT.

    19. Re:Trickle down by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      Infrastructure is only meaningful in any way if it can make the people more productive. Clearly productivity has nothing to do with the jobs programs that government is involved in. Any infrastructure projects that gov't does (all those roads, etc.), those are just money sinks if they are not demanded by the actual business requirement, and there is no business requirement at this point in US or Europe.

      I can't speak for other countries, but at least in Belgium the Flemish (regional) government currently has to pay a lot of money every year to companies and people whose cars were damaged due to badly maintained roads. Fixing vehicles, whether or not the government pays for it, is a perfect example of a broken windows economy. Fixing roads is the proper approach, and businesses most certainly are not interested in paying more for transportation because trucks get damaged all the time.

      When there is a real demand and real capital investment infrastructure gets build, because it is necessary to increase efficiencies and productivity.

      What you seem to miss is that the evil big bad government is simply one of the ways to do that. If you have 50 small companies in a region that could profit from having a new/better/wider road constructed to that region, then you will need some kind of committee or coordination to get that project going. You can create an ad hoc committee every time that's required, or permanent business societies specialised in road construction & maintenance all over the country, or you can delegate that to a nationwide road construction entity with branches everywhere.

      Even if you keep it down to the small ad hoc committees, those things will get politicised. Businesses are not necessarily averse to politicisation. In fact, the larger they are, the more they often like it (count the number of lobbyists). You can get alternative political systems that are possibly even more tightly controlled by business interests than they are now, but they won't go away. Power concentration will remain at least as big a problem, and the same goes for corruption, pork etc. The only thing you'd change is that accountability would become completely limited to shareholders and boards of directors, rather than that the public at large also still has a say (I know it's fairly limited in the US due to the way the two party system works, but it still does exist -- just look how the requirements for public debates across the republican candidates are killing them due to public opinion reactions to their errors).

      Democracy and governments did not appear out of thin air. And replacing them again with industrials and other wealthy organisations/individuals that can pay for infrastructure works, is pretty much exactly the kind of governments we had in Europe during the 19th century (and even part of the 20th century). And believe you me, corruption, inefficient spending, abuse etc were rampant.

      Gov't does not need to build it, if the environment is conducive to production, those things are built. US is broke and so are many other European nations, there is no money and there is no reason to do these projects except to continue providing the government with reasons for further spending

      Of course there are such projects, but it is naive to think all such government spending is like that. Just like it is naive to think that the market will somehow always optimally allocate funds where they are required (even if you limit requirements to "the economy"). Again: you can argue that things would go more efficient without a government (but again, I very much doubt that), but simply saying that per definition pooling money via the government for public investments is basically "money that instead should have been invested in businesses or by businesses, and now hurts businesses because they don't have it" is ignoring reality.

      --
      Donate free food here
    20. Re:Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Yes, bubbles form and they burst, but they don't have anything to do with the economy at large. They only cause problems for the economy and not just for the private investors involved if there is a government with an easy money policy backing the deals.

      That's what you see in those experiments - private people losing money. That's fine, they should lose money. The market works, it awards those who take meaningful risks but mostly not those who just gamble.

      As a side note, imaginary money is easy to waste - easy come easy go. People don't treat imaginary and virtual money the same is real cash.

      I know of experiments where they observed people doing stupid things (like gambling) and those with credit cards lost much more than those with cash in hands, it's because people aren't that great with abstract numbers, but they understand something they hold in their hands.

      Free market made USA the most prosperous country on earth in 19 century, the biggest creditor nation, manufacturer of high quality cheap goods, so I don't see a problem - some people lose money, some make money, but the real overall economy grows as production grows.

    21. Re:Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      in Belgium the Flemish (regional) government currently has to pay a lot of money every year to companies and people whose cars were damaged due to badly maintained roads

      - just another stupid thing that government does. Clearly this is stupid and wasteful, for gov't to pay for private transport, to fix private cars/trucks. That's really dumb. You should really get rid of that stupid government (like all other nations of-course).

      Also I wonder how many more 'damaged' trucks and cars appeared all of a sudden when the program started. I bet there are many times more 'damaged' cars now, I am sure there is all sorts of corruption going on too.

      Just imagine what kind of a stupid subsidy to mechanics and dealerships and parts manufacturers this is - everybody now will just bring in their truck and car to replace any wear and tear with government subsidized parts.

      I wonder how many mechanics just take the money and split it with the truck/car owners, where in fact there is no damage.

      Do you see how stupid and wrong it is for government to put money into this? Same thing with everything it puts money into. It creates false demand where none existed and where private sector wasn't providing this extra demand, clearly there was no need for it.

      However you should ask yourself the follow up question - why is private business not building the roads in your country? I bet your roads are all public, none are private, so of-course using public roads and not paying for them directly creates the moral hazard, and the cost/benefit must not be there for private money to enter.

      That's another stupid thing governments do - start in road building business in the first place.

      What you seem to miss is that the evil big bad government is simply one of the ways to do that

      - it's the worst way of doing it, because it has nothing to do with real demand.

      There is no shortage of companies who can build up your roads, and if a community wants one that doesn't exist, all it has to do is raise bonds and hire a company itself. If there is a business case for it, it can be built no problem, it's done all the time. But in reality people want other people to pay for their expenses, that's the crux of the issue. I pity the fools who pay all these taxes.

      Democracy and governments did not appear out of thin air.

      - democracy is a terrible system, that's why US has a republic, but it's been cracked. Governments are evil by design and they should be allowed to do the minimum possible damage to the society. They appear when there is a power vacuum and somebody wants to occupy that space.

      but simply saying that per definition pooling money via the government for public investments is basically "money that instead should have been invested in businesses or by businesses, and now hurts businesses because they don't have it" is ignoring reality.

      - well, there is no 'pooling' of anything. There are no taxes allocated to any of it and none of it is backed by any production.

      It's all debt, it's all counterfeiting and it's all theft. The real business takes care of its infrastructure, but when you are left without any real business due to your government policies, then you have no need for that infrastructure and any type of a project like that is just a make shift jobs project - give everybody a job, whether they want it or not, make everybody equally poor in the process. Hey, but at least they become 'equally' poor, right? Well, not the politicians.

    22. Re:Trickle down by Ly4 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm ... so by your logic, if government reduces interest rates, and this leads to investment in production, that's bad. But if people get capital from their facebook stock and invest it in production, that's good. The presence of customers is apparently immaterial.

      Yep, simplistic is the right word to describe your model - as another poster noted, the model is 'government == bad'. It is interesting to see the back flips you have to go through to keep that one part going (i.e., things like making money non-fungible).

    23. Re:Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS. I said it on 16th of September that holding deposits in banks has become dangerous, because banks will just steal the deposits.

      On October 25, 2011 MF Global reported a $191.6 million quarterly loss as a result of trading on European government bonds. On October 31, 2011 MF Global filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Depositors lost money, not 'investors' or traders - depositors. The bankers are now stealing deposits as I said they would, so stay clear of banks.

      Err... MF Global were never a bank, and never had any depositors, at least not in the usual sense. It was possible to hold money in brokerage accounts with them, but that's not even slightly the same thing as holding money in a deposit account at a bank. It is true that people who did so will potentially have lost money, but they will almost all have been traders, simply because there is no other reason to have such an account. Also, most of the products offered by MF Global were derivatives of one sort or another, and the ones where MF Global took the other side probably won't pay out now, but that's just the usual counterparty risk you always take on that sort of contract.

      (I say they'll potentially have lost money because, at least in the UK, investors will be protected by the FSCS up to the first £50,000; I assume that similar arrangements exist in the US. Notice that the FSCS will only cover the first £50,000, rather than the usual £85,000, because it's classified MF Global as a broker rather than a bank, and all of its customers as investors rather than depositors.)

    24. Re:Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Hmmm ... so by your logic, if government reduces interest rates, and this leads to investment in production, that's bad

      - bidding up prices for worthless investments with free money is not investment, it's destruction of currency. The only real investments come out of savings: overproduction - underconsumption.

      But if people get capital from their facebook stock and invest it in production, that's good.

      - actually I think this is also a bubble and the money that will be poured into FB is also coming from major investing institutions, mostly counterfeit, that's the only way FB can have the valuations it has.

      The presence of customers is apparently immaterial.

      - the only real customers are people who also produce. Trade is exchange of goods, not exchange of products for counterfeit currency.

      We trade with each other because of comparative advantage. Those who are overproducing and under-consuming are able to build up savings capital and increase their output becoming wealthier than others.

      Trading with people who get money from government from taxes, from debt, from printing is a worthless waste of time and life.

      Yep, simplistic is the right word to describe your model

      - however simplistic, yet here is my write up that predicts theft of money from deposits in banks. Now it happened.

      So however simplistic, I see the path that is in front of us. Do you see anything?

    25. Re:Trickle down by Halo1 · · Score: 2

      in Belgium the Flemish (regional) government currently has to pay a lot of money every year to companies and people whose cars were damaged due to badly maintained roads

      - just another stupid thing that government does. Clearly this is stupid and wasteful, for gov't to pay for private transport, to fix private cars/trucks. That's really dumb. You should really get rid of that stupid government (like all other nations of-course).

      Also I wonder how many more 'damaged' trucks and cars appeared all of a sudden when the program started.

      It's not a program. It's court orders. And the root cause of this is that they prefer a balanced budget over fixing the roads, because for now paying those judgements is cheaper than fixing the roads. They are basically "saving" until they can afford to fix the roads without incurring debt.

      I bet there are many times more 'damaged' cars now, I am sure there is all sorts of corruption going on too.

      Just imagine what kind of a stupid subsidy to mechanics and dealerships and parts manufacturers this is - everybody now will just bring in their truck and car to replace any wear and tear with government subsidized parts.

      I wonder how many mechanics just take the money and split it with the truck/car owners, where in fact there is no damage.

      Do you see how stupid and wrong it is for government to put money into this? Same thing with everything it puts money into. It creates false demand where none existed and where private sector wasn't providing this extra demand, clearly there was no need for it.

      I mainly see that you have a very rich imagination.

      What you seem to miss is that the evil big bad government is simply one of the ways to do that

      - it's the worst way of doing it, because it has nothing to do with real demand.

      Of course it has to do with real demand. In a region like Flanders you'd in fact be hard pressed to build roads when there is no demand, because we simply don't have the space. We're way too densely populated for that.

      There is no shortage of companies who can build up your roads,

      Of course not, they are in fact hired by the government. The government itself has no road building equipment or personnel, save possibly for small fix-up jobs.

      and if a community wants one that doesn't exist, all it has to do is raise bonds and hire a company itself. If there is a business case for it, it can be built no problem, it's done all the time.

      That's exactly what I discussed in my previous post.

      Democracy and governments did not appear out of thin air.

      - democracy is a terrible system, that's why US has a republic, but it's been cracked.

      The US has a representative democracy. Republic or not is unrelated to whether or not you have a democracy.

      Governments are evil by design

      You appear to have incurred quite a few traumas.

      but simply saying that per definition pooling money via the government for public investments is basically "money that instead should have been invested in businesses or by businesses, and now hurts businesses because they don't have it" is ignoring reality.

      - well, there is no 'pooling' of anything. There are no taxes allocated to any of it and none of it is backed by any production.

      It's all debt, it's all counterfeiting and it's all theft.

      I can assure you that the income tax I pay to the government is backed by my production. And that while I do not agree with all of the ways it is spent, I do agree with how large parts of it are spent.

      The real business takes care of its infrastructure, but when you are left without any real business due to your government policies, t

      --
      Donate free food here
    26. Re:Trickle down by Ly4 · · Score: 1

      Wow - an entire post of contradictions. Apparently money is not fungible, and neither are customers with money.

      There's an argument to be made about a currency bubble, but you're not making it.

      For my prediction, I'm going to predict that people will die in automobile accidents in the US tomorrow. About 90 people, in fact. Accurate? yes. Useful in preventing a specific accident? no. More useful than your prediction? probably.

      Go ahead, you can have the last post in this thread now ...

    27. Re:Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Wow - an entire post of contradictions. Apparently money is not fungible, and neither are customers with money.

      - counterfeit is not money.

      Customers are not customers if they don't produce. We don't trade with people for pieces of paper, we trade with people because they produce. If they don't produce, then we are not trading, we are subsidizing their consumption and we have to pay more to produce all of the goods that these subsidized consumers want to consume. But there is no reason to do that, because they are 'buying' our goods from us, we have to work more, but they don't produce anything, so we can't use the money to buy anything from them. They are not worth our effort.

      As to your prediction - that's pretty worthless. But who else did you see except for me predicting that bank deposits will be stolen from the banks next?

      Anyway, I am sure you learned nothing from this.

    28. Re:Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Err... MF Global were never a bank, and never had any depositors, at least not in the usual sense.

      - I am certain that the people holding their money at MF global in actual money accounts weren't thinking the same way as you are, because they were quite surprised that their money accounts were drained.

      But don't worry, more is coming. More deposits will be stolen from other banks and more people will be surprised that their 'deposits' are gone.

      Of-course saying that something is a 'deposit' to a bank is a ruse, there are no deposits, only loans, but you wouldn't know about it because of FDIC.

      As to being 'protected' by the government... let's just say you are not protected from inflation and look carefully at who stole the money - the gov't hands are all over this.

    29. Re:Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, any time there is any mention of money or politics here on Slashdot, you can count on a guy who goes by the name of roman_mir to bring in the crazy.

      I've seen your posts here for years, and it never ceases to amaze me. I imagine you rather like Dick Cheney, bitter and stressed almost to the point of your next heart attack or being about to shoot someone in the face, or both, complaining about this or that. I hope that some day America will realize the error of its ways and start building your free-market libertarian paradise, so that you can take a deep breath and relax. Because otherwise, I'm worried about your health.

      In the meantime: Breathe. Feel your pulse, breathe slowly, relax and watch it go down...

    30. Re:Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On October 25, 2011 MF Global reported a $191.6 million quarterly loss as a result of trading on European government bonds. On October 31, 2011 MF Global filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Depositors lost money, not 'investors' or traders - depositors.

      Do you even bother to read your link? MF Global was not a bank. Further, MF Global broke the law on keeping customer money separate from its own trading accounts. It remains to be seen (probably unlikely) if any of the principals are convicted and sent to prison.

      The bankers are now stealing deposits as I said they would, so stay clear of banks.

      MF Global wasn't a bank, therefore they aren't bankers. Given the many real cases of wrongdoing by acutal bankers, it's odd that you're focusing on a fictional case.

      As a broker, MF Global's customer accounts are protected by SIPC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Investor_Protection_Corporation from collapse of the broker. However, it turns out that the SIPC doesn't cover futures accounts. If you were trading commodity or financial futures through MF Global (the vast majority were) and you have funds that are missing, the SIPC won't give you a cent to make up the difference.

      Oddly enough, if you were a Canadian customer of MF Global, you have far stronger protection from broker collapse:
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/david-parkinson/canadas-cipf-the-surprise-winner-in-protecting-investors/article2258970/

    31. Re:Trickle down by ronpaulisanidiot · · Score: 2

      Banks competed and some went bust. That's a good thing
      wrong. that is not a good thing. it means people lose their jobs through no fault of their own. it also means that John Q Public no longer has faith in his bank to hold on to his money in what should be a stable savings account. if nothing is secured at all, as you propose, then the very basis of savings and loan as we know it loses its strength because banks won't have money available to loan out. what money they do have, they will have to loan out at prohibitively expensive rates which will prevent people from wanting to take any risk with money at all.

      but of course, you previously said you support high unemployment, so this fits just fine with that goal. it doesn't fit any thinking man's ideals, but it fits yours just fine.

      banks are failing institutionally and globally because of all of the governments
      bullshit. the banks that were the most stable after the subprime crisis rolled all over the world were where? you won't know this, so I'll give you the answer.

      canada

      and they have significantly tighter regulations on banking in canada than they ever had in the us - and of course american banks have seen ever fewer regulations as time has moved forward over the past few decades.

      so in other words, your dead wrong.

      and I even made an account like you asked. happy?

    32. Re:Trickle down by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      wrong. that is not a good thing. it means people lose their jobs through no fault of their own

      - wrong. This is a good thing. The people who are losing the money in case of a specific bank failure are people who lending to that bank.

      This is good, as that bank goes out of business and people become more cautious as to where to put their money. That's the ultimate regulator - market regulator.

      it also means that John Q Public no longer has faith in his bank to hold on to his money in what should be a stable savings account. if nothing is secured at all, as you propose, then the very basis of savings and loan as we know it loses its strength because banks won't have money available to loan out.

      - nonsense.

      People used banks without any government guarantee and the banking sector wasn't falling over. In fact without FDIC the banks compete with each other for their customers as the customers are looking at the private insurance that banks hold and customers care who they lend their money to. People who want to use the banks as deposit boxes pay a storage fee and some others may want to RISK their money for a few percentage points, so the money that will be loaned out is loaned out with the knowledge of the people who lend it to the banks. The money then is lent out by the bank and it cannot be immediately retrieved by the account holder, but there is no storage fee obviously and the customer gets paid.

      If the banks break the trust and uses people's deposits to loan out what it's not supposed to, eventually the bank goes too far and there may be a bank run. That's a good thing - it makes sure people don't just blindly give their money to just about anybody. Worked very well before the Fed started counterfeiting money and before FDIC became the moral hazard. 19 century US economy was built with private banks, so this:

      they will have to loan out at prohibitively expensive rates which will prevent people from wanting to take any risk with money at all.

      - is clearly false.

      but of course, you previously said you support high unemployment, so this fits just fine with that goal. it doesn't fit any thinking man's ideals, but it fits yours just fine.

      - I support what the market decides and I oppose what the government wants.

      Clearly the current situation with the unemployment is caused by the government destroying the market, pushing labor prices too high and pushing investment capital offshore.

      I also support all sorts of efficiencies found in automation if the market is going that way, because people's goal is not to have jobs but to have productive output from those jobs and if we can put everybody out of work doing what they are doing with maximum amount of automation - that's a good thing. That would mean we have reached a stage, just like the one that transitioned the subsistence farmer economy to industrial economy, so people stopped working on the farms and came up with other ways to be productive.

      People became very productive while not working on the farms and farming became very efficient as a result of industrial capitalism, as 5% of people became capable of feeding 100% of the population. That's a clear advantage to subsistence farming, where nearly all people work as farmers and nothing else gets done.

      So obviously in that sense I completely support automating everything we can, so that people lose their current jobs and come up with new ideas. But again, this only makes sense as long as it's done by the free market, not governments. Gov'ts are causing this massive unemployment right now not because we can produce everything we need with a tiny number of people, but because we outsource everything we produce to somebody else and we produce nothing in return, which is not an equitable trade and will crash the economy and the dollar.

      bullshit. the banks that were the most stable after the

    33. Re:Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada's banks do the same things the other banks do (CDS, malinvestment, etc) with one difference when it comes to housing: They offload every risky mortgage onto the government the moment that mortgage is made and therefore the bailout they get when the housing bubble bursts won't even need to be discussed. CMHC holds all the risk.

      I'm Canadian, and it disgusts me to see the arrogance displayed by fellow Canadians when it comes to our "precious" banks. You know, the same banks that gouge the shit of everyone on a daily basis, yet people are cheerleading them.

      Canada's fall is coming. The stupidity here is amazing.

    34. Re:Trickle down by brit74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, bubbles form and they burst, but they don't have anything to do with the economy at large. They only cause problems for the economy and not just for the private investors involved if there is a government with an easy money policy backing the deals.

      I have to disagree with this idea. If other people lose money it affects everyone. We are very interconnected. People who argue for free markets also agree with this idea of people being interconnected. If a bunch of people in an economy waste a bunch of money, then they have less wealth to spend and invest. This makes it difficult for other people trying to sell stuff. If I'm running a business in Detroit or Flint Michigan and suddenly the auto industry leaves, then people have less money and that makes my living as a business-owner much harder. My living as a business-owner depends on what money other people have.

      To put this argument in a more modern context: if a bunch of people get over their heads in their mortgage and then default, it causes problems for the economy. That situation can happen whether or not the government provides "easy money". It's easy to imagine real-estate bubbles happening in any economy where home prices are rising quickly, causing people to buy-up expensive homes because they think they can resell them in 5 years for 50% more money - therefore, you should by the most expensive home you can since a larger loan equals a larger return when you sell it again. In that situation, a feeding-frenzy happens and it does not depend on whether the US government is loaning money at 0% interest or 4% interest - in both cases, the value of the real estate is outpacing any 4% interest rate that the US government is offering.

      So, I'd take your original statement, "Yes, bubbles form and they burst, but ... They only cause problems for the economy and not just for the private investors involved if there is a government with an easy money policy backing the deals." and rewrite it as "Yes, bubbles form and they burst ... and that creates problems for the economy at large". Whether those bubbles affect the whole economy is not dependent on whether or not "there is a government with an easy money policy backing the deals", though I could understand the argument that government intervention could cause additional problems.

    35. Re:Trickle down by ronpaulisanidiot · · Score: 1

      wrong. that is not a good thing. it means people lose their jobs through no fault of their own

      - wrong. This is a good thing

      so in your particular branch of the cult of ron paul, high unemployment is a good thing. that is fucked up beyond anything I've ever seen before. you do realize that people who cannot afford boots cannot pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, right?

      The people who are losing the money in case of a specific bank failure are people who lending to that bank.

      except that a very real portion of the banking industry is based around guaranteed investments - savings accounts in particular. savings accounts are made available at incredibly low interest rates because they represent zero risk. it increases capital available to the bank and pays a very marginal dividend to the person who deposited the money. it is essentially a safety deposit box for someone who only has liquid assets, or has no valuable non-liquid assets that they are concerned about the security of.

      however, if you revoke all banking regulations as you propose, then the savings become completely uninsured, which would immediately change the terms of millions of accounts in the US and who knows how many in the rest of the world. people who opened savings accounts opened them fully realizing that the accounts were fully insured, and that the price the paid for that full insurance was a far lower interest rate than an investment account.

      generally, very few people anywhere in the world approve of changing contracts with customers before their existing contract is up and without their knowledge or consent. of course, I suppose your cult would probably be fine with crapping all over that standard as well?

      In fact without FDIC the banks compete with each other for their customers

      with the fdic banks still compete for customers. they can still set their own rates. they are not required to offer insured accounts if they don't want to, it is just stupid not to. but the fdic didn't do shit to hinder competition between banks.

      is clearly false

      the only thing false is the notion that you are adequately literate to have any idea what the hell you are talking about.

      but of course, you previously said you support high unemployment, so this fits just fine with that goal. it doesn't fit any thinking man's ideals, but it fits yours just fine.

      - I support what the market decides and I oppose what the government wants.

      we understand fully well that you support high unemployment. you have no good reason to support it, but you are free to support whatever you want.

      Clearly the current situation with the unemployment is caused by the government destroying the market, pushing labor prices too high and pushing investment capital offshore.

      this might be counter to what you have been chanting at your cult meetings, but things do not become true just because you keep repeating them. the unemployment rate is not the fault of the government.

      although being as you have repeatedly stated you favor high unemployment, you really should be telling us that you think unemployment is too low. you are contradicting yourself any time you show concern for high unemployment.

      if we can put everybody out of work doing what they are doing with maximum amount of automation - that's a good thing

      so you would have no problem with 100% unemployment then?

      what, then, is the actual goal of your economic dream? you're not trying to put people to work, you're not trying to provide any kind of infrastructure for anything, you aren't trying to provide for education, or health care, and you certainly aren't trying to help anyone get ahead economically.

      so other than driv

    36. Re:Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I know who to ignore

      that is your most telling line in your entire comment, and possibly for the past several months from you. you are so afraid of having your assumptions challenged, that you will go out of your way to ignore anyone who does so - and you won't even hesitate to embrace that fact.

      utterly despicable, you are. why do you even come here and enter into a discussion with anyone if you are not open to ideas that are not identical to your own? why don't you just go back to your cult meeting and turn off your computer. you're making the ron paul cultists who actually are capable of holding intelligent conversation look bad.

    37. Re:Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, because people have their money there, and they are your citizens. because banks do not have the same freedom on the market, as others, since they do not own all the money they have, it was actually lent to them by people.

      if a bank becomes anything else, it fails. so if it sees itself as part of business, its on a wrong direction. the bank is about money. and is doing a public job. which means public regulation.

      so where exactly is the problem of thought? the bank does not produce stuff, it catalyses. it has nothing lost on any free market. it should expand naturally, and of course seek opportunity, and needs regulations and government oversight. like every SERVICE.

      thankfully, european banks seem to know that, at least in my country.

    38. Re:Trickle down by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Ya know I bet the pope HAS read origin of the species, if nothing else so that he can form better arguments against it.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  14. It's been spent already by Xoebe · · Score: 1

    The money will wind up being returned to banks in the form of interest and fees on consumer and business debt.

  15. so a bunch of real estate wackos.. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    ..are trying to hype up the market _now_, rather than when it actually comes.
    here's a hint: a thousand millionaires takes a thousand millions+ of cash.

    and they're also implying that they would be spending more than needed on their purchases - so that the real estate agent could pocket a big(too big) commission and that they would pay the contractors extra bonuses just because...

    "happy days are just around the corner".

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  16. Score one for the engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've held some resentment towards the finance community, which I've perceived as being rewarded with disproportionate wealth for providing services of limited actual value to the long-term health of our nation's economy. And I've struggled to justify engineers earning a relative pittance. Yet, hearing about these Facebook wanks getting rich feels like a hollow victory.

    1. Re:Score one for the engineers by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yet, hearing about these Facebook wanks getting rich feels like a hollow victory.

      Don't worry, the banks and lawyers that are negotiating the IPO deal are getting far, far richer and up front, too. Feel cynical again?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Score one for the engineers by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, IPOs are handled by the investment bankers. The hedge funds and other monied interests getting in at the IPO price (and pre-IPO price in some cases). Too bad Google's dutch auction approach didn't catch on -- the company gets to keep more of the IPO money* and the wall street insiders don't have any advantage over anyone else.

      * Consider VA Linux: the IPO price was $30/share but the actual opening price was $300/share, closing at $240/share. $30/share went to VA Linux, $270/share went to the bankers.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:Score one for the engineers by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I never understood why an IPO involved dumping a load of stock on the market at once, rather than trickling it out over a few days. If VA had offered 20% of the stock each day for a week and the price on the first day had gone up to $240 by the end of the day then on the second day that'd have been selling at $240/share.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Score one for the engineers by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, they have a rough idea what their market valuation will be, and the amount of money they expect to earn. They then have to find 1-1000 buyers to buy all of the initial stock, who then turn around and piecemeal it out over a period of days/weeks/months/years. By going this route they confirm their buyers before the stock goes public, and they can get 100% of their stock offering in a lump sum, rather than waiting to sell it over time. If the company does poorly in the year that they're trying to sell their stock on the open market, they may not be able to sell 100% of it initially.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  17. Re:Thousands of millionares? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 3, Informative

    So maybe the 1% will become the 1.1%?

    0.1% of US population is 300,000 people. Even if those were "only" millionaries (that are actually about 5% of US population), that would require 300 billion dollars, or almost the whole Apple market cap (Google wouldn't suffice).

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  18. Facebook shareholders, google "stock dilution" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bad stock dilution

    In 2006, Phaser decides to engage in the worst of the three main ways that companies dilute their shareholders: It issues 100,000 stock options to its CEO. For the time being, Phaser has a "basic share count" of 100,000 shares actually outstanding. But because its CEO will eventually exercise his stock options (i.e., tell the company to issue 100,000 shares to him and then sell them on the open market), Phaser now has a hypothetical, or "diluted," share count of 200,000 shares.

    That's bad news for Joe. While he will still own his 10,000 shares, his ownership stake will be diluted once the company issues that extra stock. What does that mean? Well, when Phaser's share count stood at 100,000, and it earned $100, Joe was entitled to 10% (10,000/100,000) worth of those profits, or $10.

    But when Phaser issues those 100,000 extra shares, Joe's shares will not equal 10% but just 5% (10,000/200,000) of all shares outstanding. If Phaser earns $100 again in 2005, Joe's take from that haul is just $5. Poor Joe.

    The CEO, on the other hand, gets 100,000/200,000 worth of the profits, or $50. Lucky CEO!

    Thus, the primary reason Fools dislike stock dilution is that it often represents a transfer of wealth from outside shareholders -- you and me -- to insiders.

    But Facebook are a very trustworthy company who wouldn't dream of employing such schemes - right?

    http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2006/04/28/foolish-fundamentals-stock-dilution.aspx

  19. "Trickle down effect"... a myth and joke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If there truly were a significant "trickle down effect", the gap between the super rich and poor wouldn't widen year after year. It's a myth and joke to keep poor souls shut up and accept blatant injustice in the wrong hope of getting rich too, one day.

    Enough said.

  20. "Trickle-down" is more like a "torrent down" by sco08y · · Score: 2

    Virtually all of that money will go into the general economy. The only part that won't will be a relatively tiny portion that will be invested in precious metals, typically less than a percent. All the rest will:

    * be invested in other companies, either directly through stocks or indirectly through the banking system
    * be spent on consumer goods and services
    * be spent on real estate and the upkeep of real estate
    * be donated to charity
    * be paid to the public sector as taxes
    * be invested in the public sector as bonds

    The notion that wealth "trickles" down is total bullshit. It's like a flat-earth theory of economics.

  21. simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stocks go up if people BUY. stocks go down if people SELL.
    so if you buy facebook IPO you are putting your money into THEIR pockets ...

    1. Re:simple by Warwick+Allison · · Score: 1

      Buy from who? A seller. Sell to who? A buyer.

  22. That's trickle-down-economics. by roguegramma · · Score: 1

    It has been pointed out to me, so I'd like to point it out myself:

    trickle-down-effect is being used to refer to the movement of technology, products, and behavior from wealthy people to less wealthy people.

    trickle-down-economics or trickle-down-theory refers to the argument that by making wealthy people more wealthy, the income trickles down to the entire economy.

    I would guess the latter is meant here.

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
  23. Trickle-down effect is a lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trickle-down effect is a lie. Because "a trickle" means exactly the very it: that only a fraction of the whole sum will reach the lower or lowest levels of society, thanks to well maid rain gutters made of closed circuits and networks of friendly business interests, prepared to capture the big down-pour before leaving only the mist for lower classes of a society. I will personally never forget the smirk on the face of GWB, when he and his cohorts Chenney & Co. announced their tax cuts with words: "This wealth will trickle down." And where are you now? In a bigger gutter than ever before. Foreclosures, menial jobs, general decay of a society's fabric, especially in certain areas of today's USA...

  24. Before someone says "not fixed pie" by sethstorm · · Score: 2

    That is how the whole 1% vs 99% works. And more people becoming millionaires doesn't do anything but make far more people poor.

    When opportunity is largely taken away by virtue of things like offshoring and the general contempt of regular, nonbusiness-owning people through things like contracted labor, you are correct.

    The damage is done through their influence, not their wealth though. Any perceived expansion of the pie is negated by the influence that converts a dynamic pie into a near-fixed pie.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Before someone says "not fixed pie" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The damage is done through their influence, not their wealth though.

      Still, wealth buys influence.

  25. No bubble here. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Informative

    Noo. Up up and away. Yes the company is worth 100 billion, more. Just step right up and get your share certificates, hot from the press.

    Nooo bubbles here. Social 1.0 isn't a fad or a bubble at all. Bet your grandchildren on it.

    P. T. Barnum would be proud.

    Note: Facebook is valued at a P/E of ~125. 12 is about average.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "valued at" â "worth"

      Semantics whine yes, but as you pointed out, the company is extremely over valued. Certainly not one that would be the target of someone like the "Cash McCall" character James Garner once played. This is not to say the stock price won't rise, after all the people who are inflating this bubble believe things like "good government" is possible and look how much those are inflating.

    2. Re:No bubble here. by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 5, Informative

      Note: Facebook is valued at a P/E of ~125. 12 is about average.

      That's the average for an established company. IPOs and other companies with strong growth potentials often have much higher P/E ratios. For example, Google's P/E was well over 100 when they went public, and now it is down to 21 as they are a much more mature company. That said, distinguishing between companies with strong growth potential and irrational exuberance is extremely difficult. I think Facebook falls in the latter camp, although certainly not with enough confidence to put my money where my mouth is.

    3. Re:No bubble here. by Surt · · Score: 2

      No kidding. I know more and more people who are leaving facebook because ... well, it gets boring.
      It's just clearly not what people want in the long term.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:No bubble here. by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's the average for an established company. IPOs and other companies with strong growth potentials often have much higher P/E ratios.

      The problem with that statement is it assumes all IPOs are "new" companies. Facebook is (in my book) mature. They've reached saturation, they've driven their main competitors out of the market, and they have an established revenue stream (which isn't particularly impressive).

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    5. Re:No bubble here. by thesh0ck · · Score: 1

      They are also a monopoly. Wait for it....

    6. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually Social 4.0 by my count.

      • Social 1.0 was AOL ("...you've got mail!") and AIM (the Buddy List®) but no publicly posted disclosure of friends except via the e-mail CC list (yes I consider this the MS DOS era of online social networking and media)
      • Social 2.0 was Friendster (an actual stratified social network that demonstrated degrees of separation, and public "testimonials")
      • Social 3.0 was Myspace (customizable CSS profiles and Tom as an automatic friend, but no degrees of separation)
      • Social 4.0 was Facebook (but only AFTER it opened up to non-edu domains, also without demonstrative degrees of separation between peers)
    7. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or maybe 2.2.

      Social 1.0 = AOL
      Social 1.1 = AIM
      Social 2.0 = Friendster
      Social 2.1 = Myspace
      Social 2.2 = Facebook

    8. Re:No bubble here. by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      Hell yes. The only way Facebook's IPO is going to create millionaires is by destroying other millionaires.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are BBSes and Usenet in your social list then?

    10. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that statement is it assumes all IPOs are "new" companies. Facebook is (in my book) mature. They've reached saturation, they've driven their main competitors out of the market, and they have an established revenue stream (which isn't particularly impressive).

      And the beauty of financial markets is that we don't just have to pontificate from our mothers' basements. We can put our money where our mouths are. :-)

    11. Re:No bubble here. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      How does Facebook have "strong growth potential"? I suspect that the majority of people who want to be on it, are by now.

      Remember MySpace? The same kind of reasoning was used on it.

    12. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WrongBut there always more and more 13year-old joining, an increasing population, and more children (and adults) with access to computers with the internet. People also get bored in their lives and decided to re-activate their accounts.

    13. Re:No bubble here. by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Monopoly in social networks. Not so much monopoly in market research.

    14. Re:No bubble here. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You make the mistake of thinking users are their customers. They don't need to grow their userbase to grow their customerbase. Customerbase is what is relevant here.

    15. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is different from Google how?

    16. Re:No bubble here. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      No, I haven't made that mistake. What I am wondering is: if their userbase is (arguably) not going to expand by many more multiples, then what kind of new exploitation of their user data will they come up with? There are only so many, after all.

    17. Re:No bubble here. by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They've reached saturation

      Precisely why investors should steer clear...

    18. Re:No bubble here. by JSG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The users of FB are the _product_ and not customers. The customers are the advertisers.

      Now I think it is unlikely that the number of users is going to increase significantly. Certainly not by say 100%.

      So is the amount of advertising revenue going to increase by 100% - I doubt it.

      I suggest you apply the term toxic to this beast - you will lose, its well over valued.

    19. Re:No bubble here. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      On a way I am ashamed to have contributed, even in a smallest, to their success.

      On the other hand, that's thousands of potential new customers for my company.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    20. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What are you talking about saturation? They're still growing like crazy. In the past four years their userbase has grown from 20M to 800M users. At that rate, over the next four years they will grow to 32 Billion users! The profit potential in that is something the world has never seen! In fact, with those users in hand, their revenue might match Apple's 2010 numbers -- but why mention has-beens such as Apple and Google, when clearly Facebook is the stock set to move after its 2012 IPO!

    21. Re:No bubble here. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "The users of FB are the _product_ and not customers. The customers are the advertisers."

      No shit, Sherlock. That's what I'm talking about.

    22. Re:No bubble here. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Wait... my apologies. I had misread your comment when I replied. I read it again and see that I jumped the gun. Mea culpa.

      Yes, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. While their actual customers are the advertisers, they still need a customer base to sell, and I argue that (1) their customer base will not continue at its past growth rate, and (2) there are only so many ways they can milk their user's data.

    23. Re:No bubble here. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      By "customer base" I actually meant "user base". I did not mean to muddy the waters.

    24. Re:No bubble here. by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      LinkedIn is 1000+ P/E, and fund managers are buy that in masse for their 401k clients.

    25. Re:No bubble here. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      ONLY 125? I didn't realize Facebook had such high revenue.

      It's kind of hard to figure out where the growth to justify that P/E is going to come from though.

    26. Re:No bubble here. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Customers are their product. They're not going to get much more product. That's even worse than not being able to find new customers.

    27. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're joking, right? Or do you honestly didn't realise that the population of the world is currently less than 10 billion, so there's no way Facebook's users will grow to 32 billion?

    28. Re:No bubble here. by blue_teeth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd suggest anyone venturing to invest in stocks to read book The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham

    29. Re:No bubble here. by neonmonk · · Score: 2

      Wow. You're trolling right? No one can be that stupid to miss such obvious sarcasm.

    30. Re:No bubble here. by Plunky · · Score: 1

      So is the amount of advertising revenue going to increase by 100% - I doubt it.

      You doubt it because you think that the price paid per advert viewed will remain the same. But this is not necessarily so, especially since Facebook is the definition of the market.. they can demand higher revenue and they will get it. They can increase the marketing forces to their userbase significantly and even if users don't like that they won't be able to go elsewhere for their facebook friends so they will have to suffer it anyway, or do without.

    31. Re:No bubble here. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Of course Face Book has nothing to do with the game of finance, the great IPO ponsi scheme. Who counts here is Goldman Sachs the company behind the IPO and the plots and schemes the can create to generate huge profits for the insiders whilst the rest get screwed.

      First off, the great pension fund scams. Those executives in control of pension funds who buy stock and 'shh' who often receive off shore tax haven buyers commissions to buy large quantities of questionable stock and IPOs these of course help drive demand.

      Then there is, it doesn't matter what it really is worth, can you sell it for more than you paid for it ie. can Goldman Sachs substantiate to insiders than they can win, get in and get out before the shit hits the fan.

      Next up is off course using those shares as junk bonds, basically buying up other companies who have real revenues and a real future and padding out an empty teddy with some real content, then pretending management 'created' that extra revenue to keep the game going.

      Then there is of course saturation mass media marketing of the shares to mug punters, generating those B$ stock recommendation via every for profit mass media channel, often paid for by discount IPO access which can then be dumped into the B$=PR channel.

      So will Goldman Sachs with it bruised reputation know more known for fraud than anything else be able to run the scam and how long will they be able to run it for. Can the market adsorb it at all or is it just too tight. There are quite a few corporations with lots of money but scared investors are starting to demand dividends which they can shift into safer and more diversified portfolios. It really is possible to legally run the fiscal scam, whether or not it comes off, well, there are huge numbers of psychopath corporate executives who have no qualms of selling our their own companies as long as they can personally profit by it and Goldman Sachs knows most of them.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    32. Re:No bubble here. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The natural lifecycle of all social media fads, that Geocities and Myspace have gone through before.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    33. Re:No bubble here. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Nooo bubbles here. Social 1.0 isn't a fad or a bubble at all. Bet your grandchildren on it.

      One of our local banks is running adverts that emphasise it's founding in 1695. They conveniently overlook that this was part of the Darien fiasco, which became a bubble and eventually bankrupted the country to the extent that it had to merge with the neighbouring larger country.

      Bubbles? Tell us news, not history.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    34. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give the guy a break, he needs a 'sarcasm' sign to tell...

    35. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+the+world

    36. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about saturation? They're still growing like crazy. In the past four years their userbase has grown from 20M to 800M users.

      Considering how many Farmville players make puppet accounts, I wouldn't put much weight in that number.

    37. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people i know are somewhat disillussioned with facebook, now. Besides the few farmville addicts it would seem most steer clear of even regularly updating thier accounts, especially since the last ui update.

      I doubt you'd see much of any new _product_. then again, advertisements might still flow in. I hear something about a lady gaga song being introduced in farmville or something to that effect... so how that might effect ad money... well, it's not my feild...

    38. Re:No bubble here. by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      Don't try to apologize now. You asshole!!

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    39. Re:No bubble here. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Specialized social networks are the future. If you want to see hot AND sustainable, check out Etsy. Everything always specializes after the general storm, and yes, people will tire of FaceBook. Their attitude will be their undoing.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    40. Re:No bubble here. by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is possible. I myself have two facebook accounts (one is a dummy account for a social experiment that I never use anymore, but it's still "active"). And how many people make facebook accounts for their pets? Not every account on facebook has to be a real person. If every person in the world opened three accounts then Facebook would have 32 billion accounts (unlikely, but not impossible).

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    41. Re:No bubble here. by tweakerbee · · Score: 1

      More than four-and-a-half, actually. We're currently with about 7 billion people. Also, it's very likely that one billion of those would prefer clean drinking water and not having to shit in a hole over four-and-a-half Facebook accounts.

    42. Re:No bubble here. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I realized that I had misread what he wrote, so I apologized. There is nothing wrong with that.

      What business is it of yours, anyway?

    43. Re:No bubble here. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I think he was aiming for -1 Funny.

    44. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a user? I have at least two accounts there and I never log in to either.

    45. Re:No bubble here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The users may be the product, rather than the customers, but they only have a finite amount of product to sell with a finite value, extracting more money from their customers without over exploiting their product will be difficult and if they over-exploit their product they will lose them.

      IOW their growth potential is limited, but if you want to gamble your money on Facebook share, go ahead, I don't care how you waste your money.

  26. Re:Thousands of millionares? by larry+bagina · · Score: 0

    No, you see the top 1% don't pay their fair share. Or something like that. Ignore the 47% that pay no income tax. So these thousands of new millionaires will push out some of the top 1% into the bottom 99% and despite no change in income or taxes paid, the ex-1% will suddenly start paying their fair share.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  27. excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can't wait to short that pipe dream valuation!

  28. Actually it will by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Most stocks are bought on credit.
    Credit is borrowed into existence and then spent into the economy.

    => More money(and debt) will be around after the IPO.

    Having said that.

    The FED has pumped 2+ trillion in and the Treasury was borrowing into existence 50 billion a week during the QEs and effectively giving it to stock and bond traders (did you get your free money?), so 50 or 100 billion really isn't what it used to be. I wouldn't get very excited about it.

    --
    Deleted
  29. Totally non-plussed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait till we realize that stock isn't worth CRAP and we have another bubble.

  30. No, here's what will happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If somebody has just begun to think that Bay Area real estate is affordable, a bunch of FB millionaires will come along and spoil it for them. They'll just reinforce housing inflation in a market that's already overpriced. Inflation is a regressive tax. That's just one of the many reasons why trickle-down doesn't work.

    Reaganomics was dead. It was forgiveable to believe this as a young person from suburbia in the 80s. I didn't know any better. A lot of people didn't know any better. Here it is 30 years on, and it's demonstrably false that this will work. Enough already.

    As for the FB millionaires, they earned it fair and square. I really don't have a problem with them. I do have a problem with policies like prop 13, which have simply diverted tax dollars to interest paymeents and trashed CA's school system in the process.

  31. The Good. The Crazy. The Disgusting by sgt+scrub · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The good. the IPO will provide the means to pay off school loans and buy a house or new car.
    It is good to get out of debt and solidify yourself.
    The Crazy. one former employee who expects his shares to be worth $50 million and is planning to book a trip to space with Virgin Galactic that would cost $200,000 or more
    It is crazy to become wealthy then chance it all on being shot into space.
    The Disgusting. real-estate agents are eagerly anticipating a surge of new buyers that could push prime real estate to new heights
    Agents that can't wait to pump up the prices on homes in anticipation for a very small number of potential clients.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:The Good. The Crazy. The Disgusting by khipu · · Score: 1

      "s shares to be worth $50 million and is planning to book a trip to space with Virgin Galactic that would cost $200,000 or more" It is crazy to become wealthy then chance it all on being shot into space.

      $200k out of $5M is hardly "all", it's like 4%. Many people spend a larger fraction of their savings on a new iPhone.

      4,143,077 Texans live in poverty. 1,655,085 of them are children. http://www.census.gov/

      You should look up some time what "in poverty" actually means.

    2. Re:The Good. The Crazy. The Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the "chance" the GP may have been referring to was the probability of coming back alive.

    3. Re:The Good. The Crazy. The Disgusting by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It is crazy to become wealthy then chance it all on being shot into space.

      $200k out of $5M is hardly "all", it's like 4%

      You should read what you reply to. Being shot into space is still relatively risky. If you die, it doesn't matter that 96% of your wealth is still in the bank. The grandparent obviously considers the risk involved in a space launch with current technology to be too great.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:The Good. The Crazy. The Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is crazy to become wealthy then chance it all on being shot into space.

      You sound more concerned about losing wealth than losing life.

    5. Re:The Good. The Crazy. The Disgusting by khipu · · Score: 2

      So, he's saying that once you're rich, you shouldn't take any risks anymore, but for poor people, it's OK to die in risky pursuits because, heck, they don't have anything to lose anyway? That is even worse than what I thought he said. Glad you cleared it up!

    6. Re:The Good. The Crazy. The Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing he's making 50 millions, not 5.

    7. Re:The Good. The Crazy. The Disgusting by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      He's saying that you shouldn't take big risks immediately after becoming rich, because it reduces the chances that you'll be able to actually enjoy your new wealth. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:The Good. The Crazy. The Disgusting by khipu · · Score: 2

      It's easy to understand, but it remains a stupid and arrogant thing to say.

    9. Re:The Good. The Crazy. The Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "s shares to be worth $50 million and is planning to book a trip to space with Virgin Galactic that would cost $200,000 or more" It is crazy to become wealthy then chance it all on being shot into space.

      $200k out of $5M is hardly "all", it's like 4%. Many people spend a larger fraction of their savings on a new iPhone.

      Perhaps he meant not worth risking one's very wealthy life on a trip with a relatively high probability of death.

    10. Re:The Good. The Crazy. The Disgusting by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      You should look up some time what "in poverty" actually means.

      uh huh huh. I doubt it is anywhere in them there documents on that there website someplace. Fucking moron.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  32. Hey I just wish by Osgeld · · Score: 0, Troll

    My degree wasnt worthless and I could find a job that puts me slightly above the national average poverty line so I can buy a crackerbox house to die in ... but you guys go right ahead and go fuck yourselves on your "useless ad information gathering" bubble which is just going to end up fucking our economy just a little bit more.

  33. Re:Thousands of millionares? by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

    welcome to the innovation economy :)

  34. Re:Thousands of millionares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "space travel"? How is going up on a sub-orbital unpowered trajectory in a tiny, flimsy tin can anything even remotely resembling "space travel"?

  35. Meanwhile, the crooks are preparing, too by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    Not only are the prospective shareholders thinking of ways to spend their dosh, probably 10 times as many scammers are cooking up schemes to relieve them of it. Given that the scammers have way more experience of separating victims from their money than these doe-eyed (soon to be) millionaires have of holding on to it - I'd bet on the baddies.

    It will interesting to see what happens to the street price of recreational chemicals (where-ever Facebookers live) after the storm of money hits.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Meanwhile, the crooks are preparing, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, FB took VC money. A lot of startups go belly-up. It's a bit of a scam. FB herds sheeple for ad servers, the CIA, etc. That's a scam. IPOs are an exit strategy for the VCs. Pretty scammy. There isn't really much of a "real economy" any more. Food, shelter, clothing--very few people are employed in those fields. You could argue that healthcare is real; but a lot of it is unnecessary and/or beurocratic. Writing code that lets you grow fake crops has become a big part of the economy. It's all a scam. I've been waiting for somebody to come up with a Vegas version of Ponzi. Trouble is, it's just not as exciting as the traditional games. When you walk into your motel, having the option to buy some shares that return 10% when the normal dividend is 5%? It's just not that exciting, even if you manage to leave the motel at the right time and sell your shares for twice what you paid.

    2. Re:Meanwhile, the crooks are preparing, too by smellotron · · Score: 1

      It will interesting to see what happens to the street price of recreational chemicals...

      (emphasis mine) I think you mean drugs, but when I first read that my mind jumped to acetone, butane, and other combustibles.

    3. Re:Meanwhile, the crooks are preparing, too by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      If you consider those recreational then you must be a lot of fun at parties :D

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  36. Re:Thousands of millionares? by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

    Ok...maybe 1.001 % then...

    --
    You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
  37. A month? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really ? I think you have maybe a couple of hours.

    Note, there will almost certainly be a hold clause on the stock for normal employees. The ordinary employees will have to hold the shares for a specfic minimum period. This allows the management to dump their shares at the peak price, before the bulk of the supply of shares kicks in.

    Groupon dropped from 26 to 16 inside a week. They're still making a loss but there's some muppet out there buying them.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:A month? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note, there will almost certainly be a hold clause on the stock for normal employees. The ordinary employees will have to hold the shares for a specfic minimum period.

      There's an easy way around that - if you have stock that you can't sell, but you don't want to hold the stock, then short it. It's almost the same as selling.

    2. Re:A month? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      That way lies margin calls and short squeezes with potential for huge losses but don't let me stand in the way of anyone else.

      --
      Deleted
    3. Re:A month? by smellotron · · Score: 1

      if you have stock that you can't sell, but you don't want to hold the stock, then short it

      I would bet that is either outright illegal or a violation of some of the SEC's rules—selling short when you are in fact holding the stocks. Technically, you are mis-marking your trades. Even if that was A-OK, that trading behavior clearly indicates intent to subvert the holding clause, which will reduce any possible sympathy from regulators/judges to 0%.

  38. Goldman Sachs by dave562 · · Score: 1

    Goldman Sachs must be getting desperate to get this IPO off the ground if they are resorting to articles like this that promote supposed trickle down economics. They need to launch this IPO before the Euro completely craters and takes the rest of the world economy with it. Once the shit hits the fan, there will not be any money left over to piss away on a social networking site.

    1. Re:Goldman Sachs by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Dont' be scared that the Euro might crater, be scared that Germany finally won WWII.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Goldman Sachs by dave562 · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? If the euro craters then German exports become too expensive for the rest of the continent. Their growth has come from providing cheap credit to the rest of the EU.

  39. Facebook = complete & utter bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crap like this is EXACTLY why the US economy is in the toilet.

    Things like Facebook produce NOTHING of value, and
    people get paid for it anyway.

    As for me, it will be a cold day in hell before I have anything to do with Facebook, because
    it provides no value for me.

    Potential stockholders, don't say I didn't warn you ...

  40. Trickle down economics. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    The reason why people are suspicious of trickle down economics is that when you're being trickled upon, the only thing you see above you is cunts and assholes.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    1. Re:Trickle down economics. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 4, Funny

      The reason why people are suspicious of trickle down economics is that when you're being trickled upon, the only thing you see above you is cunts and assholes.

      Not dicks?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    2. Re:Trickle down economics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assholes don't like dicks!

  41. Monetizing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The 10 billion figure values each user at $125. How are Facebook going to make that back? By selling more and more personal data. By linking into more and more networks so that Facebook continues to be more pervasive. I think it's quite clear that any company trying to increase it's own value so aggressively can not have the interest of their users at heart. I think it's quite terrifying the effect this could have on the internet.

    More and more I see Facebook turning into the authentication protocol for the web. Want to post comments? We need access to your Facebook account to let you do so. Soon I'm sure you'll need access to even read websites. Why? Well, surely any website would want your Facebook data to get targeted advertising with that data. It's only a small barrier, once everyone else is involved, and Facebook making opt-in for that trivial.

    In the days of the social web, I am very much starting to miss the anti-social web which made the internet great. Over time, I can't see this having any benefit to the world.

    1. Re:Monetizing by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Consider this. There are about 2 billion internet users in the whole world. Google has a market cap of ~200Billion USD, so by your metric, Google already values each user at $100, at least (since not everyone uses Google).

      And unlike Facebook, Google has been earning solid money by targetted advertisements etc.

      Your fears have been realized long ago, there's no reason to start fretting about it just now.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    2. Re:Monetizing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI Google makes most of its money by targeting search queries and page content well, not so much users. Facebook has publicly claimed that they think they can achieve their target revenue purely with fine-grained demographic targeting only, while ignoring post/page content. Guess which approach works better, and which one users find more annoying?

  42. Lots of hate by koan · · Score: 1

    Lots of hate for Facebook, not that it isn't deserved but it is amusing in that it makes me wonder how many here use it and why it is so popular when most of what I read suggest people dropped it and simply can't stand it.

    I recently created a FB account to use as an easy log on to other sites, using a false name, a Photoshopped photo made up of various facial parts of celebrities and found that when I tried to log on to other sites using the FB account they all want to add an app that gets full access to my contacts (there are none) and a variety of other information.
    Funny that just by having friends in Facebook you wind up getting raped sideways because they allow access to their contacts.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  43. Effect on the Economy by brit74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'If a Facebook guy buys a house and wants to remodel it, maybe the contractor will buy another car,' says Buff Giurlani. 'Maybe the realtor will put a car in. There's a trickle-down effect.'"

    Could someone explain to me how this has a net positive effect on the economy when the reason that the facebook employee made money was because he sold some of his shares to an investor, meaning the investor moved money *into* the stock (which suggests that the investor moved money out of the economy* and into the stock)? Now I suppose the investor has a finite amount of investment money, so he probably shifted money out of other stocks (rather than the economy*) which suggests that other stocks would take a small hit in stock price (since there's a relatively less demand for them), which affects other investors. It just sounds like the whole process would result in a net neutral effect on the economy - i.e. a Facebook employee might buy a new car which helps the economy, but another investor somewhere bought that facebook stock which takes the same amount of money out of the economy (at a different geographical location).

    * By "the economy" I mean spending it on consumption.

    1. Re:Effect on the Economy by fsckmnky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Shares of stock are worth, what the last buyer/seller agreed to sell them at. Since most corporations shares trade above "book" value, the process creates money ( I use the term loosely here ) due to "anticipated future revenues" and on paper, the overall size of the economy grows, and more money ( wealth ) circulates.

      Before the first share of an IPO trades, investment banks and the corporation "fix" the price at what they believe they can sell all available shares for, and hand them out to large investors and members of the "special" club. Assume this is $20 per share. Assume the company is actually worth $20 a share. As soon as the first share is traded on opening day on the stock exchange, assume it trades for $30. $10 per share of "wealth" was just created, as the open market "anticipates" future revenues.

      This is why it is not an immediate zero sum game. If the company continues to grow revenues, and investors continue to anticipate growth, the value/wealth will continue to increase. When investors sour, the company stumbles, the revenues dry up, etc, which could be 1 year or 100 years later, the previously generated wealth evaporates.

    2. Re:Effect on the Economy by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      The investor isn't foregoing buying a car to invest in Facebook. He may sell another stock to invest in the Facebook stock, but it's money earmarked for investment either way. The Facebook employee is buying a new car, so the net is +1 car.

      That said, I think the "economy" is split up into two different viewpoints, the consumer and investor. More money being invested helps the consumer and more consumers buying products helps the investor. For example, if an investment results in the creation of a factory that produces a new type of ice cream, that is a net benefit to the consumer because there is more ice cream available. Some yahoo buying a car just means there is more traffic on the road, and one less car available for the consumer to purchase.

      On the other hand, another ice cream factory hurts all the investors who already have money sunk into other factories, since they'll be unable to get as many customers to buy their ice cream. However, a bunch of new cars being sold would help investors, because the companies could crank up the price.

      Of course the two are tied together, because more factories means more jobs, and more jobs means more money spent on consumables. Anyway, this is all just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

    3. Re:Effect on the Economy by fsckmnky · · Score: 1

      In other words ... its a glorified popularity contest, and ironically, facebook is popular atm.

    4. Re:Effect on the Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

    5. Re:Effect on the Economy by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is why it is not an immediate zero sum game. If the company continues to grow revenues, and investors continue to anticipate growth, the value/wealth will continue to increase. When investors sour, the company stumbles, the revenues dry up, etc, which could be 1 year or 100 years later, the previously generated wealth evaporates.

      One would argue - if the wealth eventually "evaporates", was it ever really there, or were people trading stocks just pretending it to be?

      Frankly, it's why I don't really understand the stock market as it is. The original concept - buying stocks meaning investing into the company, and getting dividends normally proportional to how well it does later - makes perfect sense. You give someone money to fund their profitable activity, they earn more money, and they share some of it back with you at a pre-arranged rate. Everyone profits. I can see how this is good for economy, as well.

      But buying stocks that don't pay anything, on the premise that you can find another sucker to sell them to for a bigger price later? No matter how I slice it, it looks like a pyramid scheme to me.

    6. Re:Effect on the Economy by fsckmnky · · Score: 1

      My simplified model only addressed how the company generated wealth by going public via an IPO. There is a larger picture at play, whereby the use of the companies products can also generate wealth which I did not address.

      You are still investing in the company, by 2 primary mechanisms. The original IPO generates cash for the company, in exchange for an ownership interest in the company. So the company is trading equity for cash, so that it may grow faster than it could by simply re-investing revenues. The second primary mechanism, is the growth in value of the shares retained by the company. The IPO doesn't release 100% of the companies equity. The increase/decrease in value of the portion of the shares traded publicly, gets reflected on the companies on balance sheet for the shares they retained.

      As with any valuation of an object, be it a screwdriver, a car, or shares of stock, the value is always perceptually related. Standard accounting practices use market value, which could be considered "the perception after polling the entire market and averaging it." A used car might be worth only $500 to you, because you don't need it, your car is better, you don't want to fix it, etc. But that same used car could be worth $10,000 to say, a criminal who has recently escaped from prison and needs a means to get away from the police. So as always, beauty ( and in this case value ) is in the eye of the beholder.

      As for the "investing in stocks that don't pay anything" ... these are generally referred to as "growth stocks." Google is a perfect recent example of a company that was in the red, financially, because their expenses were greater than revenues, but their revenues were growing at such an exponential rate, the market didn't care. The internet was exploding in user numbers, and Google was positioned as the market leader in search. These factors get considered and are a component of the share price.

      So it's complicated, but it's not a complete scam as some believe, except perhaps in the handful of cases like Enron, where the books were cooked so badly, the wealth evaporated overnight, instead of a gradual decline in the companies performance or a buy out.

    7. Re:Effect on the Economy by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Yes, I understand that shares are called shares because they are quite literally a "share of the company". But that's the thing - when I buy a screwdriver, I normally don't buy it just to sell it to someone else later. I buy it to do some productive work with it. Its value, to me, is in the ability to do that work. Even if I run a tool shop, and I buy and resell screwdrivers for profit, the person who buys them from me will use it to do something useful.

      It is similar with dividend stocks. I buy it, and it makes me a profit. It has very specific utility to me. I can resell it, and maybe I profit more that way, but its profit-generating ability gives it some intrinsic value.

      But what is the use of a "growth stock" to me? I buy it to do... what? I don't get any money from holding it. It doesn't let me do anything useful (well, in theory it gives me a shareholder vote... but in practice, how useful is that?). The sole way for me to derive any value from it is to resell it, but then reseller is in the same conundrum. That's what I find strange. It's a good, the sole value of which comes from willingness of someone else to buy it. In the absence of a buyer, it's completely useless. And it's not just me - it doesn't have any final user in the chain, no matter how long - it's just a hot potato to be passed along the line, chasing "future profits" for as long as people believe them to be there. What purpose does it serve, other than to enrich the people forming the chain at the expense of that last guy who can't resell it, and ends up with a useless piece of paper?

    8. Re:Effect on the Economy by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      For example, if an investment results in the creation of a factory that produces a new type of ice cream, that is a net benefit to the consumer because there is more ice cream available.

      Except this happens less and less since the name of the game these days is growth. What if they instead sit on the money or use it to buy out a competitor, eliminating redundant jobs? The only time investment is guaranteed to create jobs is when the company would not be able to operate without it.

      Some yahoo buying a car just means there is more traffic on the road, and one less car available for the consumer to purchase.

      There isn't one less car available. Supply and demand. More people buying cars = more cars need to be produced = more jobs building them. This is much more certain than the "what if" scenario with the investment being used to build a new factory and create jobs.

    9. Re:Effect on the Economy by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      A person seeking a job is more like an investor than a consumer. Instead of investing money to receive a profit, job seekers are investing their time and effort for the same outcome. So I agree with you that if a person is looking for a job, people gleefully spending their money is better for them (as well as any investor).

      However, if you look at it from the consumer's point of view, the more other consumers are willing to spend their money the more expensive things will become.

      Except this happens less and less since the name of the game these days is growth. What if they instead sit on the money or use it to buy out a competitor, eliminating redundant jobs? The only time investment is guaranteed to create jobs is when the company would not be able to operate without it.

      If an investor is investing, and not just sitting on a pile of cash (which almost no one does, due to expectation of inflation) the money they invest has to go somewhere. If they invest in a company, and the company puts all they earn into a savings account rather then use it to expand their business, then that money should in turn be loaned out to other companies or used for a house payment, etc. (although lately it seems like banks aren't willing to loan out much money which is big issue with the economy right now)

    10. Re:Effect on the Economy by AdamJS · · Score: 1

      Presumably, the initially invested money would have been doing nothing productive in the first place.

  44. Not on Credit. by alexander_686 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Almost no stocks are bought on credit. And IPO's can't.

    It's been a while since I have been in that particular corner of the industry, so my figures might be a little out of date. But in late 1999 / early 2000 margin loans were less then 5 percent of retail accounts, and less then that for institutional accounts.

    Now, what you are saying makes a lot of sense if we were talking about pre-1930 gold standard no federal reserve economy tied to the farming seasons. Then you might have a leg to stand on.

  45. I won't lose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook had no option but to go public because of the increasing number of shareholders. Since they have to anyway, they are taking the IPO to make some money. Money doesn't grow on trees so someone will have to pay. It won't be me, because I am smart.

  46. I didn't get any money from the Fed by unassimilatible · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm an individual retail investor, and I've done quite well in the market, thanks. In fact, it's lifted my middle class family well into the "one percent" (net worth).

    Of course, I remain unconvinced FB can sufficiently monetize all those users to make the IPO a good deal for the average innvestor. But the point of the OP was that the workers were somehow being stolen from when they are already holding FB stock and will be enriched come IPO day. Just makes no sense.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by Alex+Belits · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm an individual retail investor, and I've done quite well in the market, thanks. In fact, it's lifted my middle class family well into the "one percent" (net worth).

      If you are indeed an individual retail investor, you most certainly had to use margin loans to buy stocks -- otherwise you would never be able to afford them. And while from your personal point of view Fed did not give you "free money", as your collateral stocks were tied up, from the market's point of view there was a situation when someone had a cake (stocks are still on the market, part of company's market cap) and ate it, too (you bought more stocks without selling other ones).

      If you later sold some stock and paid back the loan, you still ended up with the difference (because stock price grew, dividends were paid, and dollar was devalued), so overall effect was money being injected into economy without any additional product being produced (neither company with "old" nor "new" stock, did anything different as a result of those manipulations). This dilutes the currency (for everyone) while enriching someone (you, your brokerage and your brokerage's bank). In a typical tragedy of the commons fashion, the benefits gained individually are far less than harm taken collectively.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    2. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or he saved up money. I'm a small investor, and it's extremely rare for me to have any margin loans. Most of the time I'm 12-25% cash, so I can buy on dips. How did I get the money? I saved, spending only a fraction of what I make every year. Even if I was borrowing on margin it wouldn't be safe to borrow more than an additional 10-15%, otherwise I'd risk losing everything on a margin call.

      There's plenty of criticisms to make on the stock market (it's basically legalized gambling, especially when investing for price increases rather than dividends), but this one is completely invalid.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      Or he saved up money. I'm a small investor, and it's extremely rare for me to have any margin loans. Most of the time I'm 12-25% cash, so I can buy on dips. How did I get the money? I saved, spending only a fraction of what I make every year. Even if I was borrowing on margin it wouldn't be safe to borrow more than an additional 10-15%, otherwise I'd risk losing everything on a margin call.

      Then you didn't benefit from your (somewhat) direct participation in stock market at all. Unless you derive enjoyment from the process of trading, you would be better off stuffing your money into an index fund and never touching them again. Not that it would fundamentally change the nature of what those money would be doing, as funds employ same tactics, but it would be much less trouble and no brokerage fees personally for you, and same outcome for everyone else.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    4. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, I benefit by out performing the market significantly. This year I'm up 8.5% (market is roughly flat, going by the S&P 500). Last year I did 48%, the market did 13%. I've outperformed by more than 5% for the past 5 years (when I took control over my own stocks), although outperforming in 2008 was done by just getting my money the hell out.

      Margin has uses, but if you're borrowing at all times, you're a fucking idiot. All good strategies have cash reserves so you can buy on dips and do cost averaging or react to new opportunities. Borrowing at all times prevents that. Margin should only be used short term when you're committing that cash reserves. And even then you should do so carefully and not max out your borrowing. My personal rule is that I need to be able to absorb a 50% loss without hitting the margin call threshold, I won't borrow more than that. And I think I've had any margin for only about 1 week this year on a short term arbitrage play.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    5. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily true. As a financial adviser who sees all sorts of retail investor strategies I can tell you that buying on dips isn't necessarily bad. It's timing the market, which probably isn't the very best idea, but if he's buying on dips with a consistent strategy then he might be doing alright if he's got a method for selling on the upside too. Also, index funds.... seriously? Dirty word....

      --
      -
    6. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear dark lord,

      Due to our recent changes in the privacy policy of our website, we can now offer you approximately 800M souls for your purchase. All that we ask in return is $100 for each.

      Your's truly, // Mark

    7. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I've got to call BS on that. There's no way that you, on a middle class income, accumulated the $15 million necessary to break into the top 1% of net worth. Even if you could save $10k a month (hardly what anyone would consider a middle class income), you'd need to beat the indices every year for decades to reach the top 1%. Maybe you broke into the top 10%, in which case, good for you. But the top 1% is so far above anything reasonable, it's simply unattainable for anyone who isn't either a celebrity, a founding member of a successful startup, or a thief in a suit. Two of those group deserve their earning, for bringing happiness or utility to millions of people. The third simple stole the money by positioning themselves in a job that allows them to siphon off a bit of all the wealth passing through them.

    8. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If you later sold some stock and paid back the loan, you still ended up with the difference (because stock price grew, dividends were paid, and dollar was devalued), so overall effect was money being injected into economy without any additional product being produced

      Bullshit. The additional product was what the company sold, which increased its profits, which increased its valuation.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by khallow · · Score: 1

      If you are indeed an individual retail investor, you most certainly had to use margin loans to buy stocks

      You do not need to use margin loans to buy stock. They are quite affordable without such loans and the liabilities associated with margin loans are very dangerous.

    10. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by khallow · · Score: 1

      Then you didn't benefit from your (somewhat) direct participation in stock market at all.

      Initial premise was wrong so it doesn't matter that you think a few moves ahead.

      you would be better off stuffing your money into an index fund and never touching them again.

      You do realize that the index funds don't actually track the respective index which doesn't actually track the underlying stocks? Plus any strategy which is so commonly employed will result in you paying a premium to get in.

    11. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's no way that you, on a middle class income, accumulated the $15 million necessary to break into the top 1% of net worth.

      You mean somewhere around $9 million. And IMHO someone who's been investing most (not merely 10-20%) of their middle class income for many decades can indeed hit that.

    12. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, I benefit by out performing the market significantly. This year I'm up 8.5% (market is roughly flat, going by the S&P 500). Last year I did 48%, the market did 13%. I've outperformed by more than 5% for the past 5 years (when I took control over my own stocks), although outperforming in 2008 was done by just getting my money the hell out.

      O RLY

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    13. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by Alex+Belits · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. The additional product was what the company sold, which increased its profits, which increased its valuation.

      What additional product? Companies whose stock he had bought, or used as a collateral didn't get a single cent from it. The only way anything ended up doing any additional production is if someone else who sold him stocks through some chain of trades ended up buying actually new investment somewhere else. But those money, as I have explained before, are ones injected into the system with a loan. A direct loan to the company that got "real" investment out of this would be far more efficient, so the rest of money just dissipated between investors, brokerages and banks.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    14. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You most certainly don't need margin loans to buy stocks. The Fed does not fund margin loans. Get educated or shut the fuck up, please!

    15. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by djlowe · · Score: 1

      I didn't get any money from the Fed

      Bullshit. Since all money in the US comes from the Fed, in one way, shape or form, yes, you did.

    16. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      I'm an individual retail investor, and I've done quite well in the market, thanks. In fact, it's lifted my middle class family well into the "one percent" (net worth).

      Remember: You don't actually make any money till you cash out your stocks.

      A printout of the electronic brokerage account screen and 99 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

    17. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      I trade options and I don't get the privilege of using margin, which in turn, could be a good thing.

    18. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      which comes from treasury bond selling... which comes from our ancestors across the Pacific.

    19. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      you somehow went from about 150k of net worth to over 9 million from just being a savvy retain investor..... me thinks you missed a calling as an investment manager.

    20. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      you've never run the numbers, have you? in 2007, the top of the middle class had a household income of around 60k (yeah, I'm using a high print). let's use that and assume this guy had a modest income growth rate of 4% per year every year and is 40 years deep into his career. Let's even assume 35% savings rate (a very high savings rate at that income level, but let's say he was very diligent.

      Do you know the investment return rate he would need to work his way to 9 million in net worth today? 14% all in. The dow, no dividends, has returned 7.8% at that time (not even actually, as I gave you the benefit of the doubt of using the 1974 low). Add dividends at a generous 2% for those stocks and you don't get to 10%. I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that your definition of middle class is far from the true middle in the US (and most people don't save 35% of gross income, you are lucky if you can save 35% of net income), or he is an investment genius. The average man can't beat the averages. In fact, by definition, you should be slightly worse than the averages as you will always incur transaction costs and generally suffer from liquidity problems at the worst time (when stocks do poorly).

      Let's rerun with some slightly more realistic asumptions of matching the market over the long term, saving 25% of gross, and see the income today that would imply it all out --> 235k USD today and a very bulky 48k back in 1971.

    21. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you wittering on about? I consider a reasonable position of a NYSE stock to be about $2k. When I started, it was $500. If you can't save $500, you've got major problems with your lifestyle.

      The tragedy of the commons if a myth. In the case of investing, profit comes from created wealth which comes from increased efficiency which comes from investment. It goes wrong when people can't evaluate value.

      I will certainly be investing in Facebook soon after IPO because, unlike the employees that hold shares, I'll be able to flog it again after a week, before it crashes. People that can't evaluate value will get burnt, learn a valuable lesson, invest more wisely in future, increase efficiency, which ultimately increases wealth.

    22. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by khallow · · Score: 1

      You should be running this from the 70s or 80s. Lot of opportunities to make bank there. And by most I mean over 50% not less than 35%.

    23. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did. You are making the mistake of assuming that you can call bottoms. You, like 99 pct of investors, will most likely fail miserably at it. Worse you ignore market correlation with your job prospects and pay, which are strongly positively correlated.

      From the 1974 low to today, the Dow has returned 7.5 pct ex dividends, gold has returned 9.5 pct from 1971. You need to save 35 pct of your gross income and return 14 pct on average to pull this off. I'm not saying t isn't possible but it puts you in an elite group of investors.

    24. Re:I didn't get any money from the Fed by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      What are you wittering on about? I consider a reasonable position of a NYSE stock to be about $2k. When I started, it was $500. If you can't save $500, you've got major problems with your lifestyle.

      "Investments" at this level have absolutely no effect on your life, so you still did not benefit from them. Very likely buying a $500 in furniture would increase your productivity to produce an increase in your income over the same time that would exceed those $2000.

      The tragedy of the commons if a myth. In the case of investing, profit comes from created wealth which comes from increased efficiency which comes from investment.

      Investment's only purpose is to provide resources that are necessary for activity that results in making a product that can be sold for more than the cost of those resources, thus providing return on investment. If this is done by making everyone else poor by the total amount greater than increase of the value of investment, you have tragedy of the commons -- not only some wealth was transferred to smaller number of people from greater one for no good reason, the total value lost is greater than total value being gained.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  47. I've heard this before... by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    PUMP AND DUMP, BABY!

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  48. Key word is "could" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Buying a lottery ticket "could" make you a millionaire as well.

  49. Why would I want to buy shares in FB ... by fsckmnky · · Score: 1

    ... when I refuse to use the facebook spy cloud app for free.

    Beware yee all who dance with the devil named Mark.

  50. Trickle-down simply doesn't work by guanxi · · Score: 0

    It's a nice theory but since Reaganites started pushing it in the early 1980s, the prosperity hasn't trickled down. The uber-wealthy have gotten richer, and everyone else's incomes have stayed the same or decreased.

  51. Let's restate the article title. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook IPO can make rich people even richer. If you are not given the stock as part of your compensation you have to buy it, which requires money, something poor people don't have.

  52. How much is Facebook really worth? by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Typically employees can't sell their shares until at least six months post-IPO.

    The SEC required a 2-year wait until the early 1990s. Which is partly why IPOs that ran way up after the IPO and then crashed were so popular during the original dot-com boom.

    How much is Facebook really worth, anyway? Let's look at the numbers. Facebook revenue for 2010 was $1.86 billion. Goldman Sachs, which makes a private market in Facebook stock, sent a report to their investors indicating Facebook earned $355 million in the first 9 months of 2010. That would be $473 million for the year, for a 25% profit margin. Of course, those are unaudited numbers. When the SEC filings take place for an IPO, they may decrease as accounting gimmicks are disclosed and discounted.

    The next question is, do we value Facebook as a growth company or an ongoing company? Let's look at Facebook's traffic stats. Traffic went up steadily until mid-2011, when it peaked. (Before Google+ started, incidentally.) It's been down a bit since then. So Facebook may have maxed out and started on its decline, like every other social network from AOL to Myspace did. There probably isn't a lot of growth left. Is there anyone not on Facebook who wants in?

    OK, what's a company with $473 million in annual revenue worth? Google's price/earnings ratio is 21.39. Microsoft, 9.34. IBM, 12.69. Netflix 16.11. AOL 26.43. Yahoo 19.51. IAC (Ask's parent) 18.27. So we can say that the market is at best valuing mature Internet companies around 20x earnings.

    That gives Facebook a valuation around $9 billion.

    Even that may be optimistic. That assumes Facebook's user base doesn't shrink. Remember when Myspace was on top? This is Myspace on the way down. To earn that $9 billion valuation, Facebook has to maintain its current size and profitability for 20 years. Does anybody think that will happen?

    (How many people here remember when one of the founders of Slashdot was asking on here what to do with his money when VA Linux, the parent of Slashdot, went public in 1999? They had the biggest first-day runup after an IPO ever. The stock hit $239 on the first day, and then went into a screaming dive. Six months later it was around $40. Not as rich as he thought. By 2002, it had dropped to $0.54. The stock is still trading as GKNT, formerly LNUX. Here's the chart.)

    1. Re:How much is Facebook really worth? by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      How many people here remember when one of the founders of Slashdot was asking on here what to do with his money when VA Linux, the parent of Slashdot, went public in 1999?

      Hah, I remember that, but it was Eric Raymond, not a Slashdot founder: "Surprised by Wealth"

    2. Re:How much is Facebook really worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon's P/E is 101.7.

  53. sick people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook: a sick website created by sick minds.

  54. That is just wonderful! by simm_s · · Score: 1

    That is so great! Now can we have real news?

  55. Trickle Down by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

    Is anyone else sick and tired of hearing about the benefits of millionaires and the "trickle down effect"? I know I am...

  56. Too bad the general public won't be in on the IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right, the banks and Warren Buffett types will get early cheap shares, wait for the bubble, and cash in on the backs of all the poor suckers in the general public.

  57. Retuers by Edzilla2000 · · Score: 2

    Retuers, really?

  58. From someone that lives in the Silicon Valley by HockeyPuck · · Score: 3, Informative

    The trickle down effect here will be that housing prices will continue to go up, making it much harder for those that are not part of IPOs to get into a home (either first time).

    Housing in the Silicon Valley is already brutal. A "starter home" which is 3 bedroom, 2.5bath and about 1600sq ft is already at $500,000. And that is in a neighborhood that doesn't have "desirable schools." Oh yeah and you're 10ft from all of your neighbors. We're not talking acreage here.

    What if you want to have "desirable schools"? Then that exact same house would cost about $1million.

    I've always told people when they consider living in the silicon valley, move here right out of college. That way, since you're used to being poor, it'll be an easy transition. Try selling your 3000sq, $300k home in RTP North Carolina and moving out here with a family of 5.

    1. Re:From someone that lives in the Silicon Valley by fungus · · Score: 1

      Depends on the perspective. Some places are much worse... I live in Paris for the same price (500k USD) you can't find much more than 550sq ft apartment.

    2. Re:From someone that lives in the Silicon Valley by rinoid · · Score: 1

      One thing wrong with most Americans ... "starter home" is in their vocabulary.

      Guess what?
      I live in a ~1850 sq ft 3 bdrm, 2 bath, no car garage house and am debt free with about 900k in securities and savings (not including the equity of my house).

      You people have twisted goals.

    3. Re:From someone that lives in the Silicon Valley by russotto · · Score: 1

      OK, so you hit it big at some point, bought a home for cash, and are now bragging about it. Or you've been saving for a long time, paid off your home, and managed to not take too much of a hit in 2008. Not sure what that has to do with goals.

    4. Re:From someone that lives in the Silicon Valley by Warwick+Allison · · Score: 1

      I suspect what he is trying to say is that he stayed with what others would call a "starter home" and paid it off then invested elsewhere, while others instead kept "trading up" are so never owning more than 30-40% of their home, such that when property prices collapsed their equity was zero as their house value only covers the remaining debt on it.

      Even if it was because of "hitting big" one time, the point remains to solidify those gains, not use them to leverage yourself to live yet further above your means.

    5. Re:From someone that lives in the Silicon Valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Housing in the Silicon Valley is already brutal. A "starter home" which is 3 bedroom, 2.5bath and about 1600sq ft is already at $500,000. And that is in a neighborhood that doesn't have "desirable schools."

      Count yourself lucky. Where I live $500,000 will only just get you a studio apartment in a half-decent neighbourhood.

    6. Re:From someone that lives in the Silicon Valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, it's in large part because an episode of inflation in the late 70s caused some seniors to be taxed out of their homes. Thus, we have prop 13 which caps the property tax. The free market responds by pricing in the difference. Everything you "save" in property tax is taken away by paying the huge mortgage. The fact that there are limited land and water resources in the Bay Area is probably a bigger factor though.

      You aren't buying quality. You're buying scarcity. My rent is $1300/mo on a one bedroom. I can buy fairly conservative REITs that yield 6%. It would take $260k of such REITs to pay my rent. I can buy agency debt (very risky) which yields approx 20% and the ballpark figure is somewhere in the $90k range last time I looked. There's no way I can buy an apartment for $90k; but like I said, agency debt is risky. I'm thinking of blending these strategies and using some option collars to pay my rent on a $150k investment.

      The nice thing about this is that I don't have to buy more house than I need. I only need one bedroom. Another nice thing is that I can diversify. I can also insure against natural disasters and market fluctuations simultaneously since put options automagicly insure against both.

    7. Re:From someone that lives in the Silicon Valley by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      Depends on the perspective. Some places are much worse... I live in Paris for the same price (500k USD) you can't find much more than 550sq ft apartment.

      Yeah, but you are in Paris, not some run-down California suburb surrounded in every direction by 2 hours of stop-and-go traffic.

  59. It's a con game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all a large con game. Don't fall for it.

  60. Hello, spell check needed... by Howard+Beale · · Score: 1

    It's Millionaires, not Milionaires

    1. Re:Hello, spell check needed... by Warwick+Allison · · Score: 1

      Reuters, not Retuers too...

  61. I don't think that word means what you think by curveclimber · · Score: 2

    No way in hell you went from middle class to the 1% No. Way. In. Hell. I can only assume you, like most Americans, have your own definition of middle class, attaching moral values to it, rather than a defined income level.
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are talking about an dual income home. In 2003, $67,348 was the median household income for a household with two income earners.

    in 2009, $343,927 was the minimum annual income to be considered in the 1%.

    So you're telling me you increased your income by 5!? How many years of trading did this take?

    1. Re:I don't think that word means what you think by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      GP wrote:

      In fact, it's lifted my middle class family well into the "one percent" (net worth).

      So it's not about income, it's about total assets available. In 2010, you needed roughly 9 million dollars to be in 1%.

      Even from income perspective, your take is wrong. Just because median household income is $67k, doesn't mean that anyone above it is not middle class. $150k per person (which can translate to $300k per household) is rare but possible for a salaried employee, and is still middle class.

  62. Re:Enjoying your new wealth by vgerclover · · Score: 1

    You could argue that being shot into space counts as the most enjoying thing you could do with your wealth.

  63. spreading the wealth around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    great! It's always good to see any kind of prosperity today. The problem with obama (and the Left, generally) is they think they can create prosperity without creating any millionaires... So they better be careful about spending it, because at some point he's going to come looking for it, so he can "spread the wealth around". Taxes are going up almost 60% in 2013 because of obamacare. So don't count your chickens before they've hatched! (and don't cash that check until the socialist gets his protection money!)

  64. Where's the hate coming from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shocker: When Facebook IPOs a large number of employees who have non-trivial stock options will make money. You can argue whether they should hold or sell, based on whether or not you think Facebook will hold its value, but it's an exciting time for these people and their lives are going to change. Why not just be happy for them? As for how they should spend their money... let them splurge if they want. Some of it. All of it. My god, what are you people like? I wish I had pre-IPO stock options. They kids do... and good for them.

  65. Zuck don't care by enzo1 · · Score: 1

    I think it's dishonorable that facebook has no intention of offering its first users ("customers") purchase rights in the IPO. It would be nowhere if young people hadn't adopted it eagerly all those years ago.

    1. Re:Zuck don't care by jmottram08 · · Score: 1

      facebook customers are ad agencies.

    2. Re:Zuck don't care by smellotron · · Score: 1

      I think it's dishonorable that facebook has no intention of offering its first users ("customers") purchase rights in the IPO.

      Which part of an IPO is the honorable part?

  66. Or... by WillyWanker · · Score: 1

    Or maybe they can all fuck off and die.

  67. one of these things is not the same by epine · · Score: 1

    As for FB, my bet is still that it goes the way of MySpace before too long.

    Has that school board guy who got 10 out of 60 on his grade ten level math test become a Slashdot moderator? That statement might amount to insightful from the perspective of its author, but not so much from its readership.

    MySpace when T.U. when FB became the world's largest refugee camp. When FB goes T.U. what replaces FB as the bright and shiny refugee camp of monumental social girth?

    Let's play "one of these things is not the same":

    A) winner take all market dynamics
    B) the pet rock market crash of January 1976

    That said, "trickle down" is for bozos.

  68. Yay! Facebook millionaires! by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 2

    We welcome all of the new Facebook millionaires! They can hang out in the posh Silicon Valley country clubs along with all of the Red Hat millionaires, the VA Linux millionaires, and the Netscape millionaires...

    What? What? Was it something I said?

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  69. Meh by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    What if they gave an IPO and nobody came?

  70. Or more likely... by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

    ...millions of thousandares.

    --

    help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  71. Money appears out of nothing. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Wall Street investors don't make money, they take it. You think those dollars are just appearing out of nowhere?

    Well yes. That is exactly what happens.

    --
    Deleted
  72. Nice rant. You have to catch the wave. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2

    Sure there are good fund managers. The question is how does one find them among the dross? Some are lucky, some are lucky for a decade only to be completely blindsided when the environment changes.

    We're at a turning point just now. The next big investment vehicle is not going to be the same as the last couple of decades but a lot of fund managers will just run on with inertia, over the cliff.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Nice rant. You have to catch the wave. by makomk · · Score: 1

      Some are lucky, some are lucky for a decade only to be completely blindsided when the environment changes.

      Some are just lucky and have been completely clueless all along. Statistically speaking, there's bound to be a few of them and there's no way to tell them apart from the genuinely skilled based on their past performance.

  73. rETUers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, editors?

  74. 100 billion for a web site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus wept.

    Only a fool would invest in that for the long term.

    Oh well, cash out while you can.

  75. Bitter, party of several dozen, your table is read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love all these negative and bitter comments from non-shareholders. Lol

  76. My congratulations! by Eric+Freyhart · · Score: 1

    My congratulations go out to all those who worked very hard on Facebook, and who shall soon reap the rewards for their creation.

    My condolences go out to all those who shall soon invest in the stupidest dot-com bubble machine off all time, and who shall see the loss of that investment go to all those above.

  77. I'll buy some... by Meski · · Score: 1

    When they've dropped to a cent. Maybe.

  78. LEAPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Retuers reports that the world's No. 1 online social network is preparing for a blockbuster initial public offering that could create thousands of millionaires as Facebook employees past and present begin hatching plans on how to spend their anticipated new wealth."

    TRANSLATION

    "Retuers reports that the world's No. 1 online social network is preparing for a blockbuster initial public offering that could create thousands of millionaires as Facebook employees past and present begin hatching plans on how to SELL THEN SHORT THE STOCK WITH LEAPS OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS LEAVING THE REST OF INVESTORS WITH GARBAGE.

  79. 3PO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking IPO 3PO for every 3 words there's a fucking abbreviation, pretty soon we'll be unable to understand each other. Every professional group is living under the impression that somehow their activity is so important that they need special language terms that can separate the experts from the profane.
    A whole fucking page with no reference to what in the world the articles is about.
    Well, take your IPO and go home till you learn how to play with others.

  80. Re:Enjoying your new wealth by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    You could, but a more logical thing to do would be enjoy some of the less risky things first...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  81. trickle-down effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a trickle-down effect.'"

    Bull Sh_t

    Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.

  82. What are you talking about? by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    I didn't buy anything on margin. I bought and held stocks for the last 20 years. How do you know what I can afford?

    Some people actually buy less house and car than they need, not more.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  83. Nonsense! by unassimilatible · · Score: 2

    "Unless you derive enjoyment from the process of trading, you would be better off stuffing your money into an index fund and never touching them again" Nonsense. The Dow has been flat for 10 years. The stocks I've picked (like Apple, IBM) have not been, to say the least.

    An index fund is like betting on every horse in a race, including the slowest ones. I'd rather just bet on the fast horses.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:Nonsense! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      It's better than betting on horses' immortality.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  84. I don't give a shit what you "call" by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    First off, only about 1% of Americans have a net worth of $1M or more, not counting their homes.

    Second, I've held Apple (and other stocks) for 20 years. I bought and $4 and $5. It's now a split-adjusted $15XX.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  85. Holy Bearded Jebus on a Psychadelic Pogo Stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the zombie was friggin dead. This multi-decade "trickle down economic" Reagan-Era bullshit has got to be killed! Aim for the fuckin' head!

  86. mortgage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if any of them want to pay the mortgage of a typical Joe they can contact me.. :-)