"*Maybe* if you factor in the price of the car..."???? Of course you must factor in the price of the car!
My costs for a zones 1-2 travelcard in London are about £1400 pa. For that, I get to travel on any mode of public transport throughout central and inner suburban London. The costs of car + petrol + insurance etc are dramatically higher than that, even if a car lasts a long time.
Eh? Price at the pump might be about $4 in the US and $5 to $6 in other countries, but the price paid to the producer is considerably lower and varies less, as the main differential in the pump price is tax rates. So you don't make that much more money shipping gas to Europe compared to selling at home.
Now, I might be wrong, because I'm not the OP, but I think it's not so much about moral superiority as being stuck on a desert island with a hamper of food that will run out and a fat twat who is eating it as fast as possible. Causes the rest of us to have a facepalm moment.
Ah, but come on: your commute is wildly unlike most Londoners' commutes. I had to travel from NW London to Bexley today. It's 90minutes of shite as a journey, and that's true whether I take a car or public transport. My journey into central London takes 25 to 40 minutes, and that's true whether I take car, tube or cycle.
I can't imagine what commute you actually do that's so much faster in a car than on the tube or train in London.
Well, public transport ain't much cop in rural Wales or the Highlands of Scotland either. But most people live in urban and suburban areas, not rural Montana.
The phrase "perfect union" is from the preamble to the US Constitution. It has nothing to do with Judaism. The act of milah is a token of a covenant. A token -- not the covenant itself. But never mind, you tried, albeit not particularly effectively.
The Hasidism reference was, I take it, just for extra fun, not because you actually meant anything by it? What with milah being practised by just about every Jewish community, Hasidic, misnogid, frum, Masorti, Reform or Liberal.
Who knows what you were doing in Israel in 93. I hope you weren't in yeshiva. If you were, you didn't listen very hard. Still don't, actually: I said "obnoxious metaphor verging on bigotry" not simply "bigotry". I chose my words with care, which you patently did not.
Exactly. It would be a pretty big fall, but it's not unimaginable. Anyhoo, for retail investors, the reason to own Apple shares is because you think the growth prospects of the company aren't fully reflected in the share price yet, and that you'll be able to sell later on at a point when your nerve gives out, you need the cash, etc. Reasonable people might reasonably disagree with whether the growth prospects are fully respected, which is why there can be a market with both happy buyers and happy sellers. Eg, on the one hand, Apple is the world's largest company by market cap and has had a run of success lasting a decade and recently lost its charismatic and hugely influential CEO. On the other hand, it has only a small share of the phone market, has just started a new category of device that might well be just as large as laptops in the end, and has significant first-mover advantages still in both these markets. Plus I personally would be astounded if they haven't been trying to develop another category killer kind of product. So we all peer into the future and take different positions on what the likely future revenues will be a year, two years, five years, a decade hence...and calculate different values of the NPV.
As well as being an obnoxious metaphor verging on bigotry, your analogy is also deeply ignorant. Do you know what a foreskin is to a Hasidic Jew? Are you a Hasidic Jew? If not, how about not talking about shit you know fuck all about? I know that would break a habit of a lifetime, at least here on Slashdot, but if you can't manage that, could you at least keep the claptrap to economics rather than spewing out into religion?
As the Kotzker says: "All that is thought should not be said..."
You think you've shown the fundamental value of Apple's stock is zero if Apple won't pay a dividend or spinoff parts. But as *you yourself wrote*, the "The fundamental value of a stock is the sum of future payouts in the form of dividends, spinoffs *or liquidation*."
Apple's stock is non-zero because, even if they never pay a dividend, there is a real value attached to: - the physical assets and people - the IP and intangible assets - the income stream etc All of which would be realisable on liquidation (however unlikely that is at present).
There are many reasons other than active investment in the company's future to not pay a dividend: - it sends a strong signal into the market "we think we've reached the end of the strong growth phase" - the risk of being in a situation when the cash would have been helpful but it's been spent on the dividend etc
I just cannot understand how people can believe this kind of horseshit: "In the consumer market, they have marketing efforts and brand value driving people to pay more for their products and experience than they would be willing to pay any other brand for the exact same experience."
The exact same experience? What planet are you living on? The iPhone offered an *utterly different* experience from the phones that 99.99% of mobile users were accustomed to at the time. The iPod was differentiated from the vast bulk of music players out there. The MacBook Air's thinness spawned an entire new category because it was different. The iPad was wildly different also. There was nothing similar in the mass market to these products, and that's why they took off. Since then, of course, there've been a host of follower products. Some of those now come close to matching the experience, or even surpassing it. But first mover advantage counts for an awful lot.
"For companies that fail to establish as fanatic a following as Apple" How many fanbois do you think are out there? Apple sold about 73m products in Q1 FY2012. Do you really think that most -- or even a significant minority -- of those sales were to fanbois? I'm sure that the vast bulk of the sales were to people who have never stood in line at an Apple store for any product, don't know who Tim Cook is, have never graced Slashdot or any other tech website with their comments, etc -- folks who just happen to like the sound of getting an iPhone or iPad etc.
Ah. I see. You think that you know the dictionary definition of socialism. Not true. Incidentally, you also have a misplaced faith in dictionary definitions, failing to recognise that these are descriptive, not normative. Unsurprisingly, political concepts like socialism have tracts and books written about them which are attempts to define them. So a few lines from Merriam-Webster et al is hardly definitive. That said, let's look at a few definitions, courtesy of the interwebs: "Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources" "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." "Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.Newman, Michael. (2005) Socialism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-280431-6 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism" "Any of various economic and political philosophies that support social equality, collective decision-making, distribution of income based on contribution and public ownership of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists; The socialist political philosophies as a group,... en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialism" There's a ton of other definitions out there, of which only a very few feature phrases such as state or government ownership. Most refer, as here, to public or collective ownership. That's why co-operative organisations are often identified as socialist organisations, yet can have nothing to do with the state.
Look. There have been tens of millions of people who have called themselves socialists over the years. None of them has believed in the things you describe: plutocracy, privatisation of profit, etc. Conversely, the people you call socialists -- politicians and corporate executives -- would laugh in your face at your description of them as socialists. I'm not arguing with you that: a) the intertwining of commerce and government is a Bad Thing b) people who have really truly been socialists, like Arthur Scargill in the UK, have done Bad Things But (a) is not socialism. Socialism is not Raytheon. Socialism is the National Health Service.
Whatever. I'll still prefer the simpler explanation as a rule of thumb. God's a complication. And of course, if God's the answer to "who created the world?", it just opens up the question "who created God?"
This is your definition of socialism. It isn't one that any self-avowed socialist would recognise. What's the point of your definition? Except to recast "socialist" as a new pejorative, of course.
You seem to be unaware that socialism as a political ideology explicitly aims to satisfy human needs and rejects the idea of making profits. Paying various mercenary organisations to kill Iraqis, to take but one example, is not something that socialists want.
You also seem to think that the government tells the private companies that supply it with services what it wants from them. That might be the theory; in practice, there's quite a large lobbying industry designed to get the influence to run in exactly the opposite direction.
Socialists have done what?? Do you know even know what a socialist is? Has someone been nationalising the means of production without the rest of us noticing? Havent we just seen a mass transfer of wealth across the west from the poor to the rich to socialise the losses incurred by private financial institutions?
Slashdot Mirror
If only life were that simple. Sadly, we have no way of knowing if one person's five is another person's five, or their ten, on the scale.
All of that was nicely done
Wow. A denier quoting heinlein. That is one hell of a calumny on the world's finest hard sf writer
"*Maybe* if you factor in the price of the car..."???? Of course you must factor in the price of the car!
My costs for a zones 1-2 travelcard in London are about £1400 pa. For that, I get to travel on any mode of public transport throughout central and inner suburban London. The costs of car + petrol + insurance etc are dramatically higher than that, even if a car lasts a long time.
But why is mileage more important than fuel consumption?
Eh? Price at the pump might be about $4 in the US and $5 to $6 in other countries, but the price paid to the producer is considerably lower and varies less, as the main differential in the pump price is tax rates. So you don't make that much more money shipping gas to Europe compared to selling at home.
Now, I might be wrong, because I'm not the OP, but I think it's not so much about moral superiority as being stuck on a desert island with a hamper of food that will run out and a fat twat who is eating it as fast as possible. Causes the rest of us to have a facepalm moment.
Ah, but come on: your commute is wildly unlike most Londoners' commutes. I had to travel from NW London to Bexley today. It's 90minutes of shite as a journey, and that's true whether I take a car or public transport. My journey into central London takes 25 to 40 minutes, and that's true whether I take car, tube or cycle.
I can't imagine what commute you actually do that's so much faster in a car than on the tube or train in London.
Well, public transport ain't much cop in rural Wales or the Highlands of Scotland either. But most people live in urban and suburban areas, not rural Montana.
Honestly, you're better when you stick to economics. I find that mindboggling, but true.
Haredim does not mean the same as Hasidim.
The phrase "perfect union" is from the preamble to the US Constitution. It has nothing to do with Judaism. The act of milah is a token of a covenant. A token -- not the covenant itself. But never mind, you tried, albeit not particularly effectively.
The Hasidism reference was, I take it, just for extra fun, not because you actually meant anything by it? What with milah being practised by just about every Jewish community, Hasidic, misnogid, frum, Masorti, Reform or Liberal.
Who knows what you were doing in Israel in 93. I hope you weren't in yeshiva. If you were, you didn't listen very hard. Still don't, actually: I said "obnoxious metaphor verging on bigotry" not simply "bigotry". I chose my words with care, which you patently did not.
Exactly. It would be a pretty big fall, but it's not unimaginable. Anyhoo, for retail investors, the reason to own Apple shares is because you think the growth prospects of the company aren't fully reflected in the share price yet, and that you'll be able to sell later on at a point when your nerve gives out, you need the cash, etc. Reasonable people might reasonably disagree with whether the growth prospects are fully respected, which is why there can be a market with both happy buyers and happy sellers. Eg, on the one hand, Apple is the world's largest company by market cap and has had a run of success lasting a decade and recently lost its charismatic and hugely influential CEO. On the other hand, it has only a small share of the phone market, has just started a new category of device that might well be just as large as laptops in the end, and has significant first-mover advantages still in both these markets. Plus I personally would be astounded if they haven't been trying to develop another category killer kind of product. So we all peer into the future and take different positions on what the likely future revenues will be a year, two years, five years, a decade hence...and calculate different values of the NPV.
As well as being an obnoxious metaphor verging on bigotry, your analogy is also deeply ignorant. Do you know what a foreskin is to a Hasidic Jew? Are you a Hasidic Jew? If not, how about not talking about shit you know fuck all about? I know that would break a habit of a lifetime, at least here on Slashdot, but if you can't manage that, could you at least keep the claptrap to economics rather than spewing out into religion?
As the Kotzker says: "All that is thought should not be said..."
You think you've shown the fundamental value of Apple's stock is zero if Apple won't pay a dividend or spinoff parts. But as *you yourself wrote*, the "The fundamental value of a stock is the sum of future payouts in the form of dividends, spinoffs *or liquidation*."
Apple's stock is non-zero because, even if they never pay a dividend, there is a real value attached to:
- the physical assets and people
- the IP and intangible assets
- the income stream
etc
All of which would be realisable on liquidation (however unlikely that is at present).
There are many reasons other than active investment in the company's future to not pay a dividend:
- it sends a strong signal into the market "we think we've reached the end of the strong growth phase"
- the risk of being in a situation when the cash would have been helpful but it's been spent on the dividend etc
I just cannot understand how people can believe this kind of horseshit: "In the consumer market, they have marketing efforts and brand value driving people to pay more for their products and experience than they would be willing to pay any other brand for the exact same experience."
The exact same experience? What planet are you living on? The iPhone offered an *utterly different* experience from the phones that 99.99% of mobile users were accustomed to at the time. The iPod was differentiated from the vast bulk of music players out there. The MacBook Air's thinness spawned an entire new category because it was different. The iPad was wildly different also. There was nothing similar in the mass market to these products, and that's why they took off. Since then, of course, there've been a host of follower products. Some of those now come close to matching the experience, or even surpassing it. But first mover advantage counts for an awful lot.
"For companies that fail to establish as fanatic a following as Apple"
How many fanbois do you think are out there? Apple sold about 73m products in Q1 FY2012. Do you really think that most -- or even a significant minority -- of those sales were to fanbois? I'm sure that the vast bulk of the sales were to people who have never stood in line at an Apple store for any product, don't know who Tim Cook is, have never graced Slashdot or any other tech website with their comments, etc -- folks who just happen to like the sound of getting an iPhone or iPad etc.
Hum. The FTSE100 peaked at just under 7000...back in March 2000. It's trading today at about 5,900. And let's not think about inflation!
Ah. I see. You think that you know the dictionary definition of socialism. Not true. Incidentally, you also have a misplaced faith in dictionary definitions, failing to recognise that these are descriptive, not normative. Unsurprisingly, political concepts like socialism have tracts and books written about them which are attempts to define them. So a few lines from Merriam-Webster et al is hardly definitive. That said, let's look at a few definitions, courtesy of the interwebs: ...
"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources"
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.Newman, Michael. (2005) Socialism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-280431-6
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism"
"Any of various economic and political philosophies that support social equality, collective decision-making, distribution of income based on contribution and public ownership of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists; The socialist political philosophies as a group,
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialism"
There's a ton of other definitions out there, of which only a very few feature phrases such as state or government ownership. Most refer, as here, to public or collective ownership. That's why co-operative organisations are often identified as socialist organisations, yet can have nothing to do with the state.
Look. There have been tens of millions of people who have called themselves socialists over the years. None of them has believed in the things you describe: plutocracy, privatisation of profit, etc. Conversely, the people you call socialists -- politicians and corporate executives -- would laugh in your face at your description of them as socialists. I'm not arguing with you that:
a) the intertwining of commerce and government is a Bad Thing
b) people who have really truly been socialists, like Arthur Scargill in the UK, have done Bad Things
But (a) is not socialism. Socialism is not Raytheon. Socialism is the National Health Service.
Whatever. I'll still prefer the simpler explanation as a rule of thumb. God's a complication. And of course, if God's the answer to "who created the world?", it just opens up the question "who created God?"
Rules of thumb are quite useful, you know.
This is your definition of socialism. It isn't one that any self-avowed socialist would recognise. What's the point of your definition? Except to recast "socialist" as a new pejorative, of course.
You seem to be unaware that socialism as a political ideology explicitly aims to satisfy human needs and rejects the idea of making profits. Paying various mercenary organisations to kill Iraqis, to take but one example, is not something that socialists want.
You also seem to think that the government tells the private companies that supply it with services what it wants from them. That might be the theory; in practice, there's quite a large lobbying industry designed to get the influence to run in exactly the opposite direction.
Outstanding post!
Saying "a plague on both your houses just doesnt cut it, though."
The GOP position on climate change and evolution is much much more actively pernicious than anything that the Democrats espouse.
Not quite as simple as that. There's also ockham's razor to consider
Socialists have done what?? Do you know even know what a socialist is? Has someone been nationalising the means of production without the rest of us noticing? Havent we just seen a mass transfer of wealth across the west from the poor to the rich to socialise the losses incurred by private financial institutions?
Eh? It was a required text in my history of science course 20 years ago. So no, not really!
I agree, a fabulous book and an extraordinary story.