Why would you funnel money out of a company that can re-invest that capital for you, and you don't get gains or pay taxes on it while you hold it?
If you bought a company that paid Dividends (say IBM) you'd be paying taxes (25-40%) on that income (which has already been taxed once) and then having to deal with it (say re-invest). Why would you do that? It isn't efficient use of capital at all. THAT is why corporations don't pay dividends.
Of course all of that is because we have ridiculous laws on taxing income (WTF?), when we shouldn't be. But that is part of the Fairness Nazi's grip on socialism and income redistribution(which doesn't work). Why would you tax something that you want to encourage (income, savings, investing etc?)
No wonder we have a debt problem, we give credit for debts, and tax income...
Lastly, if you want "solid" investment, I suggest Gold. That is REAL as you're gonna get. Or bonds, which are about one of the least speculative investment there is. Stocks, all stocks, even the ones that pay dividends, have speculation built into the price.
And dividends are no guarantee of stability of a company. Just ask the shareholders of SCO Group.;)
Knowingly receiving stolen property makes you accessory after the fact.
I don't care what you think about the US or Wikileaks on this one, both are douche bags. Wikileaks is doubly so for whining about what is happening to it when it should have expected it all.
Quit your bitchin' and find another source, I'm sure someone (Iran perhaps) would be willing to broker the payments for wikileaks, or even finance the whole thing.
I've long ago suggested 5 or 10 year lease options for cities to offer infrastructure for Cable. Every 5 or 10 years, the lease would be up, and new bidding would take place. City mandates SLA for the service, and dings the lease holder when the lease holder doesn't comply. Charges, rates, and everything would be part of the contract.
Lowest price, best service, highest speeds etc all go into the equation. Every 5 or 10 years, everything is opened up again for bidding.
Gas is $.10 gal more, but it only takes 5 to 10 minutes to get anywhere, so you use less. Where as in the big city, you'll save $.10 gal, but have to drive 1/2 hour to get anywhere. I can assure you that cost of living is less here, I don't spend 1500-2000/mo living in a 1200 sqft apt, like I would in a City. So if groceries are a bit more expensive, then I'm willing to pay that price. And the produce is actually fresher here, and better, just not at the supermarket. Try growing your own, something you can't do in the city on.25 acre lots.
And there is no need for a gym, because mowing the law, pruning the trees and all the other gardening work is hard. But it is infinitely more satisfying than a spinning class. It all depends on your perspective.;)
I know, I grew up in LA, and now live in Rural Nor Cal.
I have to say, that you have no idea what you're talking about. While the example I'm about to give is completely anecdotal and is based only on my experience, I've heard similar stories.
My family has, 4 iPods and one Zune. Which of these five devices is no longer used? Guess.
The Zune did everything the iPods could do, and then some, but it sits, unused, not because it stopped functioning, but rather it was more of a pain than the iPods. I've seen the same thing with the other MP3 players as well, via friends who bought Creative's offering and Generic nameless players. Do they play music as well as the iPod? Sure, but the pain of using them makes them ultimately useless.
Whatever complaint you have against Apple's products, I can assure you that it is based simply upon your ability to ignore the pain of something functioning, but not well. That "Panache" that you discount, is worth the price differential for more people than the lack of it on a Generic MP3 player. If other MP3 players were TRULY better, they would have won. iPods made it easy for the masses, and that is worth something.
One last point, works better (or just plain works) doesn't mean "flawless". But having less flaws does make it attractive, and easier to ignore the flaws that are there.
Stock price is the market valuation of the Net Present Value of the company. Dividends only extract value from shares, and hands it to current owners of those shares, in the form of cash, it takes resources that can be used by a company and hands it over to others.
Some Market stocks are valued way beyond their realistic value (see Amazon), based on growth and income. Apple is NOT one of those companies. The PE ratio of low to mid 20s is on the slightly "high" side, but compared to speculation on IPOs is quite reasonable. Average PE Ratio is in the mid to high teens, for stable established companies. Companies experiencing rapid growth in earnings tend to be right where APPL is today.
So, while a "bunch of people agreeing" on valuations, that is true regardless of whether or not a company pays dividends. And your post just shows your ignorance in how stock market works. Additionally, what is that green piece of paper in your wallet worth? It is fiat currency and is only worth what people think it is worth. It actually has less value than the piece of paper representing stock of the same worth.
If you truly, honestly, disliked both, you'd be advocating either bloody revolution
In order to have revolution, one must be willing to die. Dying alone for a cause is pointless, but recruiting others to your point of view before rushing off to die is noble (and/or treasonous).
I'm not against the collectives, of any type. I'm against collectives that are designed to remove liberties from one collective, in order to secure something else entirely for another.
If you've read my posts, you'll quickly find that I've been consistent with my views for a while now, calling for things like the "corporate death penalty", and saying that corporations are creations of the state, and thus not entitled to the same liberties as individuals. Even going so far as to say that corporations as non-person entities shouldn't be given the same set of liberties (ie speech) as an individual.
But I'm at least consistent in saying the exact same thing about other collectives, like Unions.
And my thinking isn't faulty as you may suggest. Perhaps your understanding of what I believe is misshapen by your own prejudices.
People on the (D) side of the fence seem to equate "corporations" with "fascism" but fully embrace Union Thuggery. People on the (R) side of things do the exact opposite. What I'm saying is that both Corps and Unions are the same, because both are collectives of "people" who have banded together to leverage gain.
Why do I have to support the union I belong to, when it subverts my views every step of the way? Why do Corporations commit crimes and the boards and chief officers never spend a day in jail?
I'm not against governance, but when government is against the will of the people then we live in a tyranny.
And most people don't care about tyranny when it only affects others. I happen to realize that tyranny will eventually catch up to me.
So, yeah, I'm for Libertarian governance of limited but cohesive laws; where liberty and justice is for all, not just the few in a powerful collective.
I have a solution, it just doesn't fit with many (R) and most (D). Get the government out of my life, quit telling me how to live, what to eat and which car I'm supposed to drive.
But the government isn't one homogeneous organization
Yup, and that is the problem right there. And there is no solution to that problem except another bureaucracy to manage all the other ones that aren't manageable. And another one to manage that one and so on.
The hypocrisy, as I pointed out, was saying you don't want people to shove their religion in your face,while doing exactly the same thing.
Provocation was the juxtaposition of the three quotes I quoted. Your sense of "superiority" in your atheism came through just fine, which is exactly what my point was here...
Atheists aren't any better. They just think they are, just like all the other theists.
and here
People who call themselves atheists are more on the asshat side of things than atheists who just want to be left alone; who call themselves agnostic.
You mentioned a CFO authorizing a whole separate network connection setup that bypasses IT. Great, then the CFO won't mind if I start doing the accounting and budgeting since the CIO authorized me.
You can see the problem with that kind of attitude in a big corporation.
If it is labeled as a workstation, it better be one. If it is labeled a printer, it better be one.
And things can stay under control, if people follow the rules. When people don't follow the rules, then they have a problem as I stated, being reported up the chain.
It is a label I wear with pride and moral superiority.
Or people like you who talk crap about people and their religion or lack thereof without any provocation.
The topic of the bible came in tangentially, and tangentially I mentioned my atheism in the context of my relatively thorough biblical study.
Provocation enough. You want your cake, and eat it too. You don't want people shoving "Christ" in your face, I don't want people shoving their hypocritical "Atheism" crap in mine. BTW, I've never mentioned "Christ our Lord" even once in this thread.
And if you knew me, you'd know I would never mention "Christ" at all, because I'm not a Christian.
Everything else you spew is based on your own faulty assumptions (ignorance), and not really worthy of comment.
Not on my network they don't. Nobody plugs anything into my network without IT involvement. And you may ask yourself "why" I would be such a BOFH. Because I need to know what VLAN to put the device in. No port is hot, unless I say it is hot. No device gets access unless I approve it and configure it to the right VLAN.
There would be no rogue servers. Anyone caught putting in a rogue server would be reported up the proper chain. It isn't hard to keep track of anything, if you keep track of everything. If you can't keep track of some things, you can't keep track of anything. Not really.
You obviously are more inclined to want more regulation until every facet of your life if regimented, say like China or North Korea.
No, there is no flaw in your slippery slope argument/sarcasm.
The only thing you fail to mention is that the "libertarian" examples you provided aren't libertarian at all. They are anarchistic. And if that is your view of LIBERTY than you shouldn't comment on ideals you have no concept of.
The function of government is to secure the liberties of the people. Most of the third world countries that are often touted by the leftwing anti liberty crowd (such as yourself), is that they DO NOT HAVE a functioning governance.
And while you're at it, why not admit that corporations are nothing more than collectives, like unions? When you realize that collectivization of politics leads to tyranny, then you'll be able to realize that you've been an idiot, and the end of your leftwing fantasy wank.
I'm not against "unions" or "corporations", I'm just against collectives of any sort infringing upon the liberties of anyone, even if I'm affected directly. Because even if I'm not personally affected by anti libertarian tyrants, I will be, eventually.
And you kind of proved my point. People who call themselves atheists are more on the asshat side of things than atheists who just want to be left alone; who call themselves agnostic.
Take a look at the thread above. You'll find I made no injection of any biblical references in my point, yet the Atheists couldn't refrain from injecting their "atheism" into it. Why is that?
I always thought that there should be three judge panels for courts, one decided by each party, and one decided by both (or random drawing), which direct the proceedings, instead of lawyers.
Atheists aren't any better. They just think they are, just like all the other theists. Atheists shouldn't care what others believe, they are just as hypocritical as the next group.
On the other hand, you'll find agnostics.. They just don't care, one way or another about what or who god is, or even if he/she/it exists. The also don't care if you do or don't believe or don't care. They aren't the pretentious asshats most professed atheists tend to be.
How about this: You go to court, the judge judges the case on the merits, not on the legal maneuverings of lawyers. How about making the "law" simple enough that a person of average intelligence and income can present a case before a court without a lawyer, without having to know all the "legal" contrivances needed to ignore the truth.
Awww screw it, that would never work. Better have the screwed up system we have now than risk it on trying something that is better for everyone who isn't a lawyer.
The problem is Trial Lawyers are in the pocket of the (D) party, so nationalizing Legal Care like they just did with Health Care is not really going to happen. Not to mention most of those serving in the Legislature are lawyers (on both sides of the isle)
I always thought that lawyers writing laws was a conflict of interest. I wonder why that has never been addressed before.
Archives are overrated. Long Term (15+ years) archives are unreadable. Not because the media has gone bad, but rather the mechanisms aren't readily available. We have old media but no way of actually getting the data off. The data is mostly meaningless.
If you have to Archive something, print it out. If it isn't printable, it probably isn't worth archiving. And if it is worth archiving, you best make sure you're keeping the technology around that can read your archives.
Besides that, only data that is worth anything is live data. LTS Archives aren't worth much. Mostly used for CYA legal reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you're still wrong.
Why would you funnel money out of a company that can re-invest that capital for you, and you don't get gains or pay taxes on it while you hold it?
If you bought a company that paid Dividends (say IBM) you'd be paying taxes (25-40%) on that income (which has already been taxed once) and then having to deal with it (say re-invest). Why would you do that? It isn't efficient use of capital at all. THAT is why corporations don't pay dividends.
Of course all of that is because we have ridiculous laws on taxing income (WTF?), when we shouldn't be. But that is part of the Fairness Nazi's grip on socialism and income redistribution(which doesn't work). Why would you tax something that you want to encourage (income, savings, investing etc?)
No wonder we have a debt problem, we give credit for debts, and tax income ...
Lastly, if you want "solid" investment, I suggest Gold. That is REAL as you're gonna get. Or bonds, which are about one of the least speculative investment there is. Stocks, all stocks, even the ones that pay dividends, have speculation built into the price.
And dividends are no guarantee of stability of a company. Just ask the shareholders of SCO Group. ;)
Knowingly receiving stolen property makes you accessory after the fact.
I don't care what you think about the US or Wikileaks on this one, both are douche bags. Wikileaks is doubly so for whining about what is happening to it when it should have expected it all.
Quit your bitchin' and find another source, I'm sure someone (Iran perhaps) would be willing to broker the payments for wikileaks, or even finance the whole thing.
I've long ago suggested 5 or 10 year lease options for cities to offer infrastructure for Cable. Every 5 or 10 years, the lease would be up, and new bidding would take place. City mandates SLA for the service, and dings the lease holder when the lease holder doesn't comply. Charges, rates, and everything would be part of the contract.
Lowest price, best service, highest speeds etc all go into the equation. Every 5 or 10 years, everything is opened up again for bidding.
Gas is $.10 gal more, but it only takes 5 to 10 minutes to get anywhere, so you use less. Where as in the big city, you'll save $.10 gal, but have to drive 1/2 hour to get anywhere. I can assure you that cost of living is less here, I don't spend 1500-2000 /mo living in a 1200 sqft apt, like I would in a City. So if groceries are a bit more expensive, then I'm willing to pay that price. And the produce is actually fresher here, and better, just not at the supermarket. Try growing your own, something you can't do in the city on .25 acre lots.
And there is no need for a gym, because mowing the law, pruning the trees and all the other gardening work is hard. But it is infinitely more satisfying than a spinning class. It all depends on your perspective. ;)
I know, I grew up in LA, and now live in Rural Nor Cal.
I have to say, that you have no idea what you're talking about. While the example I'm about to give is completely anecdotal and is based only on my experience, I've heard similar stories.
My family has, 4 iPods and one Zune. Which of these five devices is no longer used? Guess.
The Zune did everything the iPods could do, and then some, but it sits, unused, not because it stopped functioning, but rather it was more of a pain than the iPods. I've seen the same thing with the other MP3 players as well, via friends who bought Creative's offering and Generic nameless players. Do they play music as well as the iPod? Sure, but the pain of using them makes them ultimately useless.
Whatever complaint you have against Apple's products, I can assure you that it is based simply upon your ability to ignore the pain of something functioning, but not well. That "Panache" that you discount, is worth the price differential for more people than the lack of it on a Generic MP3 player. If other MP3 players were TRULY better, they would have won. iPods made it easy for the masses, and that is worth something.
One last point, works better (or just plain works) doesn't mean "flawless". But having less flaws does make it attractive, and easier to ignore the flaws that are there.
Actually, you're absolutely wrong.
Stock price is the market valuation of the Net Present Value of the company. Dividends only extract value from shares, and hands it to current owners of those shares, in the form of cash, it takes resources that can be used by a company and hands it over to others.
Some Market stocks are valued way beyond their realistic value (see Amazon), based on growth and income. Apple is NOT one of those companies. The PE ratio of low to mid 20s is on the slightly "high" side, but compared to speculation on IPOs is quite reasonable. Average PE Ratio is in the mid to high teens, for stable established companies. Companies experiencing rapid growth in earnings tend to be right where APPL is today.
So, while a "bunch of people agreeing" on valuations, that is true regardless of whether or not a company pays dividends. And your post just shows your ignorance in how stock market works. Additionally, what is that green piece of paper in your wallet worth? It is fiat currency and is only worth what people think it is worth. It actually has less value than the piece of paper representing stock of the same worth.
In order to have revolution, one must be willing to die. Dying alone for a cause is pointless, but recruiting others to your point of view before rushing off to die is noble (and/or treasonous).
I'm not against the collectives, of any type. I'm against collectives that are designed to remove liberties from one collective, in order to secure something else entirely for another.
If you've read my posts, you'll quickly find that I've been consistent with my views for a while now, calling for things like the "corporate death penalty", and saying that corporations are creations of the state, and thus not entitled to the same liberties as individuals. Even going so far as to say that corporations as non-person entities shouldn't be given the same set of liberties (ie speech) as an individual.
But I'm at least consistent in saying the exact same thing about other collectives, like Unions.
And my thinking isn't faulty as you may suggest. Perhaps your understanding of what I believe is misshapen by your own prejudices.
People on the (D) side of the fence seem to equate "corporations" with "fascism" but fully embrace Union Thuggery. People on the (R) side of things do the exact opposite. What I'm saying is that both Corps and Unions are the same, because both are collectives of "people" who have banded together to leverage gain.
Why do I have to support the union I belong to, when it subverts my views every step of the way? Why do Corporations commit crimes and the boards and chief officers never spend a day in jail?
I'm not against governance, but when government is against the will of the people then we live in a tyranny.
And most people don't care about tyranny when it only affects others. I happen to realize that tyranny will eventually catch up to me.
So, yeah, I'm for Libertarian governance of limited but cohesive laws; where liberty and justice is for all, not just the few in a powerful collective.
I have a solution, it just doesn't fit with many (R) and most (D). Get the government out of my life, quit telling me how to live, what to eat and which car I'm supposed to drive.
The hypocrisy, as I pointed out, was saying you don't want people to shove their religion in your face,while doing exactly the same thing.
Provocation was the juxtaposition of the three quotes I quoted. Your sense of "superiority" in your atheism came through just fine, which is exactly what my point was here ...
and here
You keep making my point, and nicely too! Thanks!
So Suzy is a professional salesperson huh?
You mentioned a CFO authorizing a whole separate network connection setup that bypasses IT. Great, then the CFO won't mind if I start doing the accounting and budgeting since the CIO authorized me.
You can see the problem with that kind of attitude in a big corporation.
If it is labeled as a workstation, it better be one. If it is labeled a printer, it better be one.
And things can stay under control, if people follow the rules. When people don't follow the rules, then they have a problem as I stated, being reported up the chain.
Provocation enough. You want your cake, and eat it too. You don't want people shoving "Christ" in your face, I don't want people shoving their hypocritical "Atheism" crap in mine. BTW, I've never mentioned "Christ our Lord" even once in this thread.
And if you knew me, you'd know I would never mention "Christ" at all, because I'm not a Christian.
Everything else you spew is based on your own faulty assumptions (ignorance), and not really worthy of comment.
Not on my network they don't. Nobody plugs anything into my network without IT involvement. And you may ask yourself "why" I would be such a BOFH. Because I need to know what VLAN to put the device in. No port is hot, unless I say it is hot. No device gets access unless I approve it and configure it to the right VLAN.
There would be no rogue servers. Anyone caught putting in a rogue server would be reported up the proper chain. It isn't hard to keep track of anything, if you keep track of everything. If you can't keep track of some things, you can't keep track of anything. Not really.
You obviously are more inclined to want more regulation until every facet of your life if regimented, say like China or North Korea.
No, there is no flaw in your slippery slope argument /sarcasm.
The only thing you fail to mention is that the "libertarian" examples you provided aren't libertarian at all. They are anarchistic. And if that is your view of LIBERTY than you shouldn't comment on ideals you have no concept of.
The function of government is to secure the liberties of the people. Most of the third world countries that are often touted by the leftwing anti liberty crowd (such as yourself), is that they DO NOT HAVE a functioning governance.
And while you're at it, why not admit that corporations are nothing more than collectives, like unions? When you realize that collectivization of politics leads to tyranny, then you'll be able to realize that you've been an idiot, and the end of your leftwing fantasy wank.
I'm not against "unions" or "corporations", I'm just against collectives of any sort infringing upon the liberties of anyone, even if I'm affected directly. Because even if I'm not personally affected by anti libertarian tyrants, I will be, eventually.
Words evolve in meaning over time. Get over it.
And you kind of proved my point. People who call themselves atheists are more on the asshat side of things than atheists who just want to be left alone; who call themselves agnostic.
Take a look at the thread above. You'll find I made no injection of any biblical references in my point, yet the Atheists couldn't refrain from injecting their "atheism" into it. Why is that?
Some say there are two laws, and everything else is commentary.
It all depends on one's viewpoint. ;)
And obviously you prefer the complicated finely nuanced and often contradictory legal rules we have in place now?
Killing a human is murder, unless the child is unborn, then it isn't, unless the child was wanted, then it is.
Yeah, that is so much better.
I always thought that there should be three judge panels for courts, one decided by each party, and one decided by both (or random drawing), which direct the proceedings, instead of lawyers.
But that is just me.
Atheists aren't any better. They just think they are, just like all the other theists. Atheists shouldn't care what others believe, they are just as hypocritical as the next group.
On the other hand, you'll find agnostics .. They just don't care, one way or another about what or who god is, or even if he/she/it exists. The also don't care if you do or don't believe or don't care. They aren't the pretentious asshats most professed atheists tend to be.
Just hope it doesn't try to fix your spleen after correcting your spelling problems.
No
How about this: You go to court, the judge judges the case on the merits, not on the legal maneuverings of lawyers. How about making the "law" simple enough that a person of average intelligence and income can present a case before a court without a lawyer, without having to know all the "legal" contrivances needed to ignore the truth.
Awww screw it, that would never work. Better have the screwed up system we have now than risk it on trying something that is better for everyone who isn't a lawyer.
This is NOT funny. It is downright Insightful.
The problem is Trial Lawyers are in the pocket of the (D) party, so nationalizing Legal Care like they just did with Health Care is not really going to happen. Not to mention most of those serving in the Legislature are lawyers (on both sides of the isle)
I always thought that lawyers writing laws was a conflict of interest. I wonder why that has never been addressed before.
Archives are overrated. Long Term (15+ years) archives are unreadable. Not because the media has gone bad, but rather the mechanisms aren't readily available. We have old media but no way of actually getting the data off. The data is mostly meaningless.
If you have to Archive something, print it out. If it isn't printable, it probably isn't worth archiving. And if it is worth archiving, you best make sure you're keeping the technology around that can read your archives.
Besides that, only data that is worth anything is live data. LTS Archives aren't worth much. Mostly used for CYA legal reasons.
Whatever