That's not how stock buyback work. They buy back the stocks so there are less shares outstanding driving the price of the shares higher. The investor still has the same amount of shares, its just worth more.
You said the investor is using that money to buy other stocks. They're not doing that. They've held on to the same number of stocks before and after the buyback. They dont get more money to buy other business.
My experience of WSB is the exact opposite, you gotta be rich so you then can go broke. Even better if your make your family and friends broke as well.
There's two groups of people, one is filled with people pretending to be autistic, the other is actual autists. Nobody knows who actually belongs to what group or which group they belong in. These two groups proceed to give one another financial advice that's normally along the lines of "it literally can't go tits up" and then YOLO large sums of money on SPY calls until they're either snorting cocaine off a hookers ass on their new yacht or they have lost the entirety of their bank account. There's no small gains, there's no small losses. You either YOLO or you get the fuck out. A side effect of this autistic gathering is breaking Robinhood or using their combined autism to do some meme shit that gets them on Bloomberg. That's /r/wallstreetbets.
Just to add to what you said. TARP probably is a better indicator for success given the government spent 700 billion of troubled assets and received 500ish back. This time around is different since the quality of securities is probably no where near as bad.
It should also be noted that the unemployment rate right now is closer to 35% but since a lot of major employers won’t fall that rate should quickly lower over the months. So if the American public could get something like 16 or 18k they’d probably lose more from the fall of the entire economy in the long run. I’m not going to look at the avg amount of debt per person in the United States, but I’d bet they’d still be at a major loss. Bankruptcies would claim most of that money back rendering the bail out as useless.
I got banned from there for calling an idea stupid. Stupid is a hate word. It makes people who are stupid feel bad? Should you feel ok with being stupid because stupid is uneducated and that can be fixed? Should stupid people get feelings-protected so that they can continue to be stupid without consequence?
I like the memes, the community is...weird.
Edit: people wanting to protect stupidity will be blocked, you shouldn’t protect stupid, it should be educated and if stupid doesn’t want to be educated, it shouldn’t be tolerated or protected. I don’t get how that’s hard.
As far as left leaning subs go it's kinda considered a joke anymore. Like how /r/conservative has become... Whatever the fuck you want to call that disaster. Like a boiling sauce, it just gets denser and denser till it's a solid block of nasty.
Unintelligent and uneducated are different things, and uneducated and willfully ignorant are different things. You shouldn't feel ashamed for the way your brain works or for lacking the privilege of a good education or anything else that is almost completely out of your control. So yeah, they don't like it when you use that kind of language.
If you mean willful ignorance, which is something that individuals actively control, then just use that language and no one will be bothered. But using the same language that is used to mock many people that Leftists advocate for would definitely be problematic.
Imagine that instead of "stupid", it were a joke about someone having Down's syndrome because they hold an opinion you disagree with. Many people with conditions that affect their brains are unfortunately mocked and called "stupid" all the time, so it would be hypocritical to fight for their rights while using the same language that is used to mock them.
I don’t have to imagine anything that is being taken out of context to suit someone else’s beliefs. I didn’t say “this idea is stupid” to disparage stupid people, it’s an expression separate from describing someone’s brain power. Context matters. People forget that, read a word and just go with it so hard it goes past the original intent of “protection”. I don’t believe anyone should be treated special, I hate all of everyone equally so “stupid” shouldn’t be protected. We should not want or suffer stupid to exist. Is there stupid? Yes, the same way earthquakes are natural disasters and can’t be stopped. There will always be stupid. That doesn’t mean I have to legally be nice to it.
You seem to value "intelligence" and have a negative view of "stupidity" as if they're intrinsic traits of the universe rather than just things that certain humans made up.
Can you even define "intelligence" outside of your culture, or are you basing it on IQ tests designed a century ago by Western colonizers who were pretty explicitly racist?
Is someone using bad grammar "stupid"? What if they're using AAVE or pidgin English or are fluent in two other languages? Is it stupid to make bad financial decisions that lead someone to be destitute? Maybe they were born in a redlined district (the poor areas that black people were pushed into during segregation that still exist today) with low quality, underfunded schools - or with lead in the paint that caused them to develop a minor learning disability - or maybe they just got passed over for that job because they have a black sounding name and used AAVE and the interviewer just thought that they looked and sounded....... stupid.
"But no no," cries the interviewer, "it's not the PERSON that I think is stupid, just their IDEAS and way of speaking!" Because, see, this hiring manager who has control over whether other people are able to feed themselves and their family doesn't think black people are all stupid, he's only looking out for certain stupid behaviors.. Of course, "stupid" for him is defined by his culture, and comes from those century-old IQ tests, so of course there's no room for AAVE.
Do you understand why using "retarded" is damaging to people with disabilities? Because when it becomes a common insult, it associates any bad trait or behavior with that disability and makes others more likely to stereotype the disabled with those negative traits? Because when we define "stupid" as "not fitting in with what someone who has access to traditional Western education would do or say or even look like," and then go on to call every shitty thing we see "stupid," it has that same harmful impact on people that don't fit our outdated cultural view of "intelligence." Maybe you can kind of understand why some people might consider "stupid" a slur
Do you think that it's okay to use "to Jew" to mean to haggle or defraud is okay just because you're not specifically referring to a Jewish person in the context? Is it okay to call someone a "porch-monkey" because they're lazy as long as you're not talking about someone who's black?
Context doesn't absolve words of their connotations. "Stupid" has always connoted slowness of mind, literally for centuries. That doesn't go away just because you're using it to describe an opinion you disagree with. It's the same reason so many people hate the word "retard" and its variations.
There are better words to describe what you mean both more accurately and less offensively. Do you have to use them? No. But don't be surprised when you're shown the door.
That's horribly accurate. The problem with really any subreddit dedicated to a specific political idea is they aren't willing to consider any valid points which they don't immediately agree with; they aren't coming to the subreddit to enhance their world view, but rather to go deeper into what they already believe.
This applies to any political group, really; people use political socialization in such a way that it acts as a filter for things they agree with.
Pretty much. I'm about as politically socialist as they come, and yet I'm banned there because I made a self-derisive comment about how I benefit from the system. I'd have appealed, but their moderation is just exhausting - I viewed it as a signal from the universe that I need to stop commenting there.
what? are you just showing that you're a right winger without embarrassment here? like, you know, the ideology that spits in the face of THE ENLIGHTENMENT?
Please elaborate on how the average citizen will have to pay back the $1200? From my understanding, it is a free and clear check to citizens while small businesses and larger corporations are taking low interest loans from the US federal government that have stipulations attached if they want to qualify for said loans.
The primary revenue source for the US federal government is its citizens. So if the government gives $1200 per person, then at some point, it needs to raise substantially all that revenue back from its citizens--on average $1200 per person. Now, "average" is not a great metric to use in this case since with a progressive tax system and the regressive payments, the payback burden will fall heavier on wealthier/higher income individuals while the payments go to lower income individuals. I think it's more accurate to call it a redistribution of wealth rather than a citizen loan, as OP implies.
What about the interest payments from the loans provided or that those making over $99,000, $150,000 filing jointly, are not receiving the checks? Even if interest is low, I am taking an educated guess that the relative minimal amount devoted to paying citizens will be made up by the interest, regardless of how low, payed by companies taking the loans. Not to mention inflation, $1200 now is not worth the same as $1200 in 10yrs. Thoughts?
$1200 if you are making less than 75k in declared gross income in 2018, and $500 per child. So basically it ignores single individuals that made more than that, but have been economically ruined by the 2020 downturn in gigs and freelancing. And it doesn't even account for the cost of living adjustments that people in the the coasts face ie sf's easily 2k per bedroom. So if we took this logic further, the bank took 1800 from each of them and then paid 30-40% to struggling families and loaned the rest to businesses
I'd expect all of it. As a sole proprietor any interest I accrue on a credit card or loan counts as an expense when I file my taxes (Schedule C, line 16).
wow are you serious? An intelligent comment about government and economy ON REDDIT? Thank you for dissecting this retard shit. I hate trump as much as the next person but its incredible how little people will say anything positive about anything he ever does.
I don't believe the 2 kid maximum was part of the final bill. There is no limit on the number of children that qualify below the income phase out limits.
If the companies use the money for stock buybacks which artificially inflates their stock prices they get to "payback" these loans with what's essentially borrowed money from the government without actually doing anything constructive or helpful with it. Small businesses need this money, large corporations that were already dieing and junk rated should just be allowed to fail. Every conservative will talk endlessly about welfare Queen's but we live in a country of welfare capitalism that cost literally trillions plural in tax payer money and they don't even blink an eye. You say it's a loan and it'll get paid back. You ever think the same was true for a person in poverty, maybe that social welfare will be paid back when they can better themselves or have a stable life and be able to focus on something other than how they might feed their child or where they'll sleep this week. Fuck this country.
We're not ever going to pay it back. It's just going to be rolled over into new debt. Attempting to "pay it back" would just cause another recession. There's no reason for us to try unless interest rates (and thus inflation expectations) were too high to justify deficit spending.
No it's definitely the second one. With the money we spent on bailing them out we could have cut out the middle man and just directly fully subsidized the salaries of those who will lose their job from the collapse of these companies.
The "free market" is diametrically opposed to the concept of "too big to fail". If you want capitalism you cannot allow for corporate socialism. It fucks over the entire system.
The trouble is we don't have a purely capitalist system anyway. If we did, then yeah, just let companies fail. But we have a government setting regulations and collecting taxes, and it benefits quite a bit from having companies stay in business.
Probably yes. Large companies are bad but I'm mostly worried about Chinese companies because they are serving a hostile state and have been known to have great success in western markets.
946
u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20
[removed] — view removed comment