Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums: Heated Discussions and Debates

Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Stocks

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Stocks [message #79579]

Tue, 13 April 2004 14:52

SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

hydra1945

About 400,000 jobs were added last month. So what's this jobless growth you speak of?

Whee! Bush matched Clinton's average job growth over 8 years for one month! Victory over the economy!

hydra1945

Name a CEO that makes $60 million. Then name the company he works for. Then tell how much net profit that company took in during the years since he was CEO. Then look at how much net profit that company took in during the years before he became CEO.

CEOs are CEOs for a reason: they're damn good at running their companies. They know how to make billions of dollars in profit for their companies. That's why they have the most important job at their company.

I don't want to go looking up that many questions about an irrelevent topic that was only met with hostility here instead of adult conversations.

hydra1945

Why don't we just take away rich people's mansions and just give them over to homeless people, since, after all, everyone should have the same amount of stuff, right?

I don't mean to be overly critical, but setting a 5 million dollar income cap is not the same thing as taking everything they own and giving it to poor people. Your last 9 words are so hopelessly exagerrated that I'm not even going to touch on them.

hydra194

Also explain to me why the stock market started falling during the last months of Clinton's administration. Did his "economic genius" lead to that too?

The market didn't start falling at the end of Clinton's terms, it wasn't going straight up. If you're still referencing that NASDAQ chart, then look at it again. When the market was going up during Clinton's terms, it wasn't going straight up. It went up and down, with the trend of going up.

hydra1945

No, salary caps will never be implemented because it infringes on people's economic freedom. We use a capitalist system to make money; what you propose is communism.

I guess it might go against the constitution saying everyone has the right to pursuit of happiness.
I did not propose communism, I proposed preventing CEOs from being able to loot companies of stockholder money. You want to know why there are no European investment dollars in the economy right now?

hydra1945

Why shouldn't a CEO get paid millions of dollars a year?

Once they get paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they start to be stealing from investors. If they privately own the company, then I say take as much as they want. But stealing hundreds of millions from stockholders isn't exactly nice.

frijud

And I don't believe that there is American money. You have yours...I have mine...but there is not "American" money that just go to a few individuals.

Perhaps I misspoke, but the paychecks of big CEOs largely come from American investors, because those are the people who put their money in to the economy, and they just happen to be American.

P.S. Richard Clarke's book is cool.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)

The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship

Report message to a moderator

Stocks [message #79614]

Tue, 13 April 2004 16:39

Crimson
Messages: 7430
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Karma: 0

General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR

If the companies didn't manage their money to the profit of shareholders, there wouldn't BE any shareholders. Do you have any idea how heavily regulated the stock market is? Do you have any idea how much hardcore investors pore over the numerics?

I'm the bawss.

Report message to a moderator

Stocks [message #79626]

Tue, 13 April 2004 16:51

Crimson
Messages: 7430
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Karma: 0

General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR

http://www.n00bstories.com/image.fetch.php?id=1128908461

This chart CLEARLY shows that Clinton was in office when the dot-com bubble burst. It did a free-fall over 2000 points (nearly half its value) BEFORE BUSH EVER GOT INTO OFFICE.

WHY DO YOU BLAME HIM FOR THIS WHEN HE WASN'T EVEN THERE YET?

You can't sit here and state these bold-faced lies without backing it up. I am backing up my words. You can go to bigcharts.com right now and pull the same exact chart.

FURTHERMORE, the rise in the market during the Clinton era was not "straight up". It was a curve that gained momentum during the dot-com boom, which died shortly thereafter in the blatant free-fall during 2000.

BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS WITH FACTS.

I'm the bawss.

Report message to a moderator

Stocks [message #79643]

Tue, 13 April 2004 17:06

Crimson
Messages: 7430
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Karma: 0

General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR

http://www.n00bstories.com/image.fetch.php?id=1209123062

Reaganonmics at work...

Regan comes into office with the NASDAQ at 150. He leaves office with it at 375 (more than double) for Bush Sr, who takes it up to 675 (almost doubled again, and 4.5 times what it was when Reagan took office).

Just as I say that Bush didn't cause the market continuing to fall for the next year after he took office, Clinton isn't the cause of the rise when he took office. It was on an upswing. Reagan's economic policies didn't immediately cease to be in effect when he left office. The tax law changes he had made continued to fuel the ecomony long after the Republicans lost the Presidency.

I also believe that if the Clinton administration hadn't gone after Bill Gates, the bubble might never have burst (at least not as badly as it did). the NASDAQ is made up heavily of technology-related stocks, and the impact of the Microsoft trials had reach far beyond Redmond, Washington. As they fell, other companies went with them. And of course it didn't help that their values were largely inflated for the prospect of future growth.

I'm the bawss.

Report message to a moderator