The link between Obama's departure and your increasing wealth

[Sunseeker]

That's a misunderstanding of how stocks work. If I buy Apple stocks for $1 million USD each... Apple don't get any of that money. The person I bought them from does. So why would employees of the company see any of it?

Stock value doesn't intrinsically have much (if any) bearing on the company at all. Basically the stock market is all about "feels" and doesn't always have much to do with reality at all.

That's not really accurate. Stock is regularly bought and sold from the company itsself. It exists to get people to give them money in exchange for an IOU and the potential to control the company you invest in. Sure, people buy and sell stock from other people, but realistically all that does is change who the IOU and potential company control is owed to. All the stock came from the company initially.

IE: Big Company gets big enough (or just wants investment) so it sells stock. People buy that stock. They may trade that stock around, but those stock papers still represent an investment in the company. Trading it between private individuals just means it's owed to Joe instead of Bob.

[Endus]

That's not really accurate. Stock is regularly bought and sold from the company itsself. It exists to get people to give them money in exchange for an IOU and the potential to control the company you invest in. Sure, people buy and sell stock from other people, but realistically all that does is change who the IOU and potential company control is owed to. All the stock came from the company initially.

IE: Big Company gets big enough (or just wants investment) so it sells stock. People buy that stock. They may trade that stock around, but those stock papers still represent an investment in the company. Trading it between private individuals just means it's owed to Joe instead of Bob.

Or in shorter terms, the company sells X shares of stock. Past that first sale of shares, the company doesn't make further income from the trading of those shares. Stock ownership represents an investment in the company. Stock trading is profiteering that doesn't invest anything new into that company.

Not that you're wrong. Just rephrasing in the hopes that repetition in other words can drive that concept home.

[Sunseeker]

Or in shorter terms, the company sells X shares of stock. Past that first sale of shares, the company doesn't make further income from the trading of those shares. Stock ownership represents an investment in the company. Stock trading is profiteering that doesn't invest anything new into that company.

Not that you're wrong. Just rephrasing in the hopes that repetition in other words can drive that concept home.

Sure, the "Stock Market" supplies both features: the ability of a company to sell stock and the ability of private individuals to trade ownership.

At the end of the day the problem remains the same: individuals, often employees of those companies have little power to buy stock, retain stock, see value increase in their stock and thus little power to influence who they work for.

Which is why large companies were forced to go public in the first place, to attempt to spread out control. But there's no control on the receiving end and stock is often bought by partner companies or "activist investors" like Carl Ichan (who can serious go fuck himself BTW).

[Endus]

Sure, the "Stock Market" supplies both features: the ability of a company to sell stock and the ability of private individuals to trade ownership.

At the end of the day the problem remains the same: individuals, often employees of those companies have little power to buy stock, retain stock, see value increase in their stock and thus little power to influence who they work for.

Which is why large companies were forced to go public in the first place, to attempt to spread out control. But there's no control on the receiving end and stock is often bought by partner companies or "activist investors" like Carl Ichan (who can serious go fuck himself BTW).

Yeah, I understand and respect the value of public offers of shares and investing in a company you believe in, but the horse trading of stocks for profit (and particularly the crazy algorithm-based silliness that runs the markets these days) is pretty much nonsense and doesn't contribute much, if anything, of value to society. It doesn't create wealth. It allows those with money/power to abuse that to capitalize on people's poor decisions.

[Trifle]

That's not really accurate. Stock is regularly bought and sold from the company itsself. It exists to get people to give them money in exchange for an IOU and the potential to control the company you invest in. Sure, people buy and sell stock from other people, but realistically all that does is change who the IOU and potential company control is owed to. All the stock came from the company initially.

IE: Big Company gets big enough (or just wants investment) so it sells stock. People buy that stock. They may trade that stock around, but those stock papers still represent an investment in the company. Trading it between private individuals just means it's owed to Joe instead of Bob.

While you are mostly correct, most of the activity of the stock market is the shuffling of who owns them, so I focused on that. And again, if the company has already sold the stocks (which is why they're floating around on the stock market), then the value of those stocks increasing makes no difference to the company any more... they've already sold them.

Also you're mistaken to characterize them as IOUs, that would be bonds. Stocks are direct ownership of the company itself (although usually in very small amounts), but can be separated into voting vs non-voting, depending on whether you can exert any control or not.

[Mormolyce]

So... he was posting again for one day? Jesus blink and you miss it.

OT: the usual op ed nonsense. Yawn.

[Felya]

Wrong thread... was meant for the cover one.

[Deianeira]

The only way this is true, is if you are itemizing in the ball park of double the standard deduction, which again, is statistically impossible for someone who is "poor" as you put it. Or, did you forget about that detail?

Btw you do know that he said he "is NOT rich" Is that the same as "I am poor"?

[Deleted]

Nice jab at Sanders right there xD

[Polyxo]

The link is that Barack Obama left the US economy in excellent condition, and thus, peoples' wealth is increasing.

[Dontrike]

The link is that Barack Obama left the US economy in excellent condition, and thus, peoples' wealth is increasing.

That can't be @Tijuana, one of the people around worshipping the smartest person ever, says that under Obama we've been a third world country, but as soon as the savior known as Trump came the economy boomed and everyone suddenly found ten grand in their mailbox, curing everyone of being poor and creating the cure for cancer.

In all seriousness though @Tijuana, you were shown repeatedly that the economy grew the past decade and yet you only think it's because of Trump, when in reality he's only slightly worse than Obama has been, so far.

[Kujako]

Btw you do know that he said he "is NOT rich" Is that the same as "I am poor"?

Aw, you spoiled it... but he's taking a rest so I guess it's OK.

[Felya]

The link is that Barack Obama left the US economy in excellent condition, and thus, peoples' wealth is increasing.

The day Trump took office, literally that day, unemployment dropped from 45% to under 5%. The horrible economy that was destroying the country, became a booming economy that breaks records weekly. Trump has yet to explain how that happened in a span of literally hours and before he was even sworn in.

[Felya]

In short, if you were uncomfortable with Obama being in office you are probably (subconsciously) a racist. That does not mean you "hate" black people... but that does mean you have some racial tendencies... which tend to happen to people that have not been exposed to different races while they were growing up.

You and I were not exposed to different races, at least early growing up. I think it needs an environmental push as well. We didn’t grow up around many races, but we also didn’t have government talking about Welfare Queens, to have a preconceived notions. There was no Mexicans that are rapists and murderers in USSR.

[Zan15]

Obama left us with 1% GDP growth, and now it's 3.1%. Facts don't care about your feelings.

Besides being false.....the other thing people do not understand about GDP is that the increase is not always good for everyone or even good for most. GDP growth can be happening for all the wrong/bad reasons and many that lead us to our 2008 crash.


Consumer spending / Debt being the majority of our GDP, there is really hardly any need to point out how this is being accomplished with no real wage increases occurring.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...gn/1014921001/

Revolving credit, mostly credit cards, increased by $11.2 billion to $1.023 trillion, the Federal Reserve said Monday. That nudged the figure past the $1.021 trillion high-water mark reached in April 2008, just before the housing and credit bubbles burst. Over the past year, revolving credit has surged by $55.1 billion, or 5.7%



Then there is OIL



every jump of 8% in the price of oil represents a .2% GDP growth increase.

This GDP increase will benefit the few and cause pain for most in the form of increased prices of gas and oil related products.



Average prices for 2016 and 2017
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...es-since-1960/

So we are about 11 bucks higher through Nov prob closer to 13 after Decembers rise.




Then there are things like Housing. Housing sales are not included since they were included when the house was built. But renting and associated cost are

Consumption spending on housing services (averaging roughly 12-13% of GDP), which includes gross rents and utilities paid by renters, as well as owners' imputed rents and utility payments.


With Rent cost increasing at a pace of 3-5% year over year as well as utilities matching those rates (because of oil), you would see another .65% GDP increase. Also bad when there is no corresponding real wage growth to pay for the increase rents.





Scary thoughts in this article
https://seekingalpha.com/article/413...ent-gdp-growth

Conversely, services have risen from just more than a quarter of the total economy to nearly half of total GDP! A service is a type of economic activity that is intangible, is not stored, and does not result in ownership. A service is consumed at the point of sale. So America is an economy where nearly half of all spending results in nothing tangible or durable to show for it...except more debt to be serviced?

[Moralgy]

Link to the original article, which has links to back up the facts: http://thehill.com/opinion/white-hou...reasing-wealth

I found this article fascinating. The basic claim, is that the booming economy is NOT due to Trump, but due to Obama just not being president anymore. Do you guys agree? Do you also think that the only reason the economy is doing so well, is that Obama is no longer president? Or do you think like some, that the booming economy is due to Trump? Which side do you fall on?

Its doing okay because of Obama, is that an option?