do you prefer boom-bust cycles?

Quote from Scataphagos:

No, it's not.

When looking at one narrow view place, it's productivity can increase.... at the expense of elsewhere.

We're in the middle of a classic example right now. It will become more clear to you, hopefully, as it unfolds.
More...


Gross Domestic Product 1940: 101.4 Billion, 1950: 293.8 Billion
Personal Consumption 1940: 71.3 Billion, 1950: 192.2 Billion
Exports: 1940: 4.9 billion 1950: 12.4 Billion

Population: 1940: 132 million 1950: 151 million

So everything almost increased 300% except for population. The data speaks for itself.

Sources:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104575.html

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/uspop.ht
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

How does that work?

When the stock market goes down, who makes all the money the losers lost? (Sure, some is made by the shorts.. a small percentage of what was lost by others.)

When RE values plunge, who makes all the money homeowners lost in equity?
More...

well let's look at the dot com bubble. a lot of people lost money when the market crashed in 2000, but who made money? founders of tech companies, workers for tech companies, investors and venture capitalists.

how do you think people like marc cuban and jerry yang became enormously wealthy? what about the tech workers with marginal skills who made $65k per year (a lot back then) doing retarded things like designing web pages? what about people who bought stocks in 1995-1997? what about early employees of IPOs (i knew a few). all those people benefited from the boom part of the cycle. the truly savvy ones knew how to preserve their wealth.
 
Quote from blackjack007:

well let's look at the dot com bubble. a lot of people lost money when the market crashed in 2000, but who made money? founders of tech companies, workers for tech companies, investors and venture capitalists.
More...

No, they all made their money BEFORE the collapse. If you "value" things as of what, March 2000 when the Naz was at 5000, all of those people's balance sheet was at a high. Then came the collapse and stock holders lost Bazillions. Who made those Bazillions they lost?
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

No, they all made their money BEFORE the collapse. If you "value" things as of what, March 2000 when the Naz was at 5000, all of those people's balance sheet was at a high. Then came the collapse and stock holders lost Bazillions. Who made those Bazillions they lost?
More...


No one.

If you own shares of stock, you own an asset. Similarly, if you own an oil well you own an asset. If the value of an asset you own goes up, you make money; if the value of an asset you own goes down, you lose money. No one else makes or loses money because you are the sole owner of that asset. It does not matter if the asset is a stock or an oil well. The money you made or lost does not go to anyone else. Wealth is created or destroyed, not transfered from one to another.

How much your stock is worth and how much you can possibly gain or lose is based on the markets "percieved" value of that stock. If you buy a stock at $10, and then 2 days later the market tells you it is worth $5, 50% of your value has been lost because of what everyone "thinks" your stock is worth. No one else has gained from your loss.

Unless they borrowed your shares to short :)
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

No, they all made their money BEFORE the collapse. If you "value" things as of what, March 2000 when the Naz was at 5000, all of those people's balance sheet was at a high. Then came the collapse and stock holders lost Bazillions. Who made those Bazillions they lost?
More...

no, they did not make ALL their money before the collapse. they made some before and some after the collapse.

consider an early employee who is granted stock options at $2 before IPO. the stock climbs to its 2000 peak of $35, then descends to $10. all the while, the employee is selling. that means someone else bought at $30 and lost money, another person bought at $25 and lost money, while the employee bought at his grant price of $2 and sold at $30 and $25 to those late-comers.

people who get in early make money, people who get in late lose money. every asset bubble works this way.
 
Quote from blackjack007:

no, they did not make ALL their money before the collapse. they made some before and some after the collapse.

consider an early employee who is granted stock options at $2 before IPO. the stock climbs to its 2000 peak of $35, then descends to $10. all the while, the employee is selling. that means someone else bought at $30 and lost money, another person bought at $25 and lost money, while the employee bought at his grant price of $2 and sold at $30 and $25 to those late-comers.

people who get in early make money, people who get in late lose money. every asset bubble works this way.
More...

I didn't need you to explain the market to me. I was just unclear about THIS statement of yours... "when people lose money it means someone else made money." And quite frankly, it still sounds like BS.
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

No, they all made their money BEFORE the collapse. If you "value" things as of what, March 2000 when the Naz was at 5000, all of those people's balance sheet was at a high. Then came the collapse and stock holders lost Bazillions. Who made those Bazillions they lost?
More...

I see you ignored the post by aleehatami. The fact is that production and consumption have grown much faster than population, its not my fault if you can't see that. The numbers were presented to you.
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

I didn't need you to explain the market to me. I was just unclear about THIS statement of yours... "when people lose money it means someone else made money." And quite frankly, it still sounds like BS.
More...

i just explained to you why when someone makes money it means someone else loses money. i provided a real-life example that was repeated thousands of times during the dot com, and yet you think it's BS? i give up. someone else explain to this guy the process of wealth distribution.
 
Quote from blackjack007:

i just explained to you why when someone makes money it means someone else loses money. i provided a real-life example that was repeated thousands of times during the dot com, and yet you think it's BS? i give up. someone else explain to this guy the process of wealth distribution.
More...

However, YOU'RE FULL OF CRAP! Now on 2 counts.

1. You said, "when someone loses money, somebody else makes it".. and I called BULLSHIT on that statement.

2. Above, you turned your quote around to say, "when someone makes money it means someone else loses money"... and that's BULLCRAP ALSO!

It's not a biggie... I'm just holding you accountable for talking out your ass, is all.

And as you're so dense, I doubt you'll ever have anything relevant to say in the future... might as well add you to my ignore list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top