info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Trump bump
39 views
Skip to first unread message
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 1, 2021, 4:13:04 PM4/1/21
to
The S&P 500 increased by 4.6% during the first 50 trading days of the
Biden presidency, from market close on Jan. 19 to market close on March
31. Trump's first 50-day bump was 4.4%
"If he's elected, the stock market will crash" (ц) оранжевый морОн
Biden presidency, from market close on Jan. 19 to market close on March
31. Trump's first 50-day bump was 4.4%
"If he's elected, the stock market will crash" (ц) оранжевый морОн
Const
Apr 2, 2021, 7:00:48 AM4/2/21
to
---
Const
Dmitry Krivitsky
Apr 2, 2021, 8:08:24 AM4/2/21
to
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 2, 2021, 10:25:03 AM4/2/21
to
On 4/2/2021 6:58 AM, Const wrote:
Const
Apr 3, 2021, 8:30:48 AM4/3/21
to
---
Const
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 3, 2021, 8:37:51 AM4/3/21
to
интересный анализ, который говорит о том, что несмотря на рост
спекуляций акциями на вторичном рынке (не говоря уж о всяких
деривативах), которые он называет "non-investments" actual investments в
production capacity американских компаний падает стремительным домкратом
по мере того как они продолжают выкачивать на гора shareholder value by
dissinvesting from themselves:
https://americancompass.org/essays/speculating-wall-street-investment
A sustainably profitable firm is, by definition, generating sufficient
cash from operations to (1) fund the investment necessary to maintain or
grow its capital stock, and (2) return a profit to the shareholders who
are the owners of the capital that the business uses.
That was historically the case, and many assume that it remains true.
“Profits are what keep a business going and allow it to thrive,” says
former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. “They generate the funds needed for
more job creation. You don’t need an advanced economics degree to
understand this.”
But that’s not how the economy works today. “Since the 1980s, in
aggregate, corporations have funded the stock market rather than vice
versa (as is conventionally assumed),” explains economist William
Lazonick. “Over the decade 2005–14 net equity issues of nonfinancial
corporations averaged minus $399 billion per year.”
это на самомделе scary shit, потому что clearly not sustainable
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 3, 2021, 12:26:36 PM4/3/21
to
On 4/3/2021 8:37 AM, ⁹⁹⁹√ wrote:
> это на самомделе scary shit, потому что clearly not sustainable
The standard defense of firms returning so much capital rather than
> это на самомделе scary shit, потому что clearly not sustainable
investing it is that this allows the resources to reach their best use.
If managers believe they can “maximize shareholder value” by disgorging
cash, they should do so. The recipients, in pursuit of higher returns,
will then invest it elsewhere. “The investor either buys some other
stock or invests in some other business that actually needs the money,”
explained Kevin Hassett, chairman of President Trump’s Council of
Economic Advisers. “The money is reinvested and is increasing the
efficiency of the economy by moving cash to the firms that need it the
most.”
This fails in both principle and practice. As American Affairs editor
Julius Krein has observed, if $1 trillion in annual buybacks indicates
that “there are in fact no better investments to be made, and the
corporate sector simply has no use for this vast sum,” then this “calls
into question the viability of the free market capitalist system itself.
After all, the entire social justification of free enterprise is that
the private sector is the most capable of finding productive investments
and deploying capital effectively.” It is a dereliction of duty for the
managers of a profitable firm to claim they have no productive uses for
their profits and so must hand them over for someone else to invest,
especially when they do so as their own firm loses its competitive
advantage or consumes its capital stock.
The maneuver also initiates a sordid game of hot potato—I don’t want to
invest this; here, you do it. In Hassett’s imagination, the shareholders
to whom the profits return are themselves investors who can deploy the
capital productively. That’s not reality. When a public company hands
back capital to the financial markets, it throws the resources over an
invisible wall, from the land of investors who might deploy it
productively to the land of non-investors who are unlikely to do so. The
non-investor may choose to convert the capital into personal investment
or consumption, buying that bigger boat, say, or else turn around and
non-invest in some other asset. Perhaps with the cash they receive when
Intel buys back its own shares, they purchase shares of Boeing. But they
have not invested in Boeing, merely given the cash to someone else who
once held the shares. I don’t want to invest this; here, you do it.
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 3, 2021, 12:33:22 PM4/3/21
to
On 4/3/2021 12:26 PM, ⁹⁹⁹√ wrote:
> On 4/3/2021 8:37 AM, ⁹⁹⁹√ wrote:
>> это на самомделе scary shit, потому что clearly not sustainable
> On 4/3/2021 8:37 AM, ⁹⁹⁹√ wrote:
>> это на самомделе scary shit, потому что clearly not sustainable
> This fails in both principle and practice. As American Affairs editor
> Julius Krein has observed, if $1 trillion in annual buybacks indicates
> that “there are in fact no better investments to be made, and the
> corporate sector simply has no use for this vast sum,” then this “calls
> into question the viability of the free market capitalist system itself.
> After all, the entire social justification of free enterprise is that
> the private sector is the most capable of finding productive investments
> and deploying capital effectively.”
опчем, here's what i think will happen over the long-ish term:
> Julius Krein has observed, if $1 trillion in annual buybacks indicates
> that “there are in fact no better investments to be made, and the
> corporate sector simply has no use for this vast sum,” then this “calls
> into question the viability of the free market capitalist system itself.
> After all, the entire social justification of free enterprise is that
> the private sector is the most capable of finding productive investments
> and deploying capital effectively.”
american economy will continue to cede competitive positions to the
hybrid-style chinese one, и в какой-то момент американские корпорации
выплюнут из себя весь кэш и будут скуплены китайцами по остаточной цене
в один грош
подсчитать тогдашний размер своего ритайрмент портфеля is left as an
exercise for the reader
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 3, 2021, 1:34:50 PM4/3/21
to
On 4/3/2021 12:26 PM, ⁹⁹⁹√ wrote:
> The maneuver also initiates a sordid game of hot potato—I don’t want to
> invest this; here, you do it. In Hassett’s imagination, the shareholders
> to whom the profits return are themselves investors who can deploy the
> capital productively. That’s not reality. When a public company hands
> back capital to the financial markets, it throws the resources over an
> invisible wall, from the land of investors who might deploy it
> productively to the land of non-investors who are unlikely to do so. The
> non-investor may choose to convert the capital into personal investment
> or consumption, buying that bigger boat, say, or else turn around and
> non-invest in some other asset. Perhaps with the cash they receive when
> Intel buys back its own shares, they purchase shares of Boeing. But they
> have not invested in Boeing, merely given the cash to someone else who
> once held the shares. I don’t want to invest this; here, you do it.
The game of hot potato proceeds until the cash reaches people who do not
> invest this; here, you do it. In Hassett’s imagination, the shareholders
> to whom the profits return are themselves investors who can deploy the
> capital productively. That’s not reality. When a public company hands
> back capital to the financial markets, it throws the resources over an
> invisible wall, from the land of investors who might deploy it
> productively to the land of non-investors who are unlikely to do so. The
> non-investor may choose to convert the capital into personal investment
> or consumption, buying that bigger boat, say, or else turn around and
> non-invest in some other asset. Perhaps with the cash they receive when
> Intel buys back its own shares, they purchase shares of Boeing. But they
> have not invested in Boeing, merely given the cash to someone else who
> once held the shares. I don’t want to invest this; here, you do it.
find attractive any of the non-investment opportunities available, at
which point they lend it to the federal government directly or via
low-yield savings instruments. If the federal government were issuing
bonds to finance important long-term investments in infrastructure,
basic research, and so forth, this might still be a happy ending. We are
not so lucky. Instead the resources are used to shore up underfunded
entitlement programs. The net effect is fewer people developing
innovative new products and services and creating the enterprises,
facilities, and equipment to provide them.
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 3, 2021, 1:37:41 PM4/3/21
to
On 4/3/2021 1:34 PM, ⁹⁹⁹√ wrote:
> On 4/3/2021 12:26 PM, ⁹⁹⁹√ wrote:
>> The maneuver also initiates a sordid game of hot potato—I don’t want
>> to invest this; here, you do it. In Hassett’s imagination, the
>> shareholders to whom the profits return are themselves investors who
>> can deploy the capital productively. That’s not reality. When a public
>> company hands back capital to the financial markets, it throws the
>> resources over an invisible wall, from the land of investors who might
>> deploy it productively to the land of non-investors who are unlikely
>> to do so. The non-investor may choose to convert the capital into
>> personal investment or consumption, buying that bigger boat, say, or
>> else turn around and non-invest in some other asset. Perhaps with the
>> cash they receive when Intel buys back its own shares, they purchase
>> shares of Boeing. But they have not invested in Boeing, merely given
>> the cash to someone else who once held the shares. I don’t want to
>> invest this; here, you do it.
пропустил предшествующие выкладки:
> On 4/3/2021 12:26 PM, ⁹⁹⁹√ wrote:
>> The maneuver also initiates a sordid game of hot potato—I don’t want
>> to invest this; here, you do it. In Hassett’s imagination, the
>> shareholders to whom the profits return are themselves investors who
>> can deploy the capital productively. That’s not reality. When a public
>> company hands back capital to the financial markets, it throws the
>> resources over an invisible wall, from the land of investors who might
>> deploy it productively to the land of non-investors who are unlikely
>> to do so. The non-investor may choose to convert the capital into
>> personal investment or consumption, buying that bigger boat, say, or
>> else turn around and non-invest in some other asset. Perhaps with the
>> cash they receive when Intel buys back its own shares, they purchase
>> shares of Boeing. But they have not invested in Boeing, merely given
>> the cash to someone else who once held the shares. I don’t want to
>> invest this; here, you do it.
How and when does the capital thrown from the productive economy into
the financial markets and the hands of non-investors ever make its way
back to productive use, especially in a world where the cash flowing out
of Eroders exceeds by a factor of 12 the cash flowing into Growers?
Generally speaking, it doesn’t. This is apparent both from the top-down
view of macroeconomic data, which shows the long-running investment
declines, and from the bottom-up view of firm-level data, which shows
the outflow of cash from the operating economy to financial markets
overwhelming the inflow of actual-investment. The mystery, then, is:
Where does the capital go? The best answer would appear to be: Treasury
bonds.
As we have seen, the cumulative gross investment shortfall during
2009–17 as compared to 1970–99 amounted to $3.4 trillion. Similarly, the
excess outflow of cash from publicly-traded companies in the real
economy (4.0% of GDP during 2009–17 versus 1.8% during 1971–99) amounted
to $3.1 trillion. Over that same period, private domestic holdings of
U.S. Treasury debt by individuals, mutual funds, banking institutions,
insurance companies, and pension funds rose by $3.5 trillion.
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 3, 2021, 1:42:20 PM4/3/21
to
On 4/3/2021 1:37 PM, ⁹⁹⁹√ wrote:
>> The game of hot potato proceeds until the cash reaches people who do
>> not find attractive any of the non-investment opportunities available,
>> at which point they lend it to the federal government directly or via
>> low-yield savings instruments. If the federal government were issuing
>> bonds to finance important long-term investments in infrastructure,
>> basic research, and so forth, this might still be a happy ending. We
>> are not so lucky. Instead the resources are used to shore up
>> underfunded entitlement programs. The net effect is fewer people
>> developing innovative new products and services and creating the
>> enterprises, facilities, and equipment to provide them.
а виноват во всём волл стрит:
>> The game of hot potato proceeds until the cash reaches people who do
>> not find attractive any of the non-investment opportunities available,
>> at which point they lend it to the federal government directly or via
>> low-yield savings instruments. If the federal government were issuing
>> bonds to finance important long-term investments in infrastructure,
>> basic research, and so forth, this might still be a happy ending. We
>> are not so lucky. Instead the resources are used to shore up
>> underfunded entitlement programs. The net effect is fewer people
>> developing innovative new products and services and creating the
>> enterprises, facilities, and equipment to provide them.
Our story thus far has focused on the managers of operating companies
who fail to reinvest their profits or embark upon projects that require
new investment. That story is incomplete, and in some respects unfair.
After all, at least the corporate managers are in the corporate sector,
trying to run real businesses. At least they *could* invest.
The root cause of the economy’s affliction is better located among the
many talented business leaders who might once have joined or built
businesses and deployed investment, but today choose instead to become
non-investors. In the Harvard Business School’s Class of 2020, 34% of
graduates entered finance and another 24% entered consulting. By
comparison, 4% entered manufacturing and 3% entered consumer products.
Whereas financial sector wages were comparable to those of other
industries in 1980, by 2006 they were 70% higher. At the profession’s
highest levels the gap was far larger: graduates of Stanford’s MBA
program earned three times more in finance than in other industries
during the 1990s.
The damage from overdevelopment of the financial sector is two-fold,
both depriving the real economy of much needed enterprise-building
talent and then using that talent instead to manipulate and cannibalize
what enterprises are built. The hedge-fund industry is the most obvious
manifestation of this problem. Many just speculate in the secondary
market, using shares of stock like poker chips. The “activists,” who
amass sizable holdings in specific companies, typically do so with the
intention of forcing the target to disassemble itself and disgorge more
money to shareholders faster.
etc.
короче, мы доедаем остатки, пока китайцы строят будущее
я вам ещё пятнадцать лет назад говорил, что азия - это New Workd 21-го века
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 3, 2021, 3:08:53 PM4/3/21
to
returns are unprecedentedly concentrated in a narrow set of massive
technology companies. The nation’s industrial crown jewels, like Intel
and Boeing, have suffered engineering meltdowns and are falling behind
foreign competitors who invest like it’s their job, which it is.
The nation’s savers look at their brokerage accounts and trust that the
dollar amounts listed represent real wealth that they can someday
consume, but that will work only if a robust capital base is ready to
produce.
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 3, 2021, 3:11:13 PM4/3/21
to
On 4/3/2021 3:08 PM, ⁹⁹⁹√ wrote:
start. We should stop awarding the title of “investor” to people who
don’t invest. The millions of Americans placing their savings into the
market are savers. To be clear, saving is good and important. But savers
still leave the investing to others. Those who make their money using
those savings to buy and sell assets are traders. Those who try to turn
a profit betting on the right assets are speculators. Those who buy
firms and try then to engineer greater profits through financial
maneuvers are manipulators. We will know an actual investor when we see
one: he will be spending money in the real economy on labor and
materials that expand an enterprise’s capacity and future potential.
короче, надо читать целиком)
> On 4/3/2021 12:33 PM, ⁹⁹⁹√ wrote:
> The S&P 500 has thus far managed to defy gravity, but already its
> returns are unprecedentedly concentrated in a narrow set of massive
> technology companies. The nation’s industrial crown jewels, like Intel
> and Boeing, have suffered engineering meltdowns and are falling behind
> foreign competitors who invest like it’s their job, which it is.
>
> The nation’s savers look at their brokerage accounts and trust that the
> dollar amounts listed represent real wealth that they can someday
> consume, but that will work only if a robust capital base is ready to
> produce.
Dispensing with the financial sector’s fictions is a good place to
> The S&P 500 has thus far managed to defy gravity, but already its
> returns are unprecedentedly concentrated in a narrow set of massive
> technology companies. The nation’s industrial crown jewels, like Intel
> and Boeing, have suffered engineering meltdowns and are falling behind
> foreign competitors who invest like it’s their job, which it is.
>
> The nation’s savers look at their brokerage accounts and trust that the
> dollar amounts listed represent real wealth that they can someday
> consume, but that will work only if a robust capital base is ready to
> produce.
start. We should stop awarding the title of “investor” to people who
don’t invest. The millions of Americans placing their savings into the
market are savers. To be clear, saving is good and important. But savers
still leave the investing to others. Those who make their money using
those savings to buy and sell assets are traders. Those who try to turn
a profit betting on the right assets are speculators. Those who buy
firms and try then to engineer greater profits through financial
maneuvers are manipulators. We will know an actual investor when we see
one: he will be spending money in the real economy on labor and
materials that expand an enterprise’s capacity and future potential.
короче, надо читать целиком)
Const
Apr 3, 2021, 10:30:53 PM4/3/21
to
> former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. ?They generate the funds needed for
> more job creation. You don?t need an advanced economics degree to
> understand this.?
> But that?s not how the economy works today. ?Since the 1980s, in
> aggregate, corporations have funded the stock market rather than vice
> versa (as is conventionally assumed),? explains economist William
> Lazonick. ?Over the decade 2005?14 net equity issues of nonfinancial
> corporations averaged minus $399 billion per year.?
> это на самомделе scary shit, потому что clearly not sustainable
Даже до тебя дошло.
---
Const
Const
Apr 3, 2021, 10:35:49 PM4/3/21
to
???√ <99...@russian.z1> wrote:
> On 4/3/2021 12:26 PM, ???√ wrote:
> > corporate sector simply has no use for this vast sum,? then this ?calls
> опчем, here's what i think will happen over the long-ish term:
> american economy will continue to cede competitive positions to the
> hybrid-style chinese one, и в какой-то момент американские корпорации
> выплюнут из себя весь кэш и будут скуплены китайцами по остаточной цене
> в один грош
> подсчитать тогдашний размер своего ритайрмент портфеля is left as an
> exercise for the reader
Плюс доллар нае.
С рынком-то всё было бы в порядке на самом деле.
Если бы не непрерывные разбрасывания денег с вертолетов.
А портфель-то железно придет к нулю.
---
Const
> On 4/3/2021 12:26 PM, ???√ wrote:
> > On 4/3/2021 8:37 AM, ???√ wrote:
> >> это на самомделе scary shit, потому что clearly not sustainable
> > This fails in both principle and practice. As American Affairs editor
> > Julius Krein has observed, if $1 trillion in annual buybacks indicates
> > that ?there are in fact no better investments to be made, and the
> >> это на самомделе scary shit, потому что clearly not sustainable
> > This fails in both principle and practice. As American Affairs editor
> > Julius Krein has observed, if $1 trillion in annual buybacks indicates
> > corporate sector simply has no use for this vast sum,? then this ?calls
> > into question the viability of the free market capitalist system itself.
> > After all, the entire social justification of free enterprise is that
> > the private sector is the most capable of finding productive investments
> > and deploying capital effectively.?
> > After all, the entire social justification of free enterprise is that
> > the private sector is the most capable of finding productive investments
> опчем, here's what i think will happen over the long-ish term:
> american economy will continue to cede competitive positions to the
> hybrid-style chinese one, и в какой-то момент американские корпорации
> выплюнут из себя весь кэш и будут скуплены китайцами по остаточной цене
> в один грош
> подсчитать тогдашний размер своего ритайрмент портфеля is left as an
> exercise for the reader
С рынком-то всё было бы в порядке на самом деле.
Если бы не непрерывные разбрасывания денег с вертолетов.
А портфель-то железно придет к нулю.
---
Const
Const
Apr 3, 2021, 10:35:50 PM4/3/21
to
???√ <99...@russian.z1> wrote:
> dollar amounts listed represent real wealth that they can someday
> consume, but that will work only if a robust capital base is ready to
> produce.
Голуба, ну как же она будет produce, когда вы
> dollar amounts listed represent real wealth that they can someday
> consume, but that will work only if a robust capital base is ready to
> produce.
строите настоящий социализм ?
---
Const
Const
Apr 3, 2021, 10:35:52 PM4/3/21
to
???√ <99...@russian.z1> wrote:
> On 4/3/2021 3:08 PM, ???√ wrote:
> >
> > The nation?s savers look at their brokerage accounts and trust that the
> start. We should stop awarding the title of ?investor? to people who
> don?t invest. The millions of Americans placing their savings into the
Это абсолютно идиотическое разделение.
> короче, надо читать целиком)
---
Const
> On 4/3/2021 3:08 PM, ???√ wrote:
> > On 4/3/2021 12:33 PM, ???√ wrote:
> > The S&P 500 has thus far managed to defy gravity, but already its
> > returns are unprecedentedly concentrated in a narrow set of massive
> > technology companies. The nation?s industrial crown jewels, like Intel
> > The S&P 500 has thus far managed to defy gravity, but already its
> > returns are unprecedentedly concentrated in a narrow set of massive
> > and Boeing, have suffered engineering meltdowns and are falling behind
> > foreign competitors who invest like it?s their job, which it is.
> >
> > The nation?s savers look at their brokerage accounts and trust that the
> > dollar amounts listed represent real wealth that they can someday
> > consume, but that will work only if a robust capital base is ready to
> > produce.
> Dispensing with the financial sector?s fictions is a good place to
> > consume, but that will work only if a robust capital base is ready to
> > produce.
> start. We should stop awarding the title of ?investor? to people who
> don?t invest. The millions of Americans placing their savings into the
> market are savers. To be clear, saving is good and important. But savers
> still leave the investing to others. Those who make their money using
> those savings to buy and sell assets are traders. Those who try to turn
> a profit betting on the right assets are speculators. Those who buy
> firms and try then to engineer greater profits through financial
> maneuvers are manipulators. We will know an actual investor when we see
> one: he will be spending money in the real economy on labor and
> materials that expand an enterprise?s capacity and future potential.
> still leave the investing to others. Those who make their money using
> those savings to buy and sell assets are traders. Those who try to turn
> a profit betting on the right assets are speculators. Those who buy
> firms and try then to engineer greater profits through financial
> maneuvers are manipulators. We will know an actual investor when we see
> one: he will be spending money in the real economy on labor and
Это абсолютно идиотическое разделение.
> короче, надо читать целиком)
---
Const
Const
Apr 3, 2021, 10:40:51 PM4/3/21
to
???√ <99...@russian.z1> wrote:
> On 4/3/2021 12:26 PM, ???√ wrote:
> > The maneuver also initiates a sordid game of hot potato?I don?t want to
> > invest this; here, you do it. In Hassett?s imagination, the shareholders
> The game of hot potato proceeds until the cash reaches people who do not
> find attractive any of the non-investment opportunities available, at
> which point they lend it to the federal government directly or via
> low-yield savings instruments. If the federal government were issuing
> bonds to finance important long-term investments in infrastructure,
> basic research, and so forth, this might still be a happy ending. We are
> not so lucky. Instead the resources are used to shore up underfunded
> entitlement programs. The net effect is fewer people developing
> innovative new products and services and creating the enterprises,
> facilities, and equipment to provide them.
Ну так ты же сам голосовал за "underfunded entitlement programs".
Это вот именно то, что вы делаете.
Плюс это вот ммтшное говно.
Плюс преследование бизнеса.
Плюс поддержка уе профсоюзов.
Плюс нагрузка от дайверсити в разных видах.
Чего же ты хочешь ?
Разумеется, всё пойдет в пизду, когда наступает социализм.
Неожиданно.
---
Const
> On 4/3/2021 12:26 PM, ???√ wrote:
> > The maneuver also initiates a sordid game of hot potato?I don?t want to
> > invest this; here, you do it. In Hassett?s imagination, the shareholders
> > to whom the profits return are themselves investors who can deploy the
> > capital productively. That?s not reality. When a public company hands
> > back capital to the financial markets, it throws the resources over an
> > invisible wall, from the land of investors who might deploy it
> > productively to the land of non-investors who are unlikely to do so. The
> > non-investor may choose to convert the capital into personal investment
> > or consumption, buying that bigger boat, say, or else turn around and
> > non-invest in some other asset. Perhaps with the cash they receive when
> > Intel buys back its own shares, they purchase shares of Boeing. But they
> > have not invested in Boeing, merely given the cash to someone else who
> > once held the shares. I don?t want to invest this; here, you do it.
> > invisible wall, from the land of investors who might deploy it
> > productively to the land of non-investors who are unlikely to do so. The
> > non-investor may choose to convert the capital into personal investment
> > or consumption, buying that bigger boat, say, or else turn around and
> > non-invest in some other asset. Perhaps with the cash they receive when
> > Intel buys back its own shares, they purchase shares of Boeing. But they
> > have not invested in Boeing, merely given the cash to someone else who
> The game of hot potato proceeds until the cash reaches people who do not
> find attractive any of the non-investment opportunities available, at
> which point they lend it to the federal government directly or via
> low-yield savings instruments. If the federal government were issuing
> bonds to finance important long-term investments in infrastructure,
> basic research, and so forth, this might still be a happy ending. We are
> not so lucky. Instead the resources are used to shore up underfunded
> entitlement programs. The net effect is fewer people developing
> innovative new products and services and creating the enterprises,
> facilities, and equipment to provide them.
Это вот именно то, что вы делаете.
Плюс это вот ммтшное говно.
Плюс преследование бизнеса.
Плюс поддержка уе профсоюзов.
Плюс нагрузка от дайверсити в разных видах.
Чего же ты хочешь ?
Разумеется, всё пойдет в пизду, когда наступает социализм.
Неожиданно.
---
Const
Const
Apr 3, 2021, 11:15:49 PM4/3/21
to
???√ <99...@russian.z1> wrote:
> stock or invests in some other business that actually needs the money,?
> explained Kevin Hassett, chairman of President Trump?s Council of
> Economic Advisers. ?The money is reinvested and is increasing the
> This fails in both principle and practice. As American Affairs editor
> Julius Krein has observed, if $1 trillion in annual buybacks indicates
> that ?there are in fact no better investments to be made, and the
На самом деле ничего такого не следует.
> corporate sector simply has no use for this vast sum,? then this ?calls
Это же будет НАУЧНО.
---
Const
> On 4/3/2021 8:37 AM, ???√ wrote:
> > это на самомделе scary shit, потому что clearly not sustainable
> The standard defense of firms returning so much capital rather than
> investing it is that this allows the resources to reach their best use.
> If managers believe they can ?maximize shareholder value? by disgorging
> > это на самомделе scary shit, потому что clearly not sustainable
> The standard defense of firms returning so much capital rather than
> investing it is that this allows the resources to reach their best use.
> cash, they should do so. The recipients, in pursuit of higher returns,
> will then invest it elsewhere. ?The investor either buys some other
> stock or invests in some other business that actually needs the money,?
> explained Kevin Hassett, chairman of President Trump?s Council of
> Economic Advisers. ?The money is reinvested and is increasing the
> efficiency of the economy by moving cash to the firms that need it the
> most.?
> This fails in both principle and practice. As American Affairs editor
> Julius Krein has observed, if $1 trillion in annual buybacks indicates
На самом деле ничего такого не следует.
> corporate sector simply has no use for this vast sum,? then this ?calls
> into question the viability of the free market capitalist system itself.
Ай-ай, надо всё планировать.
Это же будет НАУЧНО.
---
Const
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 3, 2021, 11:25:59 PM4/3/21
to
И возьмет все стало.
А вообще, ты зря крутишь одну и ту же партийную шарманку.
Это не либеральный источник, и в статье написано дело.
И пахнет оно керосином.
Const
Apr 3, 2021, 11:45:48 PM4/3/21
to
> Это не либеральный источник, и в статье написано дело.
> И пахнет оно керосином.
И мы тебе объясняем, почему именно.
Было бы нормальное правление, можно было бы
что-то подкрутить.
А так - идет строго усугубление.
И не просто усугубление, а прямо настоящая ЖУТЬ.
Это ведь настоящие (в отличие от Т) ДЕБИЛЫ у руля.
---
Const
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 4, 2021, 9:39:00 AM4/4/21
to
от слова совсем
и при этом кидаешься на меня с личными ешачьеми нападками
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 4, 2021, 9:59:48 AM4/4/21
to
которые типа из твоей же партии
Oren M. Cass is an American public policy expert and political advisor,
who worked on the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney in 2008 and
2012, and who has been described as a "general policy impresario of the
emerging conservative consensus on fighting poverty". Between 2015 and
2019, Cass was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy
Research, and the author of The Once and Future Worker: A Vision for the
Renewal of Work in America. In 2020, Cass established American Compass,
an organization focusing on "what the post-Trump right-of-center is
going to be".
т.е. ты натурально срываешься с цепи на абсолютно всё что я говорю
>>> Это не либеральный источник, и в статье написано дело.
>>> И пахнет оно керосином.
>>
>> Разумеется.
>> И мы тебе объясняем, почему именно.
>> Было бы нормальное правление, можно было бы
>> что-то подкрутить.
>> А так - идет строго усугубление.
>> И не просто усугубление, а прямо настоящая ЖУТЬ.
>> Это ведь настоящие (в отличие от Т) ДЕБИЛЫ у руля.
>
> т.е. ты вообе не пропарсил текст
> от слова совсем
> и при этом кидаешься на меня с личными ешачьеми нападками
со стопроцентной точностью, потому что все твои ответы суть одинаковые
Const
Apr 4, 2021, 10:25:50 PM4/4/21
to
А может это ты не понимаешь, о чём речь идет ?
> и при этом кидаешься на меня с личными ешачьеми нападками
---
Const
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 4, 2021, 10:27:39 PM4/4/21
to
> > и при этом кидаешься на меня с личными ешачьеми нападками
> Бугага.
Const
Apr 4, 2021, 11:55:50 PM4/4/21
to
???√ <*@vulakh.us> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Костя, это не партийная шарманка, это РЕАЛЬНОСТЬ.
> > > >
> > > >> Это не либеральный источник, и в статье написано дело.
> > > >> И пахнет оно керосином.
> > > >
> > > > Разумеется.
> > > > И мы тебе объясняем, почему именно.
> > > > Было бы нормальное правление, можно было бы
> > > > что-то подкрутить.
> > > > А так - идет строго усугубление.
> > > > И не просто усугубление, а прямо настоящая ЖУТЬ.
> > > > Это ведь настоящие (в отличие от Т) ДЕБИЛЫ у руля.
> >
> > > т.е. ты вообе не пропарсил текст
> > > от слова совсем
> > Да ну ?
> > А может это ты не понимаешь, о чём речь идет ?
> Нет. Не может.
Вот я говорю, что не может быть, чтобы человек,
> > > >
> > > > Костя, это не партийная шарманка, это РЕАЛЬНОСТЬ.
> > > >
> > > >> Это не либеральный источник, и в статье написано дело.
> > > >> И пахнет оно керосином.
> > > >
> > > > Разумеется.
> > > > И мы тебе объясняем, почему именно.
> > > > Было бы нормальное правление, можно было бы
> > > > что-то подкрутить.
> > > > А так - идет строго усугубление.
> > > > И не просто усугубление, а прямо настоящая ЖУТЬ.
> > > > Это ведь настоящие (в отличие от Т) ДЕБИЛЫ у руля.
> >
> > > т.е. ты вообе не пропарсил текст
> > > от слова совсем
> > Да ну ?
> > А может это ты не понимаешь, о чём речь идет ?
> Нет. Не может.
который поддерживает вот всё это говно - был
бы хотя бы минимально умным.
Карл - твой уровень.
О порядочности, кстати, вообще говорить нечего.
---
Const
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 5, 2021, 12:06:38 AM4/5/21
to
On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 11:55:50 PM UTC-4, Const wrote:
> ???√ <*@vulakh.us> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Костя, это не партийная шарманка, это РЕАЛЬНОСТЬ.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Это не либеральный источник, и в статье написано дело.
> > > > >> И пахнет оно керосином.
> > > > >
> > > > > Разумеется.
> > > > > И мы тебе объясняем, почему именно.
> > > > > Было бы нормальное правление, можно было бы
> > > > > что-то подкрутить.
> > > > > А так - идет строго усугубление.
> > > > > И не просто усугубление, а прямо настоящая ЖУТЬ.
> > > > > Это ведь настоящие (в отличие от Т) ДЕБИЛЫ у руля.
> > >
> > > > т.е. ты вообе не пропарсил текст
> > > > от слова совсем
> > > Да ну ?
> > > А может это ты не понимаешь, о чём речь идет ?
>
> > Нет. Не может.
> Вот я говорю, что не может быть, чтобы человек,
> который поддерживает вот всё это говно - был
> ???√ <*@vulakh.us> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Костя, это не партийная шарманка, это РЕАЛЬНОСТЬ.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Это не либеральный источник, и в статье написано дело.
> > > > >> И пахнет оно керосином.
> > > > >
> > > > > Разумеется.
> > > > > И мы тебе объясняем, почему именно.
> > > > > Было бы нормальное правление, можно было бы
> > > > > что-то подкрутить.
> > > > > А так - идет строго усугубление.
> > > > > И не просто усугубление, а прямо настоящая ЖУТЬ.
> > > > > Это ведь настоящие (в отличие от Т) ДЕБИЛЫ у руля.
> > >
> > > > т.е. ты вообе не пропарсил текст
> > > > от слова совсем
> > > Да ну ?
> > > А может это ты не понимаешь, о чём речь идет ?
>
> > Нет. Не может.
> Вот я говорю, что не может быть, чтобы человек,
> который поддерживает вот всё это говно - был
Ты беседуешь с голосами в голове - или обсуждаешь статью?
> бы хотя бы минимально умным.
> Карл - твой уровень.
А твой - ешак.
> О порядочности, кстати, вообще говорить нечего.
И, главное, некому.
Const
Apr 5, 2021, 12:35:49 AM4/5/21
to
???√ <*@vulakh.us> wrote:
> > Вот я говорю, что не может быть, чтобы человек,
> > который поддерживает вот всё это говно - был
> Ты беседуешь с голосами в голове - или обсуждаешь статью?
Какую статью ? :)
> > Вот я говорю, что не может быть, чтобы человек,
> > который поддерживает вот всё это говно - был
> Ты беседуешь с голосами в голове - или обсуждаешь статью?
> > бы хотя бы минимально умным.
> > Карл - твой уровень.
> А твой - ешак.
не начинаю такие вещи первым.
И то по два раза переспрашиваю.
> > О порядочности, кстати, вообще говорить нечего.
> И, главное, некому.
Это как бы реальность.
Deal with it.
---
Const
Const
Apr 5, 2021, 12:40:50 AM4/5/21
to
???√ <99...@russian.z1> wrote:
RINO - это хуже, чем откровенный дем.
> Oren M. Cass is an American public policy expert and political advisor,
> who worked on the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney in 2008 and
Ах, на Ромни работал.
Ну, ясен пень.
> 2012, and who has been described as a "general policy impresario of the
> emerging conservative consensus on fighting poverty". Between 2015 and
> 2019, Cass was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy
> Research, and the author of The Once and Future Worker: A Vision for the
> Renewal of Work in America. In 2020, Cass established American Compass,
> an organization focusing on "what the post-Trump right-of-center is
> going to be".
> т.е. ты натурально срываешься с цепи на абсолютно всё что я говорю
Нет, это опять неправда.
Почему вы с Карлом и Кривицким так любите лгать ?
Это ведь и трудно, и неприятно.
Или вы что, иначе уже просто не можете ?
Нет, я понимаю, что защищать существующее тебе трудно
или даже невозможно.
И тебе надо как-то где-то врать.
> > т.е. ты вообе не пропарсил текст
> > от слова совсем
> > и при этом кидаешься на меня с личными ешачьеми нападками
> т.е. я вообще говоря могу предсказать твой ответ на любое моё сообщение
> со стопроцентной точностью, потому что все твои ответы суть одинаковые
Так и я твое вранье могу предсказать с
вероятностью единица.
---
Const
> Oren M. Cass is an American public policy expert and political advisor,
> who worked on the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney in 2008 and
Ну, ясен пень.
> 2012, and who has been described as a "general policy impresario of the
> emerging conservative consensus on fighting poverty". Between 2015 and
> 2019, Cass was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy
> Research, and the author of The Once and Future Worker: A Vision for the
> Renewal of Work in America. In 2020, Cass established American Compass,
> an organization focusing on "what the post-Trump right-of-center is
> going to be".
> т.е. ты натурально срываешься с цепи на абсолютно всё что я говорю
Почему вы с Карлом и Кривицким так любите лгать ?
Это ведь и трудно, и неприятно.
Или вы что, иначе уже просто не можете ?
Нет, я понимаю, что защищать существующее тебе трудно
или даже невозможно.
И тебе надо как-то где-то врать.
> > т.е. ты вообе не пропарсил текст
> > от слова совсем
> > и при этом кидаешься на меня с личными ешачьеми нападками
> т.е. я вообще говоря могу предсказать твой ответ на любое моё сообщение
> со стопроцентной точностью, потому что все твои ответы суть одинаковые
вероятностью единица.
---
Const
⁹⁹⁹√
Apr 5, 2021, 6:29:21 AM4/5/21
to
On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 12:35:49 AM UTC-4, Const wrote:
> ???√ <*@vulakh.us> wrote:
> > > Вот я говорю, что не может быть, чтобы человек,
> > > который поддерживает вот всё это говно - был
>
> > Ты беседуешь с голосами в голове - или обсуждаешь статью?
> Какую статью ? :)
> ???√ <*@vulakh.us> wrote:
> > > Вот я говорю, что не может быть, чтобы человек,
> > > который поддерживает вот всё это говно - был
>
> > Ты беседуешь с голосами в голове - или обсуждаешь статью?
> Какую статью ? :)
(1)
> > > бы хотя бы минимально умным.
> > > Карл - твой уровень.
>
> > А твой - ешак.
> В отличие от вас, я никогда, то есть, вообще НИКОГДА
> не начинаю такие вещи первым.
(2)
> И то по два раза переспрашиваю.
Надо же.
Ни доли самосознания.
Нет, дорогой. Это *я* тебя уже который раз переспрашиваю.
Const
Apr 5, 2021, 10:00:50 AM4/5/21
to
Ну дурацкая твоя статья.
Да, разумеется, капитализм неоптимален.
Особенно когда мудачье у власти.
Что я тебе и сказал.
И такие статьи обычно пишутся с непроговариваемой (а иногда
даже и не стесняются) идеей "а давайте мы всё запланируем,
ну ведь наверняка же мы, умные прогрессивные люди,
сможем запланировать получше, чем эти уоллстритовские воры".
---
Const
0 new messages