Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    Actually, you did prove a point. You didn't like how a particular state did business, so instead of going to a state that you preferred, you whined to the feds about it until you got your way.
    Which is just good federalism. The hypocrisy gets introduced when the anti-federalists go running to Mommy when particular states legalize weed. "States Rights" ends where their whims begin.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

    Comment


    • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

      Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
      Actually, you did prove a point. You didn't like how a particular state did business, so instead of going to a state that you preferred, you whined to the feds about it until you got your way.
      Just curious, but what rights do you consider to be at the whims of an individual state that are now currently Fed enforced? Interracial marriage, birth control, interracial schools? Might be good to spell it out for us.
      Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

      Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

      "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

      Comment


      • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

        Originally posted by Rover View Post
        Just curious, but what rights do you consider to be at the whims of an individual state that are now currently Fed enforced? Interracial marriage, birth control, interracial schools? Might be good to spell it out for us.
        A consistent anti-federalist would say a state has full sovereignty except for the few specific federal powers explicitly delineated in the Constitution. So, a state can't coin money or raise an army or conduct treaties because those powers are exclusively reserved for the federal government. Since marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, a state has the power to do anything with marriage that its state constitution under the adjudication of state courts allows. The federal government has no standing unless a specific federal power is infringed.

        So, for example, Texas could ban gay marriage, Mississippi could ban mixed race marriage, and West Virginia could ban marriage not between siblings, while California could ban same race marriage and Vermont could ban all marriage because it gets in the way of the worship of mushrooms and Champ.

        Which is great until the Iowa same race, non-sibling, gay couple moves to California, West Virginia or Texas.
        Last edited by Kepler; 03-17-2015, 09:33 AM.
        Cornell University
        National Champion 1967, 1970
        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

        Comment


        • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

          Originally posted by Kepler View Post
          A consistent anti-federalist would say a state has full sovereignty except for the few specific federal powers explicitly delineated in the Constitution. So, a state can't coin money or raise an army or conduct treaties because those powers are exclusively reserved for the federal government. Since marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, a state has the power to do anything with marriage that its state constitution under the adjudication of state courts allows. The federal government has no standing unless a specific federal power is infringed.

          So, for example, Texas could ban gay marriage, Mississippi could ban mixed race marriage, and West Virginia could ban marriage not between siblings, while California could ban same race marriage and Vermont could ban all marriage because it gets in the way of the worship of mushrooms and Champ.

          Which is great until the Iowa same race, non-sibling, gay couple moves to California, West Virginia or Texas.
          You could make the exact same arguments regarding "pistol permits" (which are illegal according to the Second Amendment as it is)...

          Comment


          • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

            Now you know Wall Street is just trying to inflate the numbers. http://www.dividend.com/news/2015/03...o-join-dow-30/

            Comment


            • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

              Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
              Now you know Wall Street is just trying to inflate the numbers. http://www.dividend.com/news/2015/03...o-join-dow-30/
              The DJIA has a formula in place so that the inclusion of a new company with a differing stock price doesn't artificially inflate its current numbers. The only change Apple could have on the DJIA relates to future performance. Given AAPL's market cap, and the purpose of the DJIA in the first place, it only make sense that AAPL joins the DJIA.
              "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

              "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

              "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

              Comment


              • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                The DJIA has a formula in place so that the inclusion of a new company with a differing stock price doesn't artificially inflate its current numbers. The only change Apple could have on the DJIA relates to future performance. Given AAPL's market cap, and the purpose of the DJIA in the first place, it only make sense that AAPL joins the DJIA.

                Don't stop him. He's on a roll...
                Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                Comment


                • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                  Originally posted by Rover View Post
                  Don't stop him. He's on a roll...
                  Germany?
                  "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                  "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                  "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                  Comment


                  • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                    Are they nuts?
                    @WTOP: Russian President Vladimir Putin urges billionaires to bring money back to Russia http://bit.ly/1FF3ugQ
                    CCT '77 & '78
                    4 kids
                    5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                    1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                    ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                    - Benjamin Franklin

                    Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                    I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                      Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                      The DJIA has a formula in place so that the inclusion of a new company with a differing stock price doesn't artificially inflate its current numbers. The only change Apple could have on the DJIA relates to future performance. Given AAPL's market cap, and the purpose of the DJIA in the first place, it only make sense that AAPL joins the DJIA.
                      I'm well aware that the DJIA doesn't inflate when companies are switched. However, given the tear that Apple has been on, it makes me think they're just trying to inflate that number for the future in order to make the sheeple feel good about the economy.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                        Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                        I'm well aware that the DJIA doesn't inflate when companies are switched. However, given the tear that Apple has been on, it makes me think they're just trying to inflate that number for the future in order to make the sheeple feel good about the economy.
                        Even if that were the case, the DJIA board would've been better off finding a different company. AAPL's growth rate has been so strong for so long now that it can only go so much higher without some great new innovation - I'm not including the watch in the innovation list.

                        And IF The DJIA board was looking to artificially inject some excitement into its figures, that would completely defeat the point of the DJIA. It was designed to be a stock average that could be used to track and measure the broader US economy. The WSJ's editors were to pick the thirty large cap companies that best represent the US economy as a whole. This was a great tool back when it coming into such data was much more time consuming and data wasn't nearly as complete. If there's a shift in philosophy as to why the DJIA exists, then it become far less meaningful to investors.
                        "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                        "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                        "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                        Comment


                        • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                          Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                          Even if that were the case, the DJIA board would've been better off finding a different company. AAPL's growth rate has been so strong for so long now that it can only go so much higher without some great new innovation - I'm not including the watch in the innovation list.

                          And IF The DJIA board was looking to artificially inject some excitement into its figures, that would completely defeat the point of the DJIA. It was designed to be a stock average that could be used to track and measure the broader US economy. The WSJ's editors were to pick the thirty large cap companies that best represent the US economy as a whole. This was a great tool back when it coming into such data was much more time consuming and data wasn't nearly as complete. If there's a shift in philosophy as to why the DJIA exists, then it become far less meaningful to investors.
                          Apple's iPhone 6 was a pracitcal clone of a two-year old Samsung product, but because the dudes at Apple are marketing geniouses (you have to give credit where credit is due), sheeple thought it was the next best thing. That's why Apple is going to continue its run.

                          And you hit the nail on the head. To an investor, the indexes mean nothing with exception of an ETF or mutual fund, as the modern computer has made data so much easier to track. The non-investor sheeple, however, are still hooked to the DJIA thinking it means something about the economy, and probably couldn't tell you 10 of the 30 companies in said index. However, sheeple are happy when that number is up, and sad when it is down. Why not boost the confidence of the sheeple?

                          Also, with Apple coming in over AT&T, the 30 seems a bit top-heavy on tech, especially with Intel, IBM, and Microsoft already in there. I understand that times change with what is important, as there used to be a lot of railroads in the index way back in the day. If you're trying to strike a balance, consider getting a clothing retailer or supplier in therel not sure Nike really has much on that market.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                            Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                            Even if that were the case, the DJIA board would've been better off finding a different company. AAPL's growth rate has been so strong for so long now that it can only go so much higher without some great new innovation - I'm not including the watch in the innovation list.

                            And IF The DJIA board was looking to artificially inject some excitement into its figures, that would completely defeat the point of the DJIA. It was designed to be a stock average that could be used to track and measure the broader US economy. The WSJ's editors were to pick the thirty large cap companies that best represent the US economy as a whole. This was a great tool back when it coming into such data was much more time consuming and data wasn't nearly as complete. If there's a shift in philosophy as to why the DJIA exists, then it become far less meaningful to investors.
                            The S&P 500 Index seems to have taken over that role now, thought some look at the total stock market index.

                            I met a money manager years ago who told a very interesting story (probably 25 years ago now). He had read an article about some pension fund manager in California who decided that they couldn't merely invest in the S&P 500 Index, that they had to do their "due diligence" and research every one of the 500 stocks that comprised the index back then. They found something like 18 or 22 companies that they "shouldn't" invest in.

                            Naturally, the money manager then put together a portfolio that included only those 18 or 22 stocks, which then proceeded to outperform the S&P 500 Index by a wide margin.
                            "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                            "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                            "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                            "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                            Comment


                            • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                              Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                              The DJIA has a formula in place so that the inclusion of a new company with a differing stock price doesn't artificially inflate its current numbers. The only change Apple could have on the DJIA relates to future performance. Given AAPL's market cap, and the purpose of the DJIA in the first place, it only make sense that AAPL joins the DJIA.
                              The one thing that the ongoing switching of companies into and out of the various indexes does, in my humble and quite possibly erroneous opinion, is that it overstates historical return. Quite a few of companies that once were in the DJIA (Polaroid or Eastman Kodak for example, I forget which one) have gone bankrupt. Using the DJIA as a proxy for the total market can be useful in tracking day-to-day or month-to-month changes, but when used from 1925 to 2015 to show how well the "market" has done since then, it introduces a substantial upward bias, as all the failed companies (those with an IRR of -100%) are excluded.

                              Marketers of investment products can say, "historical DJIA has been 9.5% or whatever but actual investor experience, which would include the failed companies as well, might be more like 8.0% or whatever.

                              Of course, since the introduction of index funds, that bias is mitigated substantially, the broader point is that the guy / gal who is touting this historical returns is less concerned with accuracy than with action. They need investors active in the markets because the pros make their money off of price changes, as long as there is volatility and volume they are happy.
                              "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                              "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                              "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                              "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                              Comment


                              • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                                Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                                The one thing that the ongoing switching of companies into and out of the various indexes does, in my humble and quite possibly erroneous opinion, is that it overstates historical return. Quite a few of companies that once were in the DJIA (Polaroid or Eastman Kodak for example, I forget which one) have gone bankrupt. Using the DJIA as a proxy for the total market can be useful in tracking day-to-day or month-to-month changes, but when used from 1925 to 2015 to show how well the "market" has done since then, it introduces a substantial upward bias, as all the failed companies (those with an IRR of -100%) are excluded.

                                Marketers of investment products can say, "historical DJIA has been 9.5% or whatever but actual investor experience, which would include the failed companies as well, might be more like 8.0% or whatever.

                                Of course, since the introduction of index funds, that bias is mitigated substantially, the broader point is that the guy / gal who is touting this historical returns is less concerned with accuracy than with action. They need investors active in the markets because the pros make their money off of price changes, as long as there is volatility and volume they are happy.
                                You're right, your impression is erroneous. The stock market isn't like some microwaveable TV dinner - you don't just set it and forget it. The same goes with any single person's portfolio. The reason those companies exit the DJIA is that they no longer represent the direction of the economy. Kodak stuck with analog photography and picture prints for so long that technology left them behind and Kodak became irrelevant. Your stock portfolio should've done the same thing or suffer Kodak's fate.
                                "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                                "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                                "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X