Comic Book Investing

[HighStakesComics]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

Translation: I'm big into original art. Figure of speech. Not that I need to be forgiven for engaging in a little chest-puffing when there are noobs here telling me to take a hike.

 

Hey, back in college I was in a fraternity so I understand the whole seniority bit. I let you abuse me for at minimum 5 posts before I had to make my stand. If for nothing else but to maintain a shard of self respect.

 

 

You're extremely obnoxious. This thread was a decent read, minus every one of your posts.

 

I take it you won't be backing up the truck on FP 1 anytime soon.

[RockMyAmadeus]

This was the post I typed up last night at 3AM, but decided not to post until there was more of a response:

 

In essence, stock speculators become silent partners to a system that works tirelessly to defeat the aspirations of those employed by those companies to whom they claim partial ownership of assets. The stock investor essentially profits off the labors of others, one of many invisible faces seeking dividends while executive boards downsize jobs, cut benefits, move businesses overseas and take food from children's mouths.

 

Oh my.

 

It is because we have corporations that most Americans have jobs. It is because we have corporations that we enjoy the tremendously high standard of living that we do.

 

The beauty of capitalism is simple: it provides the most people with the most opportunity, and raises the standard of living for everyone.

 

If you want to work hard, fail, try hard, fail some more, think hard, and maybe eventually succeed...there is no better system devised by man that allows for this than capitalism.

 

Have you ever owned a business, David, and had employees...? If so, are you trying to defeat your employer's aspirations, hoping to mercilessly exploit them until they drop dead, only to be replaced by more drones?

 

Or, are you invested in your employees, knowing that their success means your success, their happiness means your success, their growth means your success, their experience means your success...?

 

Only fools treat their employees like chattel. Those companies INVARIABLY fail. Yes, of course they may succeed for a while...but they will always, eventually, see their demise.

 

Do you not realize that it is the entrepreneur who takes all the risk, while the employee takes none? So, what do you do, as a human being? Do you choose the safety and security of being an employee, never having to worry about the risk involved in owning your own business, never having to worry about payroll, never having to worry about benefits, never having to worry about so many things that "the bosses" have to worry about, allowing them to "profit from your labor" because you know it provides a level of security you could not enjoy on your own?

 

Or....do you strike out on your own, hoping to own the means of production yourself, but assuming risk that could wipe out everything you own?

 

And the stock investor, profiting off the labor of others? How many employees have been forced to work for nothing, because the company's earnings were down?

 

None, of course. It's against the law. We call it slavery. The only thing an employee really needs to worry about is making sure the company maintains the ability to keep him employed, and he does that by being a valuable employee.

 

How many stock investors, however, have lost everything....essentially working for nothing...when companies they invested in failed...?

 

Answer: lots and lots and lots.

 

Being an employee carries essentially no risk. You are guaranteed a pre-negotiated payment for your services, on a regular basis. The only thing you have to worry about is making sure you hold up your end of that bargain. And, on the off-chance that an employer CANNOT pay you, you will find that out soon enough, and can move on to somewhere else, without having spent too much time working for "free" (and are usually then covered by unemployment insurance.) Being an employee usually means that you can go home at the end of your shift and never have to think about your job until your next shift.

 

Those are just a few of the benefits of being an employee...there are many more.

 

Being an owner carries tremendous risk. You are guaranteed nothing by anyone. You worry constantly. You are rarely free to not think about your venture. You have to provide, not just for yourself, but for YOUR employees, and making sure they are happy, healthy, and don't have cause to leave for your competition.

 

Being an investor also carries risk. You are guaranteed no return on your investment. You could lose everything you invest.

 

There are benefits and disadvantages to both sides of the equation. It works best when EVERYONE is free to pursue their own interests, free of coercion by his fellow man. This idea that "corporations are evil", and "the worker is exploited and needs to be saved from evil management that steals food from the mouths of their children" is nothing but Marxist poison, convincing people they are not masters of their own individual destinies, but rather victims, with no choice but to become slaves to a system that chews them up and spits them out.

 

Entrepreneurs need employees. Employees need entrepreneurs. They both need each other. It is a symbiosis. And the beauty is: you can be one or the other, or even both.

 

 

(It may be a tad rough, but that's essentially the point.)

[thirdgreenham]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

Translation: I'm big into original art. Figure of speech. Not that I need to be forgiven for engaging in a little chest-puffing when there are noobs here telling me to take a hike.

If you ever get big into original art selling there are a few I hope you would give me a call about.

 

Get in line, Bucko!

 

Ah, come to think of it....you first.

[HighStakesComics]

This was the post I typed up last night at 3AM, but decided not to post until there was more of a response:

 

In essence, stock speculators become silent partners to a system that works tirelessly to defeat the aspirations of those employed by those companies to whom they claim partial ownership of assets. The stock investor essentially profits off the labors of others, one of many invisible faces seeking dividends while executive boards downsize jobs, cut benefits, move businesses overseas and take food from children's mouths.

 

Oh my.

 

It is because we have corporations that most Americans have jobs. It is because we have corporations that we enjoy the tremendously high standard of living that we do.

 

The beauty of capitalism is simple: it provides the most people with the most opportunity, and raises the standard of living for everyone.

 

If you want to work hard, fail, try hard, fail some more, think hard, and maybe eventually succeed...there is no better system devised by man that allows for this than capitalism.

 

Have you ever owned a business, David, and had employees...? If so, are you trying to defeat your employer's aspirations, hoping to mercilessly exploit them until they drop dead, only to be replaced by more drones?

 

Or, are you invested in your employees, knowing that their success means your success, their happiness means your success, their growth means your success, their experience means your success...?

 

Only fools treat their employees like chattel. Those companies INVARIABLY fail. Yes, of course they may succeed for a while...but they will always, eventually, see their demise.

 

Do you not realize that it is the entrepreneur who takes all the risk, while the employee takes none? So, what do you do, as a human being? Do you choose the safety and security of being an employee, never having to worry about the risk involved in owning your own business, never having to worry about payroll, never having to worry about benefits, never having to worry about so many things that "the bosses" have to worry about, allowing them to "profit from your labor" because you know it provides a level of security you could not enjoy on your own?

 

Or....do you strike out on your own, hoping to own the means of production yourself, but assuming risk that could wipe out everything you own?

 

And the stock investor, profiting off the labor of others? How many employees have been forced to work for nothing, because the company's earnings were down?

 

None, of course. It's against the law. We call it slavery. The only thing an employee really needs to worry about is making sure the company maintains the ability to keep him employed, and he does that by being a valuable employee.

 

How many stock investors, however, have lost everything....essentially working for nothing...when companies they invested in failed...?

 

Answer: lots and lots and lots.

 

Being an employee carries essentially no risk. You are guaranteed a pre-negotiated payment for your services, on a regular basis. The only thing you have to worry about is making sure you hold up your end of that bargain. And, on the off-chance that an employer CANNOT pay you, you will find that out soon enough, and can move on to somewhere else, without having spent too much time working for "free" (and are usually then covered by unemployment insurance.) Being an employee usually means that you can go home at the end of your shift and never have to think about your job until your next shift.

 

Those are just a few of the benefits of being an employee...there are many more.

 

Being an owner carries tremendous risk. You are guaranteed nothing by anyone. You worry constantly. You are rarely free to not think about your venture. You have to provide, not just for yourself, but for YOUR employees, and making sure they are happy, healthy, and don't have cause to leave for your competition.

 

Being an investor also carries risk. You are guaranteed no return on your investment. You could lose everything you invest.

 

There are benefits and disadvantages to both sides of the equation. It works best when EVERYONE is free to pursue their own interests, free of coercion by his fellow man. This idea that "corporations are evil", and "the worker is exploited and needs to be saved from evil management that steals food from the mouths of their children" is nothing but Marxist poison, convincing people they are not masters of their own individual destinies, but rather victims, with no choice but to become slaves to a system that chews them up and spits them out.

 

Entrepreneurs need employees. Employees need entrepreneurs. They both need each other. It is a symbiosis. And the beauty is: you can be one or the other, or even both.

 

 

(It may be a tad rough, but that's essentially the point.)

 

Like most of your posts it is to the point, accurate and very well written. I can see why you have a grassroots following on these boards.

[october]

This idea that "corporations are evil", and "the worker is exploited and needs to be saved from evil management that steals food from the mouths of their children" is nothing but Marxist poison, convincing people they are not masters of their own individual destinies, but rather victims, with no choice but to become slaves to a system that chews them up and spits them out.

 

I agree with all of your post, save this point. That might be true in America, it's not true in developing countries. Yes, yes, I know that female workers are better off making 10 cents a shirt in some sweatshop than selling themselves on the street, and that same sweatshop is preferable to subsistence farming in a hut without electricity or running water, but those realities and the reality that workers are badly exploited by corporations aren't mutually exclusive. Workers might be marginally better off, but corporations still take advantage of the fact these people and the countries they live in have nothing to offer other than their cheap labor. The use that fact to keep products at a low price point to pad their bottom line. The people actually producing the items we consume receive an unbelievably low percentage of the final sales price and lead lives we can hardly image (thankfully).

[COI]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

Translation: I'm big into original art. Figure of speech. Not that I need to be forgiven for engaging in a little chest-puffing when there are noobs here telling me to take a hike.

 

Hey, back in college I was in a fraternity so I understand the whole seniority bit. I let you abuse me for at minimum 5 posts before I had to make my stand. If for nothing else but to maintain a shard of self respect.

 

 

You're extremely obnoxious. This thread was a decent read, minus every one of your posts.

 

I take it you won't be backing up the truck on FP 1 anytime soon.

 

Actually, I apologize. I confused a couple of your posts with Jaydogrules. Sorry about that.

[RockMyAmadeus]

To boil it down:

 

Amazing Fantasy #15 has never produced anything except entertainment, for anyone, over 52 years.

 

It creates nothing, it produces nothing, it services nothing, it provides nothing.

 

I can buy a copy of AF #15, put it in a box, and it will not create more AF #15s. It will just sit in that box, decomposing at a rate commensurate with its storage conditions.

 

Companies create, produce, service, and provide. Yes, they can also fail. Yes, they can also mismanage, stagnate, and be corrupt.

 

But just on the face of these facts alone, it should be obvious that something that exists to provide goods or services desired by society is inherently far more valuable than a material good whose value is based entirely on perception, and that not even universal (unlike gold, for example.)

[Jaydogrules]

20 years ago I put every extra dime I had into EC horror, silver age marvel and golden age Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. I loved reading and collecting all of these comics, but the obvious investment potential was the driving force in my spending habits. These were not shocking gambles I was making by putting my money into Marvel and DC, and if this thread had existed at the time, wouldn't everyone have suggested silver keys?

 

10 years later I sold them all and invested in my construction business which grew by leaps and bounds (Superman reference ) for about five years until the housing market went into the toilet and all of my builders went under, basically taking me with them. Prior to the sale of all of my beloved funny books, I had seriously considered going back into comics before making the "safe" choice which eventually left me with nothing.

 

I certainly don't think you can go wrong by simply buying what you enjoy, but intelligent investment in vintage comic books has been an almost can't miss proposition since I've been alive. Even those EC and Wonder Woman issues brought me a small profit after a decade, and the silver age keys (all G to VG at best) were obviously excellent investments.

 

Basically, I assume anyone who doesn't believe comics are a solid investment is making the argument that the bottom is going to fall out here soon. Because I honestly can't come up with many better, more obvious options for long term profit historically.

 

You're talking about a collectibles field that had roughly two decades of "opportunity buying" after they became acceptable as "legitimate investments" and before they priced everyone out of the market.

 

What do you mean by "long term"?

 

What do you mean by "profit"?

 

What do you mean by "solid investment"? 20% annualized return? 10%? 2%? 100%?

 

Do you think a Fantasy #15 9.6 at $1,100,000 is a "solid investment"?

 

How about a New Mutants #98 9.8 for $400?

 

What about a Green Lantern #76 9.6 for $37,000?

 

How about a Hulk #181 9.8 for $26,501?

 

And in those 90's, when you were buying these books, did you ever unknowingly buy books that were restored?

 

Comic buying in the 70's and 80's was a perfect time for investment. There had already been quite solid, across-the-board gains, but everything wasn't priced so high as to exclude most buyers. It was much like the coin market in the 30's and 40's. By the 50's, you could no longer find anything of any value in regular circulation; and forget keys.

 

It's easy to look back and point to gains and say "see? Look what they did!"...not so easy to point to the future and say "see? Look what they'll DO!"

 

There was even a time...horror of HORRORS!...when the bluest of blue chip "comic book investments", Silver Age Marvel keys, took a dump. It was short, but it was real, and it looked like the end had come (I speak of 1982-1985.)

 

These are straw man arguments. Every single investment class/group has taken a dump at one time or another.

 

-J.

 

 

I'm not quite sure you know what a "straw man argument" really is.

 

In case you don't, a straw man argument is where I present a distorted view of the other person's position, and then attack that as if that's what the other person actually said.

 

I'm pretty sure what you are trying to say is "irrelevant arguments."

 

But the fact that every single investment class/group has taken a dump at one time or another (which is not strictly true) supports my position.

 

 

Yes that is the Wikipedia definition. But it loosely means stating a logical fallacy as a fact that is easily disputed, ie easily knocked down like a "straw man". In this case, u state comics are not "investments" because they can (and have) gone down in value at times. My response is that yes, they can go down in value (and also up) like every other investment group and class, and if anything, that only proves that they can be treated and construed as another type of investment.

 

-J.

 

Nope.

 

Yep. Read a little further in the thread that includes a link to the definition.

 

-J.

[delekkerste]

To boil it down:

 

Amazing Fantasy #15 has never produced anything except entertainment, for anyone, over 52 years.

 

It creates nothing, it produces nothing, it services nothing, it provides nothing.

 

I can buy a copy of AF #15, put it in a box, and it will not create more AF #15s. It will just sit in that box, decomposing at a rate commensurate with its storage conditions.

 

Companies create, produce, service, and provide. Yes, they can also fail. Yes, they can also mismanage, stagnate, and be corrupt.

 

But just on the face of these facts alone, it should be obvious that something that exists to provide goods or services desired by society is inherently far more valuable than a material good whose value is based entirely on perception, and that not even universal (unlike gold, for example.)

 

to this and your previous post

 

I don't know about you, but I'm really feeling this newfound seeing eye to eye with you in this thread.

[RockMyAmadeus]

This idea that "corporations are evil", and "the worker is exploited and needs to be saved from evil management that steals food from the mouths of their children" is nothing but Marxist poison, convincing people they are not masters of their own individual destinies, but rather victims, with no choice but to become slaves to a system that chews them up and spits them out.

 

I agree with all of your post, save this point. That might be true in America, it's not true in developing countries. Yes, yes, I know that female workers are better off making 10 cents a shirt in some sweatshop than selling themselves on the street, and that same sweatshop is preferable to subsistence farming in a hut without electricity or running water, but those realities and the reality that workers are badly exploited by corporations aren't mutually exclusive. Workers might be marginally better off, but corporations still take advantage of the fact these people and the countries they live in have nothing to offer other than their cheap labor. The use that fact to keep products at a low price point to pad their bottom line. The people actually producing the items we consume receive an unbelievably low percentage of the final sales price and lead lives we can hardly image (thankfully).

 

There are, sadly, always exceptions. Unfortunately, the people in charge of those nations do nothing to protect their own people from this exploitation. It's not capitalism when all parties don't have the freedom to pursue their own interests, and that is unfortunately true in most of the non-Western world, and even parts of the Western world, too.

 

 

That said, there is MUCH to be said about being an informed consumer, and NOT supporting the companies that behave in ways contrary to one's own ethics. It may cost more, but is it not worth it, knowing you don't support practices which you do not agree?

[COI]

This idea that "corporations are evil", and "the worker is exploited and needs to be saved from evil management that steals food from the mouths of their children" is nothing but Marxist poison, convincing people they are not masters of their own individual destinies, but rather victims, with no choice but to become slaves to a system that chews them up and spits them out.

 

I agree with all of your post, save this point. That might be true in America, it's not true in developing countries. Yes, yes, I know that female workers are better off making 10 cents a shirt in some sweatshop than selling themselves on the street, and that same sweatshop is preferable to subsistence farming in a hut without electricity or running water, but those realities and the reality that workers are badly exploited by corporations aren't mutually exclusive. Workers might be marginally better off, but corporations still take advantage of the fact these people and the countries they live in have nothing to offer other than their cheap labor. The use that fact to keep products at a low price point to pad their bottom line. The people actually producing the items we consume receive an unbelievably low percentage of the final sales price and lead lives we can hardly image (thankfully).

 

+1. And it's not even true in America.

 

I love you RMA, but that position is horribly simplistic.

[COI]

This idea that "corporations are evil", and "the worker is exploited and needs to be saved from evil management that steals food from the mouths of their children" is nothing but Marxist poison, convincing people they are not masters of their own individual destinies, but rather victims, with no choice but to become slaves to a system that chews them up and spits them out.

 

I agree with all of your post, save this point. That might be true in America, it's not true in developing countries. Yes, yes, I know that female workers are better off making 10 cents a shirt in some sweatshop than selling themselves on the street, and that same sweatshop is preferable to subsistence farming in a hut without electricity or running water, but those realities and the reality that workers are badly exploited by corporations aren't mutually exclusive. Workers might be marginally better off, but corporations still take advantage of the fact these people and the countries they live in have nothing to offer other than their cheap labor. The use that fact to keep products at a low price point to pad their bottom line. The people actually producing the items we consume receive an unbelievably low percentage of the final sales price and lead lives we can hardly image (thankfully).

 

There are, sadly, always exceptions. Unfortunately, the people in charge of those nations do nothing to protect their own people from this exploitation. It's not capitalism when all parties don't have the freedom to pursue their own interests, and that is unfortunately true in most of the non-Western world, and even parts of the Western world, too.

 

 

That said, there is MUCH to be said about being an informed consumer, and NOT supporting the companies that behave in ways contrary to one's own ethics. It may cost more, but is it not worth it, knowing you don't support practices which you do not agree?

 

The way corporations operate in America isn't entirely capitalism either.

[RockMyAmadeus]

This idea that "corporations are evil", and "the worker is exploited and needs to be saved from evil management that steals food from the mouths of their children" is nothing but Marxist poison, convincing people they are not masters of their own individual destinies, but rather victims, with no choice but to become slaves to a system that chews them up and spits them out.

 

I agree with all of your post, save this point. That might be true in America, it's not true in developing countries. Yes, yes, I know that female workers are better off making 10 cents a shirt in some sweatshop than selling themselves on the street, and that same sweatshop is preferable to subsistence farming in a hut without electricity or running water, but those realities and the reality that workers are badly exploited by corporations aren't mutually exclusive. Workers might be marginally better off, but corporations still take advantage of the fact these people and the countries they live in have nothing to offer other than their cheap labor. The use that fact to keep products at a low price point to pad their bottom line. The people actually producing the items we consume receive an unbelievably low percentage of the final sales price and lead lives we can hardly image (thankfully).

 

+1. And it's not even true in America.

 

I love you RMA, but that position is horribly simplistic.

 

No, it's philosophic. That's the GOAL, it's the point, even if not (always) the practice.

 

If workers didn't think of themselves as victims with no options, only to be exploited by those providing employment, but rather as a person with a valuable skill set which they can, and should, market to whomever is willing to pay the most for those services, they would personally do themselves a great service.

[Jaydogrules]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

Translation: I'm big into original art. Figure of speech. Not that I need to be forgiven for engaging in a little chest-puffing when there are noobs here telling me to take a hike.

 

Hey, back in college I was in a fraternity so I understand the whole seniority bit. I let you abuse me for at minimum 5 posts before I had to make my stand. If for nothing else but to maintain a shard of self respect.

 

You're extremely obnoxious. This thread was a decent read, minus every one of your posts.

 

Says someone who just popped into this thread and has contributed nothing other than a rather sorry and misguided attempt to hurl personal insults. Real class act you are there, guy. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[revat]

This idea that "corporations are evil", and "the worker is exploited and needs to be saved from evil management that steals food from the mouths of their children" is nothing but Marxist poison, convincing people they are not masters of their own individual destinies, but rather victims, with no choice but to become slaves to a system that chews them up and spits them out.

 

I agree with all of your post, save this point. That might be true in America, it's not true in developing countries. Yes, yes, I know that female workers are better off making 10 cents a shirt in some sweatshop than selling themselves on the street, and that same sweatshop is preferable to subsistence farming in a hut without electricity or running water, but those realities and the reality that workers are badly exploited by corporations aren't mutually exclusive. Workers might be marginally better off, but corporations still take advantage of the fact these people and the countries they live in have nothing to offer other than their cheap labor. The use that fact to keep products at a low price point to pad their bottom line. The people actually producing the items we consume receive an unbelievably low percentage of the final sales price and lead lives we can hardly image (thankfully).

 

+1. And it's not even true in America.

 

I love you RMA, but that position is horribly simplistic.

 

but less simplistic than saying that all corporations do is promote evil by making money for people who don't really work for it.

 

I feel like he's just trying to counter the point that all corporate investments result in and/or are driven by evil greed and exploitation. I don't think he's denying those 'evil' aspects, just that corporations, like people are complex entities and often times provide valuable opportunities for creation, employment, and other products that can benefit society and the world at large. Of course its not like that in every case, and of course there's profit motive involved for investors, but what is the alternative? There should be a reward for people who risk their resources on innovation

[RockMyAmadeus]

This idea that "corporations are evil", and "the worker is exploited and needs to be saved from evil management that steals food from the mouths of their children" is nothing but Marxist poison, convincing people they are not masters of their own individual destinies, but rather victims, with no choice but to become slaves to a system that chews them up and spits them out.

 

I agree with all of your post, save this point. That might be true in America, it's not true in developing countries. Yes, yes, I know that female workers are better off making 10 cents a shirt in some sweatshop than selling themselves on the street, and that same sweatshop is preferable to subsistence farming in a hut without electricity or running water, but those realities and the reality that workers are badly exploited by corporations aren't mutually exclusive. Workers might be marginally better off, but corporations still take advantage of the fact these people and the countries they live in have nothing to offer other than their cheap labor. The use that fact to keep products at a low price point to pad their bottom line. The people actually producing the items we consume receive an unbelievably low percentage of the final sales price and lead lives we can hardly image (thankfully).

 

+1. And it's not even true in America.

 

I love you RMA, but that position is horribly simplistic.

 

No, it's philosophic. That's the GOAL, it's the point, even if not (always) the practice.

 

If workers didn't think of themselves as victims with no options, only to be exploited by those providing employment, but rather as a person with a valuable skill set which they can, and should, market to whomever is willing to pay the most for those services, they would personally do themselves a great service.

 

In other words, if they thought of THEMSELVES as entrepreneurs, selling their abilities and services to those who are willing to pay the best price for them, the worker/management dynamic would be, and is, much improved.

[COI]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

Translation: I'm big into original art. Figure of speech. Not that I need to be forgiven for engaging in a little chest-puffing when there are noobs here telling me to take a hike.

 

Hey, back in college I was in a fraternity so I understand the whole seniority bit. I let you abuse me for at minimum 5 posts before I had to make my stand. If for nothing else but to maintain a shard of self respect.

 

You're extremely obnoxious. This thread was a decent read, minus every one of your posts.

 

Says someone who just popped into this thread and has contributed nothing other than a rather sorry and misguided attempt to hurl personal insults. Real class act you are there, guy. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

You're right. I apologize.

[RockMyAmadeus]

As for the claim that stock investing doesn't do anything for the soul, but just enriches greedy executives, well that's patently ridiculous. Investment in publicly traded companies provides working capital needed to develop new products and advance them to market. It also provides the opportunity for building wealth for non-employees. There's a slew of great companies that make products and provide services that enrich our lives and improve our well being, and are worthwhile and deeply satisfying companies to support financially through investment.

 

At last, the voice of reason has arrived.

 

What am I, chopped liver...?

 

[Jaydogrules]

As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector.

Translation: "Don't you know who I am?"

Correction: You are an original art collector who thinks of himself as big, maybe physically, certainly intellectually. There is a difference.

 

I do really enjoy looking at that little accumulation of art you have there though. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing (thumbs u

 

Translation: I'm big into original art. Figure of speech. Not that I need to be forgiven for engaging in a little chest-puffing when there are noobs here telling me to take a hike.

 

Hey, back in college I was in a fraternity so I understand the whole seniority bit. I let you abuse me for at minimum 5 posts before I had to make my stand. If for nothing else but to maintain a shard of self respect.

 

You're extremely obnoxious. This thread was a decent read, minus every one of your posts.

 

Says someone who just popped into this thread and has contributed nothing other than a rather sorry and misguided attempt to hurl personal insults. Real class act you are there, guy. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

You're right. I apologize.

 

All good. Now back to the funny books.....

 

-J.

[october]

This idea that "corporations are evil", and "the worker is exploited and needs to be saved from evil management that steals food from the mouths of their children" is nothing but Marxist poison, convincing people they are not masters of their own individual destinies, but rather victims, with no choice but to become slaves to a system that chews them up and spits them out.

 

I agree with all of your post, save this point. That might be true in America, it's not true in developing countries. Yes, yes, I know that female workers are better off making 10 cents a shirt in some sweatshop than selling themselves on the street, and that same sweatshop is preferable to subsistence farming in a hut without electricity or running water, but those realities and the reality that workers are badly exploited by corporations aren't mutually exclusive. Workers might be marginally better off, but corporations still take advantage of the fact these people and the countries they live in have nothing to offer other than their cheap labor. The use that fact to keep products at a low price point to pad their bottom line. The people actually producing the items we consume receive an unbelievably low percentage of the final sales price and lead lives we can hardly image (thankfully).

 

There are, sadly, always exceptions. Unfortunately, the people in charge of those nations do nothing to protect their own people from this exploitation. It's not capitalism when all parties don't have the freedom to pursue their own interests, and that is unfortunately true in most of the non-Western world, and even parts of the Western world, too.

 

 

That said, there is MUCH to be said about being an informed consumer, and NOT supporting the companies that behave in ways contrary to one's own ethics. It may cost more, but is it not worth it, knowing you don't support practices which you do not agree?

 

The way corporations operate in America isn't entirely capitalism either.

 

It was fun, in a stomach churning depression inducing way, to see so many dyed-in-the-wool capitalists demand a trillion dollar cash infusion to keep their corrupt and failed financial enterprises afloat. What's it called again when a government takes a strong and vested interest in the "free" market?

 

Capitalism for the poor, capitalism for the rich when it works. The other thing when it doesn't.