Hüsker Dü
DA
Show me where I contradicted myself, plain and simple, should be easy.
Essential Economics for Politicians
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
-
- Tags
- finance too
Hüsker Dü
DA
I'm a skilled laborer, I can read plans, I can climb high, pack tons of steel in a single day, simplify the complicated and drop a crane hook on a dime . . . that's what I get paid for, and you?
Bruddah IZ
DA
I take care of Veterans, Service members, and their Ohana.
Bruddah IZ
DA
You didn't. I just didn't understand what you were trying to say. It's like your fingers and brain weren't fully synced.
Go back just two weeks and you will have multitudes of your own examples to embarrass the shit out of yourself....
Hüsker Dü
DA
No, you show me, if there really are "multitudes" it should be quite easy, go ahead, dare ya . . . I'll await your popcorn fart response.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Interest rates are prices. They impart information. They tell a business person whether or not to undertake a certain capital investment. They measure financial risk. They translate the value of future cash flows into present-day dollars. Manipulate those prices — as central banks the world over compulsively do — and you distort information, therefore perception and judgment.
Interest rates ought to be discovered in the market, not administered from on high. They can’t do their essential work if someone, say a central bank, is muscling them around. Let’s get the central banks out of the business of using interest rates — and stock prices and exchange rates, too – as instruments of national policy. Today, investors live in a hall of mirrors: They don’t know which values are real and which are distorted by monetary manipulation. Market-determined rates will help restore clarity.--http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441128/james-grant-monetary-manipulation-must-end
Interest rates ought to be discovered in the market, not administered from on high. They can’t do their essential work if someone, say a central bank, is muscling them around. Let’s get the central banks out of the business of using interest rates — and stock prices and exchange rates, too – as instruments of national policy. Today, investors live in a hall of mirrors: They don’t know which values are real and which are distorted by monetary manipulation. Market-determined rates will help restore clarity.--http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441128/james-grant-monetary-manipulation-must-end
Buffett to reap $12 billion profit on Bank of America bet
Warren Buffett’s bet on Bank of America Corp. is about to pay off with a roughly $12 billion windfall.
The billionaire plans to exercise warrants obtained six years ago in a vote of confidence in Bank of America while its shares were tumbling amid multibillion-dollar probes tied to the housing meltdown. The cash infusion helped the bank put to rest doubts about whether it had enough capital, and its shares have more than tripled since then.
In the 2011 deal, Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. invested $5 billion in Bank of America in exchange for preferred stock and the right to buy 700 million common shares, a stake now worth $17 billion. Berkshire said in a statement Friday that it would convert its preferred shares into common stock once the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank increases its dividend, now planned for the beginning of the third quarter.
Buffett laid out his thinking for the conversion, which will make him the company’s biggest shareholder, in a February letter to investors, saying that the decision would come down to simple math: The preferred investment pays $300 million a year in dividends, so it makes sense to convert that into common stock if those shares began earning more.
After receiving Federal Reserve approval of its capital plan, Bank of America said on June 28 that it planned to boost its dividend 60 percent to 12 cents a quarter. By converting the preferred stake into common shares, Berkshire’s payout will rise to $336 million a year. The $12 billion in gains come on top of more than $1.5 billion in dividends from the preferred stake over the past six years.
Buffett shored up confidence in Bank of America and its chief executive officer, Brian Moynihan, at a critical juncture. With backing from Berkshire’s billionaire chief executive officer, Bank of America soon rebounded. That generated a massive paper profit on the warrants. The warrants allow Buffett to buy the stock at a discounted rate of $7.14 a share, compared with the closing price of $24.32 on Thursday.
The episode highlighted Buffett’s role as a financial firefighter and mirrored confidence-boosting investments he made in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and General Electric Co. during the 2008 crisis. In those cases, he was also able to extract generous terms in exchange for vouching for those companies’ long-term prospects.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/tops...t-on-bank-of-america-bet/ar-BBDu9CI?ocid=iehp
Warren Buffett’s bet on Bank of America Corp. is about to pay off with a roughly $12 billion windfall.
The billionaire plans to exercise warrants obtained six years ago in a vote of confidence in Bank of America while its shares were tumbling amid multibillion-dollar probes tied to the housing meltdown. The cash infusion helped the bank put to rest doubts about whether it had enough capital, and its shares have more than tripled since then.
In the 2011 deal, Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. invested $5 billion in Bank of America in exchange for preferred stock and the right to buy 700 million common shares, a stake now worth $17 billion. Berkshire said in a statement Friday that it would convert its preferred shares into common stock once the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank increases its dividend, now planned for the beginning of the third quarter.
Buffett laid out his thinking for the conversion, which will make him the company’s biggest shareholder, in a February letter to investors, saying that the decision would come down to simple math: The preferred investment pays $300 million a year in dividends, so it makes sense to convert that into common stock if those shares began earning more.
After receiving Federal Reserve approval of its capital plan, Bank of America said on June 28 that it planned to boost its dividend 60 percent to 12 cents a quarter. By converting the preferred stake into common shares, Berkshire’s payout will rise to $336 million a year. The $12 billion in gains come on top of more than $1.5 billion in dividends from the preferred stake over the past six years.
Buffett shored up confidence in Bank of America and its chief executive officer, Brian Moynihan, at a critical juncture. With backing from Berkshire’s billionaire chief executive officer, Bank of America soon rebounded. That generated a massive paper profit on the warrants. The warrants allow Buffett to buy the stock at a discounted rate of $7.14 a share, compared with the closing price of $24.32 on Thursday.
The episode highlighted Buffett’s role as a financial firefighter and mirrored confidence-boosting investments he made in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and General Electric Co. during the 2008 crisis. In those cases, he was also able to extract generous terms in exchange for vouching for those companies’ long-term prospects.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/tops...t-on-bank-of-america-bet/ar-BBDu9CI?ocid=iehp
Wez
DA
No doubt one of our most brilliant investors. A side note, his ass was also saved in the financial crisis as a ton of his financial holdings received bailouts.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Nice call options
Bruddah IZ
DA
Why Your Boss Isn't Ripping You Off
https://fee.org/articles/debunking-marxism-101-why-your-boss-isnt-ripping-you-off/
Workers and employers exchange to mutual advantage.
But how can the work be worth more than $20 to the employer at the same time the $20 is worth more than the work to the employee?
The answer is that the employer and employee value things differently. The employer values the work more than $20; the employee values $20 more than the work. Both exchange what they value less for what they value more. Both parties benefit from the exchange; each is made better off according to his or her own, different values. Neither “rips off” the other. They exchange by mutual consent to mutual advantage.
The way this is said in modern economics is that value is subjective. This principle has been understood since the “marginal revolution” in economics of 1870 when the idea of marginal utility was introduced.
A Marxist, Wolff argues in keeping with the labor theory of value, which the marginal revolution exploded. This is the doctrine that what determines the value of a good or service is the “socially necessary labor” required to produce it. It implies that value is inherent, determined by the labor necessary to produce the good or service in question. But value is not inherent; it is subjective. Different people value any thing differently, according to its value to them “at the margin.”
I can’t understand how Marxists such as Wolff ignore that value is subjective. Surely he cannot be ignorant of it, so either he ignores it willfully or he believes it invalid.
In any case, the first flaw in Dr. Wolff’s argument is to ignore that value is subjective and to focus on the benefits to the employer while ignoring the corresponding benefits to the employee.
https://fee.org/articles/debunking-marxism-101-why-your-boss-isnt-ripping-you-off/
Workers and employers exchange to mutual advantage.
But how can the work be worth more than $20 to the employer at the same time the $20 is worth more than the work to the employee?
The answer is that the employer and employee value things differently. The employer values the work more than $20; the employee values $20 more than the work. Both exchange what they value less for what they value more. Both parties benefit from the exchange; each is made better off according to his or her own, different values. Neither “rips off” the other. They exchange by mutual consent to mutual advantage.
The way this is said in modern economics is that value is subjective. This principle has been understood since the “marginal revolution” in economics of 1870 when the idea of marginal utility was introduced.
A Marxist, Wolff argues in keeping with the labor theory of value, which the marginal revolution exploded. This is the doctrine that what determines the value of a good or service is the “socially necessary labor” required to produce it. It implies that value is inherent, determined by the labor necessary to produce the good or service in question. But value is not inherent; it is subjective. Different people value any thing differently, according to its value to them “at the margin.”
I can’t understand how Marxists such as Wolff ignore that value is subjective. Surely he cannot be ignorant of it, so either he ignores it willfully or he believes it invalid.
In any case, the first flaw in Dr. Wolff’s argument is to ignore that value is subjective and to focus on the benefits to the employer while ignoring the corresponding benefits to the employee.
Hüsker Dü
DA
That's funny, have you donated?
Wez
DA
Was there a point in there somewhere?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Absolutely. Didn't cost me a cent.
Hüsker Dü
DA
More popcorn fart logic.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Are you saying you deserve something more complex? How about your thoughts on the AEI article now that I've read what I knew would be in it.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Good for you, I only posted it as information. You never said whether you agreed or not with the premise of taxing employer provided healthcare insurance as income. I had read somewhere else that was a conservative idea, in fact a conservative dream.
Bruddah IZ
DA
That's what I figured. As I've posted many times before, Health Insurance needs to be separated from health care and both need to be able to be separated from employment. Having a third party (government or employer) shop for your health insurance is nuts. You wouldn't allow them to do that with any other insurance you hold. But if your employer does pay for one or both, it should be taxed as income. Employees without employer provided healthcare pay for healthcare and/or insurance would pay with post tax dollars if they wanted or needed health products as needed not like:
Hüsker Dü
DA
See, the attempted ACA bashing aside, that wasn't so hard was it?