Sustaining Capitalism in a Finite World

You are dead wrong on this one...the business model IS NOT created to 'raise the CEO's options value'. It is all shareholders who demand high performance that drives the CEO's to action. Tens of millions of Americans who hold equities absolutely demand the highest returns or they dump the stock and buy elsewhere...

 

Most all blue-chip stocks are not high growth stocks...they are steady over the long haul. You ARE NOT going to get large growth out of Microsoft or GM or GE, etc.

 

Things like outsourcing, robotics, automation, technology, innovation, product evolutions, etc. are all options for a company to become more profitable without the need to greatly grow sales...

 

I personally witnessed locally owned pharmacies in a small town I grew up in that went out of business because a CVS opened down the street and the small pharmacy couldn't compete. It still happens with various businesses, -like my brother-in-laws business.

And yet they invariably do. You're denying something that is common knowledge and has been witness by most people.

Like the pharmacies in my town? The one at the end of my street even expanded services to include a soda fountain, greeting cards, sales of postage stamps, and a few other little things the CVS store didn't offer, and George told me he had to close because all his business was being taken by CVS who was undercutting him. So he closed along with a couple of other pharmacies and CVS raised their prices.

 

LOL!! It appears it is you who are dead wrong. Just 1% of the population owns 70% of stock. Business owners (CEOs, Boards of Directors, etc) aren't stupid enough to allow the public to own and guide their businesses. Fact is that those owners receive stock options that you can't get, back dated to a time when the stock was low priced, and with no expiration date. And those options don't cost the business anything. Market makers on the floor of the exchange take care of redemptions. And the higher the stock price goes, the greater the value of the options, and they are indeed valuable! So the corporation (owners) work to boost stock prices so they can collect big.

And the S.C. ruled that the "prime directive" of a corporation is to "make a profit for shareholders" (owners).

 

http://drugtopics.modernmedicine.co...pendent-pharmacies-offer-best-generic-pricing

https://www.businessreport.com/arti...ing-and-thriving-despite-colossal-competition

http://www.theindependentpharmacist.net/why-use-an-independent-pharmacy/

Like I said, some stores won't be able to compete. Store owners must be smart and focus and be creative. Regarding your local store who added all those other services IMO two things to consider; First, a pharmacy should focus on being a pharmacy. Second, when a store adds other services or products, it is mandatory that each of them are profitable on their own.

Lastly, owning and managing a business is not easy! With competition always lurking each business must be on top of things at all times...

 

What do you think about this article? http://www.gallup.com/poll/190883/half-americans-own-stocks-matching-record-low.aspx

You are wrong on several points above but it appears you hate CEO's and think only the rich own stocks so...

 

If you're correct, given a growing population and the increase in people interested in owning a business that would result, then we should have at least as many small businesses competing with large corporations today as we had 40 years ago. All those small businesses we knew of when we were kids should either still exist or should have been repopulated by new small businesses. But they aren't there. You're arguing against something everyone knows to be true and I don't know why, but I can speculate.

 

That article says nothing about the distribution of stock. You apparently make the assumption that if 50% of the public owns stock, then 50% of the stock belongs to the public. Business "owners" almost always retain controlling interest in the business. They would be fooling to do otherwise.

When the top 1% own half the world's wealth, and less than half of public assets are invested in stock, it should be easy to see the possibility of the majority of stock being owned by those whose net worth runs in the billions of dollars.

"The richest 5% of U.S. households owned about 2/3rds of all stock in 2010."
https://www.theglobalist.com/u-s-stock-ownership-owns-benefits/

And now, 7 years later and a big recovery from the Great Recession behind the rich, how much more do you think they own today? Statistics show the top 0.1% is leaving the top 1% in the dust.

And where do I get my numbers on stock ownership being 70% among the top 1%? From an economist who got his bachelors from Harvard, his Masters from Princeton, and his Doctorate from Yale and taught university economics all his life.

 

Obviously we need a law to criminalize making good/profitable decisions.
The progressive tax system/Inflation seems to have failed.
Bill Gates wealth in 1913 dollars = $3,596,204,843.65
Another interesting fact, John D. Rockefeller who was the wealthiest person in the world in the early 20 century, claimed by Forbes to have been worth an estimated $336 billion in 2007 dollars, yet the Forbes list of billionaires finds but one Rockerfeller, recently deceased who had a wealth of only $3.3 billion and was tied as number 581 on the list with a large number of others. Of course John D. Rockerfeller, a Republican? was also a great philanthropist, as are most billionaires.

Yes, "Business 'owners' almost always retain controlling interest in the business." They would be fools/foolish to do otherwise.
Note: Bill Gates who initially owned 64% of Microsoft now only owns about 4% of the shares of Microsoft, with Steve Ballmer now the largest shareholder also with about 4% of the shares, but more than Gates.

Wealth is acquired by a 3 step process.
Step 1 - Put yourself to work in any and all ways (legal) to acquire income (money).
Step 2 - Constrain your spending to within your means, always putting aside a portion for your future.
Step 3 - Make wise/educated careful decisions on how and where to invest your savings for growth exceeding inflation.
But most of all, recognize that failures are permanent ONLY if you allow them to be, while instead they should be viewed as temporary and educational. Essentially "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

 

Nice, but irrelevant to my post.

What percentage of shares does the Board of Directors own?

4 - Being born in the right family helps.
5 - Be ruthless and unafraid to offend and climb over others including your own coworkers.

But this is irrelevant to my post too.

 

Since we seem incapable of retaining any threads topic, I simply took the Liberty to respond based on my perception of your post.

Less than 3%
Microsoft shares ownership. Of 7.721 billion shares, about 74% are Institutional held.

Executive officers and directors (group of 18 persons) 232,269,002 shares total. Bill Gates currently owns less than 2.5% of the total shares.
Principal shareholders (more than 5%)
The Vanguard Group, Inc. 485,335,822 shares
BlackRock, Inc. 450,562,532 shares

4 - Born into the wrong family? Only 2 persons were responsible your birth
5 - Irrelevant to politics Left or Right leaning.

 

Can you document this?

So? Corporate greed is found among both.

 

iiwisdom.com

Among humans! Rich and poor.

 

You seem to be fixated with stores from 100 years ago and believe we should still have them across the USA? Think about population growth in the USA. Think about how stores can service 100 to 1000 consumers at a time instead of 2? The areas where mom-pop stores were located can't even provide parking space for today's millions of cars. In small-town USA with low population and low commerce it still makes some sense for 100 year old type stores. But as soon as you think about the population of an entire county, places like Walmart, Kmart, Costco, etc. start to show up because they can service a larger area. In every location across the USA there is a need for everything from small to large and depending on the population of the area will determine the ratio of small to large stores...

 

Average Americans in all of their 401K's and pensions, etc. own stock. Yes the wealthy own stock but so does the not wealthy.

I never made that assumption??

Small business owners typically are not public companies with stock. Large public companies don't have an owner...they have shareholders.

Why do you, or should I, care about who owns how much stock? Anyone can buy stock at any time no matter who else owns it. Here's how much I care about your 1%...zero!

Of course the wealthiest people will own more stuff? Can you imagine the poorest people owning more stuff?

Makes no difference where you get your numbers because the numbers have no meaning in my life? I own stock but I don't own billion$ in stocks like a few others might...who cares? Those who own the most stocks cannot prevent me from buying/selling stocks...why should I care? Why do you care?

 

so you want Nazis with guns to make this happen or you want tax incentives to make it happen, or you want to teach people how to compete with big corporations? I can't imagine why you would care and why you don't want the Republican free market to decide how many small businesses there should be??

 

You think there is an unlimited supply of oil?
REALLY?

 

Free market doesn't apply when large corporations have the economy of scale on their side and can make start-ups economically unfeasible.

 

Hitler was NOT a socialist.
He was a Fascist.
Fascism is far right, socialism is left.
The major German capitalists - Krupp, Bayer, Farber, etc., backed Hitler and he agreed to control labor unions in return.
You cannot re-write history to suit your political stance.

 

Is that really a question? It reads like a statement.

There is no "free market"
There cannot be a "free market"

The closest we ever had to a "free market" is found in the economy of 1900, 1910, 1920. And maybe earlier. And it was hell for workers. You should look into it.

And I oppose, resist, and fight Nazis. You're the one who keeps referring to them.

 

He can't learn or refuses to. I have even told him and linked to the facts about Hitler's first act was to ban unions, socialist parties, communist parties, arrest the leaders of all three and execute them and he still wouldn't budge. He's more persuaded by the name of Hitler's party. He doesn't understand lies for the purpose of garnering supporters. The RNC does it but he can't see it there so he can't see it in Hitler either.

 

It is my estimation that all 'large corporations' begin as 'start-ups', and in the past 20 years or so we know first-hand about many large companies today who started with an idea in a garage. Contrary to what you post above...it is absolutely the concept of 'free market' that does provide opportunity for anyone to take an idea and turn it into significant reality...

 

hell for workers?? best period in human history for workers!! Huge inventions then that led to huge increases in our standard of living.

 

why estimate?? we know that only one of the fortune 500 existed 100 years ago!! Capitalism is very competitive.Huge success usually leads to complacency, destruction, and bankruptcy.