Breaking: 3 Richest Americans Now Own More Wealth Than Bottom 50%

Sure you did. You made the claim that the owners increase their profit margins on the backs of employees.

Those employees accepted a wage for a position, and unless the employer failed to pay them for their labor, they got exactly what they signed up for. The corporation owes them nothing else, especially dependent on profits.

Well I can see you are out of your league, since this is what your responses have drilled down to.

You made the claim that share values only benefit the wealthy who hold the stock options. But you conveniently ignored that holding stock options in lieu of cash is also risky.

No, I am not. Treasury stock would be from the IPO. Equity Stock is a different animal when corporations split shares and sell more of them.

I do, that isn't what I was talking about. I said that companies often sell additional stock to raise capital for operation. You said there was no way to do that. I said, sure their is, through equity stock. Then you go around and around in this circle about treasury stock from the IPO when that wasn't what I was talking about. I even posted the links for you to educate yourself.

Clearly your visit didn't teach you all you need to know. You keep talking the secondary market without an understanding of go-to-market equity stock sales.

So, pretty much your responses amounted to "you don't know nothing! you're wrong! educate yourself!" all while continuing to ignore the articles I posted that discuss equity stock sales and how those are used to raise capital for a company.

You are clearly on this site to scream how much you know, while simultaneously willfully ignoring other perspectives and allowing yourself to read links and educate yourself. That's fine, if that is your agenda. But most of the talking points that revolve around big greedy corporations screwing the little man is absolutely bonefide bullshit talking points from the liberal left who have absolutely no concept nor understanding of how corporate america works.

But you go one with your socialist anti capitalist agenda. It's easy to do when your head is in the sand.

 

Of course you don't. You have to make them a victim, so that you can claim there is a need to change the system that victimizes them. It's all a means to your desired ends.

People who are impoverished usually align with a few common traits:

1. Failure to plan and make themselves marketable
2. Non-desire to work, accepting their position without desire to take steps to increase wealth earning potential
3. Poor decisions that include dropping out of school, having children too early, inability to manage money
4. Sickness including addiction, or healthcare costs resulting from chronic diseases, or mental illness

Find me any impoverished person and I will absolutely guarantee that we could look into their history and identify one or more of the above things that let to their poverty.

 

Let's backtrack a bit. You said "I don't know who ever told you that accepting a wage for labor some how made you an owner or share holder" to which I replied "I never said such a thing." And now you equate the statements that owners increase their profit margins on the backs of employees and accepting a wage for labor some how made you an owner or share holder. You call them equivalent. No wonder you're so confused.

And to you that means "(I) want the benefit, but not the risk." And you never bother to ask for clarification. You don't want to debate or you would have and you would then debate the issues raised. Instead you want to throw stones. And so you remain confused.

When a corp stock splits, it only brings in money to the company from stock sales if the corp sells treasury stock.... -stock that has been held in reserve and off market. The more common reason for stock splits is to make the stock cheaper per share so that the public will buy more from the public, putting upward pressure on the price, which the corp elite then take advantage of by selling their personal shares and their options as prices rise. And that is for personal "compensation" rather than for corp asset gains. Splitting shares does not, of itself, change the value of shares held by anyone since, for example in a 2-for-1 split, the number of shares you hold is doubled but the price is halved.

I never said there was no way to do that, only that the way you cited isn't one of them. So tell me, in your specific scenario of the corp raising capital by selling stock, exactly where does that stock come from in a 10 or 20 year old corp? IOW, what class of stock are you referring to as the source of shares to be sold?

Your Wiki article supports everything I've been telling you and contradicts what you have been saying. It says "In an ATM offering, exchange-listed companies incrementally sell newly issued shares into the secondary trading market through a designated broker-dealer at prevailing market prices". Those shares were authorized but not issued. Hence they can be sold exactly as I have been telling you, to raise capital because they have been off-market.

Your Investopedia article says:
"For example, consider a company that has 1,000 shares in existence, trading at $10 per share. The company needs to raise money, so it decides to issue another 100 shares and sell them into the market.

"Of course, the company's value has not changed due to this sale, but there are now 1,100 shares in circulation. In addition to its value not changing, its earnings and revenue remain the same. However, on a per-share basis, these values drop. Basically, the additional funds to the company come at the expense of the shareholders."

This isn't commonly done because the major shareholders are the corp elite, themselves, and it harms their net worth. It is more often done by desperate companies that are in deep financial difficulties. But still, these newly issued shares were "authorized shares" as I have been saying. They weren't essentially an "IPO" offered later. In the Articles of Incorporation and other documents governing the formation of the corp., these shares were designated as "authorized shares".

 

I see working for the state government and screwing off here on company time, what else is new?

 

Everyone makes 100% of their decisions in life...each person has a potential...it is up to each person to take whatever steps necessary if they wish to achieve their full potential...government and others will not solve their problems for them...

 

How naive, and even after I explained it.

 

You explained how "the rich" can stop me from increasing my wealth?

 

The difference: I see many of the poor as victims and I defend them. You victimize them by attacking them in the interest of capital.

 

New? Nothing new in you. You attack me without knowing zip about me. I'm 70 and retired. And you? Unemployed, broke, and poor?

 

Yes, and others make the conditions which determine the range of decisions everyone can reasonably make in life.

 

There's nothing anyone can do to stop you from creating more wealth in your life. Stop blaming others.

 

You said you work for the state government, now you claim your retired and 70.

 

I said:
"Companies are always going to find ways to make themselves more efficient and profitable."

You replied:
"Yes, the "find ways to make themselves more efficient and profitable" at workers' expense as I described elsewhere."

To which I replied:
"I don't know who ever told you that accepting a wage for labor some how made you an owner or share holder."

Kode said:
"And you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how to correctly and accurately read what I posted. I never said such a thing."

Fine. Let's get this back on track. You think it is wrong for companies to outsource, or find other ways to become more profitable if it means that employees get laid off or wages suffer?

And now YOU claim to be the victim. Let's recap. Quotes from Kode in THIS thread:

"We've been over that. Remember?"
"You have an "interesting" style of debating."
"To this post, for example, I expect you to plead confusion and to request a "clarification."
"Try actually dealing with post 382."
"No, not good enough."
"There it is again: a basic flaw in your understanding"
"Try answering that."
"And you're wasting my time. Redeem yourself."
"You do know what the word "responsible" means, don't you?"
"End of discussion."
"And you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how to correctly and accurately read what I posted."
"Wow. You really don't know WTF you're talking about I see."
"And you think you're going to lecture me on stock?"
"LOL...then come back and talk to me."

Maybe you need to self evaluate your condescending style of discussion and overall crappy attitude before claiming to be the victim.

Every noticed how everybody gets short with you, and starts snapping? News flash, it isn't them. Its you.

Sure... Most companies during an IPO retain a significant number of shares in the founders and executives control. The IPO does not issue 100% of the company value in shares.

This is where we are disconnecting.

It is possible and common to take a strong share, split the share, and then issue equity shares to gain capital. They are diluting the share value, but if the company is reinvesting in growth and stock prices continue to increase, then the equity shares make sense. This is extremely popular in start-ups, even after an IPO, as usually in most companies the majority of shareholders are also the owners.

Why borrow with interest when you can borrow capital against equity?

I agree they didn't have a second IPO, but the shares are TECHNICALLY in the secondary market because they were owned by somebody outside of the IPO, it just happened to be the owners of the company.

 

The wealthy will always be wealthy, just as the left will always be angry. Once you have so much money, it generates more money. If the top 3 gave all their money to crackheads, the crackheads would be broke in a week. Its just how it works.

 

How utterly naive.

 

QUOTE ME.

 

Yes, one consequence of freedom, is to profit off the labor of others. For one is free to not only be greedy, but showcase it as well. The best way to fight this, is to call out such people or companies, and nobody work for them. The problem is people cannot always find a job, thus in turn are forced to work for such greedy bastards. The choice of good and evil will always remain a problem in any society, for it is the reality of our nature.

 

Me: "There's nothing anyone can do to stop you from creating more wealth in your life. Stop blaming others."
You: "How utterly naive."

Okay, how can anyone stop you from creating more wealth in your life?

 

Money buys representation in this vastly corrupt government that as gone off the rails from democracy to plutocracy/oligarchy and why do you not understand how pay to play makes the playing field grossly uneven as it favors policies that only work for the wealthy. The right is still buying trickle down which proves that even after almost half a century of dismal failure, the stupidity of the right wing rubes knows no bounds.

 

Oh, heck yeah. The state can eff you up super bad. The state is totally evil and can indeed prevent you from improving your wealth. I was talking about wealthy individuals.

 

"Wrong"? It's the lawful capitalist way. And it results in harm to the working class and society. That is what I object to.

It happens occasionally, and it happens when there is no actual debate of my points and no curiosity or request for clarification, but instead there is a rant or a doubling-down or what I call "throwing stones". The right doesn't seem to want to explore and investigate. They make assumptions and go with it. When I reply in kind they get "short". Oh well.

They're called "authorized but not issued shares".

And equity share issues risk harming the net worth of the corporate elite shareholders. So it is rarely done since there are other ways, especially today when there is a reduced interest in increasing productive capacity and just more interest in keeping share prices high for the benefit of the corporate elite.

How are they "in the secondary market" and "owned by somebody (owners of the company)" when they are "newly issued shares"? Think again.

 

If you don't understand that YOU make all the decisions in YOUR life then you have no grasp of reality...only excuses...

 

They don't have to be newly issued.

 

You don't agree with the article you quoted?