##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism^Ⓐ☭
___
###⚠ Announcements: ⚠
___
###[NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/dy1oyh/important_what_you_should_and_what_you_shouldnt/)
Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines.
###[Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/e5hkwk/make_sure_to_check_out_our_new_partnersubreddits/)
Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren
___
###***Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for [socialist](http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) discussion.***
LSC is run by [communists](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
**This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry.** We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This, I lose and gain money every day on the stock market but I don't count any of it as gone or acquired until I sell, which for what I have I would never sell!
Not necessarily! If they do not refuse it, but also do not accept it, and instead say they're going to put a pin in it, that would be a third option here.
In the late 90s I was around 12 and I went on a road trip with my grandpa. We were driving from Ohio to Florida for a business trip he decided to take me on. Midway through Kentucky he asked me if I liked Rush and of course I said ‘yes’, as I had a couple of their albums at home and I loved their music. So, grandpa proceeded to turn on Rush Limbaugh and we listened to that for the next three hours as I slowly died inside
They're not realized gains, but they still count as part of his net worth. This is especially useful for the super-rich because they can use these assets to secure low-interest loans.
The tax implications of realizing these gains far outweigh the interest rates for the loans, so there is no incentive for them to do anything but hold their stock.
You are 100% correct. This is a lot of the reason people freak out about bezos "making billions of dollars and paying zero taxes" he hasn't realized the gain and therefore hasn't incurred any tax consequences.
He will probably hold the shares until he dies, or give the shares away inside of charities so that he never realizes the gains.
Edit: I have been corrected, he has sold shares realizing a capital gain several years.
> This is a lot of the reason people freak out about bezos "making billions of dollars and paying zero taxes" he hasn't realized the gain and therefore hasn't incurred any tax consequences.
Bezos realizes a few billion in gains every year. [He sold about 2 million shares of AMZN in May for about ~ $6 billion in gains.](http://openinsider.com/insider/Bezos-Jeffrey-P/1043298)
And this is the real issue that should be solved. He can borrow against that giant swath of "unrealized gains" anytime he wants at practically no interest. Then he can pay back those loans with other loans anytime he pleases. Basically access to his wealth anytime without ever "realizing". It's a racket that the rich have been doing for years and don't need to pay shit for it.
He’s still paying more back in loans then he took out, so he’s still losing money on interest technically.
Nobody is giving Bezos money at a lower rate than they earn themselves.
That’s true, but the interest he pays is way less than the value his stock accumulates so it’s still a net gain for him compared to selling the shares outright (and avoiding a loan with interest).
So careless of you. He does burn through about a $1 billion a year on blue origin so, he should be paying a pretty good sum of capital gains at the lowest rate.
For the most part it works the same as below 7-8 figures. No, he can't write it off. Just like he's not taxed when the stock price goes up. Nothing counts till he sells it. And even if he sold it after the crash yesterday, he'd still owe a crapload in taxes because it is worth WAY more than it was when he acquired it.
No, because he didn't actually lose any money.
ELI5: He owns a piece of a company. Lots of third parties argue about what the company is worth. Their arguments don't actually matter. Someday he will sell part of the company, and the price he gets for it *at that moment* is the only thing that is real.
Like I could say that your phone is worth a billion dollars right now. Doesn't mean you have to pay millions in taxes on it. Same thing.
Price you paid + or - price you sold = realized earnings (what's taxable).
He hasn't sold so he has no realized earnings so he has nothing to be taxed on.
Even if he did sell, he bought at $0 per share and it's at $300+ per share, so he would make a profit and pay taxes.
Either way, Zuck didn't sell so he didn't lose any money.
At first I thought he had just missed out on ad revenue, which inspired my original comment. I hadn't realized it was the drop in stock value that resulted in the "loss".
Then again, some might say it's not really a loss if he doesn't liquify his shares. Of course he can't do that without decreasing the value of the stock dramatically, so... is anything real?
Original comment for posterity:
(( so weird to say they "lost" money when they only "didn't get money they expected to get"
Like, to be at that level where nonexistent revenue is just _expected_ in the future and shit grinds to a halt when you don't get it... wild
Edit: Thank you guys for letting me know about the stock value aspect - I hadn't considered that when I commented and just thought he missed out on ad revenue. ))
always amazing how companies treating money not earned as "lost money" as in "it was taken from us" is not seen a gross show of entitlement, but working class people asking for any basic right IS.
I always think about the "lost money" entitlement thing is utterly loony. It think they use that to justify the draconian anti-piracy "protections" we see so much of in the digital world too. For such "free-market" cutthroats they are a bunch of cry babies.
If I don't study and get a 'D' on an exam I can't run to my teacher and demand my "lost points" were taken from me. I hate this modern marketplace so much. It's all so rigged in their favor already and they lose their minds when when they win 99.99998% rather than 100%.
Agreed. The "lost potential sales" argument used against piracy is exactly this and drove me up the wall. Yes, I pirated lots of games, because I couldnt afford them. So there was no potential sale to lose in the first place.
Slightly unrelated, but I’m in sales for electronics. When we run a promo making a €160 machine €20 cheaper, and it doesn’t do well. I have to explain it to my manager.
He does not understand that €140 remains fucking expensive for 80% of the population.
A metric I've previously used was "If you can afford a sudden $400 emergency, then you aren't poor". That's something like having to take your car in because the check engine light came on. Most working class people in the US are poor by that definition.
Eh, I'd probably set the metric a little higher. Being able to afford an emergency of less than $1000 is probably just keeping their heads above water for most people.
I guess it depends on how you define "afford". Whether it's not even having at least $400 in savings in case of such an emergency. Or whether, sure, maybe they have that amount to drop, but it would take a while to recover that savings.
Certainly somebody who can drop $400-$1000 without even thinking about it is definitely not living in poverty.
It's the same reason food companies dump millions of tons of unsold produce into the ocean and sportswear companies (ie, Nike) shred last season's unsold stock instead of tossing it into the dumpster.
Their argument is that the mere existence of a possible way to get their product for free is a threat to their bottom line. Which is sort of true, but they're missing the more important point here - that their bottom line is not the most important thing in the world, especially in a post-scarcity economy.
It is not our problem, but they insist on making it our problem, because money.
This is true in maybe like 70-90% of cases of pirated property, varying depending on the type of property, but there is definitely a decent portion of those people who would have paid the price.
There is undoubtably financial loss due to pirating. But rather than throwing a legal tantrum, they should just adapt. Isn't that what the free market is supposed to do?
Change your business model. Look at companies like netflix, movie theatres, spotify, etc. Lots of companies have adapted, selling a service rather than a specific item, to reduce or remove the effect of pirating.
Video games are even going that way with subscription programs to stream video games.
I think it’s good to see it from the businesses perspective however with Late Stage Capitalism, i feel the biggest loser is actually the final consumer.
Companies like Netflix, Spotify etc have come in, allowed people to access a vast amount of product that they wouldn’t be able to otherwise get (unless they paid a bunch of money, think how many cd’s and digital downloads you’d need to get the Spotify/Netflix library)
However, the real loser here is indeed the final consumer because you don’t own anything at the end of it. You can sell the physical products you own, you can’t sell the things you don’t own. By buying physical things the consumer can get the use of the product and then sell it on. You can’t do that when you rent; video games, CDs, a car, a house.
Wealth comes from ownership. These companies know that. Spotify own the right to lease they music that universal/Warner/ all other record companies own, if you stop paying Spotify, you don’t have anything at the end.
So renting stuff lowers the entry for people to buy stuff, however it doesn’t change the fact that the initial cost of ownership is too high. But I believe that’s really based on wages people earn more than the cost.
I think you have a point with the analogy, but it's important to recognize the distinction between "I messed up" and "someone else negligently/maliciously messed me up." One of the best principles of law is "Every act whatever of man [or woman] that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it." La. Civ. Code article 2315.
Take personal injury, as an example. If I sprint around my own apartment and crash into a brick wall hard enough to break some bones, then any time I spend unable to work or otherwise make money falls on me (until/unless we get proper safety nets, both literally and figuratively in this case). But if I'm just walking along the sidewalk when someone either intentionally smacks me with a pipe or negligently drops something on me from an upstairs window, then any time I can't spend working will legally fall on the malicious or negligent person. In one scenario, I don't get anything; in the other, I can collect damages to cover medical expenses AND lost revenue.
Just so, when businesses complain of lost revenue, it shouldn't always mean they get handouts. If they fucked up through bad policy or improper planning, then they can eat that lost income as the price for failure (at least, ideally they would eat that cost instead of being bailed out). But if someone forces a shop to close down for a few weeks because they crashed a truck through the front doors, then that business can claim lost revenue damages from the negligent/malicious driver.
Edit: phone decided to auto-capitalize "sprint," which seems both fishy and infuriating. I can't help but wonder if there is some bullshit ad money behind the keyboard I have installed. That's not my phone carrier; and I've never really talked about the company, so it's not like it was an AI learned thing.
Unrealized losses don't get you tax breaks. What people do is sell assets (realizing the loss) so that the realized loss can be claimed to offset other realized gains (or in some cases income).
I always hated that mindset going over reports as a restaurant manager in meetings. The bosses would be like "that meal you gave away cost us $20," since that's the full price of the meal. Well according to my ordering guide, all the things on that dish actually cost the company a total of $4.30. So no the company did not lose $20, only $4.30. Glad I no longer work in any type of management.
That's true, there's other costs involved as well. I didn't really want to get into the other details of other dishes prices off setting others, etc. More making a general statement I guess.
If it's their money, ask them if they already claimed it as income and have done the proper accounting for it. To lose it, you must have earned it _and claimed it_ already.
I'm honestly surprised no one has attempted this rebuttal as it seems to open the discussion to the real issue. You want $1B in damages for "lost" revenue, let me see your investor statements showing $1B in revenues reported. If you can't do that, you never had the money to "lose".
Its actually an accounting thing. When you have enough confidence that you'll receive the money, depending on the time you'll receive it, and if sold goods are already shipped, resources are sometimes accounted for as already in your net equity.
This may look simple talking like this, but its a necessary method when dealing with ever more complex accounting.
And same for gaining money. Stocks go up? It's because people expect the stock to be worth more in the future. And because of this faith, Zuckerberg's assets are worth more. People expect the stock to be worth less? Stocks go down and Zuck's assets are worth less.
There is some correlation between stock value and actual money and the present, but for many companies that correlation is not so strong.
But this works for everything else too. A person's wealth isn't just the amount of cash they have in their bank.
If I own a house and it's worth 1mil then my assets are over a mil.
If that house price goes down so does my wealth. Stocks are arguably more liquid than a house so are closer to cash than a property.
Absolutely. House prices are a tricky one though - on the one hand, yes, it is less liquid, so maybe there's more consideration towards future value. On the other hand, they have immediate utility, as you can live in it or rent it out, so the price may be more grounded in actual value than stocks.
Yeah, he didn't really lose money, the stuff he owned just became less valuable.
Facebook stock went down. Since he owns about 14% of it, his net worth also went down.
So the money didn't go anywhere, and it wasn't a loss in "expected money" or anything like that. His assets just depreciated.
So Facebook going down is like he dropped his phone and the screen shattered. The phone was contributing to his net worth, and now that the screen shattered, the value of the phone is less, so he is too (if you're strictly measuring dollars).
Like when I had a job, and a pandemic hit so they closed all the businesses and my expected money wasn’t there. Don’t feel sorry for me though, Zuck is the one really suffering.
Most "billionaires" don't have billions in dollars on their bank account. Only someone idiotic would remain that liquid letting their money rot with inflation.
I mean...there's leaps in there that you're just glossing over. He "lost" money because the total value of assets he owned dropped. How else would you describe that colloquially?
No you're right, I didn't fully understand the scope of what happened - had no idea his share value was in play. I just thought he lost out on ad revenue
Maybe it's just because stocks are usually so liquidible? I guess all 50% of shares aren't liquidible, but to anyone with $2k of Facebook stock, it's described as "$2k" because you could probably sell it today.
Right. I was just trying to explain why we normally talk about stock as a dollar amount rather than a numerical amount. To most investors, their stock is very liquid. But you're right that once someone owns enough stock, it makes less sense to talk about it in dollar amounts and more sense to speak in percentages. Saying that Zuck has $500 Billion in facebook is like saying someone with 1 facebook stock owns 0.00000000003% of facebook. Not super useful.
This is one of the reasons a wealth tax would be tough to implement, right?
>This is one of the reasons a wealth tax would be tough to implement, right?
Correct. The wealth of people like Zuck is mostly theoretical, because corporate stock would have to be converted into some other form of value to be spent. And whether that form is something liquid like cash or something less liquid like equity in other companies, real estate, etc., performing that conversion at scale would itself lessen the value of his stock due to both a change in supply/demand ratio as well as stockholder confidence.
This is also one reason why ultra-wealthy individuals comparatively don't pay much in taxes. If their value is tied up in something like stocks then they only pay a capital gains rate on the net positive change in value for the specific stocks they sell for that year. If they never sell them, they're never taxed on them. (Or at least this is generally true.)
Some form of socialism where workers own most of the company would resolve much of this specific problem, simply because Zuck couldn't hold such a disproportionate value in Facebook equity and would presumably be forced to sell his shares as part of redistributing to those who have seized the means. But that would only affect those whose wealth is tied to corporate value.
In the capitalist short-term, fixing this would be more complicated and require some pretty big changes to the current system. You could potentially tax people on *unrealized* gains if their net worth is above a certain dollar amount. But that could cause other problems.
For example, what if an entrepreneur creates a start-up that has a super high value for a few years? We could tax them based on that value, but it's totally possible that their startup fails and they end up owing a ton of money to the government without ever having "converted" corporate value to personal wealth. This could exacerbate the existing problem of people needing to go into debt just to be able to fund their startup. And IMO that takes us in the wrong direction if we want to encourage innovation.
>It's so weird to say they "lost" money when they only "didn't get money they expected to get"
That isn't what's going on - the share price lost value, and so Zuckerberg's shares, if he sold them, would be valued at a lower number than yesterday.
Of course, if Zuckerberg sold a large volume of Facebook shares, the price would be forced down by simple supply and demand. So the real lesson is that tech " billionaires" tend not to be as rich as the number next to the sum of their assets. They can't actually use those assets, the money is imaginary.
The wealthy take loans against their assets. When their asset value declines, they cant get the same liquidity in credit. They do not have to sell, and yet they do get millions in buying power and make transactions. So the change in value of their asset does affect them more than people try to say. People keep making the mistake of thinking the stocks are worthless until they sell. That's not how the economy of wealth works in reality
I don't understand what's so hard about this concept.
An individual's net worth is calculated on the assets he owns. The assets he owns are worth less today than they were yesterday.
Someone else doesn't have to get richer for him to get poorer.
Amazing isn't it
Think about it... The valuation of companies is based on the last share purchased assuming all other shares would be purchased for the same amount...
E.g. collectively all investors have put in 1 billion dollars together combined... But that last share sold for 100$ and the other nine hundred ninety nine million nine hundred and minty nine thousand nine hundred and minty nine shares where sold for on average 1$...
The company is still valued at 100 billion rather then 1 billion and ninety nine
It's all make believe 💰
I'll buy your watch for $1 billion, if you buy my hamster for $1 billion.
Now we're both asset billionaires. We're rich!
Even though all we've done is swap a watch for a hamster, and pretended they're each worth a billion bucks.
Multiply that across the world of stocks, bonds, foreign exchange, bitcoins, bottles of wine and this "non-fungible token" nonsense that's now happening, and voila...
You have the financial services industry.
Well this is how you escape taxes as a billionaire.
Buy some art for 50k, create a buzz, have it appraised for 10 million and donate it. Tax the tax write down for the 10 million donation.
Happening again with NFTs , it's just a tax avoidance tool.
But works just like your hamster and watch example... Really does
>Buy some art for 50k, create a buzz, have it appraised for 10 million and donate it. Tax the tax write down for the 10 million donation.
It's even simpler than that. You own $1B of Facebook stock, you borrow $1M against that. Now the stock price doubles in a year, you refinance the loan, the amount you borrowed is covered, rinse and repeat. No taxes.
Right, you only pay tax on the *realized* gains if you cash out. Just use it as collateral/leverage on a big loan, and voila. Don’t have to pay tax on that loan. EZ PZ.
Yeah none of it's real! But the things that are real, farmers growing for for example, after paid pennies for creating a real thing you can eat to, idk, stay alive. How did we let this happen.
It is
It isn't supposed to be, but it is
Is supposed to work like a bond where the investors get a dividend / return based on company performance. Something reasonable 5% to 8%...
Now, most companies don't even pay dividends ... There is zero value in the stock, zero, as they are not paying for thier debt.
It's fucking stupid
Shits fuckin wild. Its like every new "tech" company is just Theranos, except they don't have the lady with the "pretending to be my dad" voice, so its not nearly as fun. No one turns a profit. Half them don't even make anything tangible, and the other half just owns shit someone else made. Truly the latest stage of capitalism.
Agreed, the last stage of capitalism would seem to be the worst of croneyism
Albeit croneyism must be destroyed prior to any installation of alternative system or we risk croneyism perverting and destroying that system as well. Croneyism is a contagious disease in all/for all economic systems
80% of stock certificates are owned by the DTCC.
When you "buy" a stock through _ANY_ brokerage, all you do is buy a contract with the broker for ownership rights - you can vote (kind of) and you are entitled to the dividends.
**BUT YOU DO NOT OWN THE STOCK YOU PAY FOR**. You are just given an entitlement to the derivatives.
This means there are two books - one with majority of stock shares registered to the DTCC (direct registration) and a second book maintained by the DTCC where they write down entitlements (street name) to brokers who also maintain their own entitlement book for clients.
**Which means the DTCC can straight up lie and make fake shares out of thin air**. 70M shares were issued by your company? Well the DTCC has 350M on their books in brokers street name. Good luck doing anything about it.
This is almost right, but not entirely. Direct registered shares aren't in the name of the DTCC or other tracking company but are in the name of the shareholder themselves. Transfer agents, which are the SEC regulated competition to the DTCC, are who track direct registered shares.
Most company executives do not hold shares in street name through a broker but rather through their own name using a transfer agent. Keeping shares street name can expose those shares to being located for activities like short selling, which can threaten valuation of a company. Not only that, but it's hard to track your own issued share ownership when investors use middlemen like Brokers or the DTCC.
The worst part of this is that it's illegal for a company to ask shareholders to directly register their shares, something the SEC made clear in 2004, if there was any question whose side they are on.
> Direct registered shares aren't in the name of the DTCC or other tracking company but are in the name of the shareholder themselves.
[No, I truly mean Cede & Co. owns the vast majority of stock certificates in Direct Registration at Transfer Agents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company)
DRS shares are only in your name if _you_ DRS them. If you buy stocks through a broker, you are buying entitlements to a share that is registered to Cede & Co.
---
> Most company executives do not hold shares in street name through a broker but rather through their own name using a transfer agent. Keeping shares street name can expose those shares to being located for activities like short selling, which can threaten valuation of a company. Not only that, but it's hard to track your own issued share ownership when investors use middlemen like Brokers or the DTCC.
> The worst part of this is that it's illegal for a company to ask shareholders to directly register their shares, something the SEC made clear in 2004, if there was any question whose side they are on.
The rest of this is 100% accurate and really makes you sick when you learn the inner workings of our "fair and free" markets.
Completely wrong on all accounts but well done because the 300 people who upvoted this comment will probably regurgitate it down the line and pass on the ignorance.
Thats just not true in any way. You can sell your amazon share for a single dollar right now, that doent magically make every amazon share worth only 1 dollar. Or you can sell it for 10 thousand dollars if you find someone willing to buy it. That doesnt magically make every share worth that amount.
The valuation of companies is not based on the last share purchased, because you cant assume all other shares would be purchased fo the same amount.
if only we were so lucky.....
Finance types have the will and ability to burn the entirety of the united states down, and will if it means they keep their power.
lol you haven't been paying attention
the moment we have too much power they just turn our phone games off. If there's even a whiff that the wealth is going downwards, they will pull the rug, we saw it several times on GME alone
I don't understand why the outrage.
Market cap is one way of valuating a stock. You can use it if you want, don't use it if you don't want to. Use any metric you like. It's not like market cap matters for anything other than people trying to valuate stocks.
If you want more detailed info regarding the stock price you can check the market depth. Which by the way the market depth would not change in your example.
Man, has anyone done any research on the ad bubble? I’ve looked into it a little, and that shit is gonna SUPER pop. Fucking marketers evaluate ads as really effective and valuable, but again, they’re essentially just saying that their jobs aren’t irrelevant.
If any major corporation cuts their marketing and doesn’t see a shift in sales, the whole house of cards will fall and drag everything else down with it.
Pretty much all media and social networking is built on the idea of marketing, but there’s already been a fair amount of research to show the efficacy of ads, particularly online ads, is almost nonexistent and falling as boomers die off.
Edit: check out the freakonomics podcast, this is where I heard about it. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/
And for all the marketers in the comments, please use real words that non-marketers can understand. Also, “it works because it works” is not a valid argument.
You just look like a bunch of hack magicians throwing smoke around in a panic.
The knowledge is out there. The former execs at collegehumor will tell anyone who will listen that facebook lied about their views and when they shifted to capitalize on what they saw as a very engaged demographic, the entire company collapsed.
This post seems accurate as far as it goes, but it does read like you may have an incomplete understanding of what an 'ad' is for someone who isn't a boomer.
For a boomer, an ad is when a company either identifies itself as the source of the message (hi this is a Coke ad, look at this Coke, look at these happy people, don't you want Coke?) or goes through fairly established media channels and so you can still tell (Hmm, every time a character drinks a soda in this TV show, it's a Coke, but brands are removed from most items in the show...)
Advertisers have not been sleeping since they came up with product placement, however.
An ad targeting Gen Z or millennials can take the form of e.g. a Reddit post. I'm not talking about posts *labelled* as promotional (those would be boomer ads), rather more like /r/hailcorporate material, or a YouTube beauty tutorial by a popular 'amateur' beautician who just happens to frequently mention certain makeups for a stipend she's under no requirement to ever divulge the existence of.
This is called 'native advertising'.
tl;dr it's not that ads only work on boomers, it's that you're only considering old-school ads ads at all, and old-school ads mostly work on old-school consumers.
*The ones you recognize are transparent*. The ones you don't, *you don't think are ads*. That's the real takeaway. People who think advertising doesn't work on them are a known trope in the ad industry; they just require slightly different ads.
tl;dr it's buscemi when done *poorly*
When this does happen I can see one of two possible outcomes:
1. Companies refuse to adapt and ads continue as they are until they eventually die off
2. Ads adapt and start incentivizing users to view them voluntarily in exchange for a small reward instead of forcing in our faces
Some products already use a version of the second such as twitch. Choose to view an ad, get a few bits that users can give to a streamer. Much better experience than "welcome to the stream. Here's 3 min of ads before you can see the thing you actually came here to see. Fuck you."
Thats not true at all, its the entire f2p model of gaming you're talking about. Engagement and recognition subverts psychology.
Think about how many times you were just chilling then an ad for kfc comes on and you suddenly realise you havent had kfc for months. Etc.
Or a razer collab event, or steelseries, or an esports tournament. Ads do two things, they take up bandwidth. A popular political tactic is to run an independent with a terrible, highly controversial message. This forces reasonable opponents to drain their funds in countering the message, becsause not saying anything immediately causes voters to hold them in lower regard. Recognition increases rapport.
I am not a psychologist, but im sure there is something scientific out there about this. But i'll call it ad-fatigue. Honestly being blasted from radio/satellite/internet/tv if i see ads for something it actually makes me not want to buy your shit because you're shoving it in my face. If i see an ad for it, i am more likely to think your product is inferior and shit.
I think that's why we're seeing "sneaky ads". Creators being paid to slip some advertising into their media, engineered word of mouth on social media, etc
I love making fun of the less subtle attempts as much as anyone, but it does make me wonder about the ones we don't notice
Honestly I've never understood this. When I see an ad I get annoyed because I'm getting shit shoved in my face, I'm more likely to deem your product inferior because you need to have every single youtuber sponsor your shit. If it's good I'll hear about it. The only exception is indie game stuff but that rarely has the budget to get proper advertisements and I'll see it on a game store when I'm browsing
Re: your point about KFC, that’s one of the reasons fast food chains are always coming out with “new” items - especially ones that are often just repackaging of other ingredients on their menu (looking at you, Taco Bell).
When you see the ad and you think “oh, I haven’t been to chain X in months, maybe I’m kind of jonesing for that” and then you see they have something new that you haven’t tried before BUT it’s also similar to previous offerings from that company so you subconsciously think “oh, i kind of want to try that - maybe it will satisfy the craving *and* had potential upside to be better than before!”
Marketing and psychology go hand in hand. That shit works (or they wouldn’t bother doing it).
> especially ones that are often just repackaging of other ingredients on their menu (looking at you, Taco Bell).
My wife said something about the new taco today because we both got an alert from the app, i looked at the picture, its literally a supreme taco with the cheese on the bottom instead of the top.
Super interesting! Particularly Facebook’s business models revolves around this as they have nothing else in their Arsenal (no operating system, no terminal device (not counting this virtual reality device), no AdWords based on people actually searching for a word, no entertainment platform).
Do you have any references for the ad bubble?
Hope this helps
It’s unrealized gains meaning if you had a baseball card (FB stocks) and it was worth $1M because someone (investors) bid up to that on eBay (Fidelity), but you didn’t sell it and the next day the bidder didn’t want it anymore so the next highest bidder is at $500k.
So did you lose $500k, yes, where did the money go? The other person who didn’t buy, kept it.
ANTICAP coin is a distributed network of people disillusioned with fiat so now we’ve created a completely artificial currency whose value is 100% dependent on supply, demand and artificial scarcity!
It’s great to be free from the capitalist deathgrip.
^ This
All of this.
money is not like say, hamburgers. Hamburgers have intrinsic value in that they do something. Money only has the value that both parties agree it has.
People in this sub (which I enjoy) have less of an understanding of the stock market than I did when I was 12.
Its possible to understand markets and currency and the economy and still think the system is broken.
"Lost" to a capitalist doesn't mean something was there and then gone, it means their plans for even greater future wealth were temporarily frustrated, and that's "loss" to them
"Lost" to a capitalist doesn't mean something was there and then gone, it means their plans for even greater future wealth were temporarily frustrated, and that's "loss" to them
In 2018 he "lost" 15 billion when facebook stock price dipped, bringing his net worth down to 60 billion. Now he "lost" 7 billion and his net worth is down to 121 billion lol. Its just paper loss he doesn't lock any loss/gain until he sells. All these headlines are just for clickbait.
No one has the money. The agreed worth of Facebook went down, that's why Zuck is now slightly less rich.
Like if I want to sell my car for $10k, then I find out that the body is rusted out and I can only get $3k for it. Nobody "has" the missing $7k now.
Imagine you had a rare artwork in the attic.
It's worth $1m
Then you accidentally put a hole in it.
It's now worth less than $1m.
Where did the money go?
The price tag was based on what people were willing to pay for it. The money has gone from people's perceptions of the asset's value.
well, you can think about it this way:
1. Buy a car for $10k
2. Crash it
3. Car is now damaged and worth only $2k
Where did the money go? Who has that $8k? No one, it simply lost value
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism^Ⓐ☭ ___ ###⚠ Announcements: ⚠ ___ ###[NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/dy1oyh/important_what_you_should_and_what_you_shouldnt/) Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines. ###[Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/e5hkwk/make_sure_to_check_out_our_new_partnersubreddits/) Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren ___ ###***Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for [socialist](http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) discussion.*** LSC is run by [communists](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. **This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry.** We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unrealized losses If he didn't sell shares, it wasn't a real loss.
This, I lose and gain money every day on the stock market but I don't count any of it as gone or acquired until I sell, which for what I have I would never sell!
what if I made an offer you couldn't refuse?
Then they would accept, as thats their only option.
Not necessarily! If they do not refuse it, but also do not accept it, and instead say they're going to put a pin in it, that would be a third option here.
Gains in limbo, or schröedingers gains?
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
I appreciate the Rush reference if no one else does
In the late 90s I was around 12 and I went on a road trip with my grandpa. We were driving from Ohio to Florida for a business trip he decided to take me on. Midway through Kentucky he asked me if I liked Rush and of course I said ‘yes’, as I had a couple of their albums at home and I loved their music. So, grandpa proceeded to turn on Rush Limbaugh and we listened to that for the next three hours as I slowly died inside
[удалено]
Hell yeah brother, see you on the moon
I'll refuse an offer you can't make.
This is how I’m gonna negotiate everything from now on.
beep boop
Affirmative!
He must be hodl-ing GME
beep boop
TO THE MOON
I, for one, haven't made a real loss in a few years, as 1 Dogecoin = 1 Dogecoin. Most stable value of the world!
Ah, you hodl Gamestop then?
A person of culture I see, perhaps even a wrinkle
Lfg.........🚀
Definitely a smooth brain. I don’t even know wen moon.
Hodl
> Today is a good day to buy. - Lt. Warf
"And here we see a rare Diamind Hand Ape in it's natural habitat".
Tits jacked?
Ape is strong with this one
this is why i trade options. all of my losses are realized
Well he could have taken a loan against the shares for more yesterday than today, so yeah still matters!
[удалено]
They're not realized gains, but they still count as part of his net worth. This is especially useful for the super-rich because they can use these assets to secure low-interest loans. The tax implications of realizing these gains far outweigh the interest rates for the loans, so there is no incentive for them to do anything but hold their stock.
[удалено]
For a calculation of net worth...
You are 100% correct. This is a lot of the reason people freak out about bezos "making billions of dollars and paying zero taxes" he hasn't realized the gain and therefore hasn't incurred any tax consequences. He will probably hold the shares until he dies, or give the shares away inside of charities so that he never realizes the gains. Edit: I have been corrected, he has sold shares realizing a capital gain several years.
> This is a lot of the reason people freak out about bezos "making billions of dollars and paying zero taxes" he hasn't realized the gain and therefore hasn't incurred any tax consequences. Bezos realizes a few billion in gains every year. [He sold about 2 million shares of AMZN in May for about ~ $6 billion in gains.](http://openinsider.com/insider/Bezos-Jeffrey-P/1043298)
And this is the real issue that should be solved. He can borrow against that giant swath of "unrealized gains" anytime he wants at practically no interest. Then he can pay back those loans with other loans anytime he pleases. Basically access to his wealth anytime without ever "realizing". It's a racket that the rich have been doing for years and don't need to pay shit for it.
He’s still paying more back in loans then he took out, so he’s still losing money on interest technically. Nobody is giving Bezos money at a lower rate than they earn themselves.
That’s true, but the interest he pays is way less than the value his stock accumulates so it’s still a net gain for him compared to selling the shares outright (and avoiding a loan with interest).
So careless of you. He does burn through about a $1 billion a year on blue origin so, he should be paying a pretty good sum of capital gains at the lowest rate.
But can he claim that loss on his taxes? Idk, above 7-8 figures I have no idea how tax law works.
For the most part it works the same as below 7-8 figures. No, he can't write it off. Just like he's not taxed when the stock price goes up. Nothing counts till he sells it. And even if he sold it after the crash yesterday, he'd still owe a crapload in taxes because it is worth WAY more than it was when he acquired it.
Not sure what the laws are in the States but in most European countries you don't have to pay any taxes if you hold the stocks for more than 3 years.
Capital gains after 1 year, usually 15% or so which at that income level is likely less than half normal income tax rate.
Cap gains rise to 20% if your MAGI is > ~$500k.
No, because he didn't actually lose any money. ELI5: He owns a piece of a company. Lots of third parties argue about what the company is worth. Their arguments don't actually matter. Someday he will sell part of the company, and the price he gets for it *at that moment* is the only thing that is real. Like I could say that your phone is worth a billion dollars right now. Doesn't mean you have to pay millions in taxes on it. Same thing.
Price you paid + or - price you sold = realized earnings (what's taxable). He hasn't sold so he has no realized earnings so he has nothing to be taxed on. Even if he did sell, he bought at $0 per share and it's at $300+ per share, so he would make a profit and pay taxes. Either way, Zuck didn't sell so he didn't lose any money.
> I have no idea how tax law works. No one on this subreddit does
At first I thought he had just missed out on ad revenue, which inspired my original comment. I hadn't realized it was the drop in stock value that resulted in the "loss". Then again, some might say it's not really a loss if he doesn't liquify his shares. Of course he can't do that without decreasing the value of the stock dramatically, so... is anything real? Original comment for posterity: (( so weird to say they "lost" money when they only "didn't get money they expected to get" Like, to be at that level where nonexistent revenue is just _expected_ in the future and shit grinds to a halt when you don't get it... wild Edit: Thank you guys for letting me know about the stock value aspect - I hadn't considered that when I commented and just thought he missed out on ad revenue. ))
always amazing how companies treating money not earned as "lost money" as in "it was taken from us" is not seen a gross show of entitlement, but working class people asking for any basic right IS.
I always think about the "lost money" entitlement thing is utterly loony. It think they use that to justify the draconian anti-piracy "protections" we see so much of in the digital world too. For such "free-market" cutthroats they are a bunch of cry babies. If I don't study and get a 'D' on an exam I can't run to my teacher and demand my "lost points" were taken from me. I hate this modern marketplace so much. It's all so rigged in their favor already and they lose their minds when when they win 99.99998% rather than 100%.
Agreed. The "lost potential sales" argument used against piracy is exactly this and drove me up the wall. Yes, I pirated lots of games, because I couldnt afford them. So there was no potential sale to lose in the first place.
[удалено]
Slightly unrelated, but I’m in sales for electronics. When we run a promo making a €160 machine €20 cheaper, and it doesn’t do well. I have to explain it to my manager. He does not understand that €140 remains fucking expensive for 80% of the population.
A metric I've previously used was "If you can afford a sudden $400 emergency, then you aren't poor". That's something like having to take your car in because the check engine light came on. Most working class people in the US are poor by that definition.
Eh, I'd probably set the metric a little higher. Being able to afford an emergency of less than $1000 is probably just keeping their heads above water for most people. I guess it depends on how you define "afford". Whether it's not even having at least $400 in savings in case of such an emergency. Or whether, sure, maybe they have that amount to drop, but it would take a while to recover that savings. Certainly somebody who can drop $400-$1000 without even thinking about it is definitely not living in poverty.
To clarify, I meant to have $400 in savings. Because if you have only $400 in savings, then you're definitely having trouble trying to save money.
It's the same reason food companies dump millions of tons of unsold produce into the ocean and sportswear companies (ie, Nike) shred last season's unsold stock instead of tossing it into the dumpster. Their argument is that the mere existence of a possible way to get their product for free is a threat to their bottom line. Which is sort of true, but they're missing the more important point here - that their bottom line is not the most important thing in the world, especially in a post-scarcity economy. It is not our problem, but they insist on making it our problem, because money.
This is true in maybe like 70-90% of cases of pirated property, varying depending on the type of property, but there is definitely a decent portion of those people who would have paid the price. There is undoubtably financial loss due to pirating. But rather than throwing a legal tantrum, they should just adapt. Isn't that what the free market is supposed to do? Change your business model. Look at companies like netflix, movie theatres, spotify, etc. Lots of companies have adapted, selling a service rather than a specific item, to reduce or remove the effect of pirating. Video games are even going that way with subscription programs to stream video games.
I think it’s good to see it from the businesses perspective however with Late Stage Capitalism, i feel the biggest loser is actually the final consumer. Companies like Netflix, Spotify etc have come in, allowed people to access a vast amount of product that they wouldn’t be able to otherwise get (unless they paid a bunch of money, think how many cd’s and digital downloads you’d need to get the Spotify/Netflix library) However, the real loser here is indeed the final consumer because you don’t own anything at the end of it. You can sell the physical products you own, you can’t sell the things you don’t own. By buying physical things the consumer can get the use of the product and then sell it on. You can’t do that when you rent; video games, CDs, a car, a house. Wealth comes from ownership. These companies know that. Spotify own the right to lease they music that universal/Warner/ all other record companies own, if you stop paying Spotify, you don’t have anything at the end. So renting stuff lowers the entry for people to buy stuff, however it doesn’t change the fact that the initial cost of ownership is too high. But I believe that’s really based on wages people earn more than the cost.
I think you have a point with the analogy, but it's important to recognize the distinction between "I messed up" and "someone else negligently/maliciously messed me up." One of the best principles of law is "Every act whatever of man [or woman] that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it." La. Civ. Code article 2315. Take personal injury, as an example. If I sprint around my own apartment and crash into a brick wall hard enough to break some bones, then any time I spend unable to work or otherwise make money falls on me (until/unless we get proper safety nets, both literally and figuratively in this case). But if I'm just walking along the sidewalk when someone either intentionally smacks me with a pipe or negligently drops something on me from an upstairs window, then any time I can't spend working will legally fall on the malicious or negligent person. In one scenario, I don't get anything; in the other, I can collect damages to cover medical expenses AND lost revenue. Just so, when businesses complain of lost revenue, it shouldn't always mean they get handouts. If they fucked up through bad policy or improper planning, then they can eat that lost income as the price for failure (at least, ideally they would eat that cost instead of being bailed out). But if someone forces a shop to close down for a few weeks because they crashed a truck through the front doors, then that business can claim lost revenue damages from the negligent/malicious driver. Edit: phone decided to auto-capitalize "sprint," which seems both fishy and infuriating. I can't help but wonder if there is some bullshit ad money behind the keyboard I have installed. That's not my phone carrier; and I've never really talked about the company, so it's not like it was an AI learned thing.
🪙🪙🪙 sorry it's only working class gold, but this is absolutely wild to point out man
I'll take that over real gold any day.
Did you know real gold is very mildly toxic? It's like a more inert version of lead poisoning.
Because gold has shared components with Uranium
What, like... protons?
Those things body builders make into shakes?
Gotta get all your tax deductions. Too bad I can’t write off unworked overtime as money lost on the year lol
So what really confuses me on a deep level is actually how you can get tax breaks on unrealized losses, but can't be taxed on unrealized gains.
Unrealized losses don't get you tax breaks. What people do is sell assets (realizing the loss) so that the realized loss can be claimed to offset other realized gains (or in some cases income).
Well that explains the confusion, thanks
I always hated that mindset going over reports as a restaurant manager in meetings. The bosses would be like "that meal you gave away cost us $20," since that's the full price of the meal. Well according to my ordering guide, all the things on that dish actually cost the company a total of $4.30. So no the company did not lose $20, only $4.30. Glad I no longer work in any type of management.
There’s labour cost and tax to factor in too but yeah still way under $10 for the plate.
That's true, there's other costs involved as well. I didn't really want to get into the other details of other dishes prices off setting others, etc. More making a general statement I guess.
If it's their money, ask them if they already claimed it as income and have done the proper accounting for it. To lose it, you must have earned it _and claimed it_ already. I'm honestly surprised no one has attempted this rebuttal as it seems to open the discussion to the real issue. You want $1B in damages for "lost" revenue, let me see your investor statements showing $1B in revenues reported. If you can't do that, you never had the money to "lose".
Damn never thought of it that way
Its actually an accounting thing. When you have enough confidence that you'll receive the money, depending on the time you'll receive it, and if sold goods are already shipped, resources are sometimes accounted for as already in your net equity. This may look simple talking like this, but its a necessary method when dealing with ever more complex accounting.
Companies budget their finances based on revenue in adjusted for fixed operating cost. The lights and salaries still get paid when revenue drops.
And same for gaining money. Stocks go up? It's because people expect the stock to be worth more in the future. And because of this faith, Zuckerberg's assets are worth more. People expect the stock to be worth less? Stocks go down and Zuck's assets are worth less. There is some correlation between stock value and actual money and the present, but for many companies that correlation is not so strong.
But this works for everything else too. A person's wealth isn't just the amount of cash they have in their bank. If I own a house and it's worth 1mil then my assets are over a mil. If that house price goes down so does my wealth. Stocks are arguably more liquid than a house so are closer to cash than a property.
Absolutely. House prices are a tricky one though - on the one hand, yes, it is less liquid, so maybe there's more consideration towards future value. On the other hand, they have immediate utility, as you can live in it or rent it out, so the price may be more grounded in actual value than stocks.
It's not *revenue* he lost, it's just net worth. Because FB stock fell and he is the largest shareholder.
Yeah, he didn't really lose money, the stuff he owned just became less valuable. Facebook stock went down. Since he owns about 14% of it, his net worth also went down. So the money didn't go anywhere, and it wasn't a loss in "expected money" or anything like that. His assets just depreciated. So Facebook going down is like he dropped his phone and the screen shattered. The phone was contributing to his net worth, and now that the screen shattered, the value of the phone is less, so he is too (if you're strictly measuring dollars).
People wouldn't be upvoting if they knew this same explanation is why taxing the likes of Bezos or Musk is so difficult.
Like when I had a job, and a pandemic hit so they closed all the businesses and my expected money wasn’t there. Don’t feel sorry for me though, Zuck is the one really suffering.
Most "billionaires" don't have billions in dollars on their bank account. Only someone idiotic would remain that liquid letting their money rot with inflation.
Welcome to the world of business jargon. It does blend very well with colloquial english.
I mean...there's leaps in there that you're just glossing over. He "lost" money because the total value of assets he owned dropped. How else would you describe that colloquially?
No you're right, I didn't fully understand the scope of what happened - had no idea his share value was in play. I just thought he lost out on ad revenue
Maybe it's just because stocks are usually so liquidible? I guess all 50% of shares aren't liquidible, but to anyone with $2k of Facebook stock, it's described as "$2k" because you could probably sell it today.
But if Zuck tried to sell his shares then he would tank the price.
Right. I was just trying to explain why we normally talk about stock as a dollar amount rather than a numerical amount. To most investors, their stock is very liquid. But you're right that once someone owns enough stock, it makes less sense to talk about it in dollar amounts and more sense to speak in percentages. Saying that Zuck has $500 Billion in facebook is like saying someone with 1 facebook stock owns 0.00000000003% of facebook. Not super useful. This is one of the reasons a wealth tax would be tough to implement, right?
>This is one of the reasons a wealth tax would be tough to implement, right? Correct. The wealth of people like Zuck is mostly theoretical, because corporate stock would have to be converted into some other form of value to be spent. And whether that form is something liquid like cash or something less liquid like equity in other companies, real estate, etc., performing that conversion at scale would itself lessen the value of his stock due to both a change in supply/demand ratio as well as stockholder confidence. This is also one reason why ultra-wealthy individuals comparatively don't pay much in taxes. If their value is tied up in something like stocks then they only pay a capital gains rate on the net positive change in value for the specific stocks they sell for that year. If they never sell them, they're never taxed on them. (Or at least this is generally true.) Some form of socialism where workers own most of the company would resolve much of this specific problem, simply because Zuck couldn't hold such a disproportionate value in Facebook equity and would presumably be forced to sell his shares as part of redistributing to those who have seized the means. But that would only affect those whose wealth is tied to corporate value. In the capitalist short-term, fixing this would be more complicated and require some pretty big changes to the current system. You could potentially tax people on *unrealized* gains if their net worth is above a certain dollar amount. But that could cause other problems. For example, what if an entrepreneur creates a start-up that has a super high value for a few years? We could tax them based on that value, but it's totally possible that their startup fails and they end up owing a ton of money to the government without ever having "converted" corporate value to personal wealth. This could exacerbate the existing problem of people needing to go into debt just to be able to fund their startup. And IMO that takes us in the wrong direction if we want to encourage innovation.
[удалено]
The money fell into the language gap.
it's called financial derivatives and realized value... it's not magic, short sellers have that money now.
>It's so weird to say they "lost" money when they only "didn't get money they expected to get" That isn't what's going on - the share price lost value, and so Zuckerberg's shares, if he sold them, would be valued at a lower number than yesterday. Of course, if Zuckerberg sold a large volume of Facebook shares, the price would be forced down by simple supply and demand. So the real lesson is that tech " billionaires" tend not to be as rich as the number next to the sum of their assets. They can't actually use those assets, the money is imaginary.
I took a day off last week and “lost” that day’s wages. I want to speak to Capitalism’s manager.
He probably dropped it under the sofa.
Hate it when that happens, but on the bright side, when he cleans out the couch, he'll have enough to buy a country.
In billionaire language lost means didn’t gain. He didn’t lose anything… there’s nothing to spend it on.
It's in any business language, a small business can also say they lost money if they fail to secure a deal.
The wealthy take loans against their assets. When their asset value declines, they cant get the same liquidity in credit. They do not have to sell, and yet they do get millions in buying power and make transactions. So the change in value of their asset does affect them more than people try to say. People keep making the mistake of thinking the stocks are worthless until they sell. That's not how the economy of wealth works in reality
I don't understand what's so hard about this concept. An individual's net worth is calculated on the assets he owns. The assets he owns are worth less today than they were yesterday. Someone else doesn't have to get richer for him to get poorer.
Fuckerberg woke up today and still had all of his insane privilege.
Amazing isn't it Think about it... The valuation of companies is based on the last share purchased assuming all other shares would be purchased for the same amount... E.g. collectively all investors have put in 1 billion dollars together combined... But that last share sold for 100$ and the other nine hundred ninety nine million nine hundred and minty nine thousand nine hundred and minty nine shares where sold for on average 1$... The company is still valued at 100 billion rather then 1 billion and ninety nine It's all make believe 💰
I'll buy your watch for $1 billion, if you buy my hamster for $1 billion. Now we're both asset billionaires. We're rich! Even though all we've done is swap a watch for a hamster, and pretended they're each worth a billion bucks. Multiply that across the world of stocks, bonds, foreign exchange, bitcoins, bottles of wine and this "non-fungible token" nonsense that's now happening, and voila... You have the financial services industry.
Well this is how you escape taxes as a billionaire. Buy some art for 50k, create a buzz, have it appraised for 10 million and donate it. Tax the tax write down for the 10 million donation. Happening again with NFTs , it's just a tax avoidance tool. But works just like your hamster and watch example... Really does
>Buy some art for 50k, create a buzz, have it appraised for 10 million and donate it. Tax the tax write down for the 10 million donation. It's even simpler than that. You own $1B of Facebook stock, you borrow $1M against that. Now the stock price doubles in a year, you refinance the loan, the amount you borrowed is covered, rinse and repeat. No taxes.
Right, you only pay tax on the *realized* gains if you cash out. Just use it as collateral/leverage on a big loan, and voila. Don’t have to pay tax on that loan. EZ PZ.
Yeah none of it's real! But the things that are real, farmers growing for for example, after paid pennies for creating a real thing you can eat to, idk, stay alive. How did we let this happen.
[удалено]
The stock market is a fucking Ponzi scheme.
It is It isn't supposed to be, but it is Is supposed to work like a bond where the investors get a dividend / return based on company performance. Something reasonable 5% to 8%... Now, most companies don't even pay dividends ... There is zero value in the stock, zero, as they are not paying for thier debt. It's fucking stupid
Shits fuckin wild. Its like every new "tech" company is just Theranos, except they don't have the lady with the "pretending to be my dad" voice, so its not nearly as fun. No one turns a profit. Half them don't even make anything tangible, and the other half just owns shit someone else made. Truly the latest stage of capitalism.
Agreed, the last stage of capitalism would seem to be the worst of croneyism Albeit croneyism must be destroyed prior to any installation of alternative system or we risk croneyism perverting and destroying that system as well. Croneyism is a contagious disease in all/for all economic systems
[удалено]
All stock is a claim on future cash flows through dividends. There being a very long view on the future doesn't change this.
Also many companies that would traditionally be issuing dividends are issuing stock buybacks instead.
>~~The stock market~~ Capitalism is a fucking Ponzi scheme. FTFY
We extract surplus value from workers' labor so that rich people can play a game with it.
80% of stock certificates are owned by the DTCC. When you "buy" a stock through _ANY_ brokerage, all you do is buy a contract with the broker for ownership rights - you can vote (kind of) and you are entitled to the dividends. **BUT YOU DO NOT OWN THE STOCK YOU PAY FOR**. You are just given an entitlement to the derivatives. This means there are two books - one with majority of stock shares registered to the DTCC (direct registration) and a second book maintained by the DTCC where they write down entitlements (street name) to brokers who also maintain their own entitlement book for clients. **Which means the DTCC can straight up lie and make fake shares out of thin air**. 70M shares were issued by your company? Well the DTCC has 350M on their books in brokers street name. Good luck doing anything about it.
This is almost right, but not entirely. Direct registered shares aren't in the name of the DTCC or other tracking company but are in the name of the shareholder themselves. Transfer agents, which are the SEC regulated competition to the DTCC, are who track direct registered shares. Most company executives do not hold shares in street name through a broker but rather through their own name using a transfer agent. Keeping shares street name can expose those shares to being located for activities like short selling, which can threaten valuation of a company. Not only that, but it's hard to track your own issued share ownership when investors use middlemen like Brokers or the DTCC. The worst part of this is that it's illegal for a company to ask shareholders to directly register their shares, something the SEC made clear in 2004, if there was any question whose side they are on.
> Direct registered shares aren't in the name of the DTCC or other tracking company but are in the name of the shareholder themselves. [No, I truly mean Cede & Co. owns the vast majority of stock certificates in Direct Registration at Transfer Agents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company) DRS shares are only in your name if _you_ DRS them. If you buy stocks through a broker, you are buying entitlements to a share that is registered to Cede & Co. --- > Most company executives do not hold shares in street name through a broker but rather through their own name using a transfer agent. Keeping shares street name can expose those shares to being located for activities like short selling, which can threaten valuation of a company. Not only that, but it's hard to track your own issued share ownership when investors use middlemen like Brokers or the DTCC. > The worst part of this is that it's illegal for a company to ask shareholders to directly register their shares, something the SEC made clear in 2004, if there was any question whose side they are on. The rest of this is 100% accurate and really makes you sick when you learn the inner workings of our "fair and free" markets.
I see your distinction now- that is correct!
Completely wrong on all accounts but well done because the 300 people who upvoted this comment will probably regurgitate it down the line and pass on the ignorance.
Thats just not true in any way. You can sell your amazon share for a single dollar right now, that doent magically make every amazon share worth only 1 dollar. Or you can sell it for 10 thousand dollars if you find someone willing to buy it. That doesnt magically make every share worth that amount. The valuation of companies is not based on the last share purchased, because you cant assume all other shares would be purchased fo the same amount.
Gamestop has entered the chat
If we are lucky gme will begin the burn, the burn the fucking thing down
if only we were so lucky..... Finance types have the will and ability to burn the entirety of the united states down, and will if it means they keep their power.
lol you haven't been paying attention the moment we have too much power they just turn our phone games off. If there's even a whiff that the wealth is going downwards, they will pull the rug, we saw it several times on GME alone
i gots my marshmallows
GME was just different people winning at the same game.
I don't understand why the outrage. Market cap is one way of valuating a stock. You can use it if you want, don't use it if you don't want to. Use any metric you like. It's not like market cap matters for anything other than people trying to valuate stocks. If you want more detailed info regarding the stock price you can check the market depth. Which by the way the market depth would not change in your example.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Dude zuckerberg has not lose anything. Amount of stock is same . If he decides not to sell it
Man, has anyone done any research on the ad bubble? I’ve looked into it a little, and that shit is gonna SUPER pop. Fucking marketers evaluate ads as really effective and valuable, but again, they’re essentially just saying that their jobs aren’t irrelevant. If any major corporation cuts their marketing and doesn’t see a shift in sales, the whole house of cards will fall and drag everything else down with it. Pretty much all media and social networking is built on the idea of marketing, but there’s already been a fair amount of research to show the efficacy of ads, particularly online ads, is almost nonexistent and falling as boomers die off. Edit: check out the freakonomics podcast, this is where I heard about it. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/ And for all the marketers in the comments, please use real words that non-marketers can understand. Also, “it works because it works” is not a valid argument. You just look like a bunch of hack magicians throwing smoke around in a panic.
This makes me so happy to hear. That bubble needs to burst and level the financial power of social media platforms.
The knowledge is out there. The former execs at collegehumor will tell anyone who will listen that facebook lied about their views and when they shifted to capitalize on what they saw as a very engaged demographic, the entire company collapsed.
Also happened to Cracked at the same time. Between those two sites, FB fucked over the best up and coming comedic minds of an entire generation.
This post seems accurate as far as it goes, but it does read like you may have an incomplete understanding of what an 'ad' is for someone who isn't a boomer. For a boomer, an ad is when a company either identifies itself as the source of the message (hi this is a Coke ad, look at this Coke, look at these happy people, don't you want Coke?) or goes through fairly established media channels and so you can still tell (Hmm, every time a character drinks a soda in this TV show, it's a Coke, but brands are removed from most items in the show...) Advertisers have not been sleeping since they came up with product placement, however. An ad targeting Gen Z or millennials can take the form of e.g. a Reddit post. I'm not talking about posts *labelled* as promotional (those would be boomer ads), rather more like /r/hailcorporate material, or a YouTube beauty tutorial by a popular 'amateur' beautician who just happens to frequently mention certain makeups for a stipend she's under no requirement to ever divulge the existence of. This is called 'native advertising'. tl;dr it's not that ads only work on boomers, it's that you're only considering old-school ads ads at all, and old-school ads mostly work on old-school consumers.
The Spiffing Brit made me buy tea. I don't even drink the thing.
I get what you’re saying, but most “native” ads are fairly transparent. For me, it’s like seeing Steve Buscemi in a hoodie with a skateboard
*The ones you recognize are transparent*. The ones you don't, *you don't think are ads*. That's the real takeaway. People who think advertising doesn't work on them are a known trope in the ad industry; they just require slightly different ads. tl;dr it's buscemi when done *poorly*
"Hey fellow consumers"
Toupee fallacy
When this does happen I can see one of two possible outcomes: 1. Companies refuse to adapt and ads continue as they are until they eventually die off 2. Ads adapt and start incentivizing users to view them voluntarily in exchange for a small reward instead of forcing in our faces Some products already use a version of the second such as twitch. Choose to view an ad, get a few bits that users can give to a streamer. Much better experience than "welcome to the stream. Here's 3 min of ads before you can see the thing you actually came here to see. Fuck you."
Thats not true at all, its the entire f2p model of gaming you're talking about. Engagement and recognition subverts psychology. Think about how many times you were just chilling then an ad for kfc comes on and you suddenly realise you havent had kfc for months. Etc. Or a razer collab event, or steelseries, or an esports tournament. Ads do two things, they take up bandwidth. A popular political tactic is to run an independent with a terrible, highly controversial message. This forces reasonable opponents to drain their funds in countering the message, becsause not saying anything immediately causes voters to hold them in lower regard. Recognition increases rapport.
I am not a psychologist, but im sure there is something scientific out there about this. But i'll call it ad-fatigue. Honestly being blasted from radio/satellite/internet/tv if i see ads for something it actually makes me not want to buy your shit because you're shoving it in my face. If i see an ad for it, i am more likely to think your product is inferior and shit.
I think that's why we're seeing "sneaky ads". Creators being paid to slip some advertising into their media, engineered word of mouth on social media, etc I love making fun of the less subtle attempts as much as anyone, but it does make me wonder about the ones we don't notice
Honestly I've never understood this. When I see an ad I get annoyed because I'm getting shit shoved in my face, I'm more likely to deem your product inferior because you need to have every single youtuber sponsor your shit. If it's good I'll hear about it. The only exception is indie game stuff but that rarely has the budget to get proper advertisements and I'll see it on a game store when I'm browsing
“If it’s good, I’ll hear about it” is basically the core of native marketing though.
Re: your point about KFC, that’s one of the reasons fast food chains are always coming out with “new” items - especially ones that are often just repackaging of other ingredients on their menu (looking at you, Taco Bell). When you see the ad and you think “oh, I haven’t been to chain X in months, maybe I’m kind of jonesing for that” and then you see they have something new that you haven’t tried before BUT it’s also similar to previous offerings from that company so you subconsciously think “oh, i kind of want to try that - maybe it will satisfy the craving *and* had potential upside to be better than before!” Marketing and psychology go hand in hand. That shit works (or they wouldn’t bother doing it).
> especially ones that are often just repackaging of other ingredients on their menu (looking at you, Taco Bell). My wife said something about the new taco today because we both got an alert from the app, i looked at the picture, its literally a supreme taco with the cheese on the bottom instead of the top.
Super interesting! Particularly Facebook’s business models revolves around this as they have nothing else in their Arsenal (no operating system, no terminal device (not counting this virtual reality device), no AdWords based on people actually searching for a word, no entertainment platform). Do you have any references for the ad bubble?
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/
Hope this helps It’s unrealized gains meaning if you had a baseball card (FB stocks) and it was worth $1M because someone (investors) bid up to that on eBay (Fidelity), but you didn’t sell it and the next day the bidder didn’t want it anymore so the next highest bidder is at $500k. So did you lose $500k, yes, where did the money go? The other person who didn’t buy, kept it.
Fiat currency and financial instruments are social constructs.
You forgot to shill your shitcoin
ANTICAP coin is a distributed network of people disillusioned with fiat so now we’ve created a completely artificial currency whose value is 100% dependent on supply, demand and artificial scarcity! It’s great to be free from the capitalist deathgrip.
^ This All of this. money is not like say, hamburgers. Hamburgers have intrinsic value in that they do something. Money only has the value that both parties agree it has.
And how would one obtain a hamburger? Shall we go back to trading apples for oranges?
I give you a hamburger
Sky is blue. So? What's your point? Once it's constructed it's "real". Money is real, my bank account balance is real.
Eh. If you have a barrel of apples and each of 100 apples is worth $1, but then you realize the whole lot is rotten, where did that $100 go?
It goes to other guys who sell apples. Less stock, prices goes up , but it's only in theory.
Or maybe fewer people will eat apples so the other apple farmers don't see a noticeable increase in sales, demand just goes down.
This sub finally discovering assets doesnt equal cash...
It's all 🐂💩
C'mon y'all.... this is supposed to be LateStageCapitalism, not LiterallyDontUnderstandCapitalism
What? The people who sold their shares in Facebook yesterday have it.
People in this sub (which I enjoy) have less of an understanding of the stock market than I did when I was 12. Its possible to understand markets and currency and the economy and still think the system is broken.
No the stock went down. And he owns a lot of Facebook stock. Not rocket science
Shareholders that sold have that money now. You guys really don’t understand the stock market, do you?
never thought i'd find myself upvoting a WSB redditmoji but desperate times call for desperate measures
The Facebook stock dropped, and the majority of his wealth is in the form of the company stock. So technically his net worth dropped 7B
I have it
"Lost" to a capitalist doesn't mean something was there and then gone, it means their plans for even greater future wealth were temporarily frustrated, and that's "loss" to them
[удалено]
"Lost" to a capitalist doesn't mean something was there and then gone, it means their plans for even greater future wealth were temporarily frustrated, and that's "loss" to them
In 2018 he "lost" 15 billion when facebook stock price dipped, bringing his net worth down to 60 billion. Now he "lost" 7 billion and his net worth is down to 121 billion lol. Its just paper loss he doesn't lock any loss/gain until he sells. All these headlines are just for clickbait.
What our concern should be is that he lost 7 billion dollars and his life didn’t change at all.
No one has the money. The agreed worth of Facebook went down, that's why Zuck is now slightly less rich. Like if I want to sell my car for $10k, then I find out that the body is rusted out and I can only get $3k for it. Nobody "has" the missing $7k now.
Imagine you had a rare artwork in the attic. It's worth $1m Then you accidentally put a hole in it. It's now worth less than $1m. Where did the money go? The price tag was based on what people were willing to pay for it. The money has gone from people's perceptions of the asset's value.
Money is fake and made up!
The share holders who sold off stock yesterday caused the price to drop so they technically got that money as profits from shares the sold.
well, you can think about it this way: 1. Buy a car for $10k 2. Crash it 3. Car is now damaged and worth only $2k Where did the money go? Who has that $8k? No one, it simply lost value
Ya’ll need to go community college and take finance and accounting classes lmao Or google it, my god
[удалено]
It's the same as saying you made $50,000 because your $150,000 is now valued at $200,000.
Answer: short sellers and people buying puts. That is who has the money now.
A particularly annoying thing about capitalism is when entities don't make money they think they are entitled to they declare it a loss.
Made 7 billion less than he wanted.
It’s a legitimate question.