|
Horseshoe theory posted:I like how the stock spiked up around 70% for the last month or two on "Fast" Eddie stripped the last assets out of the company shortly, then crashed when the truth of the inevitable bankruptcy became clear. What kind of lunatic is sitting there holding Sears stock?
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
skooma512 posted:What kind of lunatic is sitting there holding Sears stock? I've thought about dumping a bunch into JCPenney in case it somehow pulls out of the tailspin and wants to make me rich
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:What kind of lunatic is sitting there holding Sears stock? Well here's one major group that was holding a bunch of Sears stock, in an article from last fall about how the fund had collapsed and would now attempt to sell off the remaining assets: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16/berkowitz-liquidates-hedge-fund-that-owned-sears-holdings-shares Also Eddie Lampert himself owns 49% of Sears stock personally and then the holding company he has total control over owns another few percent (or maybe it's the other way around, it's all shady and unclear, but either way he basically controls a majority).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I've thought about dumping a bunch into JCPenney in case it somehow pulls out of the tailspin and wants to make me rich At least JCP actually seems to be trying to be profitable business. Sears management is like some kind of fungus that's breaking it down slowly on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:I like how the stock spiked up around 70% for the last month or two on "Fast" Eddie stripped the last assets out of the company shortly, then crashed when the truth of the inevitable bankruptcy became clear. Speaking Fast Eddie, here's a quote from CNBC: We're not liquidating just to liquidate. We're liquidating ... to get capital to put into our pension plan," the company’s CEO told CNBC in a recent interview. "As opposed to erring on the side of, 'This store might work.' ... If it's not working, we've invested the time, so we've got to close it because we are now jeopardizing this [store] over here." Gotta get that narrative out there that it's paying the pension plan, and not his gross mismanagement, that's going to kill the company.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I've thought about dumping a bunch into JCPenney in case it somehow pulls out of the tailspin and wants to make me rich Probably not a good idea since it's cratering again as Marvin Ellison bailed to (presumably) greener pastures at Lowe's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Gotta get that narrative out there that it's paying the pension plan, and not his gross mismanagement, that's going to kill the company.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 10:58
|
|
|
I like how Sears crashed 19% today, nearing the all-time low. I'll look forward to the 200% skyrocket when "Fast" Eddie strips the last remaining valuable assets in the next few months; Mr. Market sure is great! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...port/661172002/ No more K-Marts in Des Moines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:I like how Sears crashed 19% today, nearing the all-time low. I'll look forward to the 200% skyrocket when "Fast" Eddie strips the last remaining valuable assets in the next few months; Mr. Market sure is great! Welcome to Wall Street where the rules are made up and the numbers don't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
There is another time bomb waiting to hit retail. Containership over capacity and thr resultant low freight rates can't last forever. The recent-ish line failures and mergers / new alliances have temporarily kept poo poo from blowing up, but the underlying sources of over capacity have not slowed down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Welcome to Wall Street where the rules are made up and the numbers don't matter. but i thought it was the other way around???
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 07:54
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
BrandorKP posted:There is another time bomb waiting to hit retail. Containership over capacity and thr resultant low freight rates can't last forever. The recent-ish line failures and mergers / new alliances have temporarily kept poo poo from blowing up, but the underlying sources of over capacity have not slowed down. But that would impact every type of retailer. Unless you are thinking margins would decrease further and make more companies unsustainable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
This is a little broader than the scope of the thread perhaps, but talking of thin margins made me think of this. A few months ago, I was flatly shocked to see a major bank in Paris say flat-out that Marx was right, then detail exactly why; it's the most I've been surprised in a very long time. I'd host it somewhere and share it in the thread, but I can't find an English version. If anyone fancies it, though, I have the digital document in French.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:But that would impact every type of retailer. Unless you are thinking margins would decrease further and make more companies unsustainable? Exactly. And everybody's favorite online retailer took steps to become a NVOCC a couple years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:This is a little broader than the scope of the thread perhaps, but talking of thin margins made me think of this. A few months ago, I was flatly shocked to see a major bank in Paris say flat-out that Marx was right, then detail exactly why; it's the most I've been surprised in a very long time. I'd host it somewhere and share it in the thread, but I can't find an English version. If anyone fancies it, though, I have the digital document in French. post that poo poo. Hell, cross-post it in the French politics thread and maybe some kind soul will translate it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Or someone will run it through a translator. But yea - the key concept of Marx is "return of capital declines over time, but capitalism requires growth over time. So eventually, something has to give, and capitalism inevitably will fail. The the proletariat will rise!" And the retail collapse and venture capital boom is a sign of exactly that - capitalism is stagnating, returns on capital are declining, so owners of capital are funding more and more futile projects in silicon valley in the hope of receiving returns, because they have no better options for return on capital. Nothingtoseehere fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jun 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Or someone will run it through a translator. But yea - the key concept of Marx is "return of capital declines over time, but capitalism requires growth over time. So eventually, something has to give, and capitalism inevitably will fail. The the proletariat will rise!" I mean, despite my name I'm not a communist, but Marx definitely had some valid criticisms of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
Triangle Shirt Factotum posted:post that poo poo. Hell, cross-post it in the French politics thread and maybe some kind soul will translate it. I actually saw it in the French politics thread and saved it. I could swear that someone posted an English version too which I would have naturally saved, but I can't find it in my archives or the thread. I can certainly translate it from French, though. Liquid Communism posted:I mean, despite my name I'm not a communist, but Marx definitely had some valid criticisms of capitalism. Here is my take... Communism/socialism is theoretically viable but has so far not been sustained in the real world and has too often fallen into despotism and dystopia. Capitalism doesn't even work in theory but is propped up in the real world despite being blatantly unstable and doomed to collapse in on itself. From this, I've come to the conclusion that human beings, at least for now, are too inherently selfish to accept a utilitarian/egalitarian system and the wealthy elite will do anything in there power to stop it from coming about, because they have too much to lose. For more examples, see the New Deal. I have also come to the very, very sad conclusion that people have a very strong desire to feel superior and look down on people. Modern "progressivism" in the West has come to mean that one cannot dislike people due to race/sex/etc/etc, but can still look down on them for being poor due to the Just World Fallacy/Prosperity Gospel. I'm not saying that I condone the former of course, but the latter is just as horrid yet widely acceptable. Furthermore, being nice to racial minorities requires no material sacrifice, while helping the disenfranchised does and, well, see what I said above about human nature. I worry greatly because we are obviously in the late stages of capitalism and it can't last much longer, but the two choices going forward are "adopt utilitarianism" or "full dystopia". Sadly, I have no faith in human nature to do the right thing. That's my analysis of the situation. Sorry for the derail. JustJeff88 fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jun 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
My take on Marx is that his diagnosis was more or less dead on, but his prescription doesn't work. The cure not working doesn't mean capitalism is any less of a disease, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:My take on Marx is that his diagnosis was more or less dead on, but his prescription doesn't work. The cure not working doesn't mean capitalism is any less of a disease, though. The interesting thing is that Marx and Smith actually came to about the same conclusion. Eventually there just wouldn't be anything else to suck profit out of so things would achieve a sort of equilibrium. Smith argued that this would eventually raise the standard of living continually for everybody until everybody was equal. For better or for worse an individual can only consume so much. Marx argued that the rich would do every last thing they could to hoard as much wealth for themselves as possible consequences for the poor be damned. Smith argued that as automation increased the standard of living would increase for absolutely everybody with it. Marx argued that as automation increased less and less labor would be needed to produce so the wealthy and powerful would eliminate the jobs of the workers and leave them to starve. That's why he argued the communist revolution was ultimately inevitable; eventually so many workers would be so desperate they'd resort to toppling the entire system and taking it over for themselves. At that point things would be so automated it would take very little actual effort to fulfill everybody's needs. Eventually things would automate so far that it would take very little effort to also fulfill everybody's wants so everybody would end up being equal. About the same end point as Adam Smith but Marx was far more cynical. What we're seeing now is that Marx was ultimately right about a lot of things. The rich are using increased automation to dick over everybody else while desperately clawing for more and more and more exponential growth. The system is just plain breaking down but instead of asking "how do we fix it?" the rich and powerful are asking "what do we shove the blood funnel into next? There's got to be something."
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
I don't think it's really true that "an individual can only consume so much," people just find increasingly wasteful things to spend it on, luxuries become normalized, and the downside of that is mostly environmental catastrophe as the effects of that wastefulness pile up. Nevermind that if we're talking about super-rich people, there's another nearly-inexhaustible outlet for their cash: Bidding wars to buy out the state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I have also come to the very, very sad conclusion that people have a very strong desire to feel superior and look down on people That's, like, my first assumption.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 08:35
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The interesting thing is that Marx and Smith actually came to about the same conclusion. Eventually there just wouldn't be anything else to suck profit out of so things would achieve a sort of equilibrium. Smith argued that this would eventually raise the standard of living continually for everybody until everybody was equal. For better or for worse an individual can only consume so much. Marx argued that the rich would do every last thing they could to hoard as much wealth for themselves as possible consequences for the poor be damned. Smith argued that as automation increased the standard of living would increase for absolutely everybody with it. Marx argued that as automation increased less and less labor would be needed to produce so the wealthy and powerful would eliminate the jobs of the workers and leave them to starve. That's why he argued the communist revolution was ultimately inevitable; eventually so many workers would be so desperate they'd resort to toppling the entire system and taking it over for themselves. At that point things would be so automated it would take very little actual effort to fulfill everybody's needs. Eventually things would automate so far that it would take very little effort to also fulfill everybody's wants so everybody would end up being equal. About the same end point as Adam Smith but Marx was far more cynical. Marx wasn't cynical enough because there won't be a worldwide communist revolution of workers in solidarity with each other, there will be Lumpenproles torching poo poo and murdering foreigners with no coherent strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
It's also true that the standard of living for everyone went up though. Even poor people usually have access to many technologies that eventually became cheap, sometimes surprisingly quickly. It took under a decade before smartphones went from something for the nerds and the affluent, to something even a majority of lower income people own.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
 (Some) dirt farmers have Facebook now is the worst sort of capitalist apologia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 09:42
|
|
|
moller posted:
materially humanity is actually becoming increasingly better off though (presumably unless/until climate change related issues become too large too quickly but whatevs).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:What we're seeing now is that Marx was ultimately right about a lot of things. The rich are using increased automation to dick over everybody else while desperately clawing for more and more and more exponential growth. The system is just plain breaking down but instead of asking "how do we fix it?" the rich and powerful are asking "what do we shove the blood funnel into next? There's got to be something." Honestly, it's a people problem at the end of the day. People are not content with sustainable profits under captialism, and that rent-seeking behavior (like any over-ambitious parasite) is destroying the host.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 12:33
|
|
|
It can be simultaneously true that capitalism has plenty of flaws and also it does some of the things that it (or its supporters) claim to do, and reducing all the technological advancements available to the poor since Marx's time to "lol facebook" is a really lovely strawman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It can be simultaneously true that capitalism has plenty of flaws and also it does some of the things that it (or its supporters) claim to do, and reducing all the technological advancements available to the poor since Marx's time to "lol facebook" is a really lovely strawman. get the gently caress out with your nuanced & considered opinion
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 13:07
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It can be simultaneously true that capitalism has plenty of flaws and also it does some of the things that it (or its supporters) claim to do, and reducing all the technological advancements available to the poor since Marx's time to "lol facebook" is a really lovely strawman. Sounds like this: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 13:11
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Sounds like this: Cicero fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Jun 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 13:13
|
|
|
Incremental improvements over time mean nothing if a huge upset at the end wipes them out. For example, the world is the most peaceful it's ever been in human history so far. That fact will be utterly irrelevant the moment a global thermonuclear war breaks out. It's the Golden Snitch theory of societal improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I don't think it's really true that "an individual can only consume so much," people just find increasingly wasteful things to spend it on, luxuries become normalized, and the downside of that is mostly environmental catastrophe as the effects of that wastefulness pile up. "People will eventually hit a limit on consumption" underlies most economic thought until the '60s/70s. Keynes for instance thought that we would be working 8 hour work weeks by now because we would just stop at 1920s/1940s level of consumption and hold there. As growth and automation increased the hours worked would decrease. Instead consumption outpaced growth. The rise of consumerism completely shat on the prevailing economic theories of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah except the point Fox News is trying to make is "see they're not really poor" whereas my point is "yes they're still poor and that sucks but it's still true that some things have improved over time". If you can't see the difference between those two points I'm sorry. What happens when the greed of those at the top becomes so extreme that we start regressing and even objective measures of quality of life begin to decline over time? Rhetorical question. https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/21/16805384/life-expectancy-us-opioid-epidemic
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Also gotta consider the relative rate of material gain. Yeah third worlders (may) be generally better off than a 1700s peasant, but when you compare their relative rate of poverty, and the rate at which they're becoming more impovereshed compared to the wealth accumulation at the top of the global food chain, you see how facile the former argument is even when it's technically correct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Poorer people have made leaps in bounds in material comforts while also living lives of precarity and losing political power as capital accumulation increases inequality
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
prisoner of waffles posted:Poorer people have made leaps in bounds in material comforts while also living lives of precarity and losing political power as capital accumulation increases inequality The gadgets are nice and convenient but they're still sometimes choosing between rent and food. Doesn't matter if they have a refrigerator and a tv. That's still poor and it sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Well food is usually not the major issue, the cost of groceries relative to even low incomes has gone down over time, I think. It's services and goods that aren't mass produced in a factory (or factory-like conditions) like rent or healthcare or college that are punishing to afford. Also cars because they're big and complicated enough to be inherently expensive to buy/operate and our transportation system is deeply stupid. Capitalism usually does an okay job keeping prices down as long as there's meaningful competition, but there's a lot of industries where that doesn't really exist. Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
Cicero posted:Capitalism usually does an okay job keeping prices down as long it doesn't but the mere fact you have to qualify this with words like "usually" and "okay" probably means you know that too
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:56
|
|