Come on DOW (DJIA)......you are so close to 11,000......just break through!!!

10,979 now.......I know you can do it!!!

As bad as the GOP DOES NOT want it to happen it is going to happen!!!

Come on 11,000!!!!

:rofl:

http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow/

it will simply be more evidence that Obama is a CORPORATIST!

:)

:)

You forget how many of us 'little people' indirectly own stocks and benefit from a rise in their value.

You think that only rich people are invested in the market???

You have a few pennies in the pot, but the top 1%, who owns 60-70% of the wealth, are just a tad more invested.

Regardless, I don't give a damn. Its just not an indicator anyone should emphasize or give a shit about.

that my 401(k) has regained almost all of its value? Are you so wealthy that you don't need to keep an eye on your savings?

Oh yes, clearly my view on the market as an economic indicator is a convenient position adopted due to all the wealth I have amassed (and subsequently, have put into the very market that I don't even give a shit about)

:sarcasm:

In fact, if anyone disagrees with you, I am sure their opposition is due to some nefarious reasons that only you could decipher

YOu were the one who wrote the stock market is something we should not care about. Instead of moronic sarcasm tags, why don't you just admit you said something incredibly stupid.

All the power to you. But I seriously still don't give a shit, despite your intricate circumstantial ad hominem (which was hilariously contradictory).

And if you believe only the wealthy have money in the stock market, you're ignorant as well.

So, of course I disagree with you. It all makes sense now.

Of course a tiny fraction of stock ownership can be attributed to the lower classes. And what is sadly comical is watching the whole lot of em scramble to protect their pitiful share while the rich scoff at their gullibility.

is the difference between being able to retire and not, the difference between not having to sell a family home when there is a recession. I can't take anyone who equates wealth with greed seriously.

"anyone who equates wealth with greed seriously"

:rofl:

Riiiight. Straight from my words, eh?


Look, its a really tough situation to look at. Its sorta like getting invested in the local pyramid scheme, and hoping the cops don't crash it until you get your payoff. Yes, of course you don't want to lose your dough, but you know, maybe you shouldn't of bought in and relied upon others losing for you to gain wealth in the first place. Because that is the underlying concept that enables you to win in both pyramid schemes and capitalism. Your gain will come at the loss of others, whether they be dumber shareholders or just workers deprived of the right to profit from their own labor.

When you are the poor guy on the totem pole, hitchin yourself to the train to get ahead, its a sad day when it doesn't work out so well. But when it does work out in your favor, that train bulldozes the fuck outta communities across the globe to deliver its wealthy passengers to their destination (which the working class isn't considered members of).

Any worker who improved their social mobility through private investment with these accounts was just an example of a systematic accident. A side effect. And there were a whole lot more who lost a fortune each boom & bust cycle, or saw the entire system ship their whole fuckn job away anyway, leaving them with a little more than nothing in an account they cannot eat or use to keep the rain off of them.

I have a 401k. I make a middle class salary. I'm a teacher. When the stocks go up, I make more money.

I'm by no means a member of the investor class, but I am an investor.

I'd like the DOW to be at 40,000 so instead of having $8000 in a 401k I'll have $14000. Its not a huge difference, but it means a bit more. And if I wait until I retire, I'll be mighty comfortable.




MR

Its odd how people believe in a system that ties ones right to profit from labor to their ability to buy such a right (rather than perform such labor). I understand how the market can benefit you, but you should understand how such a system can fuck many more people too.

Karl Marx was a philosopher. One among many. A particularly insightful and influential philosopher, but one that has been proven fairly flawed.

I'm not understanding your first sentence.

It is odd how benefit in a system that ties rights to get paid for my work to the ability to buy . I dont understand what right you are referring to.


The market fucks a great many. So do the seasons. So do hurricanes. So does evolution. Markets are a force of nature and while we can do things to prevent their direct negative consequences, eventually levees break and the free market creeps in.

The market is evolution in economics. Its capricious and deadly. But it exists and it can provide great benefits to people (even poor people) that are insightful, lucky, or well managed.

Such a "right" in capitalism is purchasable. The return on such investment is infinite, as time becomes arbitrarily close to infinity. Such a right can also be perpetually passed on to family, forever.

The ability to profit from labor/production is entirely divorced from the actual people performing the labor. Those that profit are those workers who by chance can accumulate enough wealth (without even profiting from their own labor) to purchase shares, or those who inherit wealth/shares from their family. Guess which happens more often in significant amounts? Guess how this creates a virtual caste system, attributing to a perpetual growth in wealth disparity?

I guess people who swallow this line of thought have no issue whatsoever with the concept of markets, or their practical manifestations. Without doubt, it is difficult to find any common ground.

Employees are paid in wages and stock proportional to their wages (and profits are distributed according to stock allocations).

Non employees are not allowed to have ownership past 20 years (or whatever).

When an employee retires, a company buys back their stocks on a plan over 20 years (and distributes it to active employees). This is called a pension.

Perhaps create diversity exchanges so an employee can diversify across a few local companies for security, so if their company goes belly up in retirement, they'll be ok.

Employees then receive a direct incentive to work hard, such that they receive more profit. Most profit goes straight to buying back stock, so their dividends consist of whats left over.

Private investors still have reason to create businesses. They will get all their money back, plus some amount of profits for 20 years. Private investors no longer can make money without actively investing. They must continually create businesses to profit from their ownership (which they can only retain for 20 years without being an employee)

Im not sure why we live in a world with infinite ROI and where workers don't profit from their labor. This quick idea seems to make a little sense, though I haven't thought about it a ton.

But I will think more on it.

Thanks for clueing me in.

The government just set up a quick incentive mechanism to help divert your wealth into the market to support private capitalistic ventures. While your ownership may appear very similar to the rich, there is but one striking difference: they know when to sell. Hopefully you know how to hold your dick while out in the cold, and everyone will be happy.

I only invest in index funds and am taking the most sure-fire path to becoming a millionaire - consistent investments in index funds over a 25-40 year time horizon. So far, I am 32 and have gone from a negative net worth in 2000 to about $250,000 on the market. I can't complain, as it has not been too hard. I just live WAAAAAAY below my means.,

Im glad the system is working out for you then. The rest can eat cake

...but choose to get the new Ipad, Xbox 360, flat screen tv and huge houses. My wife and I, along with our 3 kids, live in a $140,000 house we bought 10 years ago for $110,000. A coworker who is 3 years younger with no kids, just built a $425,000 house and now lives month to month. Our country, across the ENTIRE income spectrum, has a serious spending problem.

If "many" lived as you and chose to invest as you do instead of buying dumb shit that may drive the economy, it is beyond fallacious that everyone would benefit as you do today. You benefit from the market because you live as Golem did, observing your Precious in a damp cave, while everyone else parties it up at the Shire.

There are winners and losers. You are putting yourself in the winner box, but there is only so much space, and it takes a lot of losers to add another room on for you.

And thanks for the description. I got a laugh out of it.

If everyone lived like me, the economy would grind to a halt and production would drop. I just think there has to be a happy medium.

:)

What I find is offensive is that the majority of those that get to benefit get to live a pretty lush lifestyle as trust-fund babies, and don't have to sacrifice to get a step ahead in the system. Your ability to prosper isn't necessarily by design. Many can live like you, not by choice, and get no where too.

It's improvement is good for anyone who works for a living or wants to.

It's not just the rich, but everyone who works who is ultimately affected. Having it crash hurts everybody.

Sheesh! Not all of us "shareholders" are "greedy corportists".

Hopefully they wont fall for that shit next time, right? Bah, ya know they will.

Not only am I not a fan of these accounts, I'm not even a fan of the underlying capitalistic system that makes it all possible. Am I supposed to cry when a scourge of a system starts dealing out shit for its people (only because its not succeeding) and applaud when it works in their favor, but only for a short time? Because by doing so, my emotional state is essentially supporting the entire existence of a system that I want completely eradicated.

There are other methods to invest, distribute ownership, and ensure stability that would create a society with less aggregate suffering and more social mobility. Why should I tied myself to the preservation of this one? Isn't it about time everyone should be learning about the inevitable suffering the boom & bust of capitalism brings, and the unending disparity it perpetuates (despite even the working class being able to invest a small fraction in it)?

compassion is what should drive liberals

I disagree. Philosophy should drive liberals. The preservation of the "social contract" (which is broken) should drive liberals. There is an intellectual foundation that liberalism is built upon, which doesn't require one to shed a minor tear. And while you can cry all you want, there are irrefutable logical arguments that suggest for the benefit of all (including the rich and their precious markets), a social contract should be continuously renegotiated and upheld to preserve a maximum amount of stability, health and happiness for all.

Because if all we want to do is wallow around in emotions, eventually "liberalism" will stand for nothing but ambiguous solutions that make us feel better about ourselves but avoids solving the fundamental problems that cause the suffering in the first place (brings to mind health insurance reform).

If you want to show real compassion, seek to open up eyes and change a system that will perpetually cause suffering. If you merely shed a tear each time it gets sick, and then applaud each time it breathes a sigh of relief, you are in its corner, and in the corner of perpetual strife for the working class.

Which social contract?

Hobbes? Locke? Rousseau?

Shall we invest all our liberties to our government, surrender all civil liberties to the Leviathan to protect us from war? (Hobbes)

Shall we sign a social contract with a leader who will protect our freedoms on the condition that he does not take a single dime from our pockets nor asks us to regulate our commerce? (Locke)

Shall we sign a social contract that will provide for each citizen to defend their own rights and act in their own self interest? (Rousseau)

Be careful when you use the term social contract and be careful to define your terms. You are throwing out real political terminology to say something you do not really mean. You are making an ethical point, not a political one.

I happen to believe that philosophy should not drive liberals, because philosophy is what drives dictators into power. The misinterpretation of Karl Marx gave us the USSR, China, Cuba, and North Korea. The misinterpretation of Nietzsche and Heidegger gave us Nazis. The misinterpretation of Plato gave us fascism. The misinterpretation of Locke gave us the "right to guns".

We cannot alter a force of nature and the laws of supply and demand are the same laws that govern the universe. These are ECOLOGICAL principles, not just economic ones. Ecology is the force that drives evolution and evolution is the foundation of all diversity (be it biological, commercial, or political).

Compassion, in the sense of Immanuel Kant, should be a driving force in liberal politics. It asks the question "Does what you use destroy its intended purpose?" If it does, then it is immoral. If it does not, then it is moral.

The markets are designed to share ownership and distribute risk AND wealth. They achieve this, sometimes. They are only immoral when people manipulate the system to prevent people from collecting benefits that they are rightful owners of.

I'd like to continue this discussion. My training is in ecology (as you can probably tell) but I used to love philosophy.

If liberals have no philosophical foundation or ideology on which to base their actions, they essentially stand for nothing. "Compassion"? For who? By what means? To what end goal? Does the term "liberalism" not have philosophical origins?

Philosophy has been a foundation of both benevolent forces, as well as malignant ones. Compassion, and what you do because one feels it, can be derived through philosophical means.

Honestly. I just don't get it. I just don't see the point. Its like being put into a forest and told that by "feeling" you will find your way out, rather than by using intellect and reading a map (one designed to address suffering none the less).

Compassion just seems like a generic term. One that, while being used in a beneficial manner, can also be used to shout down anyone for any purpose. Here I am, expressing my disdain for a system that perpetually causes suffering, but by means of "compassion" I am supposed to ties my heartstrings to the success of such a system? True compassion dictates that this system is destroyed and replaced, so such suffering and disparity is forever ended.

Is "compassion" the cornerstone of neo-liberalism? Or is it merely the carrot, being used to prop up the Third Way?

I used Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. Compassion is something that does not destroy what it utilizes.

I am AWARE this is a stretch. But not so much a stretch in the realm of philosophy (given how Plato's definition of justice is 'do not be a busy-body'.

If I were to ask you to consider the compassion argument, it would be pretty simple. Be happy when those in need to well. Be happy (or at worst indifferent) when those who do not need do well. Be unhappy when people profit by misleading others - NOT because they made a profit, but because they denied someone else a profit.

The cornerstone of neoliberalism is that the concerns of American liberalism are real and can be solved without government intervention. Neoconservativism, by contrast, proposes that conservative social and foreign policy values can be best achieved through the use of government intervention.

The third way is a belief that competing interests on a 2-dimensional axis (social liberal versus social conservative, fiscal liberal versus fiscal conservative) can find middle ground on the basis of psychological and indeed geometric/mathematical theories.

Its killing me now that I cannot remember the term they use. The region of overlap between competing interests. Torus? Tensor?

ANYWAY, I acknowledge that philosophy has many beneficial and many harmful results...


Going to a forest and "feeling" the trees is not what I am submitting. I am saying that we need to say that a tree is there. Its there! If you are making the consequentialist assertion (that suffering can be measured and that everything has value based on how little suffering it causes) I will humbly suggest that the market has done far more to advance liberty, equity, and justice than communism or socialism ever has. I am not saying that you are advocating those philosophical strands, but I need to get a pulse on just WHICH philosophy you are advocating.

Is it Marxism? Is it Hobbesian, Lockean, or Rousseauian social liberalism? Is it consequentialism? Or is it objectivism?

Its a VECTOR!

To exclude philosophy from politics beyond some arbitrary value you've set, that you've used philosophy to define (namely, Kant)? And why so, should "compassion", be, beyond any doubt, the underlying diving force behind liberal policy? Isn't that a question in the philosophical realm?

Is it any wonder that political debates are so void of any philosophical origins as of late? Is it any wonder why a groundless notion of "centrism" has taken the nation by a storm? The reality is that liberals now really stand for nothing that isn't arbitrary, and have no Ends to meet along the way; leadership simply doesn't permit this to be so, and is simply too lazy to educate the nation on what it is they really care about (and WHY).

But I will stop that tangent for a moment, and describe to you crudely what I think "liberalism" really is. Crudely.

There is a natural struggle between the owner class and the working class, due to an allocation of finite amounts of power, wealth and resources. This is a struggle that has historically caused strife, suffering and crime, and in extremes, revolution or totalitarianism. In any case, this is a struggle that when facilitated, can produce a great symbiotic relationship between the classes, but when let to languish, can cause utter harm for everyone involved. So it is liberalism that is formed to, in some respects, facilitate this relationship and create agreements that protect the interests of both groups. The people agree to be fucked, by all means, as long as they can be comfortable slaves given services and comforts the society can, at any such time, afford to grant them. The rich agree to grant these services such that their property rights are preserved, the workers are in good enough condition to labor efficiently, and the market places are stable enough for them to profit from commerce. At any such time, the system may be able to grant more or less services depending upon the wealth of the upper class and the demands of the lower classes (making this agreement dynamic). When it is cost-efficient to grant entitlements or rights, the upper class will permit this to happen, or otherwise, they will go to war (if it is cheaper and they are ensured success).

But they can also influence the perception of what is a permissible state of existence for the lower-class. They can use politics to fool and coral the lower class to work against their interests. They can upset the balance, but only temporarily, so that they benefit in an insanely disproportional amount from the agreement between them and the lower classes. They may also use the authorities to do so. But this will inevitably lead to the very conditions that this system is trying to prevent: totalitarianism or revolution (the poverty the disparity creates causes too much instability and resistance). And in such conditions, their rights to property and ability to profit from the markets are no longer secured, so it is ultimately not in their interests anyway, despite their incessant attempts to try to do this (which they develop more and more as a science).

Regardless, it is the "liberal's" job to recognize this system, and fight against the balance tipping in too far in such a way that instability and suffering will reign at the end of the day. It is the liberal's job to allow the lower classes to be fucked, but only so much that their own existence can be comfortable enough that they are pacified. It is the liberal's job to ensure the upper classes do not take advantage of their position to profit grossly without throwing enough table scraps, and by doing so, they can preserve this system that they benefit from.

Liberalism is a crude system. It is the system where 10 slaves are armed with guns, pointed at their slave owners head, and torches hovering over their owner's property. It is the system that allows that owner to deftly avoid being fired upon, while accumulating a larger field and a larger house forever. The two classes, which compete for resources and power, cooperatively extort each other, with even the threat of force, in a system that may potentially benefit each if appropriate measures are taken.

And the problem in Liberalism is when all the liberals disappear, bought out by the owners, and there is just no one watching the henhouse but the very foxes that are supposed to be kept out. And the minute you convince everyone that they no longer have to "think" in politics--that they just must feel--you are one step closer to shutting out all those that care about keeping the system in balanced to benefit everyone involved.

You've taken coursework in philosophy or political theory, I'm assuming. Very erudite and well stated.


It is hard to disagree with a coherent argument like the one you've written - I have a philosophical disagreement (I do not believe that all wo/men have the capability or rights to govern).

The thing I want you to consider is that power is fluid. The Roman Republic is a great example of this, where the forces of politics, tradition, personality, propaganda, religion... all interplayed to produce policy. Julius Caesar was a Patrician that served Patrician interests, but protected the plebians. And he was murdered.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

You would say Caesar was killed because his support of the working class served to undermine the existing power structure and caused the Senate to believe that their power (money) would be undermined?


My stance is that he was killed because he went against tradition. It is a subtle difference, but one worth further discussion.

Please reply.

Why are you so full of bitterness? Are you hoping that the US fails now that you've 'escaped' to Canada?

I just don't get your anger - it's palpable!

It fine to be angry at governments that create these programs too provide extra money for these private ventures.

Canada does the same. There is no escaping it.

I also don't like pyramid schemes. I guarantee you that when ever one is about to be shut-down, there are a lot of normal hard up people about to lose fortunes. Do you cry for them?

Of course you may (and I may too). I still wish to advocate their eradication.

Small companies like mine 'go public' in order to raise funds to invest in capital and grow the business. There are weasels who take advantage of this system and is why we need reform (short-selling is a good example), but the basic concept of the system serves a purpose - I don't mind investing in good companies with engineer geeks like me trying to make a living.

And it serves it well. Just observe its amazing ability to perpetuate wealth disparity, generation after generation. Is there not a better way to distribute ownership and capital generated from production

But once you have it, you can do with it what you will. If i want to give my kids my money, so be it.

The best way to distribute ownership is to let it do so on its own, so long as it does not prohibit others from behaving likewise.

Which eventually causes massive disparity of wealth, and subsequently, poverty

...perhaps you could see fit to allow me to have my retirement income back?

Right now.

jobless benefits running out, more homes in foreclosure, more hunger than ever...

but sure we are fine, we are recovering the dow says so!

fuckin' bankers...

I remember when the MSM had its massive orgasm when the Dow broke 20,000 during Bush/Cheney regime. The investors were going gah-gah, while the rest of us saw our jobs disappear, and our plants shut down.

I don't see you trading your Viacom stock for a stable, good paying job! Whose side are you really on?


:rofl:

You are not a capitalist, but a sucker that was conned into putting money in the stock market with promises of healthy returns.

Representative Democracy. I vote for board members.

your vote is meaningless. Institutional stockholders and preferred stockholders are the ones with the most influence on a corporation. Everyone else lives under the illusion that they have some influence.

I have stock from the company I used to work for. (Because corporations love 401Ks instead of pensions because with pensions they have to pay a certain amount and with 401Ks if your investments aren't worth shit they don't have to do shit for you.)

And they board members are already chosen. There are no alternatives given and they actually will tell you to vote for the slate they suggest (which happens to be the only slate available. Surprise! Surprise!)

A corporation is a kingdom. There's nothing democratic about it the illusion of a vote vis a vis the proxy not withstanding.

That must have been quick cause I can't even find any articles on it.

Seriously though, please go find a basic (really, really basic) economics book so that you can see exactly how the stock market benefits the working class.

Thanks.

The stock market can only first exist because the working class has been deprived of the right to profit from their own labor. Do you believe the stock market gives workers a greater benefit than the one stripped from them?

What great benefit was stripped from the workers. They were offered a job at a given wage and they accepted it. Possibly that wage was negotiated by a union.

The owner (or owners - including those whose only connection is to have bought stock ) are entitled to a return as well. They provide the cash that builds the buildings and the materials.

Private people own the means of production, an ownership most often inherited through their parents or grandparents (or bought with seed money given to them by their family); these people reap all the profits of the company. And the workers, yes, are merely the cost of production working at a set wage. They see none of the profits, on most occasions. This is capitalism.

"The owner (or owners - including those whose only connection is to have bought stock ) are entitled to a return as well"

If you think inheritance is equivalent to perpetual entitlement, then fine, I guess that makes sense to you. An infinite return on an investment, that can perpetually be passed on from one man to his children forever, seems a bit like an alien concept to me.

What I am stating is simply the way it is in the United States.

And "thats the way it is" is no reason to not educate and seek change.

exact pay?

And pay (wage) is also not profit, BTW

Okay, thats not going to fly.

Reality demands that we exist in it. And pay (wage) is the only way to make a profit unless we believe the world turns around us.

It is the workers that drive it.

Nor should foundational laws of thermodynamics.

Economics obeys laws that are not unique to human society.

You talk like the "working class" isn't even getting paid.

But to answer your question, Yes, the stock market does give workers a much greater benefit than the one you think is stripped from them. Again, if you don't think the "working class" benefit from a company being a part of the stock market then you are missing a very basic part of business and economics.

They are part of the cost of production. They cost money, just like the machines do, just like the power does, and just like the cubicles do. But no...no. They do not profit from their labor.


"Yes, the stock market does give workers a much greater benefit than the one you think is stripped from them."

How? How is private, non-employee ownership, distributed by the means of the stock market, giving workers a greater benefit than allowing them to profit from their very own labor?

never understand the next step in the process.

No. Its an expense. The only "profit" is what is left over after paying out all the expenses.

If its an expense that can be minimized, in order to maximize profits and deliver more returns to the shareholders that sit at home, that will happen too.

The amount of money they get paid to work is their profit from their labor. So are their raises, bonuses, and benefits.

See, you're getting ahead of yourself and trying to explain to ME what corporate profits are (LOL!) while still thinking workers do not get paid for their work. Once you understand that workers do get paid for their work, which is their profit from their labor, then we can move on to the next step.

To the company it is called an expense.

"while still thinking workers do not get paid for their work"

Thats a straw man. Yes. They get paid for their work. They have no inherit right to profit from the work though.

"Once you understand that workers do get paid for their work"

Oh, my, Ive already understood that before we started. And once you understand a wage is an expense that is deducted from gross revenue (resulting in profits remaining), then we can move on.

:rofl:

check with the word "Profits" on it at the top for their share of the remaining profits? You've already learned me that payments to employees is called "expenses" so how is this other check called "Profits" different?

"You've already learned me that payments to employees is called "expenses" so how is this other check called "Profits" different?"

Profits are variable, based highly upon the labor these workers perform. Unlike a "raise" or a "bonus", it is set on a measurable finite amount of what is left over at the end of the year. While a bonus may always be some perceptually acceptable flat amount, the profit they would receive be 3X or 4X as high if the company's overall profit was raised by that much in that year. It is proportional to the companies actual earnings (after expenses), which correlates to their actual quality and quantity of labor as a whole.

In the current system, a worker may make 4X as many widgets and make them 2X as nice as normal, but will not receive a directly proportional compensation (this undermines their incentive to do so). In a system that rewards workers the profits, the quality and quantity of their work will always be reflected, because they have a right to receive an amount directly proportionally to to amount those products benefit the company.

If a worker makes 4x as many widgets they get a bonus and a raise while the worker next to them will not get a bonus and will only get 1/4 as much of a raise. This IS how companies work. If they didn't work like this, their good workers would leave and they would never see a prolonged increase in profits. While there are many ways to increase profits for a company there is no way more effective than to reward its workers.

I know there is a perception here on DU that all these companies look out for shareholders first and foremost, and that is definitely the case in some instances, but again, a company that puts its shareholders above its employees will never see their stock price increase and stay increased over the long term which hurts everyone.

"If a worker makes 4x as many widgets they get a bonus and a raise while the worker next to them will not get a bonus and will only get 1/4 as much of a raise. This IS how companies work."

No. That is not an inherent part of capitalism. The only thing that is guaranteed is that if those widgets produced additional profit, shareholders have the right to such profit.


"While there are many ways to increase profits for a company there is no way more effective than to reward its workers."

So, I would assume then that a company that profits as much as Wal-Mart does so due to its generous worker rewards? Or do they do so by stiffing their workers?

Did you know that your statement is contradictory? Every worker reward diminishes DIRECTLY the amount of profit a company makes in a given year


"I know there is a perception here on DU that all these companies look out for shareholders first and foremost"

That is, after all, the purpose of a corporation


"a company that puts its shareholders above its employees will never see their stock price increase and stay increased over the long term which hurts everyone"

There are a slew of companies that didn't get your memo.

"There are a slew of companies that didn't get your memo."

- There are a lot of companies out there who will see a short term rise in their stock price, maybe even for a few years, by catering to the shareholders interest but there really is no company that is sustainable without catering to their employees.

"shareholders have the right to such profit."

- shareholders don't usually receive any profit unless the company pays a dividend, in which case the total of all dividends paid out are just a tiny fraction of the profit amount. Most companies don't pay a dividend, so I'm not sure where your logic regarding a companies profits has anything to do with the shareholders. Shareholders will see an increase in stock price (usually) if there is an increase in company profit but they don't see any of that profit.

"So, I would assume then that a company that profits as much as Wal-Mart does so due to its generous worker rewards?"

- If someone is not happy with what Walmart is paying them they should quit and get a job where they can make more money. In our current economy where it's tougher to get a job, your argument that people can't just go out and get a new job will fly, until you look back and see that even when jobs were plentiful there were still people working at Walmart. Why would someone choose to be stiffed by their employer unless it's maybe not as bad as it seems? If anyone out there is making 4x more widgets than the person next to them and DOESN'T get a raise or bonus, that is the worker's fault - not the companies fault.

?? :wtf:

Nor gotten even close to it:

...may be faulty. The DOW never went above 15,000.

I did my part on Saturday...

I think it will break through if not today, then this week sometime.

I have finally seen my IRA gain back most of what was lost thanks to *.

for me too.

I have my fingers crossed for everyone that looked at - for a long time.

putting faith and trust in the stock market is... well, questionable? Doesn't affect MOST people in one way or another.

of how the overall economy is doing - is a mistake, and could even lead some politicians to believe that the economy is in better shape than it actually is...

(that, or there is no where else to sink your money)

for the havenots it has increasingly become irrelevant. When the Stock Market is held up as the arbiter of a successful economy, a symbol of confidence for those who still have something to invest, or a future to invest in, all it really means to me is a complete buy in to trickle down economics from the powers that be.

Which, sadly is now not just the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party as well.

situation of everyday people on the street.

Wall Street != the rest of us.

It is a version of trickle down economics, first started by Ronald Reagan, and now being championed by the DLC and its fellow travelers.

I'd say that it's probably the best index of the market because it's market capitalization weighted rather than price-weighted. It also encompasses 500 companies from every sector instead of just 30.

It just keeps going up and up and it's making me a VERY happy man :)

nt