First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out....

No politics allowed.
This appears to be straddling the line.

 

Sam Zell isn't my problem anymore than any other corporate is. I never worked for Tribune.

He and his ilk, and you, are all of our problem.

So go be right about everything all the time again. It's fun.

 

Just a bit of a clarification before the thread gets locked ... someone made some comment earlier about common stock vs. preferred stock. Whoever it was, don't fall victim to the labeling. Preferred stock's just a shitty bond ...

 

Preferred stock is pretty much a bond, and it's a shitty bond at that. There are many, many "flavors" of preferred stock (voting vs. non-voting, cumulative vs. non-cumulative, etc., etc.), but by and large it is much closer to a bond than it is to equity. The trouble is, preferred stock's dividends aren't tax deductible (for the issuing company), while bond interest is. There probably wouldn't even be preferred stock but for the fact that corporations (not individuals) that own it only have to pay taxes on a portion of the dividend they receive. Absent that preferential tax treatment, there'd likely be no market for it.

Yes, preferred stock is senior to common stock in a bankruptcy liquidation ... but if a modern stock corporation is being liquidated, that seniority's not going to mean much. I guess being at the front of the line when the court tells you "tough shit" has some value, but not for me.

The issue was raised by someone who suggested that the Tribune Company's capital structure was dominated by preferred stock. If that was the case (I'm sure it wasn't) then the Tribune Company should have been taken over, because that would be a sign of absolutely imbecilic management.

 

If only those two moms had abortions, everyone who works for AOL wouldn't have their 401ks get fucked over:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aol-says-39-reducing-retirement-contributions-because-obamacare-185800352.html

If only Tim Armstrong's mom would have had an abortion ...

 

The defense budget is about $700 billion. Who benefits most from our strong military presence in the world? What about the State Department? What percentage of an ambassador's time is spent working for the benefit of a 1 per center versus a 99 per center? The vast amount of USG revenues are spent protecting wealth, not redistributing it. Anybody who can't see that is either blinded by their ideology or a piss-poor student of American history.

"Redistribution of wealth" is such a bullshit term, because the wealth is staying right where it is. It might be moving from one rich person to another. But an individual who receives a $200 SNAP card ends up with $200 worth of food. That's not wealth, at least not according to any definition of the word familiar to me. Most of the $200 he/she spends ultimately ends up in the hands of Big Food. How the net result is a shift in wealth from upper class to lower class is beyond me. You'll probably need to show your work if you are going to make that claim.

 

That's absolutely right.

Think of it this way.

It costs a heck of a lot more for the 1 percenter to insure his Ferrari than it does the 99 percenter to insure his Dodge Neon.

Why?

Because the 1 percenter has a lot more to lose.

The $700 billion defense budget and our whole system basically protects our way of life. The 1 percenters have much more to lose in this game, so they must pay more to ensure the system doesn't collapse. A good many 99 percenters have no stake in the current system and would arguably be better off if the whole thing blew up and another system of government took its place. Why SHOULD they contribute to a system that rewards failing investment banks with $25 billion cash infusions and rewards ousted CEOs with $40 million parachutes?

 

That is a unique way to look at things. It does not matter that the holder of the SNAP card ends up with food (which he/she needs), it's all about where the dollar ultimately ends up. This is one of the most bizarre things or mindsets I have ever come across.

 

It's not unique at all, bud. It's basic economics. Wealth vs. Income. SNAP funds represent the latter, as do unemployment benefits, social security payments, etc. The difference between wealth and income? Well, as you put it, "where the dollar ends up." Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, which would be easy to do since you don't really make one, or at least support the one you are trying to make.

 

Wouldn't wanna be accused of playing favorites ...