29 Jun 10
Why does the media insist on calling anyone that owns stock or mutual funds "investors"?
Unless you buy a stock at the IPO, you are just buying stock from someone who is selling stock they already own. The money you pay for the stock does not go to the company, it goes to the guy you bought it from! You are just hoping that the stock goes up in price before you sell it to someone else!
This is called, "SPECULATING" ffs.
From now on, whenever you hear some media type person go on about how investors are selling their stocks or are complaining about some new government regulatory regime, just remember, they aren't investors...they are just speculators!!
29 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessBecause no one wants to shatter john doe's fragile self-esteem by telling him that buying two shares of Exxon stock does not make him equal to Warren Buffett.
Why does the media insist on calling anyone that owns stock or mutual funds "investors"?
Unless you buy a stock at the IPO, you are just buying stock from someone who is selling stock they already own. The money you pay for the stock does not go to the company, it goes to the guy you bought it from! You are just hoping that the stock goes up in price nment regulatory regime, just remember, they aren't investors...they are just speculators!!
Its sort of like a person who spends an hour playing basketball with a couple of friends and declares himself to be an "athlete".
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by uzlessIt's investing by every standard and definition. Buying something in the hopes it appreciates IS investing. There's a gazillion things you can invest in that involves buying something from a private owner. Real Estate, rare coins, art, classic cars, etc.
Why does the media insist on calling anyone that owns stock or mutual funds "investors"?
Unless you buy a stock at the IPO, you are just buying stock from someone who is selling stock they already own. The money you pay for the stock does not go to the company, it goes to the guy you bought it from! You are just hoping that the stock goes up in price ...[text shortened]... nment regulatory regime, just remember, they aren't investors...they are just speculators!!
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperTrading one piece of paper for another piece of paper is not considered Investment in Economics.
It's investing by every standard and definition. Buying something in the hopes it appreciates IS investing. There's a gazillion things you can invest in that involves buying something from a private owner. Real Estate, rare coins, art, classic cars, etc.
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by no1marauderBefore I address your characterization of "paper for paper" let me get to a more direct question.
Trading one piece of paper for another piece of paper is not considered Investment in Economics.
Are you suggesting stocks are not considered an investment in Economics?
29 Jun 10
Investment is the value of machinery, plants, and buildings that are bought by firms for production purposes.
Financial investments in shares, obligations and other financial instruments are not considered as "investment" in a macroeconomic sense nor in national accountancy.
http://www.economicswebinstitute.org/glossary/invest.htm
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperAll that happens when you buy a stock is that you give up an existing piece of paper (money) for another existing piece of paper (share of stock). This adds nothing tangible to the economy so it is not considered "Investment" in Economics.
What point are you getting at with your paper for paper analogy?
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by no1marauderWe're not talking about macroeconomics. We're talking about whether or not shares of a publicly traded companies, owned by an individual, are an investment. Of course they are.
Investment is the value of machinery, plants, and buildings that are bought by firms for production purposes.
Financial investments in shares, obligations and other financial instruments are not considered as "investment" in a macroeconomic sense nor in national accountancy.
http://www.economicswebinstitute.org/glossary/invest.htm
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=investment
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYou made this statement:
We're not talking about macroeconomics. We're talking about whether or not shares of a publicly traded companies, owned by an individual, are an investment. Of course they are.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=investment
It's investing by every standard and definition.
Your statement is wrong; it is not "investing" according to the Economic definition.
Deal with it.
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat a silly analogy.
All that happens when you buy a stock is that you give up an existing piece of paper (money) for another existing piece of paper (share of stock). This adds nothing tangible to the economy so it is not considered "Investment" in Economics.
By your standard if I swipe my credit card for a sketch drawn by Michael Angelo I've also traded "paper for paper"
Both the sketch and the stock certificate are made out of paper.
29 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYay, the gotcha game again.
You made this statement:
It's investing by every standard and definition.
Your statement is wrong; it is not "investing" according to the Economic definition.
Deal with it.
The OP was talking about individuals owning stocks, which has nothing to do with macroeconomics. My bad, I should have said "by every standard and definition as it pertains to an individual investor."
Are you done playing semantics? Let me know when you're ready to have a grownup conversation.
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIf by "silly" you mean the accepted understanding of the Economic profession than yes it's "silly".
What a silly analogy.
By your standard if I swipe my credit card for a sketch drawn by Michael Angelo I've also traded "paper for paper"
Both the sketch and the stock certificate are made out of paper.