Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by Bruxist, Feb 28, 2018.
It's all making sense now.
It’s not just Tesla, every single company he runs post PayPal doesn’t just take advantage of subsidies, but is dependent on them.
His companies have done some cool stuff, but to look at him as some free market entrepnurial savior is disingenuous
A private ("privately held") company cannot be listed on the stock exchange it has no shares to sell. The owner(s) fund the business, and whatever profit or loss accrues is theirs.
A public company sells stock, is listed on the exchange, is funded by proceeds from the sale of said stock. Profits (or losses) are shared among the shareholders.
It's either one or the other. It is hideously easy to find out if a company is private or public.
You can believe whatever you like...
Whether a company is public or private has no bearing on it's ability to issue shares. Private companies can sell shares without becoming public.
And that's an endorsement? Because others are doing it?!? Crony capitalism should be condemned, not condoned or excused.
Also, no other auto manufacturers get $7500 per car as a subsidy from the government like Tesla does for every car they sell. And for a car that only rich people can afford. Musk lobbied hard last year, successfully, to keep that subsidy when it was supposed to expire.
I mostly agree with you but in 1958 a base model es-335 cost $335. That’s over $2500 in today’s money (according to a google search)
As previously discussed in this thread, it's difficult to compare pre fiat currency prices to post fiat currency prices. What I think is a fair statement is that a working musician could afford a Gibson in the 50s but they are now too expensive for the average working class musician. Why is that?
Please stop with the facts!!! My mind is made up!
Wait..what were we discussing?
I see your point, but maybe it would be more accurate to say a person (or group of persons) in a private company is/are stakeholders rather than shareholders.
Shares automatically bring up the idea of a publicly traded company that offers stock on the market.
A stake in a company could mean you invested (and perhaps have partial ownership), but not necessarily publicly traded, and compensation would not be based upon the performance of the stock (a number assigned and influenced by multiple factors), but by the performance of the company (sales of the product or service).
Case in point:
My wife started a cleaning business. I bought the supplies/machines, she and her employees did the work, and she and I reaped the benefits of her client's payments. We weren't shareholders, but we had a stake in the company (me buying the machines and supplies, she had the sweat equity). Nobody else had a "share", outside of the wages we paid them.
Also, she was successful, because she gave the customers what they wanted--a good job, done quickly, by honest people they felt comfortable having in their homes or businesses...she didn't start reinventing the wheel, she just did what the customer asked (and was willing to pay) for...
Are ya listening, Henry?
That's first of all not exactly true - every manufacturer that sells an electric car (Chevy for one) gets the same subsidy for every electric car. It's a level playing field in that regard. The existence of the subsidy is a great example of sound industrial policy, where a government provides incentives for companies to innovate, produce particular things, etc.. We in the US have very little active industrial policy but most wealthy nations do quite a bit of this, and it is a huge, huge part of the reason why Asian countries have kicked our rear ends so successfully over the past few decades.
I find it so, so hard to understand Tesla hate - it's the first new American car company in decades, it's producing valuable goods desired around the world using American workers, it is extremely innovative, everything you could want. Without a few government incentives to help get that ball rolling, there is no way anyone would be able to step up in that way. As of now, and because of Musk and those subsidies, the US is the clear leader in what is going to be a large market in the very near future. This is a good thing.
It's accurate to say they are stakeholders and shareholders. They are stakeholders that own shares of the company. By owning shares, they are implicitly shareholders.
Yes, public companies have shares that are traded on an organized exchange. Private companies can also have shares that are bought and sold, but they cannot be offered to the general public or traded on an exchange. The issuance of stock is not exclusive to public companies.
If you have an ownership stake in a corporation, you own shares and are a shareholder in that company.
I really don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. Corporations are owned by shareholders whether they are public or private. This is defined by state and federal laws. There is nothing ambiguous about it.
Company is not synonymous with corporation. It's not required that a company take the form of a corporation. There are other business structures that are not corporations and they do not require issuance of stock. Sole proprietorships and partnerships are two such examples that are often used for small companies.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on whether government subsidies (aka tools of crony capitalism) are "a good thing". I don't want to get this thread shut down for being overly political.
Private companies (i.e. shares not traded on the stock market) most certainly can have shareholders. They are referred to as "Privately Held" companies which in addition to private shareholders, there are is a board of directors just like a publically traded company.
Perhaps it's because the average working class musician doesn't earn much money anymore.
One way to compare costs between back then and now is to figure how many hours of work it took for the average income to purchase a product.
According to the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings chart, the average earnings in 1955 was about $3300, which is about $1.65/hr. In 2016, it was about $48000, which is about $24/hr. That's based on a 40 hr week for 50 hours a year.
Someone now has to find the costs of comparable guitars. My math brain is too tired.
If it's privately held they don't have to publish as much company data as publically traded companies. Since there are two owners of Gibson, as indicated above they each have a 'share' in the company which can be 50/50, 60/40, 80/20, etc. The one who has the larger share has what is called the 'controlling interest.'
I guess it depends on the size of the company. RJD Services is a automotive shop that I take my car to sometimes. Richard is not only the owner, he's the only employee. He doesn't have a board of directors.
I think I failed to make my point.
I'm not saying that it's right. I'm just wondering why of the billions in corporate welfare annually, is one company singled out over the others.
I don't think I can take this any farther without crossing that line, if I haven't already. So I'm out.
I still stand by my statement and ask the question: A working musician could afford a Gibson in 1957. In 2018 the average working class musician can not afford a Gibson. Why is that?