I'm probably the furthest thing from a bleeding heart liberal, but there's gotta be a point when you have so much money another $10 billion just won't change your life personally. I'd love to see Steve Jobs publicly go after a major world problem with the same energy he does at Apple. I only say publicly because I'm sure he contributes to many things, but you rarely hear about it.
Understand that, with guys like Jobs and Gates, it's really not about making money. The money flows in as a natural result of their passion. These types are driven by some inner demon to do what they do. Steve Jobs wanted to make a dent in the universe and he has done so. So did Gates. With them it's the DOING of it, not the reward, that drives them. That goes for most self-made men. And has been stated in another post, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are responsible for literally millions of jobs being created over the now three decades since they started the personal computer industry.
And I'm more than a little annoyed at the thought of some committee or agency, or ethical formula deciding how much money is "enough" for an individual. President Obama said almost those words last week I believe. He wondered how much income was enough for an individual or corporation, a natural result of socialist thinking I guess. So at which point should society confiscate or redistribute someone's wealth and who decides what is enough?
My first IRA was built up to 19k in 2000. After the big crash, and 911, it was worth 11k. Another year later and my "broker" at ML had it down to 8k. He didn't think Apple was a good idea.
In 2003 I took that IRA Account away from Merrill Lynch and sank it into Apple.
Today its worth over 50k. 600% return in six years.
Only $50K?
So you didn't put all $8K into AAPL?
Had you actually "sank" all $8000 into Apple in 2003 (at a high of $11.83 for a total of ~676 shares), you would now have 1352 shares at $252 (total of $340,704)
I'm probably the furthest thing from a bleeding heart liberal, but there's gotta be a point when you have so much money another $10 billion just won't change your life personally. I'd love to see Steve Jobs publicly go after a major world problem with the same energy he does at Apple. I only say publicly because I'm sure he contributes to many things, but you rarely hear about it.
It's really no one's business what he (or anyone else, for that matter) decides to do with his money. You control your own money, so YOU make decisions that you can stand behind.
You do understand that dumb implies that reasonable people at the time would have thought Jobs decision was bad. Hindsight is a luxury investors do not have when decisions are being made. Further, many people who know Jobs say his main motivation isn't money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
While Arends suggested Jobs' move in 2003 was the "dumbest trade ever," Jobs has also been behind some quite profitable deals.
My first IRA was built up to 19k in 2000. After the big crash, and 911, it was worth 11k. Another year later and my "broker" at ML had it down to 8k. He didn't think Apple was a good idea.
In 2003 I took that IRA Account away from Merrill Lynch and sank it into Apple.
Today its worth over 50k. 600% return in six years.
When you get over a hundred million or so, you reach, realistically, the limit of anything you can have for yourself and your family. The rest of the money is just for leverage. Thus, he sold Pixar basically for a seat on the ABC Board. Other money is spent for many things, but most of them for the main love of his life: Apple. It's harder to dislodge him as all hell, so he's ensconced pretty well. Wait for the 80-year-old Jobs getting a third liver, second heart, and coming on stage to announce the wireless, nanosphere implantable computer: the iEvolution!
If I recall, Steve turned over his options in exchange for restricted stocks because there was a back dating issue involve with those options. Even though he didn't legally have to give them up. Steve didn't want to be accused of profitting from back dated options when it came time to exercise them. Which he will eventually have to do. He didn't make the exchange because he thought he could make more money holding the stock.
I believe you are correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
"Greed" is term used by jealous people.
No, it's the word used to describe avarice, also known as one of the Seven Deadly Sins for 2,000 years or thereabouts.
Uh, no. Actually, saying people are jealous of you is simply attempting to deny that you are greedy.
Or, to put it another way. Live simply, so that others may simply live.
But something tells me you aren't going to listen to that advice.....
Or, to put it another way...
A man has ten cows, but none of his neighbors have any. So?
One person's wealth (or an entire group of people) has nothing to do with your status... poor, rich or otherwise! Don't begrudge another the fruits of their labor, unless they got it by sticking a gun in your ribs, or by taxation without representation.
No, it's the word used to describe avarice, also known as one of the Seven Deadly Sins for 2,000 years or thereabouts.
Oh, I don't know about that. For example, there's a difference between 'gluttony' and 'hunger.'
'Avarice' is such a religiously loaded term. I interpret 'greed' to mean the desire for more wealth rather than less. And, as with any other such attribute, taken by itself, it can be good or bad.... it just depends. But it is fair to say that it is the desire for more wealth that makes us all better off.
Independent of that, SpamSandwich's post had to do with the type of people that use the term, not the meaning of the term itself.
Success and greed are hardly the same thing. Saying they are the same does not make it so.
Of course not.
But the desire for more wealth ('greed') is often a determinant of 'success' (which, btw, is another value-laden term.... care to explain what you mean by 'success?')
Comments
I'm probably the furthest thing from a bleeding heart liberal, but there's gotta be a point when you have so much money another $10 billion just won't change your life personally. I'd love to see Steve Jobs publicly go after a major world problem with the same energy he does at Apple. I only say publicly because I'm sure he contributes to many things, but you rarely hear about it.
Understand that, with guys like Jobs and Gates, it's really not about making money. The money flows in as a natural result of their passion. These types are driven by some inner demon to do what they do. Steve Jobs wanted to make a dent in the universe and he has done so. So did Gates. With them it's the DOING of it, not the reward, that drives them. That goes for most self-made men. And has been stated in another post, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are responsible for literally millions of jobs being created over the now three decades since they started the personal computer industry.
And I'm more than a little annoyed at the thought of some committee or agency, or ethical formula deciding how much money is "enough" for an individual. President Obama said almost those words last week I believe. He wondered how much income was enough for an individual or corporation, a natural result of socialist thinking I guess. So at which point should society confiscate or redistribute someone's wealth and who decides what is enough?
My first IRA was built up to 19k in 2000. After the big crash, and 911, it was worth 11k. Another year later and my "broker" at ML had it down to 8k. He didn't think Apple was a good idea.
In 2003 I took that IRA Account away from Merrill Lynch and sank it into Apple.
Today its worth over 50k. 600% return in six years.
Only $50K?
So you didn't put all $8K into AAPL?
Had you actually "sank" all $8000 into Apple in 2003 (at a high of $11.83 for a total of ~676 shares), you would now have 1352 shares at $252 (total of $340,704)
A few billion here, a few billion there ... pretty soon your talking about real money here.
What are you, Nancy Pelosi?
This is why America is the way it is today; the few wealthy and many, many poor.
You've described any country in the world, at any given point in recorded history. Nothing unique to the US, bub.
I'm probably the furthest thing from a bleeding heart liberal, but there's gotta be a point when you have so much money another $10 billion just won't change your life personally. I'd love to see Steve Jobs publicly go after a major world problem with the same energy he does at Apple. I only say publicly because I'm sure he contributes to many things, but you rarely hear about it.
It's really no one's business what he (or anyone else, for that matter) decides to do with his money. You control your own money, so YOU make decisions that you can stand behind.
Back in the days when the Cube was tanking
...
There have been 2 stock splits since then, plus the current ridiculous price. Half a million dollars in stock would have been really nice.
Not to be picky (okay I am) but there was only one stock split (Feb 2005) after the cube was released.
There was a split a month prior to its release.
Uh oh, here we go...
Who exactly are you to make that decision for anybody else?
Greed isn't the problem in America today.
Jealousy and entitlement are.
If you don't think greed is a problem then you are probably greedy.
I do agree that jealousy and entitlement are also a problem.
Greed has been a problem in the USA for a long time. As is other parts of the world.
If you don't think greed is a problem then you are probably greedy.
I do agree that jealousy and entitlement are also a problem.
Greed has been a problem in the USA for a long time. As is other parts of the world.
"Greed" is term used by jealous people.
While Arends suggested Jobs' move in 2003 was the "dumbest trade ever," Jobs has also been behind some quite profitable deals.
Uh oh, here we go...
Who exactly are you to make that decision for anybody else?
Greed isn't the problem in America today.
Jealousy and entitlement are.
If you don't think greed is a problem then you are probably greedy.
I do agree that jealousy and entitlement are also a problem.
Greed has been a problem in the USA for a long time. As is other parts of the world.
Hmmm... Greed, Jealousy... I think you guys are onto something...
Maybe, like Letterman, you should make a list of the "Top 10 Things Wrong With With the US!" ..."With the World!"
...Then you could type the list into a computer-- an iPad is certainly up to the job!
...but, sigh, you wouldn't be allowed to show the list in public...
.
My first IRA was built up to 19k in 2000. After the big crash, and 911, it was worth 11k. Another year later and my "broker" at ML had it down to 8k. He didn't think Apple was a good idea.
In 2003 I took that IRA Account away from Merrill Lynch and sank it into Apple.
Today its worth over 50k. 600% return in six years.
Well, aren't you Mr. Smarty Pants!
"Greed" is term used by jealous people.
Uh, no. Actually, saying people are jealous of you is simply attempting to deny that you are greedy.
Or, to put it another way. Live simply, so that others may simply live.
But something tells me you aren't going to listen to that advice.....
Or, to put it another way...
A man has ten cows, but none of his neighbors have any. So?
"Greed" is term used by jealous people.
Excellent point.
A man has ten cows, but none of his neighbors have any. So?
So?
Did the guy with the ten cows steal them?
Did the guy with zero cows work for them?
If I recall, Steve turned over his options in exchange for restricted stocks because there was a back dating issue involve with those options. Even though he didn't legally have to give them up. Steve didn't want to be accused of profitting from back dated options when it came time to exercise them. Which he will eventually have to do. He didn't make the exchange because he thought he could make more money holding the stock.
I believe you are correct.
"Greed" is term used by jealous people.
No, it's the word used to describe avarice, also known as one of the Seven Deadly Sins for 2,000 years or thereabouts.
Uh, no. Actually, saying people are jealous of you is simply attempting to deny that you are greedy.
Or, to put it another way. Live simply, so that others may simply live.
But something tells me you aren't going to listen to that advice.....
Or, to put it another way...
A man has ten cows, but none of his neighbors have any. So?
One person's wealth (or an entire group of people) has nothing to do with your status... poor, rich or otherwise! Don't begrudge another the fruits of their labor, unless they got it by sticking a gun in your ribs, or by taxation without representation.
No, it's the word used to describe avarice, also known as one of the Seven Deadly Sins for 2,000 years or thereabouts.
Oh, I don't know about that. For example, there's a difference between 'gluttony' and 'hunger.'
'Avarice' is such a religiously loaded term. I interpret 'greed' to mean the desire for more wealth rather than less. And, as with any other such attribute, taken by itself, it can be good or bad.... it just depends. But it is fair to say that it is the desire for more wealth that makes us all better off.
Independent of that, SpamSandwich's post had to do with the type of people that use the term, not the meaning of the term itself.
Success and greed are hardly the same thing. Saying they are the same does not make it so.
Of course not.
But the desire for more wealth ('greed') is often a determinant of 'success' (which, btw, is another value-laden term.... care to explain what you mean by 'success?')