Most of this commentary is utterly uninformed. I sold quite a bit of my AAPL shares about a month or so ago so I can speak to this better than most of you.
One might sell in anticipation of a generally bad stock market ahead of the "fiscal cliff." I think people expect our elected "leaders" to resolve that, but there is quite a lot of uncertainty. One could sell now to lock in the gains at the current tax rate, and buy it back.
I had (and have) AAPL in my own account and also in accounts I set up for my kids' college savings. Those accounts are taxable accounts, so the tax rate when I sell and take gains matters. Those shares gained quite a bit in several years and the kids will go to college fairly soon. I thought the odds of taxes going up was high, and figured the market as a whole would sell off. In addition, I will need the money relatively soon, so I sold. I would rather pay this year's tax rate than next year's tax rate. I sold before AAPL hit its all time high, but rather higher than it is now. I started buying it back into my own account, but probably a bit early as it is still falling.
Anyone doubt my veracity, I am perfectly happy to prove this beyond any doubt to an AI moderator.
Just keep believing that there is no manipulation on Wall Street.
For me that thought is right up there with the Tooth Fairy.
If you want to believe, as a private small time investor, that you are being taken advantage of by professional traders, it is true, but the regulators are aware of every tactic bening employed so you can be sure that few if any illegal activities are being deployed by regular trading as almost 100% of it is being done electronically within nanoseconds offering no opportunity for human intervention unless things go horribly wrong and have to be undone. Your scenario is completely paranoiac tin foil hat territory.
If you want to believe, as a private small time investor, that you are being taken advantage of by professional traders, it is true, but the regulators are aware of every tactic bening employed so you can be sure that few if any illegal activities are being deployed by regular trading as almost 100% of it is being done electronically within nanoseconds offering no opportunity for human intervention unless things go horribly wrong and have to be undone. Your scenario is completely paranoiac tin foil hat territory.
Ha! Agrees with me in one sentence and then refutes it in another.
I'd rather wear a tin foil hat than blinders.
Two words for anyone with an open mind... Goldman Sachs.
... and that is just one outfit.
(I'm also curious who said anything about "illegal" activities".)
If you want to believe, as a private small time investor, that you are being taken advantage of by professional traders, it is true, but the regulators are aware of every tactic being employed so you can be sure that few if any illegal activities are being deployed by regular trading as almost 100% of it is being done electronically within nanoseconds offering no opportunity for human intervention unless things go horribly wrong and have to be undone. Your scenario is completely paranoiac tin foil hat territory.
I'd rather wear a tin foil hat than blinders.
Two words for anyone with an open mind... Goldman Sachs.
... and that is just one outfit.
Goldman Sachs and other firms with deceptive investment advice has nothing to do with whether or not the trading system is rigged. It is, to a certain extent, but only for firms that trade on the nanosecond level. For private small time investors you only have two options. One, long time hold, or sell at market value. Of course if you are adventurous you can dabble in the options market.
Earnings reporting in January, will be their all time highest. Last quarter had maybe 3 days of iPhone 5 sales in them, and no iPad mini's. Its going to be interesting to see what happens to the stock going into that earnings release, and after. Whats even more interesting, is none of the talking heads on TV actually bring this up!
The guy who wrote this is one of those people who would literally die for Apple. He should look into journalist work in countries that are run by the state, like North Korea, Iran, et al. That way he won't have to post these embarrassing updates that make him look like the uninformed, prejudice ass that he consistently comes off as. There's a huge difference between 35% & 20%. That's not just misreporting, it's letting your own propaganda agenda and brainwashed way of thinking interfering with reality. The stock has declined solely because Apple released an iPad mini with both forward and backward thinking technology, i.e. non retina display but yet an awesome weight and feel. That alone gives investors and analysts reason to worry that Apple is slowly switching from quality to costs. Also, Wall Street is sick and tired of back ordered orders. Push announcements back 2 months to allow a huge surplus of inventory. Interest on inventory will be extremely minimal if they can sell everything quickly, which you clearly would be salivating over. That will add a good 15% of sustainable stock growth, and investor confidence. You really need to really examine facts, and not react on emotion.
@anfboymn: "back ordered orders"? That implies - if what you wrote is what you meant - that demand caught Apple by surprise. Better than to be caught with surplus stock (as long as the demand stays there and doesn't bleed off elsewhere, of course).
@AlexN, where have you been? Apple has always had a huge instock deficit to orders...and this is what Wall Street and several people on here have complained about, thus one major reason for the stock plunge. The supply chain sucks, the way the merchandise is presented, and with quality of new products diminishing for the reasons explained in my last post, the stock will continue to fall, along with investor confidence. You cannot introduce new, state of the art products, with yesteryears technology (non retina display). I think it's time they rethink some stuff.
[VIDEO][/VIDEO]As a matter of fact, I have to confess that I have been elsewhere in my foci - and that my comment was a bit naïve and half-baked, for which, my apologies.
From what I've read so far on AI at least (avoiding some of the sites where lurk dangerous beasties) it is claimed that Mr Cook has tightened up/improved the supply-chain considerabl - but apparently not enough?
Regarding the display on the iPad Mini, I made an effort the day that the wifi version was released, and spent some time at the local Apple Store both using it (to type in an AI Forum post ) and comparing it side-by-side with the newly released 4th gen iPad retina. The Mini's display was not as good side-by-side, but nonetheless was much better than the specs might have led me to believe (I didn't do a side-by-side with iPad 2, unfortunately - it didn't occur to me at the time).
Some people here have made the comment that a product's worth is not necessarily just about the specs, and in the case of the iPad Mini, I would agree with them - it probably depends on how one defines the target audience/market of the device.
When it comes to the Mac Pro, I would agree with you (although I have not been in that market for some years now).
This is nonsense, Apple has multiple devices being sold out once on a shelf(online or store) including iPhone 5, iPad mini, iPad 4generation soon iMac probably. Yet there stock Is felling. How could apple actually improve themselves? How could apple increase it, sell a whole lot of unnecessary crap? Apple is has multiple points where other company's with smaller supply lines, do it in 1 to 5 years, at most. Plus I see it as apple obviously has secret plans for next year continuing the pattern.
The stock has declined solely because Apple released an iPad mini with both forward and backward thinking technology, i.e. non retina display but yet an awesome weight and feel. That alone gives investors and analysts reason to worry that Apple is slowly switching from quality to costs. Also, Wall Street is sick and tired of back ordered orders. Push announcements back 2 months to allow a huge surplus of inventory. Interest on inventory will be extremely minimal if they can sell everything quickly, which you clearly would be salivating over. That will add a good 15% of sustainable stock growth, and investor confidence. You really need to really examine facts, and not react on emotion.
Ironically, this sounds more like someone's disappointment over the iPad's lack of a Retina screen than an accurate analysis of the market's thinking. As others have said, the big sell-off has hit everybody. The effect on Apple is greater because Apple is the most talked-about stock on the planet. It's a simple as that.
The market makers don't care what goes into an Apple product; most of them don't even know. if you're going to apply your own emotional attachment to having the latest tech in every Apple product then your view of the company is always going to skewed.
Even though I think the article is right about the Capital Gains tax, I think the fact that Apple isn't "Exciting" anymore is a big part of their decline. You no longer have the "OMG, you have an iPhone 5! Let me see it!!!".
Now it's more like "Oh, you got the iPhone 5... cool".
Voting against one's self interest does not equate self-loathing. There's nothing wrong with being rich.
There are a number of problems with this line of argument that equates wealth concentration in "blue states" with people voting against their self interest. First, and most importantly, is the issue of exactly what is their self-interest. Is it voting against your self-interest, to want to have a more civil society where you don't see people suffering all around you. Is it voting against your self-interest to want to mitigate crushing poverty that breeds crime, putting your hard earned possessions, your loved ones, yourself at the risk of becoming victims? Or, is it intelligently voting for your, and your children's, self interest to vote for a society where by making life better for everyone, you make it more enjoyable and safer for yourself?
Sure, there's the selfish, "I got mine, get yours yourself," attitude displayed by some of the wealthy, but most of them aren't that stupid, or short-sighted. (We'll ignore in this discussion those of the wealthy like the Koch brothers whose goal is to actively undermine our democracy, our free society, and establish a neo-feudalist society. Although powerful and influential, they're a small, albeit dangerous, minority.) Most of them realize that crushing the middle class is actually against their self-interest, when viewed outside a short-term how-much-money-is-in-my-pocket perspective.
The ones really voting against their self-interest are the poor and middle class whites in "red states". And they are doing so, mainly, out of spite. They are doing so out of the fear that leaders and programs that might actually make their lives better might also narrow the gap between them and those below them. And since their entire self-esteem is based on the fact that those below them on the socioeconomic ladder have it much worse than they do, they aren't going to take a chance that that gap should narrow. And, let's be honest, a lot of people in "red states" are voting against their self-interest for purely racist motives.
Then, there's the Tea Party, all of whose members are voting against their self-interest. (And, let's ignore the fact that the Tea Party has been hijacked by the neo-fuedalists who are manipulating it to their own ends.) Those who support the Tea Party either fall into the group described above, or are simply so lacking in understanding that they don't even know what's in their self-interest. This latter group is acting not out of reason, but out of fear and confusion, and is easily manipulated to vote against their self-interest.
So, as I see it, the "blue states" aren't voting against their self-interest at all, not even the wealthy in those states who are voting against rehashed Reaganomics. The people voting against their self-interest are the white males in the "red states", most of whom aren't anywhere near being described as wealthy.
You no longer have the "OMG, you have an iPhone 5! Let me see it!!!". Now it's more like "Oh, you got the iPhone 5... cool".
People are used to crap. They're accustomed to mediocrity. They see all these Android knockoffs and they think that is the standard. If they've never used an iPhone, they don't know there is anything better than the trash put out by everyone else. They think Apple is just "one of the pack" now instead of being the only meaningful ecosystem and UX.
There are a number of problems with this line of argument that equates wealth concentration in "blue states" with people voting against their self interest. First, and most importantly, is the issue of exactly what is their self-interest. Is it voting against your self-interest, to want to have a more civil society where you don't see people suffering all around you. Is it voting against your self-interest to want to mitigate crushing poverty that breeds crime, putting your hard earned possessions, your loved ones, yourself at the risk of becoming victims? Or, is it intelligently voting for your, and your children's, self interest to vote for a society where by making life better for everyone, you make it more enjoyable and safer for yourself?
Sure, there's the selfish, "I got mine, get yours yourself," attitude displayed by some of the wealthy, but most of them aren't that stupid, or short-sighted. (We'll ignore in this discussion those of the wealthy like the Koch brothers whose goal is to actively undermine our democracy, our free society, and establish a neo-feudalist society. Although powerful and influential, they're a small, albeit dangerous, minority.) Most of them realize that crushing the middle class is actually against their self-interest, when viewed outside a short-term how-much-money-is-in-my-pocket perspective.
The ones really voting against their self-interest are the poor and middle class whites in "red states". And they are doing so, mainly, out of spite. They are doing so out of the fear that leaders and programs that might actually make their lives better might also narrow the gap between them and those below them. And since their entire self-esteem is based on the fact that those below them on the socioeconomic ladder have it much worse than they do, they aren't going to take a chance that that gap should narrow. And, let's be honest, a lot of people in "red states" are voting against their self-interest for purely racist motives.
Then, there's the Tea Party, all of whose members are voting against their self-interest. (And, let's ignore the fact that the Tea Party has been hijacked by the neo-fuedalists who are manipulating it to their own ends.) Those who support the Tea Party either fall into the group described above, or are simply so lacking in understanding that they don't even know what's in their self-interest. This latter group is acting not out of reason, but out of fear and confusion, and is easily manipulated to vote against their self-interest.
So, as I see it, the "blue states" aren't voting against their self-interest at all, not even the wealthy in those states who are voting against rehashed Reaganomics. The people voting against their self-interest are the white males in the "red states", most of whom aren't anywhere near being described as wealthy.
Great post and I wholeheartedly agree. Don't forget that Christian conservatives in the red states, but I think Jesus would lean more to the left.
People are used to crap. They're accustomed to mediocrity. They see all these Android knockoffs and they think that is the standard. If they've never used an iPhone, they don't know there is anything better than the trash put out by everyone else. They think Apple is just "one of the pack" now instead of being the only meaningful ecosystem and UX.
That's not entirely true, I'd bet that the vast majority of Android owners also have a iPod Touch. They know all about Apple's build quality and it's ecosystem yet still chose not to get a iPhone.
Clearly, the stock is being manipulated by hedge fund managers and other big boys to give them a buying opportunity. It should be illegal, but these guys are the top donors to both parties, so we all have to sit by and witness this theft.
You're probably right, because the 5% increase in the capital gains tax proposed for 2013 has been more than offset by the big drop in the stock price. If this was all about the tax increase, then the stock shouldn't have dropped more than that 5%. Investors are panicking and screwing themselves in the process. I actually bought a few more shares before the latest drop, so I have gotten screwed a bit, but I'm not worried because I think it will all come back as soon as Apple announces the next quarterly results. (Besides, most of my shares were bought at around 175).
And, it's all "crying wolf" anyway, because I really don't think the Republicans are going to let the cap gain rates climb to 20%. I bet they compromise at 18%, which is what's being proposed for a new "5-year" capital gains tax rate (which will get eliminated as part of the compromise, since it would be moot). It's all a bargain anyway, because for the proposed 2013 rates, ordinary income that's taxed at 15% has a long term cap rate of 10% and a 5-year rate of 8%. The proposed ordinary tax rates of 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% have a long-term cap gains rate of 20% and a 5-year rate of 18%. Fairness would dictate (even though this would negatively impact me personally) that cap gains are taxed the same as ordinary income. (Although a lot of it already is as cap gain from a 401K or SEP in which the money went in pre-tax, is already taxed at ordinary rates, not cap gains rates, when it's withdrawn.)
There are a number of problems with this line of argument that equates wealth concentration in "blue states" with people voting against their self interest. First, and most importantly, is the issue of exactly what is their self-interest. Is it voting against your self-interest, to want to have a more civil society where you don't see people suffering all around you. Is it voting against your self-interest to want to mitigate crushing poverty that breeds crime, putting your hard earned possessions, your loved ones, yourself at the risk of becoming victims? Or, is it intelligently voting for your, and your children's, self interest to vote for a society where by making life better for everyone, you make it more enjoyable and safer for yourself?
Sure, there's the selfish, "I got mine, get yours yourself," attitude displayed by some of the wealthy, but most of them aren't that stupid, or short-sighted. (We'll ignore in this discussion those of the wealthy like the Koch brothers whose goal is to actively undermine our democracy, our free society, and establish a neo-feudalist society. Although powerful and influential, they're a small, albeit dangerous, minority.) Most of them realize that crushing the middle class is actually against their self-interest, when viewed outside a short-term how-much-money-is-in-my-pocket perspective.
The ones really voting against their self-interest are the poor and middle class whites in "red states". And they are doing so, mainly, out of spite. They are doing so out of the fear that leaders and programs that might actually make their lives better might also narrow the gap between them and those below them. And since their entire self-esteem is based on the fact that those below them on the socioeconomic ladder have it much worse than they do, they aren't going to take a chance that that gap should narrow. And, let's be honest, a lot of people in "red states" are voting against their self-interest for purely racist motives.
Then, there's the Tea Party, all of whose members are voting against their self-interest. (And, let's ignore the fact that the Tea Party has been hijacked by the neo-fuedalists who are manipulating it to their own ends.) Those who support the Tea Party either fall into the group described above, or are simply so lacking in understanding that they don't even know what's in their self-interest. This latter group is acting not out of reason, but out of fear and confusion, and is easily manipulated to vote against their self-interest.
So, as I see it, the "blue states" aren't voting against their self-interest at all, not even the wealthy in those states who are voting against rehashed Reaganomics. The people voting against their self-interest are the white males in the "red states", most of whom aren't anywhere near being described as wealthy.
While I agree with many of your comments, I think the biggest factor is that most people do not vote on the actual facts. The average person votes on emotion and how they relate to a candidate. I've seen research that claims that 50% of Americans cannot name the Vice-President and 70% can't name the Speaker of the House. Relatively few read a newspaper. Supposedly, a majority of Americans still believe that Obama was born in Kenya and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. My bet is that a very low percentage of Americans understand that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Most get their news from the clowns at Fox or MSNBC. Furthermore, we frequently elect a Congress with completely the opposite views of the executive branch (although much of that has to do with what you need to do to win in a local vs. a national election).
I think there's another factor: if you don't live in a densely populated state, it's hard to see where your tax dollars are going. It's very easy to think that "all those immigrants and ethnics in cities are stealing my money". I think that's the primary reason that the midwest is comprised of red states.
And let's not forget that for the Presidency, the popular vote is always far closer than the electoral vote. If we ever get away from the "winner take all" rule, there will be far more of a contest.
It's all a bit moot anyway because if the Republicans don't find a way to expand their party base to Hispanics, Asians or people in large cities, they're never going to win another national race anyway (with the current electoral rules). Before too long, Texas may very well turn blue due to the ever-increasing Hispanic population. If Texas turns Democratic and assuming the Dems can keep Florida, it means that all 7 states with 18 or more electoral votes are blue states for a total of 209 electoral votes. That means the Dems need only 61 (18.5%) of the remaining 329 electoral votes to win the Presidency in any election. And even without Texas, I think that at least one southern state will eventually turn Democratic again and North Carolina (with 15 electoral votes) is always a toss-up. So the Republicans have a very tough road ahead no matter what they do unless they're satisfied dominating the House and always being the "opposition party".
Comments
Most of this commentary is utterly uninformed. I sold quite a bit of my AAPL shares about a month or so ago so I can speak to this better than most of you.
One might sell in anticipation of a generally bad stock market ahead of the "fiscal cliff." I think people expect our elected "leaders" to resolve that, but there is quite a lot of uncertainty. One could sell now to lock in the gains at the current tax rate, and buy it back.
I had (and have) AAPL in my own account and also in accounts I set up for my kids' college savings. Those accounts are taxable accounts, so the tax rate when I sell and take gains matters. Those shares gained quite a bit in several years and the kids will go to college fairly soon. I thought the odds of taxes going up was high, and figured the market as a whole would sell off. In addition, I will need the money relatively soon, so I sold. I would rather pay this year's tax rate than next year's tax rate. I sold before AAPL hit its all time high, but rather higher than it is now. I started buying it back into my own account, but probably a bit early as it is still falling.
Anyone doubt my veracity, I am perfectly happy to prove this beyond any doubt to an AI moderator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Just keep believing that there is no manipulation on Wall Street.
For me that thought is right up there with the Tooth Fairy.
If you want to believe, as a private small time investor, that you are being taken advantage of by professional traders, it is true, but the regulators are aware of every tactic bening employed so you can be sure that few if any illegal activities are being deployed by regular trading as almost 100% of it is being done electronically within nanoseconds offering no opportunity for human intervention unless things go horribly wrong and have to be undone. Your scenario is completely paranoiac tin foil hat territory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
If you want to believe, as a private small time investor, that you are being taken advantage of by professional traders, it is true, but the regulators are aware of every tactic bening employed so you can be sure that few if any illegal activities are being deployed by regular trading as almost 100% of it is being done electronically within nanoseconds offering no opportunity for human intervention unless things go horribly wrong and have to be undone. Your scenario is completely paranoiac tin foil hat territory.
Ha! Agrees with me in one sentence and then refutes it in another.
I'd rather wear a tin foil hat than blinders.
Two words for anyone with an open mind... Goldman Sachs.
... and that is just one outfit.
(I'm also curious who said anything about "illegal" activities".)
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
If you want to believe, as a private small time investor, that you are being taken advantage of by professional traders, it is true, but the regulators are aware of every tactic being employed so you can be sure that few if any illegal activities are being deployed by regular trading as almost 100% of it is being done electronically within nanoseconds offering no opportunity for human intervention unless things go horribly wrong and have to be undone. Your scenario is completely paranoiac tin foil hat territory.
I'd rather wear a tin foil hat than blinders.
Two words for anyone with an open mind... Goldman Sachs.
... and that is just one outfit.
Goldman Sachs and other firms with deceptive investment advice has nothing to do with whether or not the trading system is rigged. It is, to a certain extent, but only for firms that trade on the nanosecond level. For private small time investors you only have two options. One, long time hold, or sell at market value. Of course if you are adventurous you can dabble in the options market.
Re: wall street manipulation, perhaps so. No one forces you to invest in stocks, but then again, CD rates are terrible at present.
From what I've read so far on AI at least (avoiding some of the sites where lurk dangerous beasties) it is claimed that Mr Cook has tightened up/improved the supply-chain considerabl - but apparently not enough?
Regarding the display on the iPad Mini, I made an effort the day that the wifi version was released, and spent some time at the local Apple Store both using it (to type in an AI Forum post
Some people here have made the comment that a product's worth is not necessarily just about the specs, and in the case of the iPad Mini, I would agree with them - it probably depends on how one defines the target audience/market of the device.
When it comes to the Mac Pro, I would agree with you (although I have not been in that market for some years now).
Ironically, this sounds more like someone's disappointment over the iPad's lack of a Retina screen than an accurate analysis of the market's thinking. As others have said, the big sell-off has hit everybody. The effect on Apple is greater because Apple is the most talked-about stock on the planet. It's a simple as that.
The market makers don't care what goes into an Apple product; most of them don't even know. if you're going to apply your own emotional attachment to having the latest tech in every Apple product then your view of the company is always going to skewed.
Even though I think the article is right about the Capital Gains tax, I think the fact that Apple isn't "Exciting" anymore is a big part of their decline. You no longer have the "OMG, you have an iPhone 5! Let me see it!!!".
Now it's more like "Oh, you got the iPhone 5... cool".
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Voting against one's self interest does not equate self-loathing. There's nothing wrong with being rich.
There are a number of problems with this line of argument that equates wealth concentration in "blue states" with people voting against their self interest. First, and most importantly, is the issue of exactly what is their self-interest. Is it voting against your self-interest, to want to have a more civil society where you don't see people suffering all around you. Is it voting against your self-interest to want to mitigate crushing poverty that breeds crime, putting your hard earned possessions, your loved ones, yourself at the risk of becoming victims? Or, is it intelligently voting for your, and your children's, self interest to vote for a society where by making life better for everyone, you make it more enjoyable and safer for yourself?
Sure, there's the selfish, "I got mine, get yours yourself," attitude displayed by some of the wealthy, but most of them aren't that stupid, or short-sighted. (We'll ignore in this discussion those of the wealthy like the Koch brothers whose goal is to actively undermine our democracy, our free society, and establish a neo-feudalist society. Although powerful and influential, they're a small, albeit dangerous, minority.) Most of them realize that crushing the middle class is actually against their self-interest, when viewed outside a short-term how-much-money-is-in-my-pocket perspective.
The ones really voting against their self-interest are the poor and middle class whites in "red states". And they are doing so, mainly, out of spite. They are doing so out of the fear that leaders and programs that might actually make their lives better might also narrow the gap between them and those below them. And since their entire self-esteem is based on the fact that those below them on the socioeconomic ladder have it much worse than they do, they aren't going to take a chance that that gap should narrow. And, let's be honest, a lot of people in "red states" are voting against their self-interest for purely racist motives.
Then, there's the Tea Party, all of whose members are voting against their self-interest. (And, let's ignore the fact that the Tea Party has been hijacked by the neo-fuedalists who are manipulating it to their own ends.) Those who support the Tea Party either fall into the group described above, or are simply so lacking in understanding that they don't even know what's in their self-interest. This latter group is acting not out of reason, but out of fear and confusion, and is easily manipulated to vote against their self-interest.
So, as I see it, the "blue states" aren't voting against their self-interest at all, not even the wealthy in those states who are voting against rehashed Reaganomics. The people voting against their self-interest are the white males in the "red states", most of whom aren't anywhere near being described as wealthy.
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
You no longer have the "OMG, you have an iPhone 5! Let me see it!!!". Now it's more like "Oh, you got the iPhone 5... cool".
People are used to crap. They're accustomed to mediocrity. They see all these Android knockoffs and they think that is the standard. If they've never used an iPhone, they don't know there is anything better than the trash put out by everyone else. They think Apple is just "one of the pack" now instead of being the only meaningful ecosystem and UX.
Great post and I wholeheartedly agree. Don't forget that Christian conservatives in the red states, but I think Jesus would lean more to the left.
That's not entirely true, I'd bet that the vast majority of Android owners also have a iPod Touch. They know all about Apple's build quality and it's ecosystem yet still chose not to get a iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave
Clearly, the stock is being manipulated by hedge fund managers and other big boys to give them a buying opportunity. It should be illegal, but these guys are the top donors to both parties, so we all have to sit by and witness this theft.
You're probably right, because the 5% increase in the capital gains tax proposed for 2013 has been more than offset by the big drop in the stock price. If this was all about the tax increase, then the stock shouldn't have dropped more than that 5%. Investors are panicking and screwing themselves in the process. I actually bought a few more shares before the latest drop, so I have gotten screwed a bit, but I'm not worried because I think it will all come back as soon as Apple announces the next quarterly results. (Besides, most of my shares were bought at around 175).
And, it's all "crying wolf" anyway, because I really don't think the Republicans are going to let the cap gain rates climb to 20%. I bet they compromise at 18%, which is what's being proposed for a new "5-year" capital gains tax rate (which will get eliminated as part of the compromise, since it would be moot). It's all a bargain anyway, because for the proposed 2013 rates, ordinary income that's taxed at 15% has a long term cap rate of 10% and a 5-year rate of 8%. The proposed ordinary tax rates of 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% have a long-term cap gains rate of 20% and a 5-year rate of 18%. Fairness would dictate (even though this would negatively impact me personally) that cap gains are taxed the same as ordinary income. (Although a lot of it already is as cap gain from a 401K or SEP in which the money went in pre-tax, is already taxed at ordinary rates, not cap gains rates, when it's withdrawn.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
There are a number of problems with this line of argument that equates wealth concentration in "blue states" with people voting against their self interest. First, and most importantly, is the issue of exactly what is their self-interest. Is it voting against your self-interest, to want to have a more civil society where you don't see people suffering all around you. Is it voting against your self-interest to want to mitigate crushing poverty that breeds crime, putting your hard earned possessions, your loved ones, yourself at the risk of becoming victims? Or, is it intelligently voting for your, and your children's, self interest to vote for a society where by making life better for everyone, you make it more enjoyable and safer for yourself?
Sure, there's the selfish, "I got mine, get yours yourself," attitude displayed by some of the wealthy, but most of them aren't that stupid, or short-sighted. (We'll ignore in this discussion those of the wealthy like the Koch brothers whose goal is to actively undermine our democracy, our free society, and establish a neo-feudalist society. Although powerful and influential, they're a small, albeit dangerous, minority.) Most of them realize that crushing the middle class is actually against their self-interest, when viewed outside a short-term how-much-money-is-in-my-pocket perspective.
The ones really voting against their self-interest are the poor and middle class whites in "red states". And they are doing so, mainly, out of spite. They are doing so out of the fear that leaders and programs that might actually make their lives better might also narrow the gap between them and those below them. And since their entire self-esteem is based on the fact that those below them on the socioeconomic ladder have it much worse than they do, they aren't going to take a chance that that gap should narrow. And, let's be honest, a lot of people in "red states" are voting against their self-interest for purely racist motives.
Then, there's the Tea Party, all of whose members are voting against their self-interest. (And, let's ignore the fact that the Tea Party has been hijacked by the neo-fuedalists who are manipulating it to their own ends.) Those who support the Tea Party either fall into the group described above, or are simply so lacking in understanding that they don't even know what's in their self-interest. This latter group is acting not out of reason, but out of fear and confusion, and is easily manipulated to vote against their self-interest.
So, as I see it, the "blue states" aren't voting against their self-interest at all, not even the wealthy in those states who are voting against rehashed Reaganomics. The people voting against their self-interest are the white males in the "red states", most of whom aren't anywhere near being described as wealthy.
While I agree with many of your comments, I think the biggest factor is that most people do not vote on the actual facts. The average person votes on emotion and how they relate to a candidate. I've seen research that claims that 50% of Americans cannot name the Vice-President and 70% can't name the Speaker of the House. Relatively few read a newspaper. Supposedly, a majority of Americans still believe that Obama was born in Kenya and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. My bet is that a very low percentage of Americans understand that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Most get their news from the clowns at Fox or MSNBC. Furthermore, we frequently elect a Congress with completely the opposite views of the executive branch (although much of that has to do with what you need to do to win in a local vs. a national election).
I think there's another factor: if you don't live in a densely populated state, it's hard to see where your tax dollars are going. It's very easy to think that "all those immigrants and ethnics in cities are stealing my money". I think that's the primary reason that the midwest is comprised of red states.
And let's not forget that for the Presidency, the popular vote is always far closer than the electoral vote. If we ever get away from the "winner take all" rule, there will be far more of a contest.
It's all a bit moot anyway because if the Republicans don't find a way to expand their party base to Hispanics, Asians or people in large cities, they're never going to win another national race anyway (with the current electoral rules). Before too long, Texas may very well turn blue due to the ever-increasing Hispanic population. If Texas turns Democratic and assuming the Dems can keep Florida, it means that all 7 states with 18 or more electoral votes are blue states for a total of 209 electoral votes. That means the Dems need only 61 (18.5%) of the remaining 329 electoral votes to win the Presidency in any election. And even without Texas, I think that at least one southern state will eventually turn Democratic again and North Carolina (with 15 electoral votes) is always a toss-up. So the Republicans have a very tough road ahead no matter what they do unless they're satisfied dominating the House and always being the "opposition party".
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I'd bet that the vast majority of Android owners also have a iPod Touch. They know all about Apple's build quality .....
How do you know this?!