Recent comments in /f/dataisbeautiful

pale_blue_dots t1_j335mvz wrote

Reply to comment by AftyOfTheUK in 2022 Asset Return [OC] by rosetechnology

Well, you'd be wrong to think it doesn't matter or make a difference "in any meaningful degree."

To start, the fact there are "phantom shares" aka synthetic shares through stock lending, short-selling ("naked" or otherwise), and indefinite failure-to-delivers (FTDs) results in severe degradation of a company's overall value. If someone is making and selling counterfeits of something - then that harms multiple parties - in this context, often including shareholders, customers, the company itself, and employees.

The problem isn't a one off thing - it's a common practice in the Mitt Romney-esque Bain Capital firms of the world. You can read more about the specifics in this.

As well, there are serious tax implications related to the whole thing for both individual investors and states. You can read more here (I tried to get the pages oriented in easy to read format, but when uploading they reverted; I tried to fix it a couple ways, but it wouldn't; nonetheless you can turn your head or save them to your comp and then do it yourself): page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5. As can be seen there, individual investors are paying far more in taxes than they should be - while states are getting far less (to the tune of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions) every single year than they should be. The problem has only gotten worse in the past decade, so those estimates/numbers are now low.

When companies and individual investors fall into the sights of the larger hedge funds and banks, etc... it must be remembered that we're talking about people's livelihoods, families enjoying income and fruits of labor, standards of living maintained, pensions, retirements, and more. When we're talking about mechanisms and reasons for wealth inequality and the problems that arise and come from that, these are some of those major, key mechanisms.

1

TrueBirch t1_j334r8g wrote

Reply to comment by pale_blue_dots in 2022 Asset Return [OC] by rosetechnology

The real question is how people can invest who would otherwise keep extra cash in their savings account. An index fund exacerbates some bad behaviors, but it preserves value better than keeping cash, which is how most people are taught to save when they start working.

1

pale_blue_dots t1_j3347uz wrote

Reply to comment by TrueBirch in 2022 Asset Return [OC] by rosetechnology

In some ways, maybe, sure. But people need to understand that shares held with a broker means you don't really own them - they don't have your name on them and, subsequently, they can (and, statistically, will) be used in convoluted schemes by the army of quants/greedy psychos/"kids"/algorithms/naïve/etc... working at hedge funds, investment banks, and the like - such that value is lost and consolidated in fewer and fewer hands.

When there's talk about "wealth inequality" this and that and "rich getting richer" and "CEO pay has risen X amount while workers' wages have remained flat" - these are some of the major, key mechanisms by which that is happening.

The problem with "phantom shares" born of lending, shorting, and failure-to-delivers isn't only relegated to corporate governance and voting as you may/are thinking. It means companies can be destroyed or dubiously changed -- that means lives, livelihoods, families, pensions, retirements, and more are destroyed, changed, malformed, and so on.

Average shareholders think their company has XYZ shares, but really there are XYZ10 shares - as such the value has been unjustly (and sometimes illegally) degraded.

If you didn't see it already, this speaks to the issue, as does this, and here, too which is a little more specific, but laid out in pretty easy to understand terms.

1

TrueBirch t1_j32zfjo wrote

Reply to comment by pale_blue_dots in 2022 Asset Return [OC] by rosetechnology

That was an interesting article. From a corporate governance perspective, it's very bad. I look at things like Apple's multi-billion dollar headquarters and wonder why they didn't shave a billion off the cost and issue a dividend instead.

For typical people with a few grand in the bank, using a broker and an index fund remains good advice. Especially when you can get a tax benefit (401k, HSA, 529, etc).

1

qeny1 t1_j32ypgi wrote

Reply to comment by jrm19941994 in How many animals do you eat in your lifetime? by ImplementAny4362

I don't see where anyone is claiming that we would raise animals to live to their natural lifespans. Indeed, if people eat fewer animals, then fewer will be bred.

And that is sort of the point -- it is morally preferable to not raise more animals if their lives are short and full of suffering. If just one fewer chicken lives through the agony of debeaking, confinement and slaughter, wouldn't that be preferable? If one fewer pig has to live through castration, tail docking, ear notching, confinement and slaughter, isn't that preferable?

2

qeny1 t1_j32xt0i wrote

Reply to comment by amatulic in How many animals do you eat in your lifetime? by ImplementAny4362

Yep, definitely a big omission. The page notes "Not shown here, Americans also each eat about 16 pounds of seafood, with shrimp the biggest component at over 4 pounds. This represents on the order of several ten billion fish and shellfish."

There are probably a few relevant factors in their decision to omit all sea animals:

  • Perhaps the data isn't as good or as clear for number of sea animals. Sometimes it may be measured by weight, and then there are the problems of bycatch and sea animal bodies that are fed to farmed fish.
  • Historically, traditionally, sometimes the word "meat" has referred to mammal (and bird) flesh. Maybe this is because fish are and other sea animals are seen as quite different than mammals (and birds).
2