User talk:DanielLC

In response to your question on Speed Racer talk : It was destroyed in Speed's crash at the end of the Fuji race scene, it blew up. Yes, they are really the same car, but because of the circumstances of the film's 'time period' (cars going around 500 mph causing crashes to be completely devastating)  it would make sense that they would rebuild the same car for recognition, comfort for the driver etc. They're basically just 'fixing' the car. --Electrovir (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi, Daniel, On helium you changed the link from standard temperature and pressure to standard conditions for temperature and pressure. I'm assuming that you had the right idea in mind, and were making this a direct link instead of a redirect. However, "standard temperature and pressure" is one of several different things described on that page about "standard conditions for temperature and pressure" so in making the change, you also changed the meaning of what was stated on the helium page. I took the liberty of using a piped redirect instead (see the help pages, I can help you find it if you'd like), changing it to standard temperature and pressure so that it links directly to standard conditions for temperature and pressure but on the infobox it still says the more specific "standard temperature and pressure". If that isn't what you had in mind we can discuss it either here or on the Helium page. Gene Nygaard 00:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Superted's secret magic words

Hiya Daniel. Thanks for the little posting on the talk page of the Superted article. I viewed the item with interest, concerning Superted's magic words, and discovered that the guy selling this on eBay is a lip reading expert. He believes that he has worked out Superted's magic word from lip reading his facial expression and mouth during a particular episode. I believe though, being a huge fan of animation, that you cannot physically lip read a cartoon, due to the variations in mouth expression from artist to artist. I think his secret remains secret enough for now... :)  Have a good day.   Thor Malmjursson 12:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack


 * Hehe, I read this with a little bit of amusement. I'm actually the guy who created the auction for Superted's magic words on ebay. Not sure where you got the idea that I'm a lip reading expert, but I can tell you that that's NOT how I worked it out...Aaarrrggh

Reference Desk Question
I've put this on your talk page if that's ok? It will archive from the reference desk quite rapidly so may help being here...

"Is a buy-back when the company buys its stock back? If so, what incentive is there for a firm to have buy-backs? Do they usually have them? If so, then it's more like a loan than a pyramid scheme, like I said before. Although the money raised by putting a company on the stock market is generally used in a vastly different way then the money used in a pyramid scheme, each can, in theory, be used for the other purpose. Is it any better for a company to get funds by selling its stock than by starting a pyramid scheme? At least with a pyramid scheme you don't have to worry about people having control over your company and only caring about the value of its stock, and even then only until they sell it. If there were laws that said a company had to pay dividends, or better yet, buy back its stock by a predetermined time at a predetermined time, it seems like it could still fund the company without acting like a pyramid scheme. By the way, when I say pyramid scheme, I don't mean it has to have its "value" (for lack of a better word) increase that quickly. If you owned a portion of the scheme that increased at 5% APR, compounded continually, and were allowed to sell any portion of your portion at any time, it would increase in a slower, more controlled manner, much like stock. I'd still consider that a pyramid scheme. — Daniel 00:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)"


 * Have a look at Share repurchase and stock dilution. Also look at pyramid scheme. I'm not sure what you suggest works as a pyramid scheme. Group investment without ownership does not a pyramid scheme make. The people yu are worrying about only 'caring about the value of the stock' are the very people who will be investing and funding into a business to try help it expand/make money/return a profit for the stockholders. They own the firm through purchasing part-ownership as stock. It's their firm to care for, not someone else's. A law requiring firms to pay dividends would mean that small firms trying to grow would have to return money in years when they are making a loss, or when they require any spare cash for reinvestment. Dividends seem mostly to be paid out for firms with more stable share-prices that are looking at longer-term growth. Forced dividends would not help. I personally can't see where you are linking the two, the pyramid scheme relies on new membership to exist - stock relies on none of this. See Market maker for example, it notes they are obliged to deal (buying or selling). In a pyramid scheme certain people are guaranteed to lose money. In the stockmarket you buy and sell of your own free will (market makers match sellers and buyers) and the price is negotiated based on group sentiment about the value. If you are interested in stockmarkets i would recommend the films Wall Street (Michael Douglas) and also Boiler Room (Giovanni Ribesi). Both display some technical things but are also very enjoyable whilst showing some interesting things. A Boiler Room is an interesting financial arrangement. I only wish I had more understanding to explain the difference better! ny156uk 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If a business gets a loan, they have to make payments on it, even if they're not doing very well. Should stock be any different? Although new people generally must enter to make a pyramid scheme work, the same doesn't apply with a Ponzi scheme, which I think we can agree is no better than a pyramid scheme. The same with the variation of the pyramid scheme I mentioned earlier, and if a person in a pyramid scheme enters it again. It's not the number of people that have to increase, it's the amount of money. You also said that in a pyramid scheme certain people are guaranteed to lose money, implying it is not the same with a stock market. Assuming the company does not by back its stock, I don't see how this can be. There is no way the amount of money itself can be increased, and nothing can actually be produced by market. The company can produce something, but they could have just as easily raised their money in a pyramid scheme, or something like it. What does stock dilution have to do with this? — Daniel 18:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Stock is not a loan. Stock is ownership of a firm (be it 0.0001% or 10%). If the firm falls runs itself into the ground and you don't sell you'll likely end up with nothing but a lost investment. A loan is borrowing money at a set repayment plan. A secured loan has something that will be turned over to the loan-provider in the case of non-payment (e.g. houses getting repossessed), an unsecured loan covers the 'bad debt' by having a higher interest rate that will cover the cost of the money lost to people who manage to escape paying back the debt.


 * It isn't the same in the stockmarket. As noted in the pyramid scheme article over 80% of the people in the scheme will lose money when the pyramid collapses (and due to the nature they can rapidly reach collapsing point). Investing into the stock market is a risk, firms share price can go up or down, share performance does not necessarily match the firm's fundamentals and include a lot of market opinion/investor confidence based influences on the price. It is possible that every trader can make money, provide the stocks valuation increases steadily upwards (a 'bubble') then every person buying in will be able to sell at a profit. Now such situations are not sustainable because stocks don't go on ever-lasting drives upwards but only if you sell do you lose money. You could hold the investment if you feel that post-bubble the firm will recover. Additionally there are trends, there are indications of improving businesses and that speculation alone can be enough to provide a profit for many traders. Stock dilution was meant regarding the share repurchase, it is easier to see what affect adding/removing shares for the firm have I feel after a read of the article.


 * There are many ways firms raise money. They can retain profits from year to year, they can not pay a dividend. They can get a loan, they can sell assets, they can issue more stock, they can reduce overheads. The shareholder themselves does not have to pump more money in (or find more people to pump money in) in order to be able to pay existing shareholders. They produce a product/service that ensures the firms continued existence. The schemes you mention do not do anything more than shuffle money between the new and old members. They are not investments, they are not comparable to stock market which is really just shared ownership with certain limitations. ny156uk 19:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming a company doesn't give out dividends, the full extent of the ownership of the company is having some say in what they do. This does little, if anything, for the stockholder. Before you implied that everyone in the stock market can make a profit, now you are saying such a system is not sustainable. It appears to me that both the stock market and a pyramid scheme are zero-sum games; the total profit made by everyone in it, from the time the company sells its stock or the pyramid scheme starts to the time the company fails or the pyramid scheme collapses, is exactly zero. No more, no less. I don't see how a pyramid scheme isn't an investment. You can pay money to enter and make money in the long run. You can also lose it all. The same goes for a stock market, only stock has lower risk and lower yield. What does stock do besides shuffle money between older and newer owners? Don't just tell me they own the company; tell me what about owning the company helps them. — Daniel 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Having a say in what the firm does allows the shareholder to vote/mark their intentions on how the business should be ran. Due to the complex nature of share-based ownership they appoint directors etc. that run the firm. These people are regularly replaced and their positions can be voted to be removed/replaced at the Annual General Meeting or indeed if they call for an Extraordinary General meeting. The control an individual owning a little stock has is minimal, but larger stock owners exert more persuasive power. This is why small investors use group-purchasing through things like investment funds, pensions and the other financial policies that use the stockmarket to invest their savings/money for the future. Why is the stock market a zero-sum game? It isn't (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/061902.asp) see point 1 of the link. Also see the zero sum game notification regarding economics. One of the respondents noted that they are buying firm that is in state X and selling it state Y, the firm they buy and sell is at a different state each transaction. Whether they make a profit or a lose depends on the performance of the firm and the sentiment of the investor. Investopedia may help (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pyramidscheme.asp) pyramid scheme...http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp (ponzi scheme). Hope this helps ny156uk 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Although having a say in the company may be useful to some, I'm pretty sure stock is generally bought purely as an investment. The people who do buy it for the say in the company do not need the other investors to act as middle men. Is the number of people who buy stocks for their say in the company enough to make up for the time spent by others buying and selling stock and learning about investing? How about when you add in the people who abuse their say to make the stock rise in the short run? Also, if most of the stock is owned by one person, nobody else has any say. Does this mean that under those circumstances, the rest of the stock has no value whatsoever? — Daniel 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No the stock has value because it is part of the business, the assets of the business are partially yours, any profits of the business are partially yours. Whether you are a minor investor or a major investor all that changes is the proportion that is under your ownership. Your votes (or non-voting) affects how the Directors run the business. Whether you vote or not has an influence. Yes, people ramp-up firms to try make a profit and I agree the large portion of traders are interested in using the markets to make money on a trade rather than a desire to build a successful company/interested in the decision making part of the business itself. The reasoning for buying is a mute point, the effect remains - your investment is not dependent on other investors joining/existing investors increasing their input in order for you to return a profit on your trade, it is dependent on the firm increasing its worth through innovation/efficiency/productivity etc. The share price doesn't perfectly reflect the value of a firm's fundamentals but it is strongly linked to it (as sentiment/opinion is strongly driven by fundamentals) ny156uk 21:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The profits are yours? When they don't give out dividends? Also, in what way are the assets yours? Are you allowed to use them? How does your vote effect how they run their business if it has no influence? What's the difference between effecting and influencing it? Although it doesn't matter why you buy stock, it does matter how it helps you. This has a strong influence over why you buy your stock. If you only buy stock as an investment, chances are the only way it helps you is by being an investment, and as far as I can tell it's a rather pyramid scheme-like investment. At the very least, your acting as a middle-man where none is needed, and costing the people who want the stock without doing anything for them. To my knowledge, the only way the value of the stock has anything to do with the state of the company is that people buy and sell stock based on how they think the company will be doing. It is the increased amount of investment drawn by the success of the company that raises the price, not the success itself.


 * Yes the profits are yours. The assets are yours. You are free to 'get' what is yours of the firm by selling the shares at any time. Your vote affects who is employed to direct the business, as well as any many other things that you fill in in preparation for your AGM/vote. The form I received for one of firms i have stock in had about 20 questions, varying from rating performance to proposals put forward on what the business can do. It is not hands-on investment unless you want it to be, it is not the shareholders who run the firm, it is shareholders who hold the power over the firm - by that virtue they influence and affect how the firm is ran.


 * The stock market price is a valuation of the firm by those purchasing/selling stock. A firm is worth more than its assets. It is worth more than last year's profits. If you purchased a successful firm that was well ran you could expect that to continue for a forseeable amount of time. Share prices fluctuate because they are based on current & future-earnings outlooks and everyone has their own way of trying to monetize the value. You are wrong that the increased investment is what raises the company price. It is increased demand in the stock. Unless a firm is introducing more stock the amount of stock in circulation does not change, merely the ownership. More buyers than sellers = price rise, more sellers than buyers = price fall. The schemes you mention only raise in price when more people input money into the firm. Businesses themselves do not make money because customer X bought 10 shares at £4 and sold at £4.10 to customer Y. The firm doesn't get more money because its share price increases, its share price increases because the firm makes more money (or its future outlook suggests it may). Whereas the schemes you mention need new investors to pay old (or reinvestment from existing 'profits') the stock does not.ny156uk 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When I said investment I meant people investing in the stock. How do you make money in the stock market without a new investor buying your stock? Surely you don't think you made money just because someone would pay you more for it than you bought it for. You didn't make money until they actually buy it.
 * In the specific case that the owner of a company has 51% of the stock, and isn't going to sell any more, any vote you get doesn't actually effect the company. If they don't get dividends, you don't get profits. The idea that the stock means you own part of the company, and that you can sell it by selling the stock, makes just as much sense as if you said the stock in the company means you own part of, say, Jupiter. If nobody can actually do anything with the company, they do not own any of it. It can be that this is merely an exception, and as long as your vote can make a difference, or the exceptions I said before apply (the company pays dividends or will buy its stock back), then it is worth doing. Is this the case? If so, buying stock without voting (assuming no dividends or buy-backs) is acting as an unneeded middle-man, and although this is very different then a pyramid scheme, you are still taking money from someone else without giving anything back. — Daniel 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't need to find a buyer. Market makers are obliged to buy stock from sellers. Why doesn't your vote affect the running? Just because you vote for something that doesn't happen doesn't mean your vote is worthless. What do you mean by 'do anything with the company'? If you own 10% of firm what do you expect to be able to do? It's not like you can go into the offices and take 10% of assets or use the busines for free? What about the other 90% of owners say? You are mistaking 'decision making' with value. The shareholders EMPLOY decision makers to run the firm in their interests, if they are not doing a good job they are voted out. Hence the point of votes. How are you taking money from someone else without giving anything back? You are purchasing something that somebody at some point sold. They were happy to sell at price point X and you were happy to buy at price point Y. They realised either a profit or a loss, you can also realise either a profit or a loss. It really depends on the performance of the share. ny156uk 17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do market makers have to do their job, or is it just a way to get profits? Even if they are obliged to, they'd merely act as a middle man between you and whoever buys the stock from them. I agree that it's probably good that you can't do anything besides vote in a company you have stock in, but that doesn't change the fact that unless your vote can change something, you in no way but name own any of the company. It doesn't change anything anymore than had you managed to legally own Jupiter. If you buy something from person A and sell it for more to person B later, and A would have no difficulty selling directly to B when he bought it, you have decreased the profit A and B made, and not helped them in any way. They both made a profit, but you took some of their would-be higher profits. — Daniel 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Market makers take risk. The 'spread' (difference between buy and sell price) is where market makers make money. They do not hold stock for a long time, they act as a creator of the marketplace. The difficult of trying to match trade-for-trade would be extremely hard without a firm holding stock in the interim. They might be 50,000 units and have to wait 10 trades of 5,000 units to get rid of their stock. An individual looking to sell alone would not want to have to try match his unit-sales to that of a series of 'buyers'. Why don't you own something just because you are not actively involved in the decision-making process? You own stock in that firm, whether you use your voting rights or not that stock is owned by you. Someone else cannot (except under specific circumstances) take your portion of stock without buying it from you. That is your power, that is what you own. I don't see how you can envisage this anything but ownership. We, collectively, as tax payers own government. If we choose not to vote we don't concede that ownership, we merely become a passive owner allowing those with an interest/opinion to be more involved.

It is, i'm sure, possible to operate directly missing the money-makers if you wanted to. I'm sure you could 'sign over' your stock to another name for an amount of cash outside of the stock-market system (not sure of legality regarding this), but you seem to be ignoring the huge role played by the middle-man in this. They are assuming risk, they are purchasing from you (due to obligation) stock that they may not be able to sell for the same price due to market changes. This is why they have the spread. Big firms that have stable prices have a small spread, larger firms that trade on speculation/are trying to grow rapidly will have bigger spreads as the risk for the money maker is more. ny156uk 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My brother got stock as a birthday present a while back, so it must be possible to operate directly. That has nothing to do with this discussion, though.
 * Market makers are just a special set of people in the stock market. They don't change the morality of it.
 * Is there any mechanism to make sure that a company has to need the money it gets from stock? Having to pay it back is only one such mechanism. If there is no such mechanism, then the argument that the company helps people because it sells stock doesn't apply. If there is such a mechanism, the extra good done by the company can make up for the effort spent in the stock market, but although this means the market in general is worth while (assuming a strong enough mechanism) it says nothing about any individual part. Although buying stock from the company is good, buying it from a person is ethically questionable. Of course, if the company continually sells stock you're increasing the amount they can sell it for, so it's probably fine. Selling the stock (assuming you won't use the money better than anyone else) is bad, but not as bad as buying it is good. This is all assuming such a mechanism exists. Does it? I don't know if it does, and the idea of a mechanism other than the company buying it back didn't occur to me until now. — Daniel 16:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure where you are going with morality question. A firm can 'need' investment for several reasons: Rapid development, getting off the ground, paying its way through a rough patch (and countless other reasons). There is no morality at question - they offer their stock at a price and you choose to purchase it with huge amounts of knowledge that is required to be publicly available/distributed. Firms don't make their stock worth more money by selling more of it - they sell more of it to raise additional investment. Why is selling the stock bad? I'm not sure i'm understanding where in the process you think something unreasonable is occurring, or indeed what your concern with stock is. ny156uk 18:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there anything that makes it so a company can't sell stock unless it accomplishes a certain amount of utility? If so, and if the minimum is high enough, it can make up for the time people spend using the stock market. If there isn't such a mechanism, than the idea that the stock market is good because it helps the business is moot, as there's no way to tell if it's enough for all the work in the stock market. The stuff that's bad is the amount of time spent buying stock, selling stock, learning how to buy and sell stock, teaching how to buy and sell stock etc. If you spend time doing something, and it doesn't accomplish anything, it's wasted labor, and is bad. When you sell stock, you lower the price, undoing any good you'd do by buying it from a person. Each individual buy and sell adds up to nothing but wasted labor (except the initial buy from the company if they needed it), and is slightly bad. This happens repeatedly. If the company needs the money enough, the initial buy can counter it out, but not necessarily. — Daniel 18:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There are requirements to float on the markets, but not (that i'm aware of) to stop you selling % of your business informally. What do you mean by enough for all the work in the stock market? Benefits of being listed: Market exposure, additional investment avenues, formalised rules, risk (for the owners) spread across many people, institutional support, respectability among firms (being listed will often help you negotiate better contracts/provision prices as you are considered more stable/legitimate). When you sell stock you do not necessarily lower the stock. The price works on the principle of buyers v sellers. More buyers than sellers = price rises, more sellers than buyers = price falling. ny156uk 19:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By work in the stock market I mean the amount of work people do relating to the stock market and wouldn't do had there not been one. What are the requirements? Do they involve needing the money? The benefits you listed are largely relative. For example, the market exposure you get decreases other's exposure. Whether everybody or nobody was in the stock market, the exposure would be the same. How exactly does is spread the risk? Is it just that by having less of the company there's less risk? Is it any better for it to have the risk spread out, or does it just spread out the, for lack of a better word, badness? When you sell stock you increase the amount of sellers by one temporarily, causing the price to fall by a certain amount. — Daniel 20:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The stockmarket itself, is yes a huge industry. That work is not worthless or unrequired, it is surrounding the organization of capital investment throughout the world. It is one of the most important jobs that we collectively perform. It spreads the risk across many investors. Instead of 1 individual owning a business and ruining themselves financially if the business fails it could be 10,000 investors who realize each a small loss, or institutional investments that realize a reduction in their investment as opposed to an increase that year. Spreading risk is an extremely beneficial thing. It is how we can find cover for £100,000 for a premium of £10 a month, it is how we can find investment of £100m for a firm going public easily through many avenues. This spreading of risk makes people more like to invest, makes it possible to use group-input to mean that any negatives are spread across the group.

You are incorrect in the sales situation. If you are selling and there are more buyers than sellers then your selling increases the price as demand is higher than supply. At the point that there are more sellers than buyers then you will see a reduction in price. ny156uk 20:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If a company goes bankrupt, the owner doesn't lose anything but the business, and still has the money they made from it. What risk is there? The whole stock market isn't just to spread the cost of incorporation, is it? In the sales situation, you will either temporarily lower the speed at which the price of the stock is increasing, or raise the speed at which it is decreasing, either of which will result in a certain drop in price. If that isn't good enough for you, if you sell stock to yourself, you accomplish nothing. If person A sells stock to person B, together they accomplish nothing, and anything good A did must have been countered out by what B did or vice versa. — Daniel 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you own a company privately your personal belongings can be liable to pay for the business if it fails. This is not the case with a corporation. It is limited liability. Yes your sale may slow the rate of increase, or increase the speed of decrease Why haven't you accomplished anything? You have invested your money into a business, as part owner you are risking that money if the business fails, or your money has helped develop the business if it succeeds. That you are only perpetuating the investment (since someone sold in order for you to buy) doesn't matter, because you are assuming risk on purchase. I'm not sure what you consider to be 'good' be exactly but seemingly the creation of wealth for multiple people whilst the creation and funding of a business that makes money, employs people and provides a service. All these things appear to be good to me. The investors win, the business wins, the economy wins and society (potentially) wins too. Between trades ownership passes to another. Why is what A accomplished undone by B?? ny156uk 09:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure corporations are allowed to sell stock, and I'm pretty sure most of the stock people buy is from a corporation or a similar entity with limited liability. If you buy stock from someone else, the company gets no money, but that wasn't what I meant. I meant selling and buying put together. This only moves the stock and definitely adds no investment. As for what you said was good: Creation of wealth: this is done by making something useful, not by moving money. Funding the business: if the business isn't involved in the transaction, it makes no money. Employs people: I personally believe there's no such thing as too much free labor, and unless the job performs a service, the people should be hired to do something else, by the government if necessary. This leads nicely to the last one: Performs a service: if I couldn't refute any of the earlier ones, that would be the service. The only thing it seems to be doing is moving money and stock. Unless I am mistaken, none of this goes to the company. I don't see why people knowing its risky makes perpetuating the investment okay. This would be like HYIP games. I suppose it's not as bad because people aren't spending money they can't afford to lose, but that isn't the problem I'm talking about. I'm saying it takes work and isn't doing anything actually good. Everything A does is undone by B and vice versa except for the final result. That part is intuitive. The final result is work being do to move money and stock around, which wastes labor and accomplishes nothing. It is possible that it is better for A to have the stock or B to have the money, but the reverse is equally likely. Worse, the broker, C, to whom some of the money passes, makes a living, or at least part of one, that doesn't produce anything useful, and the system prevents him from getting a job, or at least a bigger one, doing useful work.
 * Couldn't they make some kind of insurance to spread the risk? Wouldn't requiring the company to pay the investors back, so long as the company is still around work? — Daniel 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you purchase a piece of stock for £1 and sell it for £2 the corporation does not make or lose any money at all in that transaction.

You are creating wealth by investing in a business. Shareholders own the business, any profit is theirs, any money is theirs. They allow firms to retain profits/keep money in order to invest to increase the business or to guard against losses/lower profit. What is 'free' labour? Because government is 100% not free labour. Government funded jobs are paid for by taxation, be it money brought in by sales tax/corporation tax or general income tax (or the thousands of other tax revenue streams).

Re: Performs a Service...It sells a product/service to a willing customer. That is the service it provides. It does not need to provide any other service. Its continued existence will prevail as long as the product/service it sells is bought/used.

Everything A does is not undone by B this is illogical. It isn't intuitive it is counter-intuitive. You seem to be working on a system that has a set amount of money/wealth a firm has, and that all is happening is it is being transferred between parties. This is not the case. It isn't a zero sum game, it isn't just moving money around. The firm creates wealth, the investment creates wealth, the people investing are taking portions of this wealth - they are risking an amount of money to get an amount of money. Their doing so funds firms the world over helping employ and boost the economy of every nation in the world. A stockbroker/investment firm provides and incredibly valuable service. It is a knowledge provider, it takes on risk for clients it helps bring investors and those requiring investment together.

How would the insurance be funded if not through shared investment? Even mutual insurance firms require everybody to invest their money in order to pay for those that claim - the benefit to everyone being that they get paid when required and should (if risk is managed correctly) see a return on their investment/cover at good value. Shareholders CHOOSE (collectively) not to have the money paid back to them through voting, they reinvest the profits in the hope that the reinvestment will help boost the business and increase their value further. ny156uk 20:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If neither A or B is the firm, stock moving between them has no effect on the business the firm does. I suppose free labor wasn't a good way to say it, but the idea is if you pay for someone to survive, you might as well make them do a useful job. The exact mechanism that gets them their pay doesn't matter all that much, and making jobs is only good if they accomplish something. The value of the service you refer to is exactly what this conversation is about, and thus the idea of it doing good shouldn't be used as an argument for why the stock market is good. For the everything done by A thing, I was referring to the first part as intuitive. If something is done by A and not undone by B or vice versa, it will be in the final result, therefore everything done by A is undone by B and vice versa EXCEPT the final result. Get that part? I don't think the result is anything at all important. Insurance is made so the people who need the money more get the money. As I mentioned before, with stock it is perfectly possible for the seller to need the money more than the buyer, but the reverse is equally likely. With insurance the reverse is not as likely, and on average the exchange is good. This discussion is getting nowhere, and unless I have a good reason, I won't post in it again. Feel free to post the last word. I will read it, but I won't respond. By the way, should I leave this, archive it, or delete it? — Daniel 20:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

t has an affect on A & B. Personally I feel investment is a very useful job. I would say the value of the service is excellent, as it provides a valuable mechanism to allow cross-country/institutional/individual/entrepreneurial investment into businesses and allows more people to have ownership in businesses than purely private business deos. What is done by A is continued by B allbeit it will change on their voting habits/choices etc. Insurance exists to cover large costs through small payments made by groups. Profitably firms 'cream' some money from the top, non-profit insurances redistribute/use the money to set lower costs in the future.

Just want to say has been a fun discussion, not sure how far we've got but always good to try. Feel free to delete/archive do as you wish, just hope my insight helped try to show the position I was posing. ny156uk 21:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk question
I answered over here because, I wouldn't count this as an authoritative answer...

One of the key things to understand about an infinite set (in the later described case by Trovatore) is that its members can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself. Can that infinite set itself be one of those members? Sure, why not? All of this presumes the existence of the infinite set anyway, so why not permit for what you want? I found what Trovatore wrote fascinating:"...more sets than can be measured by any transfinite cardinal number..." There are an infinite number of orders of infinity, and that particular order of infinity that counts them is larger than any one of them. My goodness. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. · AndonicO  Hail!  18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. · AndonicO  Hail!  18:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We are in dire need of objectivity and common sense.
There is some controversy regarding the controversy regarding ITT Tech. I have a stated bias. (I guess maybe I should have kept that a secret.) At present the article is biased in the other direction. I would love it if you could take a look and leave a comment in the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.59.172 (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)  I forgot I wasn't logged in.Veecort (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Statistics
Hi, Daniel. Please have another look at this thread. Thanks. Axl ¤  [Talk]  07:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied. — DanielLC 22:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)