Comments on: Money vs. Wealth

By: JohnMathew

JohnMathew — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 05:22:11 +0000

Thank you for your comments! I appreciate them!

By: AltonDelmote

AltonDelmote — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:42:30 +0000

What a helpful post really will be coming back to this time and time again. Thanks

By: Real Estate Man

Real Estate Man — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:11:26 +0000

If you buy a house for $200,000 and two years later you try to sell it and the house is in just as good of shape as it was in, but house prices have all dropped and you can only get $120,000 the money doesn’t go anywhere. It already is gone. You paid $200K to whoever bout it from you. He may have used it for another house and lost half of his totol money. But he may have bought gold and it doubled in value. It is not a zero sum game like a bet. Your house is just worth what someone will pay. Stock is similar. If the value fo the company goes up because people will pay more you can sell it for more. If it goes down it is becaue people will pay less. Many factors can affect this. There are some examples of corporate coruption and other things that the government has done that has devalued some companies. But theoretically buying stock is buying a part of a company which has assets and you own shares of the assets and speculation as to how the business will do in the future.

By: JohnMathew

JohnMathew — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:55:12 +0000

That’s really awesome.. I hope I can see more of this.. I am looking forward for your next post..

By: AltonDelmote

AltonDelmote — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:30:33 +0000

Nice Blog. Keep posting more

Regards

By: Joe Magaro the Trend Following Trader

Joe Magaro the Trend Following Trader — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 21:16:05 +0000

This goes along with what Michael Covel talks about in his book Trend Following. The stock market is a zero-sum game. If someone is taking money out of stocks to raise cash, then someone must be exchanging cash with that person in order to buy stock. In the same way, if someone is selling a stock, there is someone else on the other end who is buying those exact same shares. If someone is losing a lot of money while they are long a stock, there’s someone on the other end profiting handsomely from a short sale. The only thing that goes against this is that not all stocks can be sold short, and the number of shares sold short of a stock typically doesn’t get higher than even 25% of the float of a stock. A little chink in the armor, but the financial markets are largely a zero-sum exchange.

By: Dean

Dean — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:27:50 +0000

The only exception might be the fed, where they are not exactly losing cash, but just passing zeros.

By: Pavlos of Money Buster

Pavlos of Money Buster — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:39:14 +0000

As described in bible you dont need to worry about feeding or living or having the basic to live, just trust in god or universe or whatever spirtual power you believe in, this is so true, actually meditating is a way of faith reinforcement, a reminder that the spirit is still alive in you and can manifest into anything you really want, still cant manifest something that you are not clear about, and of course you cannot make things happen if you try to detail plan the roadmap or have a conflict between your goals. Generally speaking you should walk your thought. Also what the mind does when we not thinkin? is putting things together, using high consiousness, just by turning off the logic and the self talk we let the universe/god come into our existence and enrich us, this inside light gives power to our thoughts and goals to manifest and strengthens the communicative bound with the higher consousness...

By: tungsten watches

tungsten watches — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:00:22 +0000

Time and money that important? Many of the answer is important, but time isn’t the social reality, the reality is cruel, many people for money won’t consider personal health, feel some theory in reality is not practical, most people would consider yourself for money is healthy, perhaps this is the social cruelty
I like your blog,and also like the article ,thankn you can poovide shese information,Hope can share your blog

By: personal wealth academy

personal wealth academy — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 04:17:49 +0000

I like your blog,and also like the article,and thank you for provide me so much information )

By: Tyler

Tyler — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 02:06:15 +0000

I remotely remember seeing some bozo financial expert on CNN two years ago talking about how saving is bad for our economy. He went on to say that when people aren’t spending money our economy will tank further and go into a greater depression with little to no hope of recovery. This was when the House actually voted against the bailout if I remember correctly. Anyway, this bozo said if we spend our own money more we’d become wealthy somehow… I failed to see how he connected these dots. So this bozo is advocating I, as a person watching him on t.v., go out and empty my wallet. This sort of seems off-topic but after reading this article I was reminded that some people really think we can spend our way out of a recession. It’s truly mind-boggling. Wealthy people create healthy economies.

By: michael

michael — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:36:33 +0000

Actually Ryssdal never said that money was flowing OUT of the stock market. At least not in the snippet we were given. All he did was examine the money that was leaving, noting that a lot of it was going into bank accounts. He said nothing about the kind of money that was bottom feeding– going into the market when stocks were being offered at bargain levels.

That would have been an interesting topic to explore.

By: Art

Art — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:59:03 +0000

Thanks Mr. Murphy. This clarifies what should be an obvious point, but for the failure to see “that which is not seen”. Most people (and I guess that’s where the NPR guys where going) focus on the increase in Bill’s bank account by $1,500, and treat that as net new money leaving the stock market. But they don’t see Alice’s account decreasing by the same $1,500.

By: C.J.

C.J. — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:13:15 +0000

While the typical investor’s secondary market stock purchase doesn’t directly fund the company whose stock he purchases, it does help the company by tending to increase the stock’s price. This is helpful because a high stock price implies a lower cost of raising equity capital when the company returns to the primary market with a new stock offering.

So, the better a company’s stock performs, the lower its cost for raising capital, because it is cheaper for a company’s owners/stockholders for the company to raise $10 million by issuing 10,000 shares at $1,000 per share than it is to raise $10 million by issuing 100,000 shares at $100. Fewer shares issued means less dilution of ownership and a lower cost of equity capital.

By: J. Murray

J. Murray — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:47:41 +0000

As I see it, that means the site is becoming influential and some people really don’t like that. Out of the way or sites that otherwise have no impact won’t get trolls. It’s a mark of honor, a mark that the opposition is afraid. I like to see that sort of thing.

A website’s success is directly proportionate to the number of detractors it generates.

By: J. Murray

J. Murray — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:43:35 +0000

You catch on fast.

Pretty much that. I’ve always called the stock market a giant casino and have refused to play that game. I do well enough on bonds, which are really what you could call an investment.

By: Aems

Aems — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:56:03 +0000

“Now suppose that Bill realizes the current administration is staffed by Marxists”

I thought there were only three people; I guess that means Alice and Charlie are Marxists, lol. Just yanking your chain Murphy, thanks for the good article.

By: TokyoTom

TokyoTom — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:46:49 +0000

NIce and clear, Bob.

Except I’m puzzling why you didn’t extend this just wee bit to suss out the Broken Windows fallacy and why “”GDP”can mask losses in wealth, including destruction of commons assets. Such as this bone-headed piece by WSJ about the GGF Oil Spill boosting GDP:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/06/15/oil-spill-may-end-up-lifting-gdp-slightly/

Will you be addressing these later?

Best,

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:43:21 +0000

I sent a note to the webmaster regarding the unbecoming tags; then I noticed that there are many articles with tags like this. Too bad it is so hard for some people to extend their thinking in a rational and civil manner.

By: Matthew Swaringen

Matthew Swaringen — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:38:48 +0000

Obviously someone doesn’t like the site and doesn’t want to post so instead trolls the tags.

I’m sure at some point they could consider implementing a ban system for bad tag entries if one doesn’t already exist.