>>>>One spokesman for the corporate world described 'globalization' this way (roughly):
>>>>
>>>>A corporation finds a country where the people are extremely poor and so ready to work for very small wages which, nonetheless, represent good value to those workers. As that society becomes more wealthy and living standards rise, the corporation is forced to look for another place where the people are extremely poor. When they locate the place they close up shop in the former place and open up in the new place and the cycle starts anew. This is obviously a very good arrangement for everyone concerned.
>>>>- Who cares about the people who built up the corporation in the original place?!
>>>>- Who cares if the economy of the original place collapses?!
>>>>
>>>>My own comment: The antidote allegedly is to buy shares in corporations and so become one of the beneficiaries rather than one of the victims. Right. Join with the devil rather than vanquish him. No thanks.
>>>>
>>>>I hope this cheers your weekend up.
>>>
>>>Well it did - I knew I wasn't the only one who thinks this way. And that I'm not the only one finding texts that confirm this point of view.
>>>
>>>As for buying stocks... I think gambling is more fair - at least you see your opponent, and you can use your eyes to find out how the game is rigged, and you always know how much does the house get. On the stock market, there's too much information you need to know to prevent loss. And with every transaction you have to pay the middlemenpersons some.
>>
>>
>>Dragan, your socialist roots may be showing. Sure, the stock market and the way it operates are somewhat skewed for the fat cats. IPOs in particular should be overhauled. But the securities industry is heavily regulated and they do a pretty good job of it considering how much temptation there is to cheat when there is that much money flying around. The bottom line is ordinary Joes like you and me can expect to make good money in the market, too, and without any special knowledge. And without transaction fees, for that matter. There is no sounder investment than a mutual fund tied to the level of the market as a whole. Such index funds mimic the performance of the Fortune 500, or other standard stock group. Some years they go up, some years they go down, just like the stock market. Over time stocks outperform any other investment, including real estate.
>
>Mike,
>
>80% of stocks in the market are owned by something like .5% of the population. Of the remaining 99.5% of the population, approximately 80% own stocks.
>
>So people like you and me have absolutely zero influence as stockholders, and never can have under current rules.
>
>Also, the world of stocks is one where statistics are easily manipulated to provide appearances that may not match reality. I was amazed, after the dotCom bubble burst, to see how many funds holder could make statistics to show high average annual returns even 2, 3, 4 years afterwards.
>To me the statement "Over time stocks outperform any other investment, including real estate." ranks up there with "Gas is cheaper today than it ever was.". No doubt in my mind that statistical manipulations can "prove" such, but both are garbage in any real-world sense.
>
>In my opinion playing the stock market is to put your eggs in someone else's basket and expecting them to take good care of them when you don't know them, don't understand their lingo and you have no control whatsoever once handed over.
>And what happens with this money of yours... it goes to exploit workers in poor countries who have to work for pittances in dreadful working conditions. And the better the exploiters are, the more of your money goes their way because they are showing higher profits.
>
>Show me an average person who thinks he can "work" the market and I'll show you a person who has swallowed a bunch of propaganda and who is allowed to operate on the fringes of the real action just to give the illusion of an open market.
>
>It was not always the way it is now. At one time stockholders were that .5% of the population. At one time most corporations had some morals. Today corporations are each the equivalent of psychopaths who can "justify" whatever action they may choose.
>I also believe your trust of the SEC and similar is misplaced. Just keep in mind they were firmly in place when Enron and WorldCom and Kmart and xxx and yyy "happened". Similarly for the dotCom bubble. Similarly for the hedgefund (near) debacle). Similarly for the banking fiasco before that. Similarly for... With a record like that you trust these people?

Corporations, as defined by Jim
1. All corporations are evil
3. If you disagree, see 1

I'm convinced. Let's be rid of the monsters so we can open up every aspect of our own property, investments and savings to any individual with a lawyer who wants to take a piece.