#annual dividend

[wise-life]

A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding Dividends

Understanding dividends is a crucial aspect of investing that can significantly impact your financial success. Dividends represent a portion of a company’s profits distributed to shareholders, typically as cash payments. By learning how dividends work, investors can better evaluate the income and growth potential of their investments. This guide will cover essential concepts such as dividend…

[mctreeleth]

I was talking with a friend who works at a bank and she told me that the bank makes more than 3 times as much profit per employee than the average employee's wage. And I did the math and she's right - Westpac made $7.2 billion dollars of profit in 2023, and has about 36,000 employees, which means that every worker made $200,000 for their shareholders. Most of their employees make between $55 and $70k.

For every dollar they got paid, the shareholders got three.

[apieinvestavimapaprastai]

Accenture plc Stock Forecast: Expect 17% Annual Growth

Explore Accenture's stock price forecast, financial strength, and impressive 17% annual growth. Discover when to buy stocks. #Accenture #ACN #investment #investmentinsight #stockpriceforecast #nyse #stockmarket #stockinsight #investmentsolutions #dividend

Accenture plc is a global professional services company that provides a broad range of services in strategy and consulting, technology and operations, and digital transformation. They operate in over 120 countries and have a diverse client base across various industries, including financial services, healthcare, telecommunications, and more. Accenture is known for its innovative approach to…

[townpostin]

Loan Limit Increased to ₹6.50 Lakh for TISCO Mills Cooperative Society Members

Members to receive ₹3282 dividend, along with mementos and refreshments. The TISCO Mills Combined Cooperative Credit Society Limited held its 81st annual general meeting in Jamshedpur, announcing a loan limit increase to ₹6.50 lakh. JAMSHEDPUR – The 81st annual general meeting of the TISCO Mills Combined Cooperative Credit Society Limited took place at Impact Center on Saturday. During the…

[noragaur]

REC (Rural Electrification Corporation) Latest News and Updates | Ticker

Stay updated with the latest news, updates, and financial reports of REC (Rural Electrification Corporation) on Ticker. Get information on REC's foreign borrowing limit, subsidiary incorporations, loan sanctions, renewable energy projects, and more. Explore REC's financial performance, industry partnerships, and business developments in the power and infrastructure sectors.

[dragonflycap]

4 Trade Ideas for Caterpillar: Bonus Idea

Caterpillar, $CAT, comes into the week at short term resistance in a pullback and over the 20 day SMA for the first time in over a month. The Bollinger Bands® are squeezed in, often a precursor to a move and it has retraced 38.2% of the last leg higher. It has a RSI at the midline and rising, a positive divergence, with the MACD crossed up and rising but negative. There is resistance at 333.50 and 337.50 then 351.50 and 355.50 before 364 and 373 with the all-time high at 379.30 above that. Support lower is at 330 and 325 then 321. Short interest is low at 2.4%. 

The stock pays a dividend with an annual yield of 1.69% and will trade ex-dividend n July 24th. The company is expected to report earnings next on July 30th. The July options chain shows biggest open interest at the 330 strike on the put side and at the 350 call strike. The August chain shows open interest spread from 330 to 280, biggest at 290 then 310, on the put side. On the call side it is biggest at 330 then fades to 370. The September chain has biggest open interest at the 290 put and the 330 call strikes.

Caterpillar, Ticker: $CAT

Trade Idea 1: Buy the stock on a move over 333.50 with a stop at 321.

Trade Idea 2: Buy the stock on a move over 333.50 and add an August 320/310 Put Spread ($3.00) while selling the September 380 Call ($2.90).

Trade Idea 3: Buy the July/August 340 Call Calendar ($6.80) while selling the July 325 Puts ($2.70).

Trade Idea 4: Buy the September 320/340/370 Call Spread Risk Reversal (30 cents).

Start of Summer Annual Sale! Hi all the Start of Summer Annual Sale is entering its last day at Dragonfly Capital. Get an annual subscription for 38.2% off or pay quarterly for 15% off. Both auto-renew at that discounted rate until you decide to leave.

After reviewing over 1,000 charts, I have found some good setups for the week. These were selected and should be viewed in the context of the broad Market Macro picture reviewed Friday which with the 2nd Quarter of 2024 in the books and heading into the holiday shortened week, saw equity markets showing resilience with a rebound from a pullback and large caps and tech names holding at the highs.

Elsewhere look for Gold to continue its consolidation after the record move higher while Crude Oil consolidates in a broad range. The US Dollar Index continues the short term move to the upside while US Treasuries continue in their secular downtrend. The Shanghai Composite looks to continue the downtrend while Emerging Markets consolidate under long term resistance.

The Volatility Index looks to remain very low and stable making the path easier for equity markets to the upside. Their charts look strong, especially on the longer timeframe. On the shorter timeframe both the QQQ and SPY are showing signs of a possible reset on momentum measures as both are extended. The IWM continues to lag in a long term channel. Use this information as you prepare for the coming week and trad’em well.

[rg-notes]

Berkshire Hathaway Shareholder Letter 2022, Reactions

Every year I enjoy reading Warren Buffets' predictably charming annual Berkshire Hathaway Shareholder letter. I dare you to find another annual investor letter you can remotely describe as charming. Anyhow, this year's letter published February 23 was another winner. As a builder turned investor I can't look to a better influence on my decision making than Warren and his partner Charlie Munger. Their humility, their focus on long-term relationships, and their emphasis on pragmatism alongside an expectation of excellence are all values I hold dear and hope to instill into Saltwater and our businesses for years to come.

Here's what stood out to me.

Hammering home the basics

We’re reminded that these gents look at companies, not stocks… “Charlie and I are not stock-pickers; we are business-pickers.” Buying a stock is just a tiny fraction of the company you’re getting, evaluate it as such. So why buy stocks vs majority ownership? A question we ask ourselves at Saltwater often? There is but one critical difference for the critical eyed investor. The difference between public "stocks" and privately owned businesses based on Warren’s insights… “stocks often trade at truly foolish prices...while a controlled business gives no thought to selling at a panic-type valuation.” Good enough for me. We’ll be keeping our eyes open for foolish prices.

Shareholder financial education

Warren shares an anecdote about share repurchases and the misled villainization of them.

“The math isn’t complicated: When the share count goes down, your interest in our many businesses goes up. Every small bit helps if repurchases are made at value-accretive prices. Just as surely, when a company overpays for repurchases, the continuing shareholders lose. At such times, gains flow only to the selling shareholders and to the friendly, but expensive, investment banker who recommended the foolish purchases. 

Gains from value-accretive repurchases, it should be emphasized, benefit all owners – in every respect. Imagine, if you will, three fully-informed shareholders of a local auto dealership, one of whom manages the business. Imagine, further, that one of the passive owners wishes to sell his interest back to the company at a price attractive to the two continuing shareholders. When completed, has this transaction harmed anyone? Is the manager somehow favored over the continuing passive owners? Has the public been hurt?”

We were able to execute a value-accretive share repurchase in a portfolio company this year and while it wasn’t a smooth process, it was a very good decision for all our shareholders. Thanks Warren.

Praise of his best companies

How many times have you heard Warren discuss Coke, Amex, and See’s Candies? Effectively every time he or Charlie open their mouths. Charlie’s personal fav is Costco based on my experience with him. This year Warren reminds us that in 1994, BRK completed a 7 year buying spree of over 400 million shares of Coke stock for a total of $1.3B. He reminds us the value of those dividends almost a billion, as well as stock price appreciation, that 400 million share position is worth >$25B today. 

He doesn’t paint this investment as an obvious or easy one however. “The weeds wither away in significance as the flowers bloom… it takes just a few winner to work wonders.”  

Endless love for his partner Charlie Munger

I love looking for how many times Warren uses the phrase, "Charlie and I...", this year it was 10. He's clearly smitten with his long-time friend and partner for good reason, but this was my favorite tidbit of Charlie appreciation...

"Find a very smart high-grade partner – preferably slightly older than you – and then listen very carefully to what he says."

He includes a response that Charlie will often use back to Warren when they are in decision-making mode.

“Warren, think more about it. You’re smart and I’m right.”

See what I mean… charming. Greater than the Coke investment, or the Costco investment, Warren's appreciation of Charlie's wisdom & friendship are what anchor his brilliance in my mind.

The elephant in the room… transition insights

With Charlie at 99 and Warren at 92, every communication is reasonably analyzed for hints around their transitions. I don’t believe there will be one until one or both pass. Sad, but likely true.

Charlie talks about Berkshire in the general sense a few times in this years letter where it feels like he’s writing rules to operate by for others versus telling the shareholder how “he” specifically will operate.

Our CEO will always be the Chief Risk Officer

At Berkshire, there will be no finish line.

Our CEOs will have a significant part of their net worth in Berkshire shares, bought with their own money.

I certainly hope there is an internal rule on the last point and it would be helpful to know what that $ amount is. While these aren’t all that telling as to the timing of a transition of either partners health condition it’s clear that Warren’s thinking is still spot on.

I hope you enjoy and absorb these letters as much as I do. 

[solarpunkbusiness]

The factory in south Wales, which has been under construction since March 2022, is designed to extract gold from up to 4,000 tonnes a year of circuit boards sourced in the UK from electronics including phones, laptops and TVs.

The Royal Mint, which has produced coins for more than 1,100 years, has said the process could provide hundreds of kilograms of gold annually for its 886 jewellery range. This business, which launched in 2022, sells high-end rings, necklaces and earrings online and from its boutique in Burlington Arcade, in Mayfair, central London.

It is estimated that about 600 mobile phones will have to be processed to create one of the 7.5g gold rings sold in the 886 collection, which are similar to the weight of a £1 coin.

The factory in Llantrisant will use patented new chemistry – created by the Canadian clean technology firm Excir – to recover the gold. A washing machine-style spinning drum washes the pieces of circuitry containing gold in a special acid mix that dissolves the precious metal in four minutes. That compares with other gold extraction processes that are more energy intensive and tend to require extremely high temperatures over a longer period of time.

The new factory is part of the Mint’s ongoing efforts to diversify its business as cash use continues to decline. The business is 100% owned by the UK Treasury and pays a dividend to the government each year, with remaining profits reinvested in the business.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Chapter III. Economic Evolutions. — First Period. — The Division of Labor.

2. — Impotence of palliatives. — MM. Blanqui, Chevalier, Dunoyer, Rossi, and Passy.

All the remedies proposed for the fatal effects of parcellaire division may be reduced to two, which really are but one, the second being the inversion of the first: to raise the mental and moral condition of the workingman by increasing his comfort and dignity; or else, to prepare the way for his future emancipation and happiness by instruction.

We will examine successively these two systems, one of which is represented by M. Blanqui, the other by M. Chevalier.

M. Blanqui is a friend of association and progress, a writer of democratic tendencies, a professor who has a place in the hearts of the proletariat. In his opening discourse of the year 1845, M. Blanqui proclaimed, as a means of salvation, the association of labor and capital, the participation of the working man in the profits, — that is, a beginning of industrial solidarity. “Our century,” he exclaimed, “must witness the birth of the collective producer.” M. Blanqui forgets that the collective producer was born long since, as well as the collective consumer, and that the question is no longer a genetic, but a medical, one. Our task is to cause the blood proceeding from the collective digestion, instead of rushing wholly to the head, stomach, and lungs, to descend also into the legs and arms. Besides, I do not know what method M. Blanqui proposes to employ in order to realize his generous thought, — whether it be the establishment of national workshops, or the loaning of capital by the State, or the expropriation of the conductors of business enterprises and the substitution for them of industrial associations, or, finally, whether he will rest content with a recommendation of the savings bank to workingmen, in which case the participation would be put off till doomsday.

However this may be, M. Blanqui’s idea amounts simply to an increase of wages resulting from the copartnership, or at least from the interest in the business, which he confers upon the laborers. What, then, is the value to the laborer of a participation in the profits?

A mill with fifteen thousand spindles, employing three hundred hands, does not pay at present an annual dividend of twenty thousand francs. I am informed by a Mulhouse manufacturer that factory stocks in Alsace are generally below par and that this industry has already become a means of getting money by stock-jobbing instead of by labor. To SELL; to sell at the right time; to sell dear, — is the only object in view; to manufacture is only to prepare for a sale. When I assume, then, on an average, a profit of twenty thousand francs to a factory employing three hundred persons, my argument being general, I am twenty thousand francs out of the way. Nevertheless, we will admit the correctness of this amount. Dividing twenty thousand francs, the profit of the mill, by three hundred, the number of persons, and again by three hundred, the number of working days, I find an increase of pay for each person of twenty-two and one-fifth centimes, or for daily expenditure an addition of eighteen centimes, just a morsel of bread. Is it worth while, then, for this, to expropriate mill-owners and endanger the public welfare, by erecting establishments which must be insecure, since, property being divided into infinitely small shares, and being no longer supported by profit, business enterprises would lack ballast, and would be unable to weather commercial gales. And even if no expropriation was involved, what a poor prospect to offer the working class is an increase of eighteen centimes in return for centuries of economy; for no less time than this would be needed to accumulate the requisite capital, supposing that periodical suspensions of business did not periodically consume its savings!

The fact which I have just stated has been pointed out in several ways. M. Passy [13] himself took from the books of a mill in Normandy where the laborers were associated with the owner the wages of several families for a period of ten years, and he found that they averaged from twelve to fourteen hundred francs per year. He then compared the situation of mill-hands paid in proportion to the prices obtained by their employers with that of laborers who receive fixed wages, and found that the difference is almost imperceptible. This result might easily have been foreseen. Economic phenomena obey laws as abstract and immutable as those of numbers: it is only privilege, fraud, and absolutism which disturb the eternal harmony.

M. Blanqui, repentant, as it seems, at having taken this first step toward socialistic ideas, has made haste to retract his words. At the same meeting in which M. Passy demonstrated the inadequacy of cooperative association, he exclaimed: “Does it not seem that labor is a thing susceptible of organization, and that it is in the power of the State to regulate the happiness of humanity as it does the march of an army, and with an entirely mathematical precision? This is an evil tendency, a delusion which the Academy cannot oppose too strongly, because it is not only a chimera, but a dangerous sophism. Let us respect good and honest intentions; but let us not fear to say that to publish a book upon the organization of labor is to rewrite for the fiftieth time a treatise upon the quadrature of the circle or the philosopher’s stone.”

Then, carried away by his zeal, M. Blanqui finishes the destruction of his theory of cooperation, which M. Passy already had so rudely shaken, by the following example: “M. Dailly, one of the most enlightened of farmers, has drawn up an account for each piece of land and an account for each product; and he proves that within a period of thirty years the same man has never obtained equal crops from the same piece of land. The products have varied from twenty-six thousand francs to nine thousand or seven thousand francs, sometimes descending as low as three hundred francs. There are also certain products — potatoes, for instance — which fail one time in ten. How, then, with these variations and with revenues so uncertain, can we establish even distribution and uniform wages for laborers?....”

It might be answered that the variations in the product of each piece of land simply indicate that it is necessary to associate proprietors with each other after having associated laborers with proprietors, which would establish a more complete solidarity: but this would be a prejudgment on the very thing in question, which M. Blanqui definitively decides, after reflection, to be unattainable, — namely, the organization of labor. Besides, it is evident that solidarity would not add an obolus to the common wealth, and that, consequently, it does not even touch the problem of division.

In short, the profit so much envied, and often a very uncertain matter with employers, falls far short of the difference between actual wages and the wages desired; and M. Blanqui’s former plan, miserable in its results and disavowed by its author, would be a scourge to the manufacturing industry. Now, the division of labor being henceforth universally established, the argument is generalized, and leads us to the conclusion that misery is an effect of labor, as well as of idleness.

The answer to this is, and it is a favorite argument with the people: Increase the price of services; double and triple wages.

I confess that if such an increase was possible it would be a complete success, whatever M. Chevalier may have said, who needs to be slightly corrected on this point.

According to M. Chevalier, if the price of any kind of merchandise whatever is increased, other kinds will rise in a like proportion, and no one will benefit thereby.

This argument, which the economists have rehearsed for more than a century, is as false as it is old, and it belonged to M. Chevalier, as an engineer, to rectify the economic tradition. The salary of a head clerk being ten francs per day, and the wages of a workingman four, if the income of each is increased five francs, the ratio of their fortunes, which was formerly as one hundred to forty, will be thereafter as one hundred to sixty. The increase of wages, necessarily taking place by addition and not by proportion, would be, therefore, an excellent method of equalization; and the economists would deserve to have thrown back at them by the socialists the reproach of ignorance which they have bestowed upon them at random.

But I say that such an increase is impossible, and that the supposition is absurd: for, as M. Chevalier has shown very clearly elsewhere, the figure which indicates the price of the day’s labor is only an algebraic exponent without effect on the reality: and that which it is necessary first to endeavor to increase, while correcting the inequalities of distribution, is not the monetary expression, but the quantity of products. Till then every rise of wages can have no other effect than that produced by a rise of the price of wheat, wine, meat, sugar, soap, coal, etc., — that is, the effect of a scarcity. For what is wages?

It is the cost price of wheat, wine, meat, coal; it is the integrant price of all things. Let us go farther yet: wages is the proportionality of the elements which compose wealth, and which are consumed every day reproductively by the mass of laborers. Now, to double wages, in the sense in which the people understand the words, is to give to each producer a share greater than his product, which is contradictory: and if the rise pertains only to a few industries, a general disturbance in exchange ensues, — that is, a scarcity. God save me from predictions! but, in spite of my desire for the amelioration of the lot of the working class, I declare that it is impossible for strikes followed by an increase of wages to end otherwise than in a general rise in prices: that is as certain as that two and two make four. It is not by such methods that the workingmen will attain to wealth and — what is a thousand times more precious than wealth — liberty. The workingmen, supported by the favor of an indiscreet press, in demanding an increase of wages, have served monopoly much better than their own real interests: may they recognize, when their situation shall become more painful, the bitter fruit of their inexperience!

Convinced of the uselessness, or rather, of the fatal effects, of an increase of wages, and seeing clearly that the question is wholly organic and not at all commercial, M. Chevalier attacks the problem at the other end. He asks for the working class, first of all, instruction, and proposes extensive reforms in this direction.

Instruction! this is also M. Arago’s word to the workingmen; it is the principle of all progress. Instruction!.... It should be known once for all what may be expected from it in the solution of the problem before us; it should be known, I say, not whether it is desirable that all should receive it, — this no one doubts, — but whether it is possible.

To clearly comprehend the complete significance of M. Chevalier’s views, a knowledge of his methods is indispensable.

M. Chevalier, long accustomed to discipline, first by his polytechnic studies, then by his St. Simonian connections, and finally by his position in the University, does not seem to admit that a pupil can have any other inclination than to obey the regulations, a sectarian any other thought than that of his chief, a public functionary any other opinion than that of the government. This may be a conception of order as respectable as any other, and I hear upon this subject no expressions of approval or censure. Has M. Chevalier an idea to offer peculiar to himself? On the principle that all that is not forbidden by law is allowed, he hastens to the front to deliver his opinion, and then abandons it to give his adhesion, if there is occasion, to the opinion of authority. It was thus that M. Chevalier, before settling down in the bosom of the Constitution, joined M. Enfantin: it was thus that he gave his views upon canals, railroads, finance, property, long before the administration had adopted any system in relation to the construction of railways, the changing of the rate of interest on bonds, patents, literary property, etc.

M. Chevalier, then, is not a blind admirer of the University system of instruction, — far from it; and until the appearance of the new order of things, he does not hesitate to say what he thinks. His opinions are of the most radical.

M. Villemain had said in his report: “The object of the higher education is to prepare in advance a choice of men to occupy and serve in all the positions of the administration, the magistracy, the bar and the various liberal professions, including the higher ranks and learned specialties of the army and navy.”

“The higher education,” thereupon observes M. Chevalier, [14] “is designed also to prepare men some of whom shall be farmers, others manufacturers, these merchants, and those private engineers. Now, in the official programme, all these classes are forgotten. The omission is of considerable importance; for, indeed, industry in its various forms, agriculture, commerce, are neither accessories nor accidents in a State: they are its chief dependence.... If the University desires to justify its name, it must provide a course in these things; else an industrial university will be established in opposition to it.... We shall have altar against altar, etc....”

And as it is characteristic of a luminous idea to throw light on all questions connected with it, professional instruction furnishes M. Chevalier with a very expeditious method of deciding, incidentally, the quarrel between the clergy and the University on liberty of education.

“It must be admitted that a very great concession is made to the clergy in allowing Latin to serve as the basis of education. The clergy know Latin as well as the University; it is their own tongue. Their tuition, moreover, is cheaper; hence they must inevitably draw a large portion of our youth into their small seminaries and their schools of a higher grade....”

The conclusion of course follows: change the course of study, and you decatholicize the realm; and as the clergy know only Latin and the Bible, when they have among them neither masters of art, nor farmers, nor accountants; when, of their forty thousand priests, there are not twenty, perhaps, with the ability to make a plan or forge a nail, — we soon shall see which the fathers of families will choose, industry or the breviary, and whether they do not regard labor as the most beautiful language in which to pray to God.

Thus would end this ridiculous opposition between religious education and profane science, between the spiritual and the temporal, between reason and faith, between altar and throne, old rubrics henceforth meaningless, but with which they still impose upon the good nature of the public, until it takes offence.

M. Chevalier does not insist, however, on this solution: he knows that religion and monarchy are two powers which, though continually quarrelling, cannot exist without each other; and that he may not awaken suspicion, he launches out into another revolutionary idea, — equality.

“France is in a position to furnish the polytechnic school with twenty times as many scholars as enter at present (the average being one hundred and seventy-six, this would amount to three thousand five hundred and twenty). The University has but to say the word.... If my opinion was of any weight, I should maintain that mathematical capacity is much less special than is commonly supposed. I remember the success with which children, taken at random, so to speak, from the pavements of Paris, follow the teaching of La Martiniere by the method of Captain Tabareau.”

If the higher education, reconstructed according to the views of M. Chevalier, was sought after by all young French men instead of by only ninety thousand as commonly, there would be no exaggeration in raising the estimate of the number of minds mathematically inclined from three thousand five hundred and twenty to ten thousand; but, by the same argument, we should have ten thousand artists, philologists, and philosophers; ten thousand doctors, physicians, chemists, and naturalists; ten thousand economists, legists, and administrators; twenty thousand manufacturers, foremen, merchants, and accountants; forty thousand farmers, wine-growers, miners, etc., — in all, one hundred thousand specialists a year, or about one-third of our youth. The rest, having, instead of special adaptations, only mingled adaptations, would be distributed indifferently elsewhere.

It is certain that so powerful an impetus given to intelligence would quicken the progress of equality, and I do not doubt that such is the secret desire of M. Chevalier. But that is precisely what troubles me: capacity is never wanting, any more than population, and the problem is to find employment for the one and bread for the other. In vain does M. Chevalier tell us: “The higher education would give less ground for the complaint that it throws into society crowds of ambitious persons without any means of satisfying their desires, and interested in the overthrow of the State; people without employment and unable to get any, good for nothing and believing themselves fit for anything, especially for the direction of public affairs. Scientific studies do not so inflate the mind. They enlighten and regulate it at once; they fit men for practical life....” Such language, I reply, is good to use with patriarchs: a professor of political economy should have more respect for his position and his audience. The government has only one hundred and twenty offices annually at its disposal for one hundred and seventy-six students admitted to the polytechnic school: what, then, would be its embarrassment if the number of admissions was ten thousand, or even, taking M. Chevalier’s figures, three thousand five hundred? And, to generalize, the whole number of civil positions is sixty thousand, or three thousand vacancies annually; what dismay would the government be thrown into if, suddenly adopting the reformatory ideas of M. Chevalier, it should find itself besieged by fifty thousand office-seekers! The following objection has often been made to republicans without eliciting a reply: When everybody shall have the electoral privilege, will the deputies do any better, and will the proletariat be further advanced? I ask the same question of M. Chevalier: When each academic year shall bring you one hundred thousand fitted men, what will you do with them?

To provide for these interesting young people, you will go down to the lowest round of the ladder. You will oblige the young man, after fifteen years of lofty study, to begin, no longer as now with the offices of aspirant engineer, sub-lieutenant of artillery, second lieutenant, deputy, comptroller, general guardian, etc., but with the ignoble positions of pioneer, train-soldier, dredger, cabin-boy, fagot-maker, and exciseman. There he will wait, until death, thinning the ranks, enables him to advance a step. Under such circumstances a man, a graduate of the polytechnic school and capable of becoming a Vauban, may die a laborer on a second class road, or a corporal in a regiment

Oh! how much more prudent Catholicism has shown itself, and how far it has surpassed you all, St. Simonians, republicans, university men, economists, in the knowledge of man and society! The priest knows that our life is but a voyage, and that our perfection cannot be realized here below; and he contents himself with outlining on earth an education which must be completed in heaven. The man whom religion has moulded, content to know, do, and obtain what suffices for his earthly destiny, never can become a source of embarrassment to the government: rather would he be a martyr. O beloved religion! is it necessary that a bourgeoisie which stands in such need of you should disown you?...

Into what terrible struggles of pride and misery does this mania for universal instruction plunge us! Of what use is professional education, of what good are agricultural and commercial schools, if your students have neither employment nor capital? And what need to cram one’s self till the age of twenty with all sorts of knowledge, then to fasten the threads of a mule-jenny or pick coal at the bottom of a pit? What! you have by your own confession only three thousand positions annually to bestow upon fifty thousand possible capacities, and yet you talk of establishing schools! Cling rather to your system of exclusion and privilege, a system as old as the world, the support of dynasties and patriciates, a veritable machine for gelding men in order to secure the pleasures of a caste of Sultans. Set a high price upon your teaching, multiply obstacles, drive away, by lengthy tests, the son of the proletaire whom hunger does not permit to wait, and protect with all your power the ecclesiastical schools, where the students are taught to labor for the other life, to cultivate resignation, to fast, to respect those in high places, to love the king, and to pray to God. For every useless study sooner or later becomes an abandoned study: knowledge is poison to slaves.

Surely M. Chevalier has too much sagacity not to have seen the consequences of his idea. But he has spoken from the bottom of his heart, and we can only applaud his good intentions: men must first be men; after that, he may live who can.

Thus we advance at random, guided by Providence, who never warns us except with a blow: this is the beginning and end of political economy.

Contrary to M. Chevalier, professor of political economy at the College of France, M. Dunoyer, an economist of the Institute, does not wish instruction to be organized. The organization of instruction is a species of organization of labor; therefore, no organization. Instruction, observes M. Dunoyer, is a profession, not a function of the State; like all professions, it ought to be and remain free. It is communism, it is socialism, it is the revolutionary tendency, whose principal agents have been Robespierre, Napoleon, Louis XVIII, and M. Guizot, which have thrown into our midst these fatal ideas of the centralization and absorption of all activity in the State. The press is very free, and the pen of the journalist is an object of merchandise; religion, too, is very free, and every wearer of a gown, be it short or long, who knows how to excite public curiosity, can draw an audience about him. M. Lacordaire has his devotees, M. Leroux his apostles, M. Buchez his convent. Why, then, should not instruction also be free? If the right of the instructed, like that of the buyer, is unquestionable, and that of the instructor, who is only a variety of the seller, is its correlative, it is impossible to infringe upon the liberty of instruction without doing violence to the most precious of liberties, that of the conscience. And then, adds M. Dunoyer, if the State owes instruction to everybody, it will soon be maintained that it owes labor; then lodging; then shelter.... Where does that lead to?

The argument of M. Dunoyer is irrefutable: to organize instruction is to give to every citizen a pledge of liberal employment and comfortable wages; the two are as intimately connected as the circulation of the arteries and the veins. But M. Dunoyer’s theory implies also that progress belongs only to a certain select portion of humanity, and that barbarism is the eternal lot of nine-tenths of the human race. It is this which constitutes, according to M. Dunoyer, the very essence of society, which manifests itself in three stages, religion, hierarchy, and beggary. So that in this system, which is that of Destutt de Tracy, Montesquieu, and Plato, the antinomy of division, like that of value, is without solution.

It is a source of inexpressible pleasure to me, I confess, to see M. Chevalier, a defender of the centralization of instruction, opposed by M. Dunoyer, a defender of liberty; M. Dunoyer in his turn antagonized by M. Guizot; M. Guizot, the representative of the centralizers, contradicting the Charter, which posits liberty as a principle; the Charter trampled under foot by the University men, who lay sole claim to the privilege of teaching, regardless of the express command of the Gospel to the priests: Go and teach. And above all this tumult of economists, legislators, ministers, academicians, professors, and priests, economic Providence giving the lie to the Gospel, and shouting: Pedagogues! what use am I to make of your instruction?

Who will relieve us of this anxiety? M. Rossi leans toward eclecticism: Too little divided, he says, labor remains unproductive; too much divided, it degrades man. Wisdom lies between these extremes; in medio virtus. Unfortunately this intermediate wisdom is only a small amount of poverty joined with a small amount of wealth, so that the condition is not modified in the least. The proportion of good and evil, instead of being as one hundred to one hundred, becomes as fifty to fifty: in this we may take, once for all, the measure of eclecticism. For the rest, M. Rossi’s juste-milieu is in direct opposition to the great economic law: To produce with the least possible expense the greatest possible quantity of values.... Now, how can labor fulfil its destiny without an extreme division? Let us look farther, if you please.

“All economic systems and hypotheses,” says M. Rossi, “belong to the economist, but the intelligent, free, responsible man is under the control of the moral law... Political economy is only a science which examines the relations of things, and draws conclusions therefrom. It examines the effects of labor; in the application of labor, you should consider the importance of the object in view. When the application of labor is unfavorable to an object higher than the production of wealth, it should not be applied... Suppose that it would increase the national wealth to compel children to labor fifteen hours a day: morality would say that that is not allowable. Does that prove that political economy is false? No; that proves that you confound things which should be kept separate.”

If M. Rossi had a little more of that Gallic simplicity so difficult for foreigners to acquire, he would very summarily have thrown his tongue to the dogs, as Madame de Sevigne said. But a professor must talk, talk, talk, not for the sake of saying anything, but in order to avoid silence. M. Rossi takes three turns around the question, then lies down: that is enough to make certain people believe that he has answered it.

It is surely a sad symptom for a science when, in developing itself according to its own principles, it reaches its object just in time to be contradicted by another; as, for example, when the postulates of political economy are found to be opposed to those of morality, for I suppose that morality is a science as well as political economy. What, then, is human knowledge, if all its affirmations destroy each other, and on what shall we rely? Divided labor is a slave’s occupation, but it alone is really productive; undivided labor belongs to the free man, but it does not pay its expenses. On the one hand, political economy tells us to be rich; on the other, morality tells us to be free; and M. Rossi, speaking in the name of both, warns us at the same time that we can be neither free nor rich, for to be but half of either is to be neither. M. Rossi’s doctrine, then, far from satisfying this double desire of humanity, is open to the objection that, to avoid exclusiveness, it strips us of everything: it is, under another form, the history of the representative system.

But the antagonism is even more profound than M. Rossi has supposed. For since, according to universal experience (on this point in harmony with theory), wages decrease in proportion to the division of labor, it is clear that, in submitting ourselves to parcellaire slavery, we thereby shall not obtain wealth; we shall only change men into machines: witness the laboring population of the two worlds. And since, on the other hand, without the division of labor, society falls back into barbarism, it is evident also that, by sacrificing wealth, we shall not obtain liberty: witness all the wandering tribes of Asia and Africa. Therefore it is necessary — economic science and morality absolutely command it — for us to solve the problem of division: now, where are the economists? More than thirty years ago, Lemontey, developing a remark of Smith, exposed the demoralizing and homicidal influence of the division of labor. What has been the reply; what investigations have been made; what remedies proposed; has the question even been understood?

Every year the economists report, with an exactness which I would commend more highly if I did not see that it is always fruitless, the commercial condition of the States of Europe. They know how many yards of cloth, pieces of silk, pounds of iron, have been manufactured; what has been the consumption per head of wheat, wine, sugar, meat: it might be said that to them the ultimate of science is to publish inventories, and the object of their labor is to become general comptrollers of nations. Never did such a mass of material offer so fine a field for investigation. What has been found; what new principle has sprung from this mass; what solution of the many problems of long standing has been reached; what new direction have studies taken?

One question, among others, seems to have been prepared for a final judgment, — pauperism. Pauperism, of all the phenomena of the civilized world, is today the best known: we know pretty nearly whence it comes, when and how it arrives, and what it costs; its proportion at various stages of civilization has been calculated, and we have convinced ourselves that all the specifics with which it hitherto has been fought have been impotent. Pauperism has been divided into genera, species, and varieties: it is a complete natural history, one of the most important branches of anthropology. Well I the unquestionable result of all the facts collected, unseen, shunned, covered by the economists with their silence, is that pauperism is constitutional and chronic in society as long as the antagonism between labor and capital continues, and that this antagonism can end only by the absolute negation of political economy. What issue from this labyrinth have the economists discovered?

This last point deserves a moment’s attention.

In primitive communism misery, as I have observed in a preceding paragraph, is the universal condition.

Labor is war declared upon this misery.

Labor organizes itself, first by division, next by machinery, then by competition, etc.

Now, the question is whether it is not in the essence of this organization, as given us by political economy, at the same time that it puts an end to the misery of some, to aggravate that of others in a fatal and unavoidable manner. These are the terms in which the question of pauperism must be stated, and for this reason we have undertaken to solve it.

What means, then, this eternal babble of the economists about the improvidence of laborers, their idleness, their want of dignity, their ignorance, their debauchery, their early marriages, etc.? All these vices and excesses are only the cloak of pauperism; but the cause, the original cause which inexorably holds four-fifths of the human race in disgrace, — what is it? Did not Nature make all men equally gross, averse to labor, wanton, and wild? Did not patrician and proletaire spring from the same clay? Then how happens it that, after so many centuries, and in spite of so many miracles of industry, science, and art, comfort and culture have not become the inheritance of all? How happens it that in Paris and London, centres of social wealth, poverty is as hideous as in the days of Caesar and Agricola? Why, by the side of this refined aristocracy, has the mass remained so uncultivated? It is laid to the vices of the people: but the vices of the upper class appear to be no less; perhaps they are even greater. The original stain affected all alike: how happens it, once more, that the baptism of civilization has not been equally efficacious for all? Does this not show that progress itself is a privilege, and that the man who has neither wagon nor horse is forced to flounder about for ever in the mud? What do I say? The totally destitute man has no desire to improve: he has fallen so low that ambition even is extinguished in his heart.

“Of all the private virtues,” observes M. Dunoyer with infinite reason, “the most necessary, that which gives us all the others in succession, is the passion for well-being, is the violent desire to extricate one’s self from misery and abjection, is that spirit of emulation and dignity which does not permit men to rest content with an inferior situation.... But this sentiment, which seems so natural, is unfortunately much less common than is thought. There are few reproaches which the generality of men deserve less than that which ascetic moralists bring against them of being too fond of their comforts: the opposite reproach might be brought against them with infinitely more justice.... There is even in the nature of men this very remarkable feature, that the less their knowledge and resources, the less desire they have of acquiring these. The most miserable savages and the least enlightened of men are precisely those in whom it is most difficult to arouse wants, those in whom it is hardest to inspire the desire to rise out of their condition; so that man must already have gained a certain degree of comfort by his labor, before he can feel with any keenness that need of improving his condition, of perfecting his existence, which I call the love of well-being.” [15]

Thus the misery of the laboring classes arises in general from their lack of heart and mind, or, as M. Passy has said somewhere, from the weakness, the inertia of their moral and intellectual faculties. This inertia is due to the fact that the said laboring classes, still half savage, do not have a sufficiently ardent desire to ameliorate their condition: this M. Dunoyer shows. But as this absence of desire is itself the effect of misery, it follows that misery and apathy are each other’s effect and cause, and that the proletariat turns in a circle.

To rise out of this abyss there must be either well-being, — that is, a gradual increase of wages, — or intelligence and courage, — that is, a gradual development of faculties: two things diametrically opposed to the degradation of soul and body which is the natural effect of the division of labor. The misfortune of the proletariat, then, is wholly providential, and to undertake to extinguish it in the present state of political economy would be to produce a revolutionary whirlwind.

For it is not without a profound reason, rooted in the loftiest considerations of morality, that the universal conscience, expressing itself by turns through the selfishness of the rich and the apathy of the proletariat, denies a reward to the man whose whole function is that of a lever and spring. If, by some impossibility, material well-being could fall to the lot of the parcellaire laborer, we should see something monstrous happen: the laborers employed at disagreeable tasks would become like those Romans, gorged with the wealth of the world, whose brutalized minds became incapable of devising new pleasures. Well-being without education stupefies people and makes them insolent: this was noticed in the most ancient times. Incrassatus est, et recalcitravit, says

Deuteronomy. For the rest, the parcellaire laborer has judged himself: he is content, provided he has bread, a pallet to sleep on, and plenty of liquor on Sunday. Any other condition would be prejudicial to him, and would endanger public order.

At Lyons there is a class of men who, under cover of the monopoly given them by the city government, receive higher pay than college professors or the head-clerks of the government ministers: I mean the porters. The price of loading and unloading at certain wharves in Lyons, according to the schedule of the Rigues or porters’ associations, is thirty centimes per hundred kilogrammes. At this rate, it is not seldom that a man earns twelve, fifteen, and even twenty francs a day: he only has to carry forty or fifty sacks from a vessel to a warehouse. It is but a few hours’ work. What a favorable condition this would be for the development of intelligence, as well for children as for parents, if, of itself and the leisure which it brings, wealth was a moralizing principle! But this is not the case: the porters of Lyons are today what they always have been, drunken, dissolute, brutal, insolent, selfish, and base. It is a painful thing to say, but I look upon the following declaration as a duty, because it is the truth: one of the first reforms to be effected among the laboring classes will be the reduction of the wages of some at the same time that we raise those of others. Monopoly does not gain in respectability by belonging to the lowest classes of people, especially when it serves to maintain only the grossest individualism. The revolt of the silk-workers met with no sympathy, but rather hostility, from the porters and the river population generally. Nothing that happens off the wharves has any power to move them. Beasts of burden fashioned in advance for despotism, they will not mingle with politics as long as their privilege is maintained. Nevertheless, I ought to say in their defence that, some time ago, the necessities of competition having brought their prices down, more social sentiments began to awaken in these gross natures: a few more reductions seasoned with a little poverty, and the Rigues of Lyons will be chosen as the storming-party when the time comes for assaulting the bastilles.

In short, it is impossible, contradictory, in the present system of society, for the proletariat to secure well-being through education or education through well-being. For, without considering the fact that the proletaire, a human machine, is as unfit for comfort as for education, it is demonstrated, on the one hand, that his wages continually tend to go down rather than up, and, on the other, that the cultivation of his mind, if it were possible, would be useless to him; so that he always inclines towards barbarism and misery. Everything that has been attempted of late years in France and England with a view to the amelioration of the condition of the poor in the matters of the labor of women and children and of primary instruction, unless it was the fruit of some hidden thought of radicalism, has been done contrary to economic ideas and to the prejudice of the established order. Progress, to the mass of laborers, is always the book sealed with the seven seals; and it is not by legislative misconstructions that the relentless enigma will be solved.

For the rest, if the economists, by exclusive attention to their old routine, have finally lost all knowledge of the present state of things, it cannot be said that the socialists have better solved the antinomy which division of labor raised. Quite the contrary, they have stopped with negation; for is it not perpetual negation to oppose, for instance, the uniformity of parcellaire labor with a so-called variety in which each one can change his occupation ten, fifteen, twenty times a day at will?

As if to change ten, fifteen, twenty times a day from one kind of divided labor to another was to make labor synthetic; as if, consequently, twenty fractions of the day’s work of a manual laborer could be equal to the day’s work of an artist! Even if such industrial vaulting was practicable, — and it may be asserted in advance that it would disappear in the presence of the necessity of making laborers responsible and therefore functions personal, — it would not change at all the physical, moral, and intellectual condition of the laborer; the dissipation would only be a surer guarantee of his incapacity and, consequently, his dependence. This is admitted, moreover, by the organizers, communists, and others. So far are they from pretending to solve the antinomy of division that all of them admit, as an essential condition of organization, the hierarchy of labor, — that is, the classification of laborers into parcellaires and generalizers or organizers, — and in all utopias the distinction of capacities, the basis or everlasting excuse for inequality of goods, is admitted as a pivot. Those reformers whose schemes have nothing to recommend them but logic, and who, after having complained of the simplism, monotony, uniformity, and extreme division of labor, then propose a plurality as a SYNTHESIS, — such inventors, I say, are judged already, and ought to be sent back to school.

But you, critic, the reader undoubtedly will ask, what is your solution? Show us this synthesis which, retaining the responsibility, the personality, in short, the specialty of the laborer, will unite extreme division and the greatest variety in one complex and harmonious whole.

My reply is ready: Interrogate facts, consult humanity: we can choose no better guide. After the oscillations of value, division of labor is the economic fact which influences most perceptibly profits and wages. It is the first stake driven by Providence into the soil of industry, the starting-point of the immense triangulation which finally must determine the right and duty of each and all. Let us, then, follow our guides, without which we can only wander and lose ourselves.

Tu longe seggere, et vestigia semper adora.

[argyrocratie]

"The largest, quickest, and most devastating pandemic in all of human history was the influenza epidemic whose first of three waves began in Kansas in March 1918, and recurred in ever widening and more mortal forms in the autumn and the winter. Yet, this epidemic is distinguished from others by a second reason, the historical amnesia - a virtual blackout of memory - that has greeted it in subsequent generations. Its historian summarizes: "Nothing else - no infection, no war, no famine - has ever killed so many in as short a period. And yet it has never inspired awe."

Between 22 and 30 million people were killed in a year. Half a million of these were in the United States whose troop-ships carrying young men to the Western Front of Europe during World War I, in conditions that were floating test tubes of the virus, brought the 'flu to France, then Germany, England, and Russia, and from the European continent the virus was transmitted along the sea-lanes of European imperialism to Latin America, to West Africa, to India (where 12 million died), to China, Japan, and the Pacific islands. More were killed by the epidemic than were killed by the Civil War or World War I Which Robert Graves called "the Sausage Machine, because it was fed with men, churned out corpses, and remained firmly screwed in place."

The age specific mortality curve of the epidemic was shaped more like a 'W' than a 'U' which is to say that those in the strong middle years of life were as affected, and more so, than the very young or very old. This characteristic deeply worried the official macroparasitic institutions which relied on those in their middle years to produce, to reproduce, and to fight. To them, not so much life, as production and reproduction was the worry. Henry Cabot Lodge was concerned about the productivity of munitions plants. In March 1,000 workers at the Ford Motor Company fell sick. The number of rivets driven per day at the Philadelphia shipyards fell at a rate that alarmed the war producers. The equivalent of two combat divisions of the AEF, or the American Expeditionary Force ("Ass End First"), were incapacitated in France. 40% of U.S. Navy personnel were affected. 37 life insurance companies omitted or reduced their annual stock dividends. The macroparasites and the microparasite were thus in mortal competition for the bodies of the healthy ones in middle life, and that for another reason too. As an air-borne infection, "the rich died as readily as the poor."

(...)

500 were arrested in New York on "Spitless Sunday." Large gatherings were prohibited. Telephone booths were padlocked. Public water fountains were closed. In San Francisco face masks were required to be worn. Cash tellers were equipped with finger bowls. A municipal ordinance of Prescott, Arizona, adopted a suggestion from an obscure newspaper by the Fascist, Benito Mussolini, making it a crime to shake hands. The Army Surgeon General reported that "civilization could easily disappear from the earth."

The middle point of the 'W' grew and as a result the famous 'Lost Generation' of despairing American writers came into being, and yet with the exception of Katherine Anne Porter none wrote about the 'flu epidemic. Was this massive, social, denial? Was this male chauvinism? Was this a sequela of the disease's "profound systemic depression"? They are important, unanswered questions.

Katherine Anne Porter synthesized the times, the creation of the 'new man,' and the 'new woman.' As Prohibition loomed guys started sporting hip flasks, and the new woman took up the cigarette - alcohol and nicotine, traditional responses, since the 1790s, towards epidemics. The government-issue wristwatch became the emblem of the urban individual; it became essential to the urban-and-factory planning of the Twenties. The government drive for money (War Bonds) was the only occasion of permitted gathering, and that under the slogan "Give 'till it Hurts." Indeed, "Sacrifice" was the watchword for the soldier and the 'new' woman alike: give money, give your time, give your labor, give you life."

-Peter Linebaugh, "Lizard Talk: Or, Ten Plagues and Another - An Historical Reprise in Celebration of the Anniversary of Boston ACT UP" (1989)

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Who is brave enough to back Brazil’s global tax on billionaires? The answer will define our future

It would raise $250bn to help offset some of the damage the super-rich cause. Yet they’ll do everything to stop it in its tracks

Who is government for? It’s a question we should never stop asking. The answer that keeps coming back is “not the majority”. For example, the first phase of the Covid-19 pandemic produced remarkably consistent polling results. Repeated surveys showed fewer than 10% of people wished to return to the pre-pandemic economy. The great majority wanted to see one good thing emerging from the trauma of the illness and the measures used to address it: a fairer, greener, kinder economic system.

But the Conservative government had other ideas. It announced what then prime minister Boris Johnson called a “significant return to normality”. His normality, of course. The structure of the Covid bailouts ensured that the big banks gained massively, often at the expense of small businesses. Executive pay and dividends for shareholders soared, while lowlier workers lost incomes and livelihoods.

I think we are all either vaguely or painfully aware that, regardless of changes of government, our needs will be met only if they coincide with the demands of capital. If they run directly counter to those demands, however great and consistent our wishes might be, they scarcely stand a chance.

The response to the pandemic was one test of that proposition. Now the world’s governments face another. Last week, Brazilian climate minister Ana Toni explained a proposal put forward by her government (and now supported by South Africa, Germany and Spain), for a 2% global tax on the wealth of the world’s billionaires. Though it would affect just 3,000 of the super-rich, it would raise around $250bn (£195bn): a significant contribution either to global climate funds or to poverty alleviation.

Radical? Not at all. According to calculations by Oxfam, the wealth of billionaires has been growing so fast in recent years that maintaining it at a constant level would have required an annual tax of 12.8%. Trillions, in other words: enough to address global problems long written off as intractable.

You would need to perform Olympian mental gymnastics to oppose Brazil’s very modest proposal. It addresses, albeit to a tiny extent, one of the great democratic deficits of our time: that capital operates globally, while voting power stops at the national border. Without global measures, in the contest between people and plutocrats, the plutocrats will inevitably win. They can extract vast wealth from the nations in which they operate, often with the help of government subsidies and state contracts, and shift it through opaque networks of shell companies and secrecy regimes, placing it beyond the reach of any tax authority. This is what some of the global “investors” in the UK’s water companies have done. The money they extracted is now gone, and we are left with both the debts they accumulated and the ruins of the system they ransacked. Get tough with capital, or capital will get tough with you.

The Brazilian proposal, which will be put before the G20 summit in Rio in November, has already been dismissed by the US treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, who suggested there was no need for it. On whose behalf does she make this claim? Not ours. Wherever people have been surveyed, including in the US, there is strong support for raising taxes on the rich.

Continue reading.

[noragaur]

Latest News and Updates on Bharat Electronics (BEL) | Ticker

Stay informed with the latest orders, contracts, and financial results of Bharat Electronics (BEL) with real-time updates on Ticker. Keep track of the company's performance and developments in the defense and technology sector.

[twistedisciple]

“You.”

Same insouciant greeting. Same annual circumstance. One might be brought back in time to the same day from yesteryear, identical if not for the dragon’s easy approach bereft of hesitation. The vast enormity of differences that hung between then and now. Whatever adversity and pleasantry had come their way, two now stood stronger for it. A sentiment that required no foolish saying among their kind - only showing.

“It is your birthday. I come to you in that respect bearing a gift and require no gratitude.” Announcement where announcement was unneeded; said gift shamelessly and prominently extended with the heavy thump of a chest at the sage’s feet. Filled to utter limits, suggested the dangerous noise it made. Rafal closed his eyes in prelude, known already to what lay within. “Open it.”

An elaborate surface predated opening, patterned by heraldic etchings of the Gradlon evil-eye. Beneath that ornamentation sat the bedrock of true substance. Coins of silver and gold were stacked in hills upon hills, in what felt to be a thousand grains forming a veritable mountain altogether. Not one bit inaccurate to a dragon’s hoard. Now all of it deemed Griss’.

“Such is your rightful due. Though I suppose humanity is fond of a more colloquial term—your paycheck. Two years' worth and then some.“ The dividends from his professorial stipend, the meager living and excruciating 25% cutback on his usual sweets intake, the part time employ at the maid cafe, all were mere stepping stones to this moment: the important milestone which officiated lord and knight.

As lords did not demand anything less than exceptional service, knights did not give that service for free. None could be more conscious of manmade world view, perhaps, than a dragon who lived among men. The failure with something to prove. He centered his gaze upon Griss solemnly, nervous with some unintended transparency of feeling. A sincere and resolved yet. . .fluttering thing.

“As your lord, it is my duty to ensure you are properly compensated. Whether I am here for centuries, or whether I should die tomorrow, with this practice you may live comfortably.” Long did dragonkind live, yet the life of one such as Rafal was precarious. He who took from the world and guzzled its every last drop would one day give back, with interest, with all that he had. But that was neither here nor there. He roused to his full spirits, head bobbing with pride. "A generous master, am I not? There is no need to thank me, Griss! . . .or you may if that is what pleases you."

Birthday asks (Happy 29th)

Even after nearly two years on borrowed time, birthdays hadn’t become any more meaningful to Griss. He didn’t count the days, didn’t pay attention to the dates, and rarely knew what month it was except when he noticed the changing of the seasons. For all of his brazen confidence, his loud and overbearing presence, and the way he fashioned himself to turn heads (mostly for disapproving looks, but that was better than not being seen at all), he really didn’t care all that much for being celebrated. His birthday and consequently, his life, was of no real importance to anyone. Even as a Hound, he always knew there would be a day when he’d be better off as a Corrupted. Or simply dead. And it didn’t bother him one bit.

His whole life felt like he was just borrowing time. As it reached its 29th year, he’d started to wonder (only half-seriously) if this was how dragons felt about their lengthy lifespans. Thirty felt egregious for someone like him. So he thought he might ask Lord Rafal about that when he saw him, because even though he didn’t really think about what day it was or his birthday, he’d expected - for some reason he couldn’t and wouldn’t name - that he’d see the dragon at some point that day.

But by the time he did, it was a whole hot drink to the face later, and had the rare philosophical question managed to survive that excitement, it certainly couldn’t crawl out from under the mountains of gold that filled the chest Lord Rafal had deposited at his feet outside the door to his office. After Griss flung open the top, the sight of its contents stunned him to the point of speechlessness, and he dropped to his knees and plunged his fist into the middle of it just to feel the weight of each piece, to make sure it was real.

But that wasn’t really why he couldn’t find anything more to say than colorful variations of “Wow, Lord Rafal!” The gold shifted in undulating waves over his hand, dripped from his palm like water pouring back into the sea, and he sifted like he was looking for something. Words, maybe, instead of this bittersweet taste that sat at the back of his tongue.

“Heh, two years late on the pay, huh?” Griss finally said, glancing up with a smirk as he let another palmful of coin trickle back to the pile. “See, that’s where you lucked out. Knights might demand gold and material stuff like this, but not the faithful.”

Not this faithful, anyway, who lived by extremes, who’d convinced himself over the years that the only thing he deserved was licks from a whip. He watched the rest of the gold drop back into the chest piece-by-piece. He’d always taken whatever he was given, of course, and jobs were jobs.

But this wasn’t a job. Not to him. Shutting the lid, he swallowed down that bittersweetness and rose back up to his feet to look his lord in the eye. Hands coming to rest on his hips, his mouth a crooked line of a smile, there was nothing all that out of place about his look, except for the bright pink splotch across his face and down the side of his neck, and the wearied lines under his downturned eyes. With the toes of one foot, he pushed the chest across the floor until it bumped Lord Rafal’s shoes.

”Comfort's not my style anyway! So I’m giving this up as tribute since my blood’s not good enough for a fell dragon’s tastes. Besides, I don't have any plans to outlive you.” He chuckled. “If y’wanna hit me though, I won’t say no.” 

His was not a loyalty bound by contract, but a choice. Although faith had brought their paths to cross, Griss followed Lord Rafal because he wanted to. Whether dragon or worm.

[dragonflycap]

4 Trade Ideas for Caterpillar: Bonus Idea

Caterpillar, $CAT, comes into the week pushing over short term resistance. This move comes off a touch at the 200 day SMA for the first time since November and 38.2% retracement of the last leg higher. It ended Friday over the 50 day SMA with the RSI rising through the midline and the MACD curling to cross up, but negative. There is resistance at 341.50 and 351 then 363 and 372.50 before 382. Support lower is at 335 and 330 then 325. Short interest is low at 2.2%. The stock pays a dividend with an annual yield of 1.67% and has traded ex-dividend since July 22nd. 

The company is expected to report earnings next on October 29th. The August options chain shows biggest open interest at the 340 then 325 put strikes and at 330 on the call side. The September chain has open interest from 360 to 250, biggest at 290 on the put side. The call side is biggest at 330. The October chain is biggest at the 310 put and then 390 call strikes. Finally, the November chain, covering the earnings report, is big from 300 to 290 on the put side and builds from 320 to a peak at 380 on the call side.

Caterpillar, Ticker: $CAT

Trade Idea 1: Buy the stock on a move over 339 with a stop at 325.

Trade Idea 2: Buy the stock on a move over 339 and add a September 330/320 Put Spread ($3.15) while selling the October 380 Call ($3.00).

Trade Idea 3: Buy the September/October 360 Call Calendar ($4.00) while selling the October 300 Put ($3.55).

Trade Idea 4: Buy the November 310/340/360 Call Spread Risk Reversal (25 cents).

If you like what you see sign up for more ideas and deeper analysis using this Get Premium link.  

After reviewing over 1,000 charts, I have found some good setups for the week. These were selected and should be viewed in the context of the broad Market Macro picture reviewed Friday which with the first week of August in the books, sees equity markets showing resilience with a rebound from an ugly start induced by growing narrative of recessionary fears.

Elsewhere look for Gold to continue its uptrend while Crude Oil consolidates in a narrowing range. The US Dollar Index continues to drift in broad consolidation while US Treasuries consolidate in their downtrend. The Shanghai Composite looks to continue the short term trend lower while Emerging Markets consolidate under long term resistance.

The Volatility Index looks to have settled after a spike to 4 year highs removing the pressure on equity markets for now. The SPY and QQQ ETF charts continue to look strong on the longer timeframe. On the shorter timeframe both the QQQ and SPY have reset on momentum measures but also have a lot of upside work to put in before they are looking strong. The IWM is now just in consolidation mode again after a failed break higher. Use this information as you prepare for the coming week and trad’em well.

[exitrowiron]

Investing 101

Part 1 of ?

A Tumblr mutual has asked me to explain brokers and stocks; I'm not an investing expert but I will share what I know (or what I think I know). The investing subreddit is a great source for those who really want to know the details.

What are stocks? When you buy a company's stock you own a small portion of the company. If a company has issued 100 shares and you purchase 1 share, you own 1/100th of the company. Most companies start out as private enterprises (i.e. owned by one of more individuals) and if the company is successful it may want to sell shares (i.e. go public). Going public is a major milestone in the life of a company. The process of issuing shares, quarterly reports, etc. is highly regulated by the SEC and requires audits, the creation of a board of directors and regular financial reporting, all in an effort to protect investors. In light of this expense, it's fair to wonder why an owner would want to go through the hassle of going public and giving up control of some (or all) of their company.

Going public (i.e. selling shares/stock) is a way of generating capital for the company. Perhaps a company needs an infusion of cash to build a new factory or expand to a new market... new stock issuances often include statements from the company about how it intends to use the proceeds. Issuing public shares is also a way to reward owners and key employees by giving them a way to get cash out of the business. Imagine you started a business 20 years ago and always funneled the company's earnings back into the business to help it grow. You may have a valuable business, but you have all your eggs in that basket and don't have cash to invest in other ways, buy a yacht etc. Likewise, you may have promised key employees partial ownership of the business, this is a way for them to cash-in also.

Regardless of the motivation, companies issuing stocks can choose to sell partial or full ownership of the company. Successful entrepreneurs often choose to retain majority ownership in the business - shareholders may collectively only own 40% of the business, for example, and have the right to elect 2 of 5 directors to the board. This kind of strategy allows the founder to have his cake and eat it too (i.e. cash-out some of the value of the business while still retaining control). A company can also sell various types of shares, each with different benefits. For example, a company may sell Preferred Shares, which are guaranteed to receive a dividend before other shares. Or the company may issue voting and non-voting shares (this is another way for a founder to retain control). Most retail investors (individuals like you and me), purchase Common Shares which have voting rights and are eligible for dividends.

What is a dividend? If you own a part of a company, it is reasonable to expect that you receive your proportionate share of the earnings right? The distribution of a company's earnings to shareholders is called a dividend. Companies may distribute dividends quarterly, annually or in the case of start-up or fast growing companies, not at all. Netflix for example, which had $8.19B in revenue and $1.49B in earnings in 2022 HAS NEVER PAID A DIVIDEND. Likewise, TESLA has never paid a dividend.

Why would anyone want to own shares in companies which don't pay dividends? It isn't at all uncommon for early stage and/or high growth companies to not pay dividends. The thinking is that the growth prospects for the company are so attractive, the money is best spent by reinvesting in the business. Of course there's an expectation that at some point in the future the business will mature and begin paying dividends. This is what happened with Microsoft and Apple for example. As long as the company continues to show accelerating growth, investors will overlook the lack the dividends, betting that the overall value of the company (and intrinsic value of the shares) will grow as well. Again, Netflix and Tesla are good examples of that.

This leads to the conclusion that there are two ways to make money from stocks - dividends and increases in the share price. I may not be concerned if I own a stock with a share price which has been stuck at $100 for the last 5 years if that company is paying me a $10 dividend every year. I'm still earning a 10% return on that investment. Conversely, I may be equally happy owning a stock which has never paid a dividend but is now worth $150 dollars versus my original purchase price of $100.

Stocks whose value is primarily derived from their reliability for generating dividends are called Value stocks. Stocks whose value is primarily derived from the growth of the stock price are called Growth stocks - Netflix and Tesla are examples of Growth stocks; Microsoft and Ford are examples of Value stocks. Admittedly this can be confusing; I remember our first broker asking if we were Value or Growth investors. It seems like a silly question; can't we have both? In truth, older investors like me tend to be Value investors... we like the reliability (and cash flow) of stable companies that declare dividends every quarter. Growth stocks can be exciting, but the stock prices can be volatile and older investors have little tolerance for volatility. Value stocks tend to be stable companies in stable industries. Growth companies are all about the future; there is an opportunity for much greater rewards, but that comes with more risk. Over a longer investing horizon (>10 years), a broad portfolio Growth stocks will likely outperform an equally broad portfolio of Value stocks. Old people don't have a long investing horizon, but young people do and each group's investment portfolio should be biased accordingly.

Next Post - how to buy stocks.

[sea-salted-wolverine]

signing up for my PFD which is somehow not UBI despite the fact that it is an annual dividend payed out to the citizens of alaska for the sole virtue of living in alaska and im checking the box that says i have not been convicted of a "crime of moral turpitude" because if i want my PFD i also have to register to vote and the application just does it for me in one quick and painless process that takes maybe a grand total of 3 minutes. that's good for voting right, yea? making voter registration easy? slapping a $1000 incentive on there?

and then i look up what is considered a "crime of moral turpitude" which would void my voter registration. Handily provided by the great state off alaska AS 15.80.010

“felony involving moral turpitude” includes those crimes that are immoral or wrong in themselves such as murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, unlawful exploitation of a minor, robbery, extortion, coercion, kidnapping, incest, arson, burglary, theft, forgery, criminal possession of a forgery device, offering a false instrument for recording, scheme to defraud, falsifying business records, commercial bribe receiving, commercial bribery, bribery, receiving a bribe, perjury, perjury by inconsistent statements, endangering the welfare of a minor, escape, promoting contraband, interference with official proceedings, receiving a bribe by a witness or a juror, jury tampering, misconduct by a juror, tampering with physical evidence, hindering prosecution, terroristic threatening, riot, criminal possession of explosives, unlawful furnishing of explosives, sex trafficking, criminal mischief, misconduct involving a controlled substance or an imitation controlled substance, permitting an escape, promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, distribution of child pornography, and possession of child pornography;

huh. well. I'm sure none of those could be selectively enforced against a specific group, thereby leading to targeted voter suppression.