Active verses passive.

Turn left, take 3...

Abrignac wrote:

I'm not a stock wizard, but I'm pretty sure money invested in companies is actively creating jobs. Those hotels he built were funded by investors. The company TRJ or whatever it was, eventually was listed on the stock exchange. How would him having invested his money in GE been any different than what the investors did to invest in his hotels? Ultimately the bulk of the money to create those jobs came from investors.

victor809 wrote:

You're not that dense are you?

Abrignac wrote:

When it comes to stock investment, apparently.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I know it's abstracted out quite a bit in the modern stock market... but the fundamental idea still should apply. shares are an investment in a corporation. That investment can be used for anything, but was historically used for capital projects.

victor809 wrote:

Passive vs active, think

Abrignac wrote:

Victor I’m being more basic than that. Just embracing trickle down. If I invest the mere million and only million and anyone who proves it was much more than a million is a liar million in to the markets and it doesn’t create jobs then neither does a tax cut.

teedubbya wrote:

In investing PAssive vs active is just index funds/mutual vs specific shares. Not sure why you think this is important. An index fund investment is just further subdividing your investment, but still putting that money into shares of companies. Just fewer $$ into a lot more of them. Shouldn't have an impact on the basic theory.

victor809 wrote: