Exactly what I was going to say, but phrased very nicely :-)
Zander: Yes, companies can indeed ask existing shareholders for more money. Also shareholders are investing, which means that they want to see some "profit" from their shares, whether in the form of a higher share price, or in the form of dividends. So if GargantuanCorp has 100 million shares, and makes 400 million pounds "profit" (after tax and anything else they want to spend money on) then each share could get a dividend of £4. So if I (or my pension fund) has 100 shares, I'll get £400 (which I probably then have to pay taxes on). And it's a gamble. My company (Nokia) shares were $63 each in 2001, and are $8 today. If you invested your savings then, you'd have had some dividend payments over the years, but your shares would now be worth 1/8th of what they were at the peak of the dot-com boom.
And of course you're positing expensive things for the corporations to do which have no real value to the shareholders, the customers or employees ... and that's actually quite rare (and quite a small percentage of the company's turnover) ... in general the Board of Directors (who represent the shareholders) would fire the CEO who did that, unless she/he also was making tons of money for the company, in which case they might allow a small amount to be spent on "non-essentials".
This is as true of people as it is companies ... if a person insists on driving an expensive BMW and buying £3,000 tailor-made suits from Saville Row, they'd better be making enough money that they can afford them! Appearance and style and reputation are as important to companies as they are to certain professions (you might be ok with your brain surgeon coming to work in tatty jeans and a megadeth t-shirt, and I'd probably be too, but that's not true for all patients, and not for all careers either.
Many people are putting money away to buy a pension for when they are too old to work, and as everything is going up in price, then they are relying on those investments making money over time to at least break even against inflation.
But this is the answer to Magician's point; si profitum requiris, circumspice. You and I take our profits in tangible form, as books and toys and musical instruments, or as it might otherwise be described, clutter. or in petrol to drive to Westbury, or in money to pay for Chinese food or cinema tickets or convention memberships and other non-tangible/non-clutter items which aren't "necessary" but are variously desirable. The "profit" in visiting you is the good time I will have. The cost is not trivial however. So like any investment, I have to weigh up my resources and decide whether it is a "good" investment (and of course it is!) ... but the only "profit" in that is our joint happiness, not an accumulation of wealth.
no subject
Zander: Yes, companies can indeed ask existing shareholders for more money. Also shareholders are investing, which means that they want to see some "profit" from their shares, whether in the form of a higher share price, or in the form of dividends. So if GargantuanCorp has 100 million shares, and makes 400 million pounds "profit" (after tax and anything else they want to spend money on) then each share could get a dividend of £4. So if I (or my pension fund) has 100 shares, I'll get £400 (which I probably then have to pay taxes on). And it's a gamble. My company (Nokia) shares were $63 each in 2001, and are $8 today. If you invested your savings then, you'd have had some dividend payments over the years, but your shares would now be worth 1/8th of what they were at the peak of the dot-com boom.
And of course you're positing expensive things for the corporations to do which have no real value to the shareholders, the customers or employees ... and that's actually quite rare (and quite a small percentage of the company's turnover) ... in general the Board of Directors (who represent the shareholders) would fire the CEO who did that, unless she/he also was making tons of money for the company, in which case they might allow a small amount to be spent on "non-essentials".
This is as true of people as it is companies ... if a person insists on driving an expensive BMW and buying £3,000 tailor-made suits from Saville Row, they'd better be making enough money that they can afford them! Appearance and style and reputation are as important to companies as they are to certain professions (you might be ok with your brain surgeon coming to work in tatty jeans and a megadeth t-shirt, and I'd probably be too, but that's not true for all patients, and not for all careers either.
Many people are putting money away to buy a pension for when they are too old to work, and as everything is going up in price, then they are relying on those investments making money over time to at least break even against inflation.
But this is the answer to Magician's point; si profitum requiris, circumspice. You and I take our profits in tangible form, as books and toys and musical instruments, or as it might otherwise be described, clutter. or in petrol to drive to Westbury, or in money to pay for Chinese food or cinema tickets or convention memberships and other non-tangible/non-clutter items which aren't "necessary" but are variously desirable.
The "profit" in visiting you is the good time I will have. The cost is not trivial however. So like any investment, I have to weigh up my resources and decide whether it is a "good" investment (and of course it is!) ... but the only "profit" in that is our joint happiness, not an accumulation of wealth.