Asklemmy

43907 readers

1140 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

396

Why is everything going to shit? (feddit.de)

submitted 1 year ago by Knusper@feddit.de to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

131 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Was just trying to explain to someone why everything is going to shit, specifically companies, and realized, I don't fully get it either.

I've got the following explanation. The sentences marked with "???" are were I'm lost. Anyone mind telling me, if they're correct and if so, why?

The past few years, central banks were giving out interest rates of 0% or even negative percentages. Regular banks would not quite pass this on, but you could still loan money and give it back later with no real interest payments.

This lead to lots of people investing in companies. As long as those companies paid out more money than those low interest rates, it was worthwhile. But at the same time, this meant companies didn't have to be profitable, because they could pay out investors from money that other investors gave them???

This has stopped being the case, as central banks are hiking interest rates again, to combat inflation???

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Phantom_Engineer@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But at the same time, this meant companies didn’t have to be profitable, because they could pay out investors from money that other investors gave them???

Few, if any, of the big tech companies were playing out any kind of dividend to investors. It was more that they were content for companies to maybe someday make money as opposed to actually making money,

[–] EpicallyFail@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

That assumes dividends are the way stock players make money, which is, to put it rudely, boomer thinking. The company doesn't need to pay you a dividend if your stock goes up 30% YOY because of your 'infinite growth', you get your money from selling the stock. This is why the markets are so fucked, because the big trading algorithms that drive day to day trading push companies to overextend and in some cases believe the lie that is infinite growth so their short term investors can reap rewards over a few weeks, then move on to the next company, leaving the first one holding the bag for their own actions.

Doesn't help when companies that resist this trend suffer from activist investors that use their media influence to say that a long running company is 'suffering' when it really is just consistently growing slowly and safely. Pushing for restructures and endless inflation. It's the 80s all over again, just rebranded.