It just goes to show that as long as we live in a system that uses money, immoral behaviour will be rewarded, while moral behaviour is punished. That's just the reality of it. If two companies, identical in all other respects, choose differently on a morality vs. profit issue, then the one that chooses profit will win, because they will have money to do things like this (cover-up, buy congresscritters, advertise/market more, buy out smaller companies, etc.). History bears this out countlessly, yet people have a hard time with any idea that tries to get away from it. (I'm sensing a thread split may happen any time now...)
Traveller5 Reviews, I want an objective one
- Thread starter Rynak
- Start date
- Status
[m;]You're now into political discussion. End of that tangent.[/m;]
Be a fine topic for discussion in the Political Pulpit...
At the "turn of the century" that $10 translates into $200 in today's USD. So, the stock is only worth 25% of what it used to be...
o:JcFalkenburg
SOC-9
Maybe , but how many times do you think that 10$ share split between then and now? Old wager that that $10 is worth much , much more than its original value.
At the "turn of the century" that $10 translates into $200 in today's USD. So, the stock is only worth 25% of what it used to be...
Turn of the 21st Century, I meant... the year 2000. RAI's split twice since then once in 2006, once in 2010, both 2:1; yes, I should've taken that into account, but it only makes matters worse. A $2.50 investment in RAI in 2000 is worth $47.69 today.
JcFalkenburg
SOC-9
@Hg-b. no, it's totally relevant to the original post. You do undestand. That each time a stock splits, each share represents a smaller "part" of a company- the owner of a share becomes the owner of tw shares----I'll let you figure out the rest....
JcFalkenburg
SOC-9
As an aside, consider the fact that a tobacco company has managed to split its stock twice in 12 years. Mind boggling.
- Status
