Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Andylusion]

Would you agree with this: your freedom of enterprise denies my freedom of a job?
If you believe in democracy, how can you justify not instituting it in the place where we spend most of our adult lives?

So you can dictate to others whether or not they hire you? So if I come to your place, and demand you pay me $50 every week to cut your lawn, whether you want that done, or not, my right to democracy requires that you do it?

See this is the kind of logic, that if the tables were reversed, you would instinctively understand that your right to your property, is not to be denied because someone wants it.

But employment is the same thing. You don't have a right to someone else's hard earned money as CEO of a company either. That money that the company has, was hard earned by the people who put their money, their homes, their blood sweat and tears into, in order to make it work.

I just got to hear the story of the CEO of my company. He spent four years working while going to school. He earned a degree in engineering. He worked for 20 years, as a level 1, and then level 2 engineer at a small company. Then he mortgaged his home, and his father mortgaged his home, and they both put both their homes on the line to buy out this small business. Now he's CEO of the business. He is there at 7 AM every morning. He leaves at 6 PM every night. He's flown around the world, traveled thousands of miles to go to trade shows.

He works his butt off. Now you tell me what you think you 'deserve democracy in his company'? Why do you have any right, what so ever, to tell him jack squat about how he runs his company? Bull. You have no right period. None!

And if you put in the hours that he did, and the money he did, and the risk he did, to run your own business, you wouldn't put up with me coming around demand democracy in your company either. And don't lie and say you would. You wouldn't. I know better.

Don't even try and tell me you would put your home on the line, and risk losing everything, and have some newly hired employee in the stock room, telling you he should have a say in how you run your business. Bull crap.

Even if your latest anecdote isn't more BS, how many total employees does your alleged employer have? How many total man hours per week does your owner pay for? What's the ratio of your owner's hours toil per week to total hours per week worked by all employees? Whats the ratio of your owner's pay to his latest stock room hire?

What difference does that make? If he's putting in 60 hours a week, and I'm putting in 40, and he has to take all the responsibility for everything in the company, and I take no responsibility except for my work table.... you are telling me that there should be any ratio between us?

The only reason anyone should care about that, is if they are greedy and envious of others.

And don't make me laugh.... So he's putting twice as much into the company than I ever have, and so magically now I get to count all the other employees hours, as my own? Sorry, that's not logic, not intelligent, and rather stupid. Well there's 4 employees, and so we're putting in 160 hours, to his 60.......... really......

That is the most mindlessly stupid argument I've ever heard. Not to mention none of us have degrees. None of us have mortgaged our home to buy the company. None of us worked our way up over 20 years. But apparently that doesn't count in leftard land. Nope, add up all the hours everyone else works, and if it's greater than the CEO, then we ought to be paid as much.... dur dur......

Please.... are you trying to make me think you are a clown?

 

[georgephillip]

Oh man, I love that desperate argument. "But....but...but...you're 'exploiting' people, resources". The only thing being "exploited" is you - by your Dumbocrat masters who are treating you like the useful idiot that you are.

It is illegal to "exploit" in America. For instance, sex-slavery is actual "exploitation". Sex-slavery is illegal in America genius.

As far as "defining" success - do you really need me to post the definition for you? We are clearly speaking financially here. And if you make $1 million per year, you are clearly more successful than the guy making $100,000 per year. The guy making $100,000 per year is clearly more successful than the guy making $40,000 per year (again - strictly speaking financially of course).

The fact that you have to pretend that there is some ambiguity around the term "success" is evidence of how desperate you are to make an argument which isn't holding up under the facts.

"suc·cess (sək-sĕs&#8242
n.
1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.
2.
a. The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success.
b. The extent of such gain.
3. One that is successful: The plan was a success.
4. Obsolete A result or an outcome."

$50,000 is about average for US incomes.
$100,000 is successful enough for many if increased leisure is the compensation.
You've obviously ingested enough of the Koch-Aid to believe earning a million a year makes you ten times more $ucce$$ful than earning only $100,000.

BTW, when four percent of the world's population controls 25% of its resources, that's called exploitation.

The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.

success - definition of success by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.

An agreement reached freely between two consenting parties is not exploitation.
It's freedom and capitalism.

It's colonialism and fascism for those who know history:

"On Aug. 19, 1953, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran became the first victim of a C.I.A. coup. Ten months later, on June 27, 1954, President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala became the second..."

"SOON after the C.I.A. installed him as president of Guatemala in 1954, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas visited Washington.

"He was unusually forthright with Vice President Richard M. Nixon. 'Tell me what you want me to do,' he said, 'and I will do it.'

"What the United States wanted in Guatemala -- and in Iran, where the C.I.A. also deposed a government in the early 1950's -- was pro-American stability.

"In the long run, though, neither Colonel Castillo Armas nor his Iranian counterpart, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, provided it. Instead, both led their countries away from democracy and toward repression and tragedy.

"How did this happen? From the perspective of half a century, what is the legacy of these two coups?

"Several dozen scholars, including leading experts on Iran and Guatemala, gathered in Chicago this month to consider those questions. Their conclusions were grim. All agreed that both coups -- the first that the C.I.A. carried out -- had terrible long-term effects."

Not unlike the terrible long term effects inflicted upon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan by rich parasites who profit from 21st century wars of aggression.

Ideas & Trends - Iran and Guatemala, 1953-54 - Revisiting Cold War Coups and Finding Them Costly - NYTimes.com

 

[Andylusion]

Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.

If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........ I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.

Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding. But for sure, he's not a "parasite". You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.

What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?

Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.

What....? 0.o Are you serious?

Bain Capital, has built, and grown, and expanded dozens of companies of their years, and Romney was a principal investor. Look at the companies... in the real economy.... that are alive and well, and employ thousands of people, and provide billions in wealth to the country that our citizens enjoy.

AMC Theatres
Aspen Education Group
Brookstone
Burger King
Burlington Coat Factory
Canada Goose
Clear Channel Communications
Domino's Pizza
DoubleClick
Dunkin' Donuts
D&M Holdings
Guitar Center
Hospital Corporation of America (HCA)
Sealy
Sports Authority
Staples
Toys "R" Us
Warner Music Group
The Weather Channel

And you want to claim his investments have not benefited the public?

Do you not know or understand how investment works? Because you are not coming across as knowledgeable in this area.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:

"…Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals.

So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?


First, banks have owned commodities for ages. Since the beginning of the country really. It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed. That's what the commodity market is all about. It's nothing new or important.

What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities. This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.

Banks in other countries never had this restriction. The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British. Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.

The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone

"The irony was incredible. After fucking up so badly that the government had to give them federal bank charters and bottomless wells of free cash to save their necks, the feds gave Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley hall passes to become cross-species monopolistic powers with almost limitless reach into any sectors of the economy."

Sounds pretty important. Also sounds like we are entering a new era of monopoly control. Not talking about your grandma's AT&T monopoly either!

Free cash? When?

 

[gnarlylove]

I'm not saying that Sawant is Stalin. I am saying that simply because she is not taking the $117K, doesn't mean her policies are good.

Your point went over my head. I guess drawing comparisons to a murderous dictator didn't seem apt given such a benign point of deductive logic. I agree this is insufficient evidence to think her policies are the best or that they even work.

But given her decision to stand in solidarity with the working class is noteworthy. Moreover, she refused corporate donations meaning there are no direct corporate influence on her policy. We can certainly say this is a refreshing change from millionaire politicians in the media.

Nobody denies money is changing our democratic system. Genuine representative democracy is often buried behind corporate contributions. So special and monied interest win the day typically rather than folks with average incomes. So her decision to accept the average income and refuse corporate contributions is certainly a STEP in the right direction IF our goal is to have a representative democracy instead of a plutocracy.

 

[Bombur]

The cause is clearly without a doubt the fact that decisions were made with bad information.

The cause is clearly NOT a result of mandated loans based on the CRA. It is a FACT that sub-prime loans were willingly taken on by these institutions independent of mandates of the law.

F&F could have made MBS with all sub-prime loans. That doesn't mean the market will automatically follow suit and rate them AAA and buy them like they are. You keep acting like F&F is dictating the nature of the market while completely ignoring the fact that they are NOT A RATINGS AGENCY. F&F can make all of the MBS they want but it is the choice of those institutions to buy them.

There is not a single decision maker at these institutions that will ever say that F&F dictated to them beyond the mandates of the CRA. Yet that is exactly what you are claiming which is total nonsense.

Your understanding of a single cause in 1997 is a fools errand. There is little to no reason to think the historical nature of this bubble is due to something that happened in 97 nor is there great evidence that mandated loans were a major cause.

MBS are a significantly different issue than mandated loans. They don't represent a mandate by government. Instead they are a financial instrument that is meant to help manage risk, whether it is mandated or not. The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.

As for GSA, I think there is far more evidence that it resulted in increased risk across the board and it played a part in the bailout.

Again, the information prior to 1997, was that sub-prime loans were not good investment securities. That's why no one sold a single MBS with sub-prime loans.

So obviously, after decades with zero Sub-prime MBSs, and then suddenly tons of sub-prime MBSs, indicates someone changed the information. That was government, through Freddie Mac, which securitized sub-prime MBSs, making people believe they were safe.

Yes, bad information, caused by government, motivated by CRA laws, was the cause.

Look.... before Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating... they never rated sub-prime loans with a AAA rating. You can keep saying that Freddie Mac is not a rating agency, but what happened is a fact. It's not up for you to debate. This is in fact what happened. Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans in MBSs, an implied AAA rating which had never happened before in history.

That a fact dude. You can't argue it, when that is in fact what happened. "THEY ARE NOT A RATING AGENCY!" Dur.... doesn't matter. That's what happened! "BUT BUT!" Dude.... this is established historical fact. It will never change no matter how many times you repeat your complaint.

Before Freddie Mac gave them an implied AAA rating, not one single sub-prime loan had ever gotten a AAA rating.

Period. Stop arguing against established fact. You lose. You can't change the facts.

Again, once the standard was lowered..... they didn't have to mandate anything. The standard was lowered. Period. Doesn't matter what they mandated or what they didn't. There is no 'sub-sub-prime' loan. Once you lower the standard to sub-prime, below the prime rate, it's lower than the prime rate. That's it. Game over. It's now sub-prime. Period.

The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.

No, sorry. You fail at logic. They lowered the standard. The moment they lowered the standard so that you could have a sub-prime loan in a MBS, that's it. That changed the standard.

You evidently don't know about Fannie and Freddies "alt-a" loans. Those loans exist specifically for low-doc, or no-doc loans. That's what Alt-A is.

And no. You are wrong about the GSA. It had nothing to do with risk. And it didn't play a part in the bailouts. You are just making up stuff now.

Now you are just making crap up to fit your world view. The government can't just change the way things are rated in a market and F&F certainly can't. F&F can't sell anything that doesn't have a market and the only reason there was a market was because everyone was using the same formula and everyone was wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(statistics)

The idea that mandating lower standards automatically meant all standards are lowered is complete and total gibberish. If certain risk is being mandated that puts extra pressure on the rest of the portfolio to be less risky, not more. You are completely and totally wrong.

Until financial institutions and ratings agencies bought into the copula formula there wasn't a market. You keep using the word "imply" like it means anything in this discussion. It doesn't.

Ratings agencies don't rate something AAA because a government agency "implied" something.

Financial institutions don't buy MBS because the government "implied" that it was all ok.

Yes GSA changed the marketplace. It is hardly important in this conversation though.

It is kind of strange to see anyone make the argument you are making. It is like you think the decision makers at these institutions are brain dead who can't think for themselves. It is like F&F makes some decisions and everyone else just follows along like Lemmings. You should tell your tall tail to them sometimes. It would be great fun to watch.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"suc·cess (sək-sĕs&#8242
n.
1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.
2.
a. The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success.
b. The extent of such gain.
3. One that is successful: The plan was a success.
4. Obsolete A result or an outcome."

$50,000 is about average for US incomes.
$100,000 is successful enough for many if increased leisure is the compensation.
You've obviously ingested enough of the Koch-Aid to believe earning a million a year makes you ten times more $ucce$$ful than earning only $100,000.

BTW, when four percent of the world's population controls 25% of its resources, that's called exploitation.

The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.

success - definition of success by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.

An agreement reached freely between two consenting parties is not exploitation.
It's freedom and capitalism.

It's colonialism and fascism for those who know history:

"On Aug. 19, 1953, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran became the first victim of a C.I.A. coup. Ten months later, on June 27, 1954, President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala became the second..."

"SOON after the C.I.A. installed him as president of Guatemala in 1954, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas visited Washington.

"He was unusually forthright with Vice President Richard M. Nixon. 'Tell me what you want me to do,' he said, 'and I will do it.'

"What the United States wanted in Guatemala -- and in Iran, where the C.I.A. also deposed a government in the early 1950's -- was pro-American stability.

"In the long run, though, neither Colonel Castillo Armas nor his Iranian counterpart, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, provided it. Instead, both led their countries away from democracy and toward repression and tragedy.

"How did this happen? From the perspective of half a century, what is the legacy of these two coups?

"Several dozen scholars, including leading experts on Iran and Guatemala, gathered in Chicago this month to consider those questions. Their conclusions were grim. All agreed that both coups -- the first that the C.I.A. carried out -- had terrible long-term effects."

Not unlike the terrible long term effects inflicted upon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan by rich parasites who profit from 21st century wars of aggression.

Ideas & Trends - Iran and Guatemala, 1953-54 - Revisiting Cold War Coups and Finding Them Costly - NYTimes.com

It's colonialism and fascism

If you say so, Nancy.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.

And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....

How are you defining "successful?"
$100,000 per year?
$1,000,000 per year??
Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?

Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil, they'd be more poor and impoverished than they are now.

It's this level of stupidity, that results in wealthy upper class American leftists, ruining the lives of people in other countries.

Remember the Nike plant in Malaysia? Everyone had a cow, and threw a fit. Meanwhile, these Malaysians were happy to even have a job.

But the upper class liberal leftists that have never worked a day in their lives, had a fit. Nike agreed, and raised the pay of the employees..... AND LAID A TON OF THEM OFF.

Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.

What part of this, do you people not get? If you raise the cost of labor, people buy less labor. You raise the wages of people in Malaysia, and now fewer of them have jobs. Yes the few still employed get paid a bit more, but now hundreds are unemployed and starving, in a country very poor, and have few jobs.

BRILLIANT! Who cares about those people. Screw them. We're leftist, and we're going to "stick it to the company" even if we ruin people's lives in the process!

Attacking capitalism is the agenda of every leftist. It doesn't matter whether these attacks are justified or rational. In fact, they are invariably neither. Capitalism is what happens when people are left to make their own decisions, and the minions of the all powerful state can't allow that, especially when it benefits all parties involved. They have to keep alive the idea that the state has to interfere in every transaction or the result would be chaos and disaster.

 

[georgephillip]

So you can dictate to others whether or not they hire you? So if I come to your place, and demand you pay me $50 every week to cut your lawn, whether you want that done, or not, my right to democracy requires that you do it?

See this is the kind of logic, that if the tables were reversed, you would instinctively understand that your right to your property, is not to be denied because someone wants it.

But employment is the same thing. You don't have a right to someone else's hard earned money as CEO of a company either. That money that the company has, was hard earned by the people who put their money, their homes, their blood sweat and tears into, in order to make it work.

I just got to hear the story of the CEO of my company. He spent four years working while going to school. He earned a degree in engineering. He worked for 20 years, as a level 1, and then level 2 engineer at a small company. Then he mortgaged his home, and his father mortgaged his home, and they both put both their homes on the line to buy out this small business. Now he's CEO of the business. He is there at 7 AM every morning. He leaves at 6 PM every night. He's flown around the world, traveled thousands of miles to go to trade shows.

He works his butt off. Now you tell me what you think you 'deserve democracy in his company'? Why do you have any right, what so ever, to tell him jack squat about how he runs his company? Bull. You have no right period. None!

And if you put in the hours that he did, and the money he did, and the risk he did, to run your own business, you wouldn't put up with me coming around demand democracy in your company either. And don't lie and say you would. You wouldn't. I know better.

Don't even try and tell me you would put your home on the line, and risk losing everything, and have some newly hired employee in the stock room, telling you he should have a say in how you run your business. Bull crap.

Even if your latest anecdote isn't more BS, how many total employees does your alleged employer have? How many total man hours per week does your owner pay for? What's the ratio of your owner's hours toil per week to total hours per week worked by all employees? Whats the ratio of your owner's pay to his latest stock room hire?

What difference does that make? If he's putting in 60 hours a week, and I'm putting in 40, and he has to take all the responsibility for everything in the company, and I take no responsibility except for my work table.... you are telling me that there should be any ratio between us?

The only reason anyone should care about that, is if they are greedy and envious of others.

And don't make me laugh.... So he's putting twice as much into the company than I ever have, and so magically now I get to count all the other employees hours, as my own? Sorry, that's not logic, not intelligent, and rather stupid. Well there's 4 employees, and so we're putting in 160 hours, to his 60.......... really......

That is the most mindlessly stupid argument I've ever heard. Not to mention none of us have degrees. None of us have mortgaged our home to buy the company. None of us worked our way up over 20 years. But apparently that doesn't count in leftard land. Nope, add up all the hours everyone else works, and if it's greater than the CEO, then we ought to be paid as much.... dur dur......

Please.... are you trying to make me think you are a clown?

So far, you've posted nothing to make me think you are even capable of independent, critical thought.

"The average U.S. chief executive earned more than $11 million last year in salary, stock options and other compensation, according to a new analysis by the Economic Policy Institute. That’s about 231 times more, on average, than workers..."

"...What's clear is that the pay gap between U.S. CEOs and rank-and-file workers is higher than anywhere else in the developed world. And it has been accelerating over the last few decades. In 1965, the U.S. CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was roughly 20 to 1."

Your alleged anecdotes are beyond clownish, and your reading comprehension abilities track low, as well. If you're happy being a wage slave, you are welcome to it.

U.S. CEOs paid 231 times more than average workers - Los Angeles Times

 

[gnarlylove]

Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.

What part of this, do you people not get?

This idea is fundamentally flawed. Humanity doesn't exist to generate profit or to have a job; we are meant to survive and flourish. Paying them wages of less than 5 dollars a day is not conducive to this goal, its plain exploitation. This game of cheap labor keeps the system flowing with huge profits by those doing the exploitation (huge multi-national corporations) while passing a fraction of the savings onto the consumer. Some Liz Claiborn shirts sell for $75 and the worker is paid 3 cents per shirt. Go figure.

By crushing subsistence farming in local areas you create the demand for cheap labor. This cheap labor is waiting to be exploited because they are living in destitution. No work means total suffering. Work means total suffering with a slight pay off of two meals a day. Now that local forces have destroyed their former livelihood they are moving into cities hoping of a better future but their future ends up being total dependence on their job for sustenance. SO that means they will accept virtually any pay as long as it results in SOME food instead of nothing.

It's a mix of these people's hopes being dashed via exploitation and the fact that these people are not profit maximizing entities. They are human beings with families trying give their children more opportunities instead of mere subsistence farming. So they are willing to undergo exploitation for hopes that almost never manifest because they must work all day and their spouse works all night.

 

[Andylusion]

Greed is the only thing that guarantees rising inequality. Just greed. If Fortune 500 corporations spent their record-breaking quarterly profits, wealth inequality would automatically decline.

Then Republicans could say, "Trickle-down economics really works."

No it wouldn't. What are you talking about?

The source of wealth inequality, is the choices that people make to either consume, or invest their wealth.

No amount of "spending of corporate profits" is ever going to change that.

I don't know why this is so hard for people on the left to understand.

If you have two farmers.... and both farmers have an equal amount of corn. One Farmer eats very very little, and plants the rest. The other farmer cooks up all the corn and has a feast.

At harvest, one farmer is going to be wealthy, with a crop of corn. The other farmer will be impoverished with nothing.

Wealth is either created, or it is consumed. The difference between wealthy people, and poor people, (generally speaking), is that one consumes their wealth, and the other invests it and grows it.

This is why the vast majority of millionaire lottery winners end up bankrupt in 10 years.

Sharon Tirabassi, won $10 Million dollars in 2004. Today she's broke. All the wealth is gone. She's working a part time job, has no car, rides the bus to work.

$10 Million dollars gone.

She consumed her wealth.

Alternatively take Steve Jobs. Jobs got $5 Million dollars. What did he do with it? He bought Pixar, which in 2006 was worth $7.4 Billion, employs over 600 people, and produced dozens of box office hit movies like Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, and Bug's Life.

Are you grasping this? All the handouts, all the spending, all the government programs in the world, will never fix this.

As long as people are able to choose what to do with their money, there will always be the PinBall People, and the Beer Pong people.

Where does that come from?

It comes from the story of Warren Buffet.

When Warren Buffet was in High School, he was working a paper route. He saved up money from his route, and bought a PinBall machine. He placed the Pinball machine in a local business, where it earned more money.

What do most people do in high school? I can't speak for everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do with money, was you bought a keg of beer, went to someone's home whose parents were away, and you played Beer Pong, and drank your money away.

Pinball people, and Beer Pong people.

There will always be Pinball people, who invest their wealth into growing more wealth. There will always be Beer Pong people, who consume their wealth, and are poor.

Nothing you do, no economic system you employ, no government policy you put in place, will ever change this. Some people will consume all they have. Others will invest all they have. The people invest, will have concentrated wealth. The people who consume, will have little to nothing.

 

[Andylusion]

Even if your latest anecdote isn't more BS, how many total employees does your alleged employer have? How many total man hours per week does your owner pay for? What's the ratio of your owner's hours toil per week to total hours per week worked by all employees? Whats the ratio of your owner's pay to his latest stock room hire?

What difference does that make? If he's putting in 60 hours a week, and I'm putting in 40, and he has to take all the responsibility for everything in the company, and I take no responsibility except for my work table.... you are telling me that there should be any ratio between us?

The only reason anyone should care about that, is if they are greedy and envious of others.

And don't make me laugh.... So he's putting twice as much into the company than I ever have, and so magically now I get to count all the other employees hours, as my own? Sorry, that's not logic, not intelligent, and rather stupid. Well there's 4 employees, and so we're putting in 160 hours, to his 60.......... really......

That is the most mindlessly stupid argument I've ever heard. Not to mention none of us have degrees. None of us have mortgaged our home to buy the company. None of us worked our way up over 20 years. But apparently that doesn't count in leftard land. Nope, add up all the hours everyone else works, and if it's greater than the CEO, then we ought to be paid as much.... dur dur......

Please.... are you trying to make me think you are a clown?

So far, you've posted nothing to make me think you are even capable of independent, critical thought.

"The average U.S. chief executive earned more than $11 million last year in salary, stock options and other compensation, according to a new analysis by the Economic Policy Institute. That’s about 231 times more, on average, than workers..."

"...What's clear is that the pay gap between U.S. CEOs and rank-and-file workers is higher than anywhere else in the developed world. And it has been accelerating over the last few decades. In 1965, the U.S. CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was roughly 20 to 1."

Your alleged anecdotes are beyond clownish, and your reading comprehension abilities track low, as well. If you're happy being a wage slave, you are welcome to it.

U.S. CEOs paid 231 times more than average workers - Los Angeles Times

Resorting exclusively to personal attacks. You lost GP. You lost. The argument is over, and you don't have anything. Good debate sir, but you have made your last point, and it's only personal attacks. There is nothing left for you to say, or you would have said it.

Good day. Be well.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not saying that Sawant is Stalin. I am saying that simply because she is not taking the $117K, doesn't mean her policies are good.

Your point went over my head. I guess drawing comparisons to a murderous dictator didn't seem apt given such a benign point of deductive logic. I agree this is insufficient evidence to think her policies are the best or that they even work.

But given her decision to stand in solidarity with the working class is noteworthy. Moreover, she refused corporate donations meaning there are no direct corporate influence on her policy. We can certainly say this is a refreshing change from millionaire politicians in the media.

Nobody denies money is changing our democratic system. Genuine representative democracy is often buried behind corporate contributions. So special and monied interest win the day typically rather than folks with average incomes. So her decision to accept the average income and refuse corporate contributions is certainly a STEP in the right direction IF our goal is to have a representative democracy instead of a plutocracy.

The term "plutocracy" is utterly meaningless. Lefty's throw it around like they throw the word "fascist" and "racist" around. Any society where incomes aren't 100% equal can be labeled a "plutocracy." In other words, every society can be labeled as such. The term doesn't serve to distinguish one form of government from another.

Also, if you think "Genuine representative democracy" would be any better than the kind we have, you're sadly naïve. The majority isn't any more wise, caring, just or principled than the so-called "plutocracy." Democracies are noted for the venality, cruelty, arbitrariness and general idiocy. The lynch mob is democracy in its purest form.

 

[Andylusion]

The cause is clearly without a doubt the fact that decisions were made with bad information.

The cause is clearly NOT a result of mandated loans based on the CRA. It is a FACT that sub-prime loans were willingly taken on by these institutions independent of mandates of the law.

F&F could have made MBS with all sub-prime loans. That doesn't mean the market will automatically follow suit and rate them AAA and buy them like they are. You keep acting like F&F is dictating the nature of the market while completely ignoring the fact that they are NOT A RATINGS AGENCY. F&F can make all of the MBS they want but it is the choice of those institutions to buy them.

There is not a single decision maker at these institutions that will ever say that F&F dictated to them beyond the mandates of the CRA. Yet that is exactly what you are claiming which is total nonsense.

Your understanding of a single cause in 1997 is a fools errand. There is little to no reason to think the historical nature of this bubble is due to something that happened in 97 nor is there great evidence that mandated loans were a major cause.

MBS are a significantly different issue than mandated loans. They don't represent a mandate by government. Instead they are a financial instrument that is meant to help manage risk, whether it is mandated or not. The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.

As for GSA, I think there is far more evidence that it resulted in increased risk across the board and it played a part in the bailout.

Again, the information prior to 1997, was that sub-prime loans were not good investment securities. That's why no one sold a single MBS with sub-prime loans.

So obviously, after decades with zero Sub-prime MBSs, and then suddenly tons of sub-prime MBSs, indicates someone changed the information. That was government, through Freddie Mac, which securitized sub-prime MBSs, making people believe they were safe.

Yes, bad information, caused by government, motivated by CRA laws, was the cause.

Look.... before Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating... they never rated sub-prime loans with a AAA rating. You can keep saying that Freddie Mac is not a rating agency, but what happened is a fact. It's not up for you to debate. This is in fact what happened. Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans in MBSs, an implied AAA rating which had never happened before in history.

That a fact dude. You can't argue it, when that is in fact what happened. "THEY ARE NOT A RATING AGENCY!" Dur.... doesn't matter. That's what happened! "BUT BUT!" Dude.... this is established historical fact. It will never change no matter how many times you repeat your complaint.

Before Freddie Mac gave them an implied AAA rating, not one single sub-prime loan had ever gotten a AAA rating.

Period. Stop arguing against established fact. You lose. You can't change the facts.

Again, once the standard was lowered..... they didn't have to mandate anything. The standard was lowered. Period. Doesn't matter what they mandated or what they didn't. There is no 'sub-sub-prime' loan. Once you lower the standard to sub-prime, below the prime rate, it's lower than the prime rate. That's it. Game over. It's now sub-prime. Period.

The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.

No, sorry. You fail at logic. They lowered the standard. The moment they lowered the standard so that you could have a sub-prime loan in a MBS, that's it. That changed the standard.

You evidently don't know about Fannie and Freddies "alt-a" loans. Those loans exist specifically for low-doc, or no-doc loans. That's what Alt-A is.

And no. You are wrong about the GSA. It had nothing to do with risk. And it didn't play a part in the bailouts. You are just making up stuff now.

Now you are just making crap up to fit your world view. The government can't just change the way things are rated in a market and F&F certainly can't. F&F can't sell anything that doesn't have a market and the only reason there was a market was because everyone was using the same formula and everyone was wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(statistics)

The idea that mandating lower standards automatically meant all standards are lowered is complete and total gibberish. If certain risk is being mandated that puts extra pressure on the rest of the portfolio to be less risky, not more. You are completely and totally wrong.

Until financial institutions and ratings agencies bought into the copula formula there wasn't a market. You keep using the word "imply" like it means anything in this discussion. It doesn't.

Ratings agencies don't rate something AAA because a government agency "implied" something.

Financial institutions don't buy MBS because the government "implied" that it was all ok.

Yes GSA changed the marketplace. It is hardly important in this conversation though.

It is kind of strange to see anyone make the argument you are making. It is like you think the decision makers at these institutions are brain dead who can't think for themselves. It is like F&F makes some decisions and everyone else just follows along like Lemmings. You should tell your tall tail to them sometimes. It would be great fun to watch.

Ok, here is the official press release again.

CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- First Union Capital Markets Corp.
and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the
industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union
Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact - they will
continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA
loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and
neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy
capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit
to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing
director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs.
"First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally
underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible
affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to
aggressively serve those markets."
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
and have an implied "AAA" rating.​

Now... what did I make up? Let's start there, and then I'll answer the rest of your post.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.

What part of this, do you people not get?

This idea is fundamentally flawed. Humanity doesn't exist to generate profit or to have a job; we are meant to survive and flourish. Paying them wages of less than 5 dollars a day is not conducive to this goal, its plain exploitation. This game of cheap labor keeps the system flowing with huge profits by those doing the exploitation (huge multi-national corporations) while passing a fraction of the savings onto the consumer. Some Liz Claiborn shirts sell for $75 and the worker is paid 3 cents per shirt. Go figure.

By crushing subsistence farming in local areas you create the demand for cheap labor. This cheap labor is waiting to be exploited because they are living in destitution. No work means total suffering. Work means total suffering with a slight pay off of two meals a day. Now that local forces have destroyed their former livelihood they are moving into cities hoping of a better future but their future ends up being total dependence on their job for sustenance. SO that means they will accept virtually any pay as long as it results in SOME food instead of nothing.

It's a mix of these people's hopes being dashed via exploitation and the fact that these people are not profit maximizing entities. They are human beings with families trying give their children more opportunities instead of mere subsistence farming. So they are willing to undergo exploitation for hopes that almost never manifest because they must work all day and their spouse works all night.

Paying them wages of less than 5 dollars a day is not conducive to this goal, its plain exploitation.

If the alternative is a job paying them $4 a day or no job at all, I think $5 a day is fucking awesome.

Maybe you should start a company and pay these exploited workers a fair wage?
Let us know how that works out, would you?

 

[georgephillip]

If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........ I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.

Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding. But for sure, he's not a "parasite". You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.

What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?

Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.

What....? 0.o Are you serious?

Bain Capital, has built, and grown, and expanded dozens of companies of their years, and Romney was a principal investor. Look at the companies... in the real economy.... that are alive and well, and employ thousands of people, and provide billions in wealth to the country that our citizens enjoy.

AMC Theatres
Aspen Education Group
Brookstone
Burger King
Burlington Coat Factory
Canada Goose
Clear Channel Communications
Domino's Pizza
DoubleClick
Dunkin' Donuts
D&M Holdings
Guitar Center
Hospital Corporation of America (HCA)
Sealy
Sports Authority
Staples
Toys "R" Us
Warner Music Group
The Weather Channel

And you want to claim his investments have not benefited the public?

Do you not know or understand how investment works? Because you are not coming across as knowledgeable in this area.

How would you know who is knowledgeable about investment and who isn't?

"Mitt Romney has taken to saying that he created more than 100,000 net jobs through his work in the private sector, and more jobs as governor than President Obama has created since taking office.

"But the first claim is unproven, and the second is misleading.

"It’s true that the private equity firm Bain Capital, which Romney headed from 1984 to 1999, invested in many companies that went on to add jobs. But there’s no thorough count of the jobs gained and lost in all the companies in which Bain invested.

"And it’s highly debatable whether Bain, and Romney, deserve credit for all of the jobs created, particularly when there were other investors, executives who launched or ran the companies, and new owners in later years.

"As for his time as governor, Romney’s claim is true as far as it goes.

"But he’s comparing his full four years in office with fewer than three years for Obama.

"Furthermore, he governed Massachusetts at a time of economic improvement. And he didn’t do that well when compared with other states. Obama took office when the economy was tanking."

Romney?s Shaky Job Claims

You're coming across as an adolescent ideologue who's confused by how capitalism works in an adult world.

 

[georgephillip]

In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.

And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....

How are you defining "successful?"
$100,000 per year?
$1,000,000 per year??
Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?

That must make me DOUBLY EVILLLLLLLL since I make a shitload selling "health Insurance".

For Tony Soprano or Chris Christie?

 

[Andylusion]

What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?

Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.

What....? 0.o Are you serious?

Bain Capital, has built, and grown, and expanded dozens of companies of their years, and Romney was a principal investor. Look at the companies... in the real economy.... that are alive and well, and employ thousands of people, and provide billions in wealth to the country that our citizens enjoy.

AMC Theatres
Aspen Education Group
Brookstone
Burger King
Burlington Coat Factory
Canada Goose
Clear Channel Communications
Domino's Pizza
DoubleClick
Dunkin' Donuts
D&M Holdings
Guitar Center
Hospital Corporation of America (HCA)
Sealy
Sports Authority
Staples
Toys "R" Us
Warner Music Group
The Weather Channel

And you want to claim his investments have not benefited the public?

Do you not know or understand how investment works? Because you are not coming across as knowledgeable in this area.

How would you know who is knowledgeable about investment and who isn't?

"Mitt Romney has taken to saying that he created more than 100,000 net jobs through his work in the private sector, and more jobs as governor than President Obama has created since taking office.

"But the first claim is unproven, and the second is misleading.

"It’s true that the private equity firm Bain Capital, which Romney headed from 1984 to 1999, invested in many companies that went on to add jobs. But there’s no thorough count of the jobs gained and lost in all the companies in which Bain invested.

"And it’s highly debatable whether Bain, and Romney, deserve credit for all of the jobs created, particularly when there were other investors, executives who launched or ran the companies, and new owners in later years.

"As for his time as governor, Romney’s claim is true as far as it goes.

"But he’s comparing his full four years in office with fewer than three years for Obama.

"Furthermore, he governed Massachusetts at a time of economic improvement. And he didn’t do that well when compared with other states. Obama took office when the economy was tanking."

Romney?s Shaky Job Claims

You're coming across as an adolescent ideologue who's confused by how capitalism works in an adult world.

None of that changes anything I said.

Did Bain Capital invest in those companies? Yes. Period. You can't debate that.

Did those companies create jobs? Yes. Period. You can't debate that either.

The only thing they debate is if Bain Capital, or the CEOs who created those individual companies should get the credit. That's a false presupposition, that only one can get credit. It's both.

Most companies start off with a single guy building the company, and then later have investor that help grow the company.

That's typically the primary reason companies go public and sell stock, to begin with. Its to build capital so they can expand and grow.

To then think that companies don't need investor to expand, but get them anyway for no reason, is the words of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[georgephillip]

Just four blocks from the White House is the headquarters of the Employment Policies Institute, a widely quoted economic research center whose academic reports have repeatedly warned that increasing the minimum wage could be harmful, increasing poverty and unemployment.
But something fundamental goes unsaid in the institute’s reports: The nonprofit group is run by a public relations firm that also represents the restaurant industry, as part of a tightly coordinated effort to defeat the minimum wage increase that the White House and Democrats in Congress have pushed for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/u...ge-illustrates-web-of-industry-ties.html?_r=0

"In this case, the policy dispute is over whether increasing the minimum wage by nearly 40 percent to $10.10 an hour within two and a half years would reduce poverty or further it.

"Even if the legislation never passes — and it is unlikely to, given the political divide in Congress — millions of dollars will be spent this year on lobbying firms, nonprofit research organizations and advertising campaigns, as industry groups like the National Restaurant Association and the National Retail Federation try to bury it.

"Liberal groups, in turn, will be spending lots of money as they try to make the debate a political issue for the midterm elections."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/us/politics/fight-over-minimum-wage-illustrates-web-of-industry-ties.html?_r=1

 

[georgephillip]

I have. And, call me paranoid, but I suspect it'll be the next thing they'll try to centralize control over. They've all but succeeded with health care, and I suspect the food supply is next.

FWIW, I don't think you engage in paranoid thinking on matters like these.
Gramm-Leach-Bililey seems a prime example of how "they", meaning government in service to private wealth, enact laws that work to the economic detriment of most citizens.

"...banks aren't just buying stuff, they're buying whole industrial processes. They're buying oil that's still in the ground, the tankers that move it across the sea, the refineries that turn it into fuel, and the pipelines that bring it to your home.

"Then, just for kicks, they're also betting on the timing and efficiency of these same industrial processes in the financial markets – buying and selling oil stocks on the stock exchange, oil futures on the futures market, swaps on the swaps market, etc.

"Allowing one company to control the supply of crucial physical commodities, and also trade in the financial products that might be related to those markets, is an open invitation to commit mass manipulation.

"It's something akin to letting casino owners who take book on NFL games during the week also coach all the teams on Sundays…"

?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi

Didn't Kissinger draw a comparison between controlling oil and controlling food?

Matt is funny when he gets sand in his vagina.

When a single company controls the supply of crucial physical commodities and trades in complex financial products related to those markets, does that plant happy pennies in your pussy?