Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

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.

So how many jobs did Mitt create and how many did he destroy?

"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."

You're the only one so far to make the claim "that companies don't need investors to expand." My point is that some investors value personal financial gain over the greatest economic good for the greatest number of workers.

Romney?s Shaky Job Claims

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism is what happens when corruption is endemic to a political economic system.

"What chiefly drives this sort of political corruption today is capitalism's structure.

"For many capitalist enterprises, competitive and other pressures exist to increase profits, growth rates, and/or market share.

"Their boards and top managers seek to find cheaper produced inputs and cheaper labor power, to extract more output from their workers, to sell their outputs at the highest possible prices and to find more profitable technologies.

"The structure provides them with every incentive of financial gain and/or career security and advancement to behave in those ways.

"Thus, boards and top managers seek the maximum obtainable assistance of government officials in all these areas and also try to pay the least possible portion of their net revenues as taxes.

"Boards of directors tap their corporations' profits to corrupt mostly the top echelons of the government bureaucracy, those needed to make advantageous official decisions."

Political Corruption and Capitalism | Professor Richard D. Wolff

Capitalism could not exist in a system that made it impossible for private wealth to dictate public policy; democratized workplaces where workers collectively direct their collective destinies is where Capitalism dies.

It's true, the bigger government becomes, the greater the chance for corruption.

Shrink government now!

The Tea Party is glad you agree.

The TP LOVES off-shoring and business visas.
That's JUST what we need right now to boost employment.

Stupid liberals love to make it harder to hire people and then whine that not enough are hired.
Now they want to reward criminal invaders with citizenship.
Because that will help low-skill Americans earn more.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Capitalism is what happens when corruption is endemic to a political economic system.

Hmmmm, no. corruption is endemic wherever government sticks its nose. There's no corruption in transactions between one business and another. Corruption only obtains in transactions between business and government or between private individuals and government.

["What chiefly drives this sort of political corruption today is capitalism's structure.

Nope. Government is the cause of all corruption. Government is the monopoly on the use of force. Whenever you introduce force into a transaction, corruption is inevitable. Politicians and bureaucrats are not spending their own money. They have no personal financial stake in the transactions that government makes. There is therefor no disincentive for them to sell out the people who do have a financial stake in the transaction.

"For many capitalist enterprises, competitive and other pressures exist to increase profits, growth rates, and/or market share.

"Their boards and top managers seek to find cheaper produced inputs and cheaper labor power, to extract more output from their workers, to sell their outputs at the highest possible prices and to find more profitable technologies.

"The structure provides them with every incentive of financial gain and/or career security and advancement to behave in those ways.

"Thus, boards and top managers seek the maximum obtainable assistance of government officials in all these areas and also try to pay the least possible portion of their net revenues as taxes.

"Boards of directors tap their corporations' profits to corrupt mostly the top echelons of the government bureaucracy, those needed to make advantageous official decisions."

You're ignoring the fact that without the participation of politicians and government officials no corruption could occur. Somehow corporate executives are responsible for the failure of politicians and bureaucrats to fulfill their oaths of office and protect the taxpayers.

Political Corruption and Capitalism | Professor Richard D. Wolff

Capitalism could not exist in a system that made it impossible for private wealth to dictate public policy; democratized workplaces where workers collectively direct their collective destinies is where Capitalism dies.

Sure it could. Capitalism can exist without government entirely. Worker collectives are where workers die. They starve to death. Your belief that they can't be corrupt is laughable. There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support such a claim.

 

[georgephillip]

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?

What single company controls the supply of oil?

Goldman Sachs and/or Morgan Stanley seem a likely pair of suspects

"...For nearly a decade, this obscure provision of Gramm-Leach-Bliley effectively applied to nobody.

"Then, in the third week of September 2008, while the economy was imploding after the collapses of Lehman and AIG, two of America's biggest investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, found themselves in desperate need of emergency financing.

"So late on a Sunday night, on September 21st, to be exact, the two banks announced they had applied to the Federal Reserve to become bank holding companies, which would give them lifesaving access to emergency cash from the Fed's discount window.

"The Fed granted the requests overnight.

"The move saved the bacon of both firms, and it had one additional benefit: It made Goldman and Morgan Stanley, which both had significant commodity-trading operations prior to 1997, the first and last two companies to qualify for the grandfather exemption of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. 'Kind of convenient, isn't it?' says one congressional aide. 'It's almost like the law was written specifically for them.'"

"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.

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

 

[Bombur]

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.

Do you simply not get wtf is being talked about here or what?

No one is arguing that the MBS were created without the intent that they were going to be given a AAA rating. F&F could have used any formula they wanted in an attempt to create a AAA rated MBS but that doesn't make it AAA.

F&F didn't just wake up one day and decide that there was a market for MBS and they could "imply" they were AAA and therefor get a AAA rating. Bear Stearns didn't just blindly jump into this deal without knowing what went into the creation of the MBS. F&F can't do any of this without the market participants knowing what is going into the MBS.

The first round of MBS were not even the problem. The problem was the MBS formula not being able to adapt to the price bubble and no one buying, selling, or rating the MBS knew enough about the formula to stop it.

Also ZERO of this discussion about MBS even remotely establishes that the market can't handle the added risk of mandated sub-prime loans.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

What single company controls the supply of oil?

Goldman Sachs and/or Morgan Stanley seem a likely pair of suspects

"...For nearly a decade, this obscure provision of Gramm-Leach-Bliley effectively applied to nobody.

"Then, in the third week of September 2008, while the economy was imploding after the collapses of Lehman and AIG, two of America's biggest investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, found themselves in desperate need of emergency financing.

"So late on a Sunday night, on September 21st, to be exact, the two banks announced they had applied to the Federal Reserve to become bank holding companies, which would give them lifesaving access to emergency cash from the Fed's discount window.

"The Fed granted the requests overnight.

"The move saved the bacon of both firms, and it had one additional benefit: It made Goldman and Morgan Stanley, which both had significant commodity-trading operations prior to 1997, the first and last two companies to qualify for the grandfather exemption of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. 'Kind of convenient, isn't it?' says one congressional aide. 'It's almost like the law was written specifically for them.'"

"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.

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

Wrong. I doubt GS or MS have anything to do with the oil industry. As I suspected, it was just another of your delusions.

 

[Andylusion]

Didn't G-S get a BAIL-OUT which allowed them to do this?

No Goldman Sachs didn't get a bailout. Goldman Sachs was never in any trouble.

It's not your fault for not knowing this, because of the way the "bailout" worked.

It actually was not a bailout. The firms who got money, were never the firms that were bankrupt. The Federal Reserve gave money, through TARP, to healthy banks, in order to get those banks to buy bankrupt banks.

Think of it like this.... say your buddy is selling a car for $5,000, that happens to have a broken engine. You know that if you buy the car, it will cost you $5,000 to fix the engine. The car in good condition is only worth $8,000.

You'll end up spending $10,000 ($5K to buy, and $5K to fix), in order to get a car that is only worth $8,000. You would lose money doing this deal. In fact no one would do this deal. Your buddy would be stuck with the car.

But let's say that the government came in, and decided it was so incredibly important that the car is sold, that they came to you, and suggested, if they give you the $5,000 to buy the car, will you buy it?

So the government gives you $5K, and you pay $5K to have it fixed, and sell the car for $8,000, you made an easy $3,000 dollars profit on the deal.

This is kind of what happened with the banks. The government didn't give money to Countrywide Financial. Go look it up. The government did not give money to them. The government gave money to Bank of American, to buy Countrywide Financial. BoA, was not in any trouble. They didn't get bailed out, because they were in no trouble to get bailed out from. Countrywide Financial, was the bank that was going bankrupt, and they didn't get any money. There was no actual "bailout".

That's what happened. Government paid other banks, banks that were completely fine, to buy out banks that were broke. The government didn't actually "bail out" any bank.

The people who got "bailed out", were the investors into the bad banks. The people who gave money to Bear Stearns, they got 100¢ on the dollar back from their bad investment, courtesy of the American Tax Payer. Who are the bond holders? For Bear Stearns, the Chinese financial firm Citic Securities, walked away with $1 Billion dollars from US tax payers. Thanks government! You sure saved us!

What should have happened, is what happened with Lehman Brothers. The people who gave Lehman Brothers money, ended up with about 22¢ on the dollar. And guess what.... the world kept spinning. We're all still here. If that had happened, I wager we'd be in better economic situation than we are now.

But the morons we elected into office, determined to give out tax money, and then stimulus, and cash for clunkers, and on and on....

 

[Andylusion]

Why not try out socialism in a tight, well organized high profile part of American society? Let's get behind the effort to pay actors the same scale as the people behind the camera and the people who build the sets and if the income equality works in Hollywood we can try it in politics next. Wadda youse lefties say? Is it a deal?

How about we start on Wall Street and Hollywood?

Wall St doesn't hypocritically claim to be in favor of socialism. HollyWood does. You people on the left, start practicing what you preach first. Then if that works, maybe the rest of us will follow. Otherwise.... just shut up. Go preach at a Scientology church or something.

 

[Andylusion]

"U.S. Subpoenas Goldman in Inquiry of Aluminum Warehouses
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: August 12, 2013

"Goldman Sachs has been subpoenaed by federal regulators investigating complaints that the financial giant’s metals warehouses have intentionally created delays and inflated the price of aluminum.

"The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued subpoenas to Goldman and owners of other major warehouses as part of its inquiry into irregularities in the aluminum market that are believed to have cost consumers billions of dollars since 2010.

"The subpoenas seek all documents, e-mails, correspondence, voice recordings and other records concerning the warehouse operations dating back to January 2010, according to two people familiar with the documents.

"The subpoenas also demand documents and correspondence regarding the London Metals Exchange, a private trade association that regulates warehousing. The subpoenas indicate that the federal inquiry has 30 'areas of interest.'

"Goldman bought Metropolitan International Trade Services, a string of Detroit-area
metals warehouses, in 2010 and soon afterward beverage makers and manufacturers began complaining that the company was restricting the outflow of metal, causing lengthy delays in delivery.

"Those waits, which grew from six weeks in 2010 to around 16 months now, mean higher storage costs for metal owners, who are charged rent by the day."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/business/us-subpoenas-goldman-in-inquiry-of-aluminum-warehouses.html?_r=0

The blind faith that ignorant fools place in rich parasites like GS to extort rents in pursuit of private profit by socializing costs on consumers world-wide, doesn't mode well for democratic rule in this country.

You lost the argument again. Just like that. You didn't address, nor contradict a single statement. You didn't address any of the facts.

You have an allegation. Is innocent until proven guilty only apply to Leftards, and not the people they accuse?

Further, even if everything is proven true, does that change anything I said? Nope.

You lost dude. The argument is obviously over, and you have nothing left to add, or you would have said it by now.

Nothing you've linked to so far contradicts any of the allegations of price fixing I've made against GS.

If GS ducks another conviction it will be due to the political corruption that Capitalism has never existed without

"An analyst at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) has raised its price target on Alcoa Inc. (NYSE: AA) from $12 to $15, a jump of about 36% from the stock’s trading price of around $11 and change late Tuesday afternoon. The research note is cited a Barron’s:

"Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) has reduced the weight of its F-150 pickup by 700 pounds using aluminum instead of steel for some body panels, and Goldman’s analyst thinks other carmakers will follow suit.

"That is good news for Alcoa, but it’s also good news for Goldman.

"Goldman owns a Detroit-based warehouse operator, Metro International, that has been the subject of complaints from aluminum users like The Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE: KO) which filed a complaint with the London Metal Exchange (LME) in 2011 alleging that Metro brought aluminum into its warehouses and then refused to let the stuff leave, which caused delays in delivery, higher storage charges, and, ultimately, higher prices for aluminum.

"Last July Goldman agreed to swap spot shipments for its warehoused aluminum after Coca-Cola and MillerCoors again complained of difficulty in getting aluminum shipped from the warehouse.

"In late December Goldman announced an increase of $0.03 per metric ton effective in April, from $0.48 to $0.51, to store aluminum in its warehouse."

Goldman: Aluminum Looks Good; By the Way, We Own Warehouses Full of the Stuff - MarketWatch

Nothing you've linked to so far contradicts any of the allegations of price fixing I've made against GS.

Who cares? Do you not know the difference between established fact, and an allegation?

Now I'm supposed to debate with you over allegations you, nor me, can prove either way?

You lost the argument. You failed. Your post proves it. If this is all you have, then you have nothing. Thanks for stopping by. Try having a point next time.

 

[Bombur]

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.

I have already told you why this analogy is brain dead stupid.

Rising inequality has to do with markets. The fact that there is inequality at all has to do with individuals. The issue being talked about is RISING INEQUALITY.

You literally don't know wtf is being talked about and this thread is on page 129 or something. Inequality is rising even as Americans are working more and improving their education more.

If you understood the first thing about market economics you would know how ridiculous you sound.

 

[Andylusion]

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!

How's the oil production in Fallujah?

"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

"Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs.

"They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

How many people had their lives ruined in Iraq and Afghanistan from capitalism's inherent dependence on war and debt?

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' - Middle East - World - The Independent

You lost yet again! LOL. That didn't address anything I said. It makes no valid points at all. Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

You lose again sir.

Pro-Debating Hint: Posting stuff that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic, proves you lost the argument. Because if you had a point, you would make it. The fact you are just spewing random crap, proves you can't make a point.

Every single time you post random crap, that doesn't contradict, address, or make any kind of a counter point, I'm going to call you out on it, and let you know you lost the argument. Because that's what you are proving, by making pointless unrelated posts.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

So how many jobs did Mitt create and how many did he destroy?

"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."

You're the only one so far to make the claim "that companies don't need investors to expand." My point is that some investors value personal financial gain over the greatest economic good for the greatest number of workers.

Romney?s Shaky Job Claims

Mitt didn't destroy ANY jobs. If a company is successful and profitable, investment makes it more successful, and more profitable. If a company is unsuccessful, and unprofitable, all the investment in the world can't fix that.

When an investment buys a company, they NEVER buy it just to make a profitable successful company, into a failure. You lose money doing that. It's not possible (contrary to moronic economically illiterate leftards), to make a profit by destroying a company.

If you think you can do that, by all means let's see you try. You'll find out pretty quick, what a moronic theory that is.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I have already told you why this analogy is brain dead stupid.

Rising inequality has to do with markets. The fact that there is inequality at all has to do with individuals. The issue being talked about is RISING INEQUALITY.

You literally don't know wtf is being talked about and this thread is on page 129 or something. Inequality is rising even as Americans are working more and improving their education more.

If you understood the first thing about market economics you would know how ridiculous you sound.

Libturds have been whining about "rising inequality" ever since Karl Marx published Dad Kapital. Inequality only matters if it's the result of government favoritism. That explains the current wave of it, if it exists. Government and crony capitalism are the cause, not the free market.

 

[gnarlylove]

I keep reading the same old worn out templates. The government is full of corruption but the private sector is our golden ticket. So we need to bow down to the market and enjoy our participation in the private sector--most likely selling my body and time for survival. But when it comes to the government, or really just democrats, massive problems exist. Suffice to say, the claim is we need more freedom in the private sector and less government thereby reducing the restrictions and multiplying freedom.

Our concept of freedom is irresponsible at best.

Reducing restrictions is not a guarantee desirable freedom, it only reduces responsibility companies must take for their actions, like dumping waste. Freedom from responsibility is a poor way to advocate for freedom. Refusing to accept responsibility tends to lead to greater problems down the road. Like eating a poor diet may feel like freedom at first but in the long run it's guaranteed to make you sick, less productive and likely obese. Accepting restrictions or taking responsibility can reflect a good character because it ultimately lend itself to greater freedoms--by eating healthy one can do more and feel better doing it.

I'm not saying the government functions like it should by any means and many laws or restrictions have been gutted so they don't really serve the public interest.

But is anyone aware that those in government are of the same ilk that operates over half the private sector/global economy? Why do we think the government is the only problem when government officials, after serving their purpose, are hired onto the board of directors of major corporations? Doesn't this sound fishy to Republicans?

 

[gnarlylove]

We like to think the private sector is based solely on merit and hard work. Indeed, I've read this a thousand times here but upon any scrutiny, one can see success and affluence centers around inheritance and proper networking or knowing the right people. This is diametrically opposed to a genuine meritocratic system, which is based on one's ability, not who you know or where you were born. A local commercial for employment at a hospital was proud to announce their general staff consisted of mostly relatives and family members. So if you want to work there fuck being the best, just know the right people and the job is yours.

Sounds all too familiar. I only receive call backs for jobs where I know a current employee. This has happened too many times to be simple coincidence. It has nothing to do with merit since the positions I've applied for I have over 3 years of paid experience.

The private sector ideals are based in merit; however, we know how things are on paper are not how they operate in the real world (as with the government). So wake up and smell the corruption in the air. Of course not all businesses are corrupt, this is not my point, what I am saying is that the government and major businesses walk hand in hand to maintain their wealth and power in spite of aim for a meritocracy. No politician would deny we strive to be the most meritocratic system on earth but this is pure rhetoric and all you funky monkeys have bought it hook, line and banana. I know I don't live in a genuine meritocratic system.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Do you simply not get wtf is being talked about here or what?

No one is arguing that the MBS were created without the intent that they were going to be given a AAA rating. F&F could have used any formula they wanted in an attempt to create a AAA rated MBS but that doesn't make it AAA.

F&F didn't just wake up one day and decide that there was a market for MBS and they could "imply" they were AAA and therefor get a AAA rating. Bear Stearns didn't just blindly jump into this deal without knowing what went into the creation of the MBS. F&F can't do any of this without the market participants knowing what is going into the MBS.

The first round of MBS were not even the problem. The problem was the MBS formula not being able to adapt to the price bubble and no one buying, selling, or rating the MBS knew enough about the formula to stop it.

Also ZERO of this discussion about MBS even remotely establishes that the market can't handle the added risk of mandated sub-prime loans.

Yes, the first round of sub-prime MBSs were the problem. Default rates on Sub-prime MBS, dating all the way back to 1997, were double that of Prime-Rate loans.

Second, Yes, as a matter of fact, F&F did exactly that. They decided they could bundle sub-prime loans into MBSs and with the backing of the federal government, give those MBS a AAA rating. That's exactly what they did. They brought those Mortgage Backed Securities to the rating agencies, and asked they be given a AAA rating, because Freddie Mac with the backing of the Federal Government, was guaranteeing them, regardless of the Sub-prime loans bundled into them.

The rating Agencies followed suit. Should they have? Maybe not. But they did. Because Freddie Mac has the backing of the Federal Government, and only moronic retard would conclude that the agencies should defy the Federal Government.... especially when the Clinton administration was suing banks to make those types of loans.

Not smart to rebuff the President of the US.

 

[Bombur]

Libturds have been whining about "rising inequality" ever since Karl Marx published Dad Kapital. Inequality on matters if it's the result of government favoritism. That explains the current wave of it, if it exists. Government and crony capitalism are the cause, not the free market.

Theoretically possible but your position is 100% speculation and does not compare well with other data dealing with changes in the US labor market.

Whether you like it or not Marx predicted our current problems and understood the nature of the labor market, even if his solution was naive and ignorant. Marx's biggest fear was that Democracy would be taken over by money. So you have more in common with him than you might think.

 

[dblack]

That's a weird definition of freedom, don't you think? From where I sit, democracy isn't the same thing as freedom.

"people being treated the way they choose" is an odd way to construe freedom? Freedom is not synonymous with democracy but if practiced in a way that enables the people to decide their own fate, that sounds like increasing freedom.

Do you think majority rule allows people to decide their own fate? Do you understand that, for up to 49% of them, it actually denies their ability to decide their own fate?

I'd like to come back to this, because I've seen this meme pop up with increasing frequency lately. There seems to be an effort to redefine 'freedom' as the power for majority to dictate policy. That seems much closer to the opposite of freedom. Is this really how you see it? Or is it just a rhetorical device?

 

[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.

I have already told you why this analogy is brain dead stupid.

Rising inequality has to do with markets. The fact that there is inequality at all has to do with individuals. The issue being talked about is RISING INEQUALITY.

You literally don't know wtf is being talked about and this thread is on page 129 or something. Inequality is rising even as Americans are working more and improving their education more.

If you understood the first thing about market economics you would know how ridiculous you sound.

You literally don't know what you are talking about. That post was so simple, Forest Gump could have figured out my meaning, but you apparently can not.

Oh well. Some people are leftists, and ignorance is required to maintain that belief system. Good luck to you.

 

[Bombur]

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.

Do you simply not get wtf is being talked about here or what?

No one is arguing that the MBS were created without the intent that they were going to be given a AAA rating. F&F could have used any formula they wanted in an attempt to create a AAA rated MBS but that doesn't make it AAA.

F&F didn't just wake up one day and decide that there was a market for MBS and they could "imply" they were AAA and therefor get a AAA rating. Bear Stearns didn't just blindly jump into this deal without knowing what went into the creation of the MBS. F&F can't do any of this without the market participants knowing what is going into the MBS.

The first round of MBS were not even the problem. The problem was the MBS formula not being able to adapt to the price bubble and no one buying, selling, or rating the MBS knew enough about the formula to stop it.

Also ZERO of this discussion about MBS even remotely establishes that the market can't handle the added risk of mandated sub-prime loans.

Yes, the first round of sub-prime MBSs were the problem. Default rates on Sub-prime MBS, dating all the way back to 1997, were double that of Prime-Rate loans.

Second, Yes, as a matter of fact, F&F did exactly that. They decided they could bundle sub-prime loans into MBSs and with the backing of the federal government, give those MBS a AAA rating. That's exactly what they did. They brought those Mortgage Backed Securities to the rating agencies, and asked they be given a AAA rating, because Freddie Mac with the backing of the Federal Government, was guaranteeing them, regardless of the Sub-prime loans bundled into them.

The rating Agencies followed suit. Should they have? Maybe not. But they did. Because Freddie Mac has the backing of the Federal Government, and only moronic retard would conclude that the agencies should defy the Federal Government.... especially when the Clinton administration was suing banks to make those types of loans.

Not smart to rebuff the President of the US.

LOL it wasn't the default rates that were the problem.

No that is not how reality works. You are just making up crap again.