How Will the Rich Rule Without Money?

[Andylusion]

Parasite, implies that you are giving nothing, to get something.

If you are spending your rightfully earned money, to invest in something that produces goods and services, how is that being a parasite?

A parasite would be like Elon Musk, getting money from the government for green-energy grants that produce absolutely nothing for the the majority of the population. That's being a parasite.

A parasite would be Solyndra collecting millions from the government under Obama, and then just disappearing.

But if you are spending your hard earned cash, to make a risky but prudent investment, and having that investment pay off.... why is that being a parasite?

And along those lines, your ending question makes no sense. Investors are the owners, because they are investors. That's why they are the owners, because they invested.

Most employees today, are also investors. I am investor myself. I own shares in about two dozen companies. Now where I currently work, I don't have stock in that company, because I don't think it's a wise investment, but other companies I've worked for, I did have stock in. So I was an employee and a part owner at the same time.

Again, if you want to take part in the profits of the company.... buy stock. Stop whining about it, and buy stock in the company.

Parasite, implies that you are giving nothing, to get something.

Isn't that exactly the role shareholders play in our current common law property rights state?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn..."

"Shareholders at one time had some managerial responsibilities that they held with the firm.

"This was eventually shed, as eventually was their legal liability.

"The last responsibility to be shed was actually providing capital, as the above figures illustrate.

"So, much like aristocrats of old, shareholders today have shed all the responsibilities while retaining (and growing) all the benefits.

"This is the modern notion of privilege."

Oh... so they are aristocrats?

Public school Teachers, Unions, Walmart employees.... all of them are aristocrats of old in your world? Really.

Fail.

Public school Teachers, Unions, Walmart employees.... all of them are aristocrats of old in your world? Really.

Are Walmart employees entitled to a greater share of profits than Walmart shareholders who do nothing to produce those profits? How many seats on Walmart's board of directors are allocated to employees?

US Wealth Distribution, Stock Ownership Edition - The Big Picture

Are Walmart employees entitled to a greater share of profits than Walmart shareholders

No.

"The business judgment rule is a case law-derived doctrine in corporations law that courts defer to the business judgment of corporate executives.

"It is rooted in the principle that the 'directors of a corporation... are clothed with [the] presumption, which the law accords to them, of being [motivated] in their conduct by a bona fide regard for the interests of the corporation whose affairs the stockholders have committed to their charge'.[1]"

Business judgment rule - Wikipedia

Rich People Always Need More

Again.... shareholders are pensioners, 401Ks, IRAs, Union people, and so on. So you are basically saying that businesses should not do what is in the best interest of the people who own the company, when many of the people who own the company are the retired, and working people who have 401K and IRAs.

You know who didn't do what was in the best interest of the shareholders? Enron. Remember when all those employees were walking out of the building, complaining they lost their retirement money?

According to this post you made, that was good. Whose side are you really on?

 

[Andylusion]

You were free to buy JPM before the Fed increased their repo lending.

You were free to buy JPM before the Fed increased their repo lending.

Wouldn't that make me a parasite?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"The Principle of Property:
Like a feudal estate, a corporation is considered a piece of property — not a human community — so it can be owned and sold by the propertied class."

How is it the humans that create a corporation's wealth are commodities and human investors are its owners?

Parasite, implies that you are giving nothing, to get something.

If you are spending your rightfully earned money, to invest in something that produces goods and services, how is that being a parasite?

A parasite would be like Elon Musk, getting money from the government for green-energy grants that produce absolutely nothing for the the majority of the population. That's being a parasite.

A parasite would be Solyndra collecting millions from the government under Obama, and then just disappearing.

But if you are spending your hard earned cash, to make a risky but prudent investment, and having that investment pay off.... why is that being a parasite?

And along those lines, your ending question makes no sense. Investors are the owners, because they are investors. That's why they are the owners, because they invested.

Most employees today, are also investors. I am investor myself. I own shares in about two dozen companies. Now where I currently work, I don't have stock in that company, because I don't think it's a wise investment, but other companies I've worked for, I did have stock in. So I was an employee and a part owner at the same time.

Again, if you want to take part in the profits of the company.... buy stock. Stop whining about it, and buy stock in the company.

Parasite, implies that you are giving nothing, to get something.

Isn't that exactly the role shareholders play in our current common law property rights state?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn..."

"Shareholders at one time had some managerial responsibilities that they held with the firm.

"This was eventually shed, as eventually was their legal liability.

"The last responsibility to be shed was actually providing capital, as the above figures illustrate.

"So, much like aristocrats of old, shareholders today have shed all the responsibilities while retaining (and growing) all the benefits.

"This is the modern notion of privilege."

Oh... so they are aristocrats?

Public school Teachers, Unions, Walmart employees.... all of them are aristocrats of old in your world? Really.

Fail.

Public school Teachers, Unions, Walmart employees.... all of them are aristocrats of old in your world? Really.

Are Walmart employees entitled to a greater share of profits than Walmart shareholders who do nothing to produce those profits? How many seats on Walmart's board of directors are allocated to employees?

US Wealth Distribution, Stock Ownership Edition - The Big Picture

So what? Start buying more stocks and shares in the company then.

The 'wealth distribution' is a function of people not investing. Start investing.

 

[Unkotare]

The OP won't get the point until he's looking through the window and can't tell who is playing cards.

 

[Billiejeens]

Again... we've been over this before. You can't complain about shareholders, and then complain people shouldn't buy stock to be shareholders.

Shareholders should not have primacy over employees since it is the latter that produce the goods and services that make or break the corporation.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. - Wikipedia.

"Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919)[1] is a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford had to operate the Ford Motor Company in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a charitable manner for the benefit of his employees or customers.

"It is often cited as affirming the principle of 'shareholder primacy' in corporate America."

Shareholders should not have primacy over employees since it is the latter that produce the goods and services that make or break the corporation.

Liar.

He just doesnt know any better

 

[Billiejeens]

Frustrated that reality doesn’t flatter your ego, comrade? That’s where your futile promotion of the most definitively failed political/economic theory in world history really comes from, after all.

I'm more frustrated morons like you aren't abortion statistics.

Literally no one has ever died due to Capitalism.

 

[georgephillip]

Because of envy, jealousy and greed.

Your hero?

 

[Papageorgio]

Because of envy, jealousy and greed.

Your hero?

Why did you think he is my hero? Is it because I didn’t vote for him? Is it because I’m against his tax breaks? Is it because I’m against his increasing deficits? Is it because I won’t for him in 2020? Why do you bring up Trump when I believe your are driven by envy, jealousy and greed? You seem to be wanting to divert because I nailed what you are.

 

[Billiejeens]

Because of envy, jealousy and greed.

Your hero?

So - so.
As a hero
Heroic as our President
Against all odds
Against wanton treason waged against him

 

[Andylusion]

Because of envy, jealousy and greed.

Your hero?

So you can't debate anything we said.... and now you are back to random postings about Trump.... got it.

Thank you for stopping by, but this is proof you lost all of your arguments here.

 

[georgephillip]

Really? So if you own a house, and you hire someone to finish the basement, you would end up putting the needs of the builder over your own ownership of the house?

Hopefully you know the difference between a house and a corporation?

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. - Wikipedia

"By 1916, the Ford Motor Company had accumulated a capital surplus of $60 million.

"The price of the Model T, Ford's mainstay product, had been successively cut over the years while the wages of the workers had dramatically, and quite publicly, increased.

"The company's president and majority stockholder, Henry Ford, sought to end special dividends for shareholders in favor of massive investments in new plants that would enable Ford to dramatically increase production, and the number of people employed at his plants, while continuing to cut the costs and prices of his cars. In public defense of this strategy, Ford declared:

"'My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business.'"

Would you have sided with Henry or his shareholders?

 

[georgephillip]

Again.... shareholders are pensioners, 401Ks, IRAs, Union people, and so on. So you are basically saying that businesses should not do what is in the best interest of the people who own the company, when many of the people who own the company are the retired, and working people who have 401K and IRAs.

Actually, they are not...

We All Have a Stake in the Stock Market, Right? Guess Again

"A whopping 84 percent of all stocks owned by Americans belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of households. And that includes everyone’s stakes in pension plans, 401(k)’s and individual retirement accounts, as well as trust funds, mutual funds and college savings programs like 529 plans."

The stock market is a Ponzi scheme played by suckers and those who think making money from money counts as productive labor. It doesn't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Frustrated that reality doesn’t flatter your ego, comrade? That’s where your futile promotion of the most definitively failed political/economic theory in world history really comes from, after all.

I'm more frustrated morons like you aren't abortion statistics.

Do you have any proof that those people die because of capitalism?
Just because a Commie idiot says something.....doesn't count as proof.

Do you have any proof that those people die because of capitalism?
Just because a Commie idiot says something.....doesn't count as proof

Capitalism has never existed without war and worse:

If Communism Killed Millions, How Many Did Capitalism Kill?

It goes around every few years. “"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); font-family: medium-content-serif-font, Georgia, Cambria, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 21px; letter-spacing: -0.084px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);'>Communism killed 100 million people!!'

" Let’s take it face value. How awful.

"'So. 'What about capitalism?

"Let’s think about it together.

"And let me say at the outset that it’s not to score points — but so that we think carefully, and well, about what kind of people we want to be, and what kind of world we want."

Communism has never existed without war and worse.

Communism has never existed without war and worse.

When did communism crash the global economy and launch a world-wide war?

If Communism Killed Millions, How Many Did Capitalism Kill?

"Fast forward a century. A world war erupted — thanks, in large part, as historians agree, to a "); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); font-family: medium-content-serif-font, Georgia, Cambria, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 21px; letter-spacing: -0.084px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">global depression.

"But what caused the Great Depression? Capitalism — the speculative frenzy and inequality of the rip-roaring 1920s. Capitalism poured the fuel of fascism all over the world, in nations like Germany and Italy, who were heavily indebted by that point, and it only took a handful of demagogues to set the world alight. "); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); font-family: medium-content-serif-font, Georgia, Cambria, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 21px; letter-spacing: -0.084px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">How many people died in World War II? 25 million — just soldiers. 50 million — including civilians. 80 million — including famine, war crimes, and disease."

Are you distressed you didn't profit from that misery?

When did communism crash the global economy

Never. Commie economies are too small to have any impact on the world economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because of envy, jealousy and greed.

Your hero?

Liar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really? So if you own a house, and you hire someone to finish the basement, you would end up putting the needs of the builder over your own ownership of the house?

Hopefully you know the difference between a house and a corporation?

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. - Wikipedia

"By 1916, the Ford Motor Company had accumulated a capital surplus of $60 million.

"The price of the Model T, Ford's mainstay product, had been successively cut over the years while the wages of the workers had dramatically, and quite publicly, increased.

"The company's president and majority stockholder, Henry Ford, sought to end special dividends for shareholders in favor of massive investments in new plants that would enable Ford to dramatically increase production, and the number of people employed at his plants, while continuing to cut the costs and prices of his cars. In public defense of this strategy, Ford declared:

"'My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business.'"

Would you have sided with Henry or his shareholders?

"The company's president and majority stockholder, Henry Ford, sought to end special dividends for shareholders in favor of massive investments in new plants that would enable Ford to dramatically increase production, and the number of people employed at his plants, while continuing to cut the costs and prices of his cars. In public defense of this strategy, Ford declared:

"'My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business.'"

Would you have sided with Henry or his shareholders?

Sounds like Henry, as majority shareholder, got to decide.
The other shareholders were free to sell their shares if they disagreed with his plans.

Still looking for that employee expense and profit info?

 

[Andylusion]

Really? So if you own a house, and you hire someone to finish the basement, you would end up putting the needs of the builder over your own ownership of the house?

Hopefully you know the difference between a house and a corporation?

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. - Wikipedia

"By 1916, the Ford Motor Company had accumulated a capital surplus of $60 million.

"The price of the Model T, Ford's mainstay product, had been successively cut over the years while the wages of the workers had dramatically, and quite publicly, increased.

"The company's president and majority stockholder, Henry Ford, sought to end special dividends for shareholders in favor of massive investments in new plants that would enable Ford to dramatically increase production, and the number of people employed at his plants, while continuing to cut the costs and prices of his cars. In public defense of this strategy, Ford declared:

"'My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business.'"

Would you have sided with Henry or his shareholders?

Hopefully you know the difference between a house and a corporation?

Yeah, one you can relate to, and thus you don't want it to be like the other.

Both, you have people who own it. Whether a house, or a corporation, you have people who own it. The employee you hire to fix the roof of your house, or the employee you hire to run the assembly line, owns nothing.

You working somewhere, doesn't give you any ownership of it.

Whether I contract you to build my house for me, or whether I contract you to build this car on the assembly line, in both cases you have ZERO ownership of anything.

I own it. I invested in it. I provided the capital. I the owner, hire the executives to run it. I paid for materials used in it.

You.... show up... do your job... and get paid for what you do. That's it. You own nothing. If you want to be an owner, feel free. Use the money you earn doing your job, to buy ownership of your own house, or buy shares in the company, and then you can be the owner too.

Henry Ford, sought to end special dividends for shareholders

Not entirely true. He wanted to end special dividends during the time he planned to expand. There is no evidence he planned to never have dividends again.

Would you have sided with Henry or his shareholders?

The irony is, would you? Say you purchased $50 Million dollars in shares in a company. You based your decision to buy those shares, on the fact they paid dividends. Then say the CEO arbitrarily decided to cancel dividends.

You people seem to be holding this 100% profit driven Capitalist, as though he was a saint. Henry Ford, was a Capitalist. The reason he was cutting prices, and cutting production cost, and increasing efficiency, is because it made him hundreds of millions of dollars.

He was not cutting dividends, because he was selfless, and charitable. He was cutting dividends, because wanted to "INVEST"... do you know wealthy people "INVEST"? They invest, to get a RETURN ON INVESTMENT. ROI. Ford wasn't doing anything of this for the benefit of the public. He was doing this, for the same reason all people everywhere, do anything. To gain a profit.

Funny how quickly you spin yourself around, to be supporting the profit driven capitalism, that any other time you seem to be against.

So I side with the court. I think the courts answer was dead on right. They supported Henry Ford in reducing dividends to increase investment, but also said you still have a duty to your shareholders, as part owners in the company.

By the way.... I find it ironic that you would even bring this up, given your seeming hatred of wealthy dynasties. Do you even know the reason Ford had shares in the company at all? You know why they created shares of Ford? Henry didn't want to get hit with the inheritance tax. He created shares of Ford, to put them into the Ford Trust, which was shielded from taxation.

If there had been no tax, the Dodge Brothers would not have had any shares in Ford to begin with.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again.... shareholders are pensioners, 401Ks, IRAs, Union people, and so on. So you are basically saying that businesses should not do what is in the best interest of the people who own the company, when many of the people who own the company are the retired, and working people who have 401K and IRAs.

Actually, they are not...

We All Have a Stake in the Stock Market, Right? Guess Again

"A whopping 84 percent of all stocks owned by Americans belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of households. And that includes everyone’s stakes in pension plans, 401(k)’s and individual retirement accounts, as well as trust funds, mutual funds and college savings programs like 529 plans."

The stock market is a Ponzi scheme played by suckers and those who think making money from money counts as productive labor. It doesn't.

"A whopping 84 percent of all stocks owned by Americans belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of households...…..

The stock market is a Ponzi scheme played by suckers

Weird, the shareholders are the rich people and the smart people who avoid the market, like you (LOL!) are the poor people.

 

[Papageorgio]

Poor George exposed for the jealous, greedy, envious, lazy person he is. Take others money, pretty sad tale.

 

[Andylusion]

Again.... shareholders are pensioners, 401Ks, IRAs, Union people, and so on. So you are basically saying that businesses should not do what is in the best interest of the people who own the company, when many of the people who own the company are the retired, and working people who have 401K and IRAs.

Actually, they are not...

We All Have a Stake in the Stock Market, Right? Guess Again

"A whopping 84 percent of all stocks owned by Americans belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of households. And that includes everyone’s stakes in pension plans, 401(k)’s and individual retirement accounts, as well as trust funds, mutual funds and college savings programs like 529 plans."

The stock market is a Ponzi scheme played by suckers and those who think making money from money counts as productive labor. It doesn't.

The stock market is a Ponzi scheme played by suckers and those who think making money from money counts as productive labor. It doesn't

Then you can't complain that wealthy people have all the wealth. You can't say cake is bad for you, and then turn right around, and complain rich people own all the cake, and they need to share it.

It's one or the other buddy. You can't have it both ways. You can't say the stock market is a ponzi scheme.... because what you are saying is, the rich really don't have all the wealth, because their 'wealth' is a ponzi scheme.

And you can't say the bottom 50% don't have any wealth, because the only wealth the rich have that you point to, is the wealth you claim is a ponzi scheme.

So either all this wealth you keep blathering on about is all a ponzi scheme, and really the rich and poor are not nearly as unequal...... or maybe you need to buy you some stocks.

Because the difference between the rich and poor, is actually really small if you discount all their stocks as a ponzi scheme. Warren Buffet, only collects $100,000 in cash. The rest is all stocks. You are claiming stocks are ponzi scheme, and not real wealth.
There are truck drivers that make almost $100,000 a year.

Who Owns All the Stocks & Bonds? - A Wealth of Common Sense

Only 1/3 is held by households. That's still the largest group of shareholders, and this is logical.

In all the largest companies, usually the person, or family, who started the company owns the majority of shares, or at least a large portion.

The owner who created the company, doesn't want to lose the company in a hostile takeover.

The next largest group, is mutual funds. My 401K, and IRA, are both in Mutual funds.

Then you have Union Pensions, and Government funds.

Lastly, and not on this list, is Insurance companies. I'm not sure why they don't have this listed. Perhaps it's the Business holdings, but I remember it being about 10% of all stocks, are in insurance companies. Insurance companies like Car Insurance, life Insurance, and Annuities, use investments to offset premiums.

Regardless of how many stocks the rich own, the fact is most people on retirement, are living off the stock market. Trying to destroy the shareholders, will destroy Union people, middle class people, and lower class people.

The investors will simply invest elsewhere. I would. I already know how to open an account in Japan, on the Japanese stock market. I'll move my investment there, or the Hong Kong stock market even. Meanwhile, the Unions will be wiped out, the 401K and IRAs will be wiped out.

All the people you claim to care about, will be wiped out. People like me, who are investors, we'll just move our money elsewhere to invest.

 

[georgephillip]

Then you can't complain that wealthy people have all the wealth. You can't say cake is bad for you, and then turn right around, and complain rich people own all the cake, and they need to share it.

I never said rich people need to share the stock market; rich people need to have their unearned income taxed at a much higher rate than people who earn their money by providing goods and services that grow the economy as opposed to those who strangle GDP with concentric coils of debt.

Exclusive: How Private Debt Strangles Growth, Stokes Financial Crises, and Increases Inequality | naked capitalism

 

[Unkotare]

The mindless ignorance of the perpetual college freshman...