My view on why our economy is pure shit.

[TakeAStepBack]

The credit was large (cheap money) and ripe for malinvestment. The lenders didn't create that environment. They played into it like everyone else. Including borrowers.

 

[itfitzme]

... they succumbed to mistaking capitalism for corporatism. ... please google it. ...Corporatism is not capitalism...

So I googled it.

"Corporatist types of community and social interaction are common to many ideologies, including: ... capitalism... fascism... socialism."

So, capitalism, fascism, and socialism are are all types of corporatism.

So this guy makes up his own definition of "corporatism" and "capitalism". He doesn't bother to look it up, but insists other do.

Idiot, take your own advice.

Who is making up definitions?

Corporatism (from the dictionary) - : the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction.

Which is a far cry from capitalism. the least you could do is be accurate when you call someone else an idiot. The intertron is full of fuckin' tools.

But you haven't studies the definition of capitalism, nor do you understand what you are reading. No where in the definition presented does it indicate anything contrary to the concept of capital or capitalism. In fact, the very nature of the term "industrial and professional corporations" implies some sort of capital.

So you ascribe to a group general an inhomogeneous group of people, that you call OWS, a singular motivation of your own personal interpretation. You then imply that they are idiots for not understanding the meaning of the terms "corporatism" and "capitalism", suggesting they should look it up. You then claim that these are separate.

Presented with the definition that demonstrates that you are in fact making up your own definition and called an idiot you;

1) are upset that someone should call you an idiot, after all, only you have the right to do that.

2) imply that your made up definition is more appropriate than the "made up definition" that I presented, and you may find yourself by a simple google search.

3) present a definition that is exactly what my definition says, adding nothing that demonstrates yourself to be more than an angry adrenaline driven fanatic who relies on a sense of self-righteousness devoid of external feedback and completely internally validated.

Corporations are entities that, under any other overriding social organization, serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

[The] elements of capitalism include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange and wage labor.

They are not mutually exclusive. And, in fact, capitalism, socialism, fascism, and just about any form of social organization relies on some form of corporatism, people organized into a group that exercises political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction. For all it's definition, a household with two parent and children is a form of corporatism where the household as an organ exercises political representation and exercis[es] control over persons and activities within [its] jurisdiction. And, as a property is a form of capital, it is also capitalism.

The world, and especially language, is not this or that, black or white. The work "and" applies often enough. There are sets and subsets. There are overlapping sets. And, sometimes, there are mutually exclusive sets. I suspect that you see the world in only mutually exclusive sets. The concept of "and" eludes you.

There are, after all, two types of people in this world. Those that divide the world into two types of people and those that don't.

Here is how I work. You write a comment. I read it. I assume you are correct and the go about researching it in an attempt to demonstrate that you are correct. I learn a lot this way.

I picked your post because it presented some inequality of "capitalism" and "corporatism", stating that they are mutually exclusive.

If I prove that you are in fact, not correct, I then evaluate how you presented your information. If you present it is a way that implies it is to the best of your understanding, I enter into a conversation. If instead, you present some self-righteous indignation and imply that others are somehow stupid because they do not agree with you, then you are afforded the same level of respect.

In calling you an idiot, I am not only being accurate, but am being precise.

But, if an apology for hurting your feelings will help, then I am sorry you're an idiot.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

But you haven't studies the definition of capitalism, nor do you understand what you are reading. No where in the definition presented does it indicate anything contrary to the concept of capital or capitalism. In fact, the very nature of the term "industrial and professional corporations" implies some sort of capital.

Capital does not equate capitalism, no. You seem to miss the bigger point of large industries collusion with government. Which IS the point.

So you ascribe to a group general an inhomogeneous group of people, that you call OWS, a singular motivation of your own personal interpretation. You then imply that they are idiots for not understanding the meaning of the terms "corporatism" and "capitalism", suggesting they should look it up. You then claim that these are separate.

I did no such thing. You're making shit up, sir/madam.

Presented with the definition that demonstrates that you are in fact making up your own definition and called an idiot you;

1) are upset that someone should call you an idiot, after all, only you have the right to do that.

2) imply that your made up definition is more appropriate than the "made up definition" that I presented, and you may find yourself by a simple google search.

3) present a definition that is exactly what my definition says, adding nothing that demonstrates yourself to be more than an angry adrenaline driven fanatic who relies on a sense of self-righteousness devoid of external feedback and completely internally validated

.

No, actually, you presented no definition and proceeded to name call. You still miss the definition of corporatism vs. capitalism by hectares.

They are not mutually exclusive. And, in fact, capitalism, socialism, fascism, and just about any form of social organization relies on some form of corporatism, people organized into a group that exercises political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction. For all it's definition, a household with two parent and children is a form of corporatism where the household as an organ exercises political representation and exercis[es] control over persons and activities within [its] jurisdiction. And, as a property is a form of capital, it is also capitalism.

Nice red heron. No, it isn't like that at all.

The world, and especially language, is not this or that, black or white. The work "and" applies often enough. There are sets and subsets. There are overlapping sets. And, sometimes, there are mutually exclusive sets. I suspect that you see the world in only mutually exclusive sets. The concept of "and" eludes you.

Yeah, no. Your insight is ridiculous and you're wrong. You see nothing here except maybe that log. Hopefully.

I picked your post because it presented some inequality of "capitalism" and "corporatism", stating that they are mutually exclusive.

You probably should have picked one that was more your speed. "More fair", "fair shot", type.

If I prove that you are in fact, not correct, I then evaluate how you presented your information. If you present it is a way that implies it is to the best of your understanding, I enter into a conversation. If instead, you present some self-righteous indignation and imply that others are somehow stupid because they do not agree with you, then you are afforded the same level of respect.

Thanks, maximus. But I need no special privilege.

In calling you an idiot, I am not only being accurate, but am being precise.

But, if an apology for hurting your feelings will help, then I am sorry you're an idiot.

Yeah, except you didn't call me an idiot. you called someone else one and made yourself the fucking idiot in doing so. It was worth the lulz for the response. Spork.

 

[itfitzme]

- - Union Power and Corruption: Unions are given so much power, since Dimocrats need them to get elected.

If I might address one thing, it is this thing about unions. First off, if we believe in individual freedom, we believe in the right of individuals to form social groups including unions. They are also a natural outcome of a competitive free market.

What seems to be the theme for many is that they don't really like democracy and the free markets. Rather, they want their own personal freedom, but want to restrict the rights of others. They are, in all actions, anti-democratic.

When I first watched the events surrounding the bailout of the auto mobile manufacturers, I saw three CEOs of what should otherwise be competitive companies. And I wondered what was it that they had in common. It wasn't long before it became apparent, the UAW.

At first I believed that the problem was that the union workers enjoyed considerable benefits, I thought, "well there is the problem". The companies whined about how burdened they were by the workers pension plans.

Then I realized that, in fact, it is an outcome of the nature of the free markets. Where ever there is a market that is afforded considerable market leverage, there is a large flow of money and a union is formed. If the union were eliminated, the market balance wouldn't change. All the union does is to see that some of that money goes to the workers rather than strictly to the share holders, owners and CEOs. The union is not a separate entity from the company, it is the company.

It must be understood that in a perfectly competitive free market, there is no profit. When profit exists, then new competitors enter the market and prices come down. Imbalanced markets exist because we do not have a perfectly competitive free market. Imbalances occur due to barriers to entry and economies of scale. And while monopolies are subject to legal regulation, oligopolies are not. And oligopolies to act in unison to hold prices up and restrict supply. Companies maximize profit before all of the potential demand is supplied. Companies do not need to have CEOs colluding in smoke filled rooms to act in unison. They need only to watch each others behavior and flow. That advertisement that you read, "Will beat any price in town" is not a message to you, the buyer. It is a message to competitors that the company will set the market price.

I will make the point again, where ever there is a market that is afforded considerable market power, there is a large flow of money and a union is formed. Health care has market leverage and extracts profits. Doctors have the AMA. Nurses have unions. The oil market has the OCAW. The market for food has the UFCW. The transportation industry has numerous unions including unions for drivers and dock workers. I am sure there is one in your area. Unions exist because the companies can make money. And the company will make money, whether the union exists or not.

And interesting market are the markets that are supplied by governments, like education. There are unions for firefighters, and teachers. There are organizations that represent police officers. There is the Pennsylvania State Employees Union. The government as an organization that supplies a market is interesting in that prices are set a bit different than free markets. Never the less, government does have considerable market leverage. I doubt that there is much argument here.

And while we might want to address how well bargaining is done with a union of government workers compared to that of a union organized around a free (or oligopoly dominated) market, there is no doubt that the union is part of the company. They are not separate, they go together in supply the market. The imbalance in the market due to the companies market leverage exists regardless of the union. The union only ensures, for the members, that wages are commensurate with the leverage that the business wields rather than all going to stock holders and managers.

The businesses and market leverage existed before the unions ever formed and will exist even if the union is removed. The price of food, automobiles, gasoline and health care will be no less without the union.

If you think the price of automobiles is to high, that the UAW is afforded to much in pensions, then purchase the cheapest automobile and resist the temptation to finance it, instead waiting until you've save your money. The fact of the matter is, it is the lack of organization of the consumer that is the root of the problem that plagued our economy.

All to often, what I hear is people who believe in the free market and democracy in principle but do not understand the invisible hand of the market place. And lacking that understanding, the look for someone to blame for the fact that prices are the outcome of an ultimately democratic free market system where every time they purchase a product, they are voting on the price. The price is set by the consumers, your, willingness to pay. And the term, "willingness to pay" does not mean, "I'd like to spend this much". It means, how much pain and suffering your willing to accept before you cave in on price. It means you are willing to spend three hours a day walking to work rather than pay the pump price. It's a question of how badly you want to put 10% away in the bank rather than shop at Safeway, accepting instead, the crappy produce at Food Max.

If you want the price of gasoline to be lower, drive around the corner to that independent station and convince you neighbor to stop buy at Shell. That is your freedom in a free and democratic society and in a free market. Restricting the freedom of others to exercise their rights is not going to get you more rights. Freedom isn't a zero sum game.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

- - Union Power and Corruption: Unions are given so much power, since Dimocrats need them to get elected.

If I might address one thing, it is this thing about unions. First off, if we believe in individual freedom, we believe in the right of individuals to form social groups including unions. They are also a natural outcome of a competitive free market.

What seems to be the theme for many is that they don't really like democracy and the free markets. Rather, they want their own personal freedom, but want to restrict the rights of others. They are, in all actions, anti-democratic.

When I first watched the events surrounding the bailout of the auto mobile manufacturers, I saw three CEOs of what should otherwise be competitive companies. And I wondered what was it that they had in common. It wasn't long before it became apparent, the UAW.

At first I believed that the problem was that the union workers enjoyed considerable benefits, I thought, "well there is the problem". The companies whined about how burdened they were by the workers pension plans.

Then I realized that, in fact, it is an outcome of the nature of the free markets. Where ever there is a market that is afforded considerable market leverage, there is a large flow of money and a union is formed. If the union were eliminated, the market balance wouldn't change. All the union does is to see that some of that money goes to the workers rather than strictly to the share holders, owners and CEOs. The union is not a separate entity from the company, it is the company.

It must be understood that in a perfectly competitive free market, there is no profit. When profit exists, then new competitors enter the market and prices come down. Imbalanced markets exist because we do not have a perfectly competitive free market. Imbalances occur due to barriers to entry and economies of scale. And while monopolies are subject to legal regulation, oligopolies are not. And oligopolies to act in unison to hold prices up and restrict supply. Companies maximize profit before all of the potential demand is supplied. Companies do not need to have CEOs colluding in smoke filled rooms to act in unison. They need only to watch each others behavior and flow. That advertisement that you read, "Will beat any price in town" is not a message to you, the buyer. It is a message to competitors that the company will set the market price.

I will make the point again, where ever there is a market that is afforded considerable market power, there is a large flow of money and a union is formed. Health care has market leverage and extracts profits. Doctors have the AMA. Nurses have unions. The oil market has the OCAW. The market for food has the UFCW. The transportation industry has numerous unions including unions for drivers and dock workers. I am sure there is one in your area. Unions exist because the companies can make money. And the company will make money, whether the union exists or not.

And interesting market are the markets that are supplied by governments, like education. There are unions for firefighters, and teachers. There are organizations that represent police officers. There is the Pennsylvania State Employees Union. The government as an organization that supplies a market is interesting in that prices are set a bit different than free markets. Never the less, government does have considerable market leverage. I doubt that there is much argument here.

And while we might want to address how well bargaining is done with a union of government workers compared to that of a union organized around a free (or oligopoly dominated) market, there is no doubt that the union is part of the company. They are not separate, they go together in supply the market. The imbalance in the market due to the companies market leverage exists regardless of the union. The union only ensures, for the members, that wages are commensurate with the leverage that the business wields rather than all going to stock holders and managers.

The businesses and market leverage existed before the unions ever formed and will exist even if the union is removed. The price of food, automobiles, gasoline and health care will be no less without the union.

If you think the price of automobiles is to high, that the UAW is afforded to much in pensions, then purchase the cheapest automobile and resist the temptation to finance it, instead waiting until you've save your money. The fact of the matter is, it is the lack of organization of the consumer that is the root of the problem that plagued our economy.

All to often, what I hear is people who believe in the free market and democracy in principle but do not understand the invisible hand of the market place. And lacking that understanding, the look for someone to blame for the fact that prices are the outcome of an ultimately democratic free market system where every time they purchase a product, they are voting on the price. The price is set by the consumers, your, willingness to pay. And the term, "willingness to pay" does not mean, "I'd like to spend this much". It means, how much pain and suffering your willing to accept before you cave in on price. It means you are willing to spend three hours a day walking to work rather than pay the pump price. It's a question of how badly you want to put 10% away in the bank rather than shop at Safeway, accepting instead, the crappy produce at Food Max.

If you want the price of gasoline to be lower, drive around the corner to that independent station and convince you neighbor to stop buy at Shell. That is your freedom in a free and democratic society and in a free market. Restricting the freedom of others to exercise their rights is not going to get you more rights. Freedom isn't a zero sum game.

First off, if we believe in individual freedom, we believe in the right of individuals to form social groups including unions. They are also a natural outcome of a competitive free market.

If you believe in individual freedom, you believe in the right of individuals to replace union workers with non-union workers. That would be a natural outcome of a competitive free market.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If I might address one thing, it is this thing about unions.

Fine in the private sector. Not a public affair though and should be abolished as such.

What seems to be the theme for many is that they don't really like democracy and the free markets.

Two very separate things. but unions do not like the free market. That is certain. Unions use force to garner support and adherence.

It must be understood that in a perfectly competitive free market, there is no profit.

You're high on Marxist nonsense. Where should we take it back to? Barter? Fucking plebs. We have libraries you know.

I will make the point again, where ever there is a market that is afforded considerable market power, there is a large flow of money and a union is formed.

In corporatism. Certainly not capitalism.

And interesting market are the markets that are supplied by governments, like education.

Government steals to make its agendas reality. So no. Not even that, our public schools are a disgrace, comrade.

And while we might want to address how well bargaining is done with a union of government workers compared to that of a union organized around a free (or oligopoly dominated) market, there is no doubt that the union is part of the company.

Say it more concise for your supporters, comrade.

The businesses and market leverage existed before the unions ever formed and will exist even if the union is removed. The price of food, automobiles, gasoline and health care will be no less without the union.

You almost had it and then retreated to nonsense again. Almost.

If you think the price of automobiles is to high, that the UAW is afforded to much in pensions, then purchase the cheapest automobile and resist the temptation to finance it, instead waiting until you've save your money. The fact of the matter is, it is the lack of organization of the consumer that is the root of the problem that plagued our economy.

Wow! Herald isn't a complete fail.

All to often, what I hear is people who believe in the free market and democracy in principle but do not

understand the invisible hand of the market place.

Oh, contrary.

If you want the price of gasoline to be lower, drive around the corner to that independent station and convince you neighbor to stop buy at Shell.

 

[itfitzme]

Capitalism has not existed for a century.
Thank you.

I'm sorry for every time I start reading this thread, I find something in the original post that spark the need for me to determine if it is or is not true. I look towards other people to learn things from. Then I look stuff up and find it's just not right. As I've gone through the trouble, I figure I might just as well post it. I'd add links to sources, but I can't do that yet.

By your statement, I take it that it means, "Capitalism ended in 2012-100 = 1912. " Perhaps you mean that capitalism has not existed in a larger part since 1912.

I am pretty sure that capitalism, "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market", has existed since the end of feudalism. What is interesting is the China modified it's socialist society by implementing capitalism by privatizing farms in the 1970's. And, in the U.S. farms have been private capital since the beginning of the Union and remain private today. The government does not own the farms.

There are only five different forms of ownership. 1) There is individual private ownership. 2) There is corporate ownership, though as corporations are owned by someone or a group of someones, I am not sure how distinct this is. Never the less, corporations, once incorporated, while owned by someone or a group of someones, become legal entities in and of themselves, thus legal "persons". 3) There is public ownership, which is typically the gov't which may or may not represents the people. I can't speak to any current countries with monarchies and such. 4) There is, of course, land and property that simply has no owner. Not much exists anymore, except perhaps in international waters should anyone figure out how to stake claim to it. I wonder, in a court, who owns the Moon. The U.S. did put a flag on it, so I suppose the U.S. owns the moon. Maybe we should charge other countries viewing rights. 5) Lastly, there is extra-terrestrial ownership. It may be difficult for a Martian to stake claim to any property on Earth, though, as it is not illegal to kill them.

Now, I am not convinced that "owning a home" which is mortgaged with a bank is really ownership. But at least one owns the equity, so I guess this is ownership. And, legally, one has the right to take out a second for the purpose of whatever they like. Then again, I suppose that in capitalism, property ownership goes hand in hand with the ownership of debt. I own the home and the debt. Many own a car, outright, with the legal right to sell it. As far as I know, the legal right of ownership of capital extends all the way up the food chain. With the exception of that government "eminent domain" thing, capitalism is the foundation of our legal system.

Language is limited. And it has always been my nature to not hold people to the technicality of words, but to get what they mean from the theme of what they say. I can't, for the life of me, get what this author is trying to get across. I am sure he sees something that gives him angst, but I'm not getting it from "The problem is corporatism, not capitalism." I learned, a long time ago, from someone more intelligent than I, that the key is in being able to vocalize the concrete, not in being able to use abstract terms. We can use abstractions for two reasons, one is because it expresses all of the concrete examples that we understand. The second is because it avoids the intensity of feelings that come with visualizing the very concrete experiences of our lives. I recognized a third, not long ago, when someone used a generalization and I realized that he only meant a specific and concrete case. I suppose the generalized term was just easier than describing the concrete in details.

Perhaps if this author would just spell it out, detail the actual experience that he sees as the reason why "the economy is shit." I could get it.

 

[itfitzme]

What seems to be the theme for many is that they don't really like democracy and the free markets.

Two very separate things. but unions do not like the free market. That is certain. Unions use force to garner support and adherence.

You're high on Marxist nonsense. ]

I have to wonder why you seem to believe that the local contractors, all of who are working in a competitive free market and make a living, but not profits, are Marxist.

Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand what profit is?

Profit = Total Revenue - Total Cost. Total cost includes wages and salaries, materials, taxes, and fixed costs of capital.

 

[itfitzme]

Unfettered capitalism created the era of the kings and queens.

No, thta was called "feudalism". No shit. We learned it in 9th grade Western Civ.

Look, this is America and as far as I'm concerned every person is born with the right to make as much money as he or she possibly can.

I don't see why the banks have a right to knowingly misrepresent the values of the homes that they lend us money to buy. It's almost like going to roulette table and offering to lend a guy money to gamble based on how much the guy next to him won in the last hour.

We are smarter than that, no?

The events that led to the Boston Tea Party were the outcome of the British Crown Support of one company, the East Indian Trading Company at the expense of the 13 colonies. The British Crown and those involved in that government were capitalists, by every definition. They owned stock in the East Indian Trading Company and favored it in law over other companies. The East Indian Trading Company was unable to compete in a competitive free market. Thus, the British Crown imposed a tax on tea, essentially a preferential tariff, that favored the East Indian Trading Company. The whole point of the Boston Tea Party was a demonstration against the British Crown, essentially subsidizing the company that the British government had a stake in over the trading companies of the 13 colonies.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't get why taxes are optional for the super rich. Isn't fair to speculate that a series of tax policies aimed at ensuring that people are taxed according to their ability to pay could be written to build progressivity into dividends and capital gains?

It is hard to research and prove everything, so I'm stuck on just what I infer on this one. One really nice thing about our economic system of capitalism is that capital can be leveraged to borrow money with which to invest in more capital. In economics, capital is a physical object and it's cost is symbolized by the letter K. But, of course, if you accumulate, borrow, and use money to buy capital equipment, the money is referred to as capital. As in, "He needs start up capitol."

Now an initial price offering, and IPO, sells stock in the company in order to raise capital. The stock then pays the owner dividends based on the fact that the provided capital allows the company to tap into potential demand, like opening up a market in a new city or another country. In the stock market, money then returned in dividends is capital gains. Gains on the capital. The idea is to stimulate investment by giving a tax break to capitalists who are willing to risk their capital in a new company start up or an established company expansion.

Of course, if Bob sells his stock to Tim, Tim takes on the risk by investing his capital in the stock and therefor should get a break for doing his part in helping the economy grow.

The problem I am having with this concept is the idea that the sale of the stock should be considered capital gains. Especially when it is the sale of a stock that has been prices according to speculation, in excess of the actual value of the company. For that matter, once beyond the IPO, when the business is truely a risk, it doesn't seem that the money that purchases the stock is really buying capital for anyone. And part of a portfolio that has been crafted to minimize risk by dampening the random fluctuation as well as using straddles and other instruments to reduce risk, it just seems it is getting divorced from the initial intent, providing capital to a company to open up a new market. I just don't see the majority of the stock market trading as having anything to do with it's original intent, the IPO.

I did, though, get a new thing in commenting, that the risk is being transfered from one party to another. And that is the reasoning, they are risking in growth of the economy. Of course, the underlying rational is that as the economy grows and so does the average standard of living, those at the bottom benefit.

I am not sure that this underlying rational has proven out. Last I saw, the median income has consistently fallen over the past three decades. On the other hand, the average real dollar GDP per person has risen. And really, if there are more apples per person, can the upper 1% really eat all of them? Doesn't it make sense that all that GDP must have been spread out among everyone? (You know, that is a research able and provable question. One caveat is that if the price of Cadillac goes up tremendously, then the GDP goes up. So maybe that increase in GDP per person actually represents the wealthy driving up prices for their consumables. Perhaps it represents a separate economy, where a smaller number rich farmers selling really good apples, high end boutique apple stores, and wealthy hedge fund babies all live in an extremely overpriced economy while the rest are happy to choose between Raley's and Food Max.

One problem that we have, in terms of the economy, is that resources afford the owner further leverage to obtain more resources. This is exactly how monopolies come into existence. Companies that have a monopoly are in a market and have a manufacturing process that has barriers to entry and economies of scale. For this kind of market and product, the more that is manufactured and sold, the less it costs per unit. The company that gets ahead in the market begins to be able to so undercut the competition that they cannot complete. Eventually, they are the only company standing.

The same might be said of Mr. Buffet and Mr. Trump. The shear scale of their wealth affords them better returns than someone of less wealth gets. When Buffet buys stock, he dosn't buy it at the same price that the general market prices it. He gets a price break on quantity.

The American promise isn't that everyone has an opporunity to become successful, just that everyone has an opportunity to try. The reality is that the free market isn't fair. "Fair" is not a term that comes up in economics, just efficiency.

But, as long as Joe the Plumber honestly believes that he will one day be able to accumulate enough wealth that he can buy his boss' business, he's not going to complain. After all, that is fair enough.

It is unlikely though that, short of winning Big Brother, Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes, or Survivor, that Joe the Plumber will ever have enough money to buy that business, let alone see the majority of his income realized as capital gains. But, in America, he can always dream and try. It is, after all, called the American Dream, not the American Promise or American Reality.

There is a story about Tom's of Main Toothpaste when they decided to add Arm and Hammer Baking Soda to their product line. The CEO of Arm and Hammer met with the CEO of Tom's, his name being Tom, and made it perfectly clear. If Tom cut into A&Ms market share, they would shut him down. But that's business and economics.

 

[samjones]

Like I said, I am not sure what experience you are referring to. If we are to me smart, we need to understand the details, identify the players and their specific motives and behaviors, what they do affect, and have our language correct. I just don't see "the banks have a right to knowingly misrepresent the values of the homes" as being as accurate and specific as you can do.

That's mark to market accounting for you Homes are not stocks. The "market" value of a house does not accurately reflects its actual value and fair value pricing was simply a way for banks to knowingly misrepresent the value of the assets on their books to be able to loan more money to finance a bubble.

 

[samjones]

I don't get why taxes are optional for the super rich. Isn't fair to speculate that a series of tax policies aimed at ensuring that people are taxed according to their ability to pay could be written to build progressivity into dividends and capital gains?

It is hard to research and prove everything, so I'm stuck on just what I infer on this one.

Research "progressive tax". While you're at it, research British East India Trading Company.... because you seem desperately in need of research on both topics. Let us know what you find out.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't get why taxes are optional for the super rich. Isn't fair to speculate that a series of tax policies aimed at ensuring that people are taxed according to their ability to pay could be written to build progressivity into dividends and capital gains?

It is hard to research and prove everything, so I'm stuck on just what I infer on this one.

Research "progressive tax". While you're at it, research British East India Trading Company.... because you seem desperately in need of research on both topics. Let us know what you find out.

When I say, it's hard to research everything, I refer to the rational behind the capital gains tax being lower and whether the sale of stock is also considered capitial gains.

The history of the East India Trading Company and it's ties to the British Crown, as well at the purpose of the Tea Tax remains correct.

On the other hand, I get that you add nothing, only to spout, "Your wrong" then run off.

 

[samjones]

When I say, it's hard to research everything, I refer to the rational behind the capital gains tax being lower and whether the sale of stock is also considered capitial gains.

I will help you. The sale of stock for a profit is considered a capital gain. I will help you with something else - the concept of "progressivity" is distinct from the actual rates taxed and revenue generated. "Progressive" doesn't mean "more".

The history of the East India Trading Company and it's ties to the British Crown, as well at the purpose of the Tea Tax remains correct.

I will help you with something else. All colonial powers had a trading company that they defeneded with their navies. America was colonized on trade. To say that the English favored the British East India Trading Company is to say that the English favored the English. Who would they have favored? The Dutch? Read..... Learn.....

 

[itfitzme]

When I say, it's hard to research everything, I refer to the rational behind the capital gains tax being lower and whether the sale of stock is also considered capitial gains.

I will help you. The sale of stock for a profit is considered a capital gain. I will help you with something else - the concept of "progressivity" is distinct from the actual rates taxed and revenue generated. "Progressive" doesn't mean "more".

The history of the East India Trading Company and it's ties to the British Crown, as well at the purpose of the Tea Tax remains correct.

I will help you with something else. All colonial powers had a trading company that they defeneded with their navies. America was colonized on trade. To say that the English favored the British East India Trading Company is to say that the English favored the English. Who would they have favored? The Dutch? Read..... Learn.....

Who was talking about progressivity? I haven't. I don't have any interest in discussing tax rates or what progressive means, or whether we have a progressive tax system. Thus, I never commented on it. You are creating arguments where none exist.

I brought up the rational behind the capital gains tax and the history of the Tea Tax in two separate comments.

The point of the CGT was to present an answer to some one's question. Suggesting that the rational behind it is to stimulate investing in new products It was already my understanding that the sale of stock is considered capital gains, I don't have the tax code in front of me. I like double checking to make sure that my facts are correct so I don't add to the noise of bs. So, your not helping in any way.

Regarding the East India Trading Company, again your creating an argument out of thin air. I simply described the relationship of the East India Trading Company to the British Crown as an example that, in fact, capitalism existed under a monarchy. And, as the original post was regarding corporatism, it seems an appropriate example. After all, many are a bit ticked that the U.S. government is run by corporations. It was pointed out, in the State of The Union, that congressmen are exempt from insider trading laws. That is pretty similar to the relationship between the British Crown and East India Trading Company. I would explain the remaining similarities, but by this point, I am sure you have formulated an "argument" so as to learn me sumptin.

"Read ... Learn..." sounds more like ego stroking on your part. Create an argument that doesn't exist. Add no new information of value. Then suggest the other person needs to learn something. All that must make you feel so smart. Maybe I should get an edumacation like you. Then I'd be more smarter like you.

Oh, thank you for "helping me". You're intellect and knowledge shines like a stream of bat piss... I mean, like a golden shaft of light.

I'll give you a clue. Insanity is the result of disconnecting from feedback with the world outside your head. When you start with creating non existent arguments, then internally validate yourself, like Little Jack Horner, who sat it a corner, .... stroked his... I mean, pullout a plum and said, "What a good boy am I", you end up

 

[Uncensored2008]

If I might address one thing, it is this thing about unions. First off, if we believe in individual freedom, we believe in the right of individuals to form social groups including unions. They are also a natural outcome of a competitive free market.

This is true. In a free society the ability of workers to negotiate using the collective strength of the workforces is absolutely part of market forces, and vital to maintaining wage and labor rates.

HOWEVER! Just as a monopoly is destructive in the corporate realm; monopolies in unions is a destructive force. A legitimate union is contained within a single organization, when you end up with monopolies like the AFL/CIO or SEIU, then corruption and criminality are inevitable.

What seems to be the theme for many is that they don't really like democracy and the free markets. Rather, they want their own personal freedom, but want to restrict the rights of others. They are, in all actions, anti-democratic.

It seems more likely that you like monopolies, and support coercive organizations like SEIU, who have a monopoly and engage in predatory practices.

When I first watched the events surrounding the bailout of the auto mobile manufacturers, I saw three CEOs of what should otherwise be competitive companies. And I wondered what was it that they had in common. It wasn't long before it became apparent, the UAW.

At first I believed that the problem was that the union workers enjoyed considerable benefits, I thought, "well there is the problem". The companies whined about how burdened they were by the workers pension plans.

The UAW is a monopoly, and highly destructive.

Then I realized that, in fact, it is an outcome of the nature of the free markets. Where ever there is a market that is afforded considerable market leverage, there is a large flow of money and a union is formed. If the union were eliminated, the market balance wouldn't change. All the union does is to see that some of that money goes to the workers rather than strictly to the share holders, owners and CEOs. The union is not a separate entity from the company, it is the company.

The union is only the company in communist countries. The UAW is no more the auto manufacturers than fleas are the dog.

It must be understood that in a perfectly competitive free market, there is no profit.

So, you're under the influence of drugs, then?

When profit exists, then new competitors enter the market and prices come down.

ROFL

You're full of shit. Don't expect to pass an introductory economics class.

SNIP

 

[samjones]

Who was talking about progressivity? I haven't. I don't have any interest in discussing tax rates or what progressive means, or whether we have a progressive tax system. Thus, I never commented on it. You are creating arguments where none exist.

Funny.... I guess I'll just have to be mystified as to why you quoted one piece of my post that referred to building progressivity into CGT and Dividends and then responded - well, "responded" might give you too much credit. You typed words.

Regarding the East India Trading Company, again your creating an argument out of thin air. I simply described the relationship of the East India Trading Company to the British Crown as an example that, in fact, capitalism existed under a monarchy.

The British East India Trading Company was government sponsored. It was chartered by The Crown and fully supported by the Royal Navy. The British East India Company *was* Britain and her fortunes rose and fell with it....

Much like Fannie and Freddie.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

fair value pricing was simply a way for banks to knowingly misrepresent the value of the assets on their books to be able to loan more money to finance a bubble.

The housing crisis was in many ways just an accounting scandal.
When they asked Robert Rubin how come he didn't know his bank was virtually bankrupt he said, any mention of the mortgage securities was off balance sheet and referenced only by a foot note at the back of any statements he saw.

After Enron, SOX, was supposed to fix that. It failed 100% with financial clarity.

The solution is new accounting standards that are accurate and understandable to a HS graduate.

This is a government function that they have failed on very badly. There is no capitalism without good accounting.

 

[itfitzme]

Who was talking about progressivity? I haven't. I don't have any interest in discussing tax rates or what progressive means, or whether we have a progressive tax system. Thus, I never commented on it. You are creating arguments where none exist.

Funny.... I guess I'll just have to be mystified as to why you quoted one piece of my post that referred to building progressivity into CGT and Dividends and then responded - well, "responded" might give you too much credit. You typed words.

Regarding the East India Trading Company, again your creating an argument out of thin air. I simply described the relationship of the East India Trading Company to the British Crown as an example that, in fact, capitalism existed under a monarchy.

The British East India Trading Company was government sponsored. It was chartered by The Crown and fully supported by the Royal Navy. The British East India Company *was* Britain and her fortunes rose and fell with it....

Much like Fannie and Freddie.

Sorry your so easily confused. That's what happens when you just read words.

 

[samjones]

Who was talking about progressivity? I haven't. I don't have any interest in discussing tax rates or what progressive means, or whether we have a progressive tax system. Thus, I never commented on it. You are creating arguments where none exist.

Funny.... I guess I'll just have to be mystified as to why you quoted one piece of my post that referred to building progressivity into CGT and Dividends and then responded - well, "responded" might give you too much credit. You typed words.

Regarding the East India Trading Company, again your creating an argument out of thin air. I simply described the relationship of the East India Trading Company to the British Crown as an example that, in fact, capitalism existed under a monarchy.

The British East India Trading Company was government sponsored. It was chartered by The Crown and fully supported by the Royal Navy. The British East India Company *was* Britain and her fortunes rose and fell with it....

Much like Fannie and Freddie.

Sorry your so easily confused. That's what happens when you just read words.

I only read the words because I saw my own post quoted. Everything else you ever posted I just scrolled on past. Lesson learned: Keep scrolling.