Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[Grumblenuts]

Takers and Makers: Who are the Real Value Creators? - Evonomics
Interesting stuff.

In theory, no income may be judged too high, because in a market economy competition prevents anyone from earning more than he or she deserves. In practice, markets are what economists call imperfect, so prices and wages are often set by the powerful and paid by the weak.

In the prevailing view, prices are set by supply and demand, and any deviation from what is considered the competitive price (based on marginal revenues) must be due to some imperfection which, if removed, will produce the correct distribution of income between actors. The possibility that some activities perpetually earn rent because they are perceived as valuable, while actually blocking the creation of value and/or destroying existing value, is hardly discussed.

Growth is always presumed natural and good. Apparently value growth then as well. I dunno. Avoiding the extremes has always seemed what's logical to me. Growth to keep pace with the population makes sense. Not growth simply because inflation is deemed somehow inevitable or unstoppable. I think growth should diminish as population shrinks, a level of activity (GDP) deemed "sustainable" signaling the reasonable upper bound. Technological advance, on the other hand, is clearly inevitable. Simply replacing older means with new should be considered a wash. A plus if a net gain in decent employment results. A minus if good jobs are lost.

There needs to be something fun incentivising (rewarding) entrepreneurship. It need not be money or power. Many of the most creative and industrious have been poor.They still enjoyed it largely for its own sake. No one needs to be disgustingly rich to the point where they significantly corrupt governments to act on their behalf rather than in the best interests of the people in general. Those they are supposedly accountable to. Being able to vote them out is no longer any threat where they always make out far better by simply doing the bidding of the filthy rich.

That's where we differ.
Government itself, is the corrupting influence.

The people on the left-wing try and pretend that Government is this divine perfect pure group of people, until the evil corruption of business interferes.

That's backwards. And really odd belief system to begin with. When you look at government, how could you look at congress, and think they were pure until business showed up? Where did you get such an idea?

There are a few really good politicians, but most are Epstein types. I don't know where you would even think that Government is good and pure to begin with. Most of those people are involved in all kinds of crap.

But routinely it is government that corrupts business. My favorite example is Microsoft. Before the Microsoft anti-trust investigation by the DOJ... Microsoft never was involved in government. They had no lobbying. No significant donations to anyone. Nothing.

As the DOJ investigation randomly wandered around, trying one claim, then another, then another... Microsoft figured out what they wanted. They wanted money. So Microsoft hired lobbyists, started to wine-and-dine the politicians, started donating to campaigns, and almost like magic... the DOJ faded away, and the lawsuit was closed with barely a slap on the wrist.

Today, Microsoft continues to blow tons of money every year on lobbying.

It's a protection racket, like a mafia deal. And since Microsoft is spending thousands on thousands for protection, they might as well get something for it... so they get favorable legislation.

But you need to grasp which came first. Microsoft did not start lobbying government, and then government went bad. Government was bad, and started hammering on Microsoft until they started paying up. That's how this works. The corrupting factor was government, not business. Business was just influenced by government.

As previously made clear, they both fail together.. Too much money does what? CORRUPTS! Right. Sorry, the briber(Microsoft) gets to wear no whiter hat than the bribee.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Stamp Stampede - Stamp Big Money Out of Politics

 

[Grumblenuts]

I knew a guy

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[georgephillip]

I think many Americans are confused about who creates value in this economic system.

That's the goal of your propaganda campaign, isn't it?

That's the goal of your propaganda campaign, isn't it?

NAKED KEYNESIANISM: Ernesto Screpanti on Marx's Labor Theory of Value and The 'New Interpretation'

When a wealthy minority appropriates and distributes a surplus produced by the majority, social goals like liberty, fraternity, and equality are undermined, no?

Then explain Venezuela again.

All the wealthy people left Venezuela. But all the labor is still there.

If you are right, and the labor creates wealth, and the rich people just horde it... then explain Venezuela? All rich people left. All the labor is still there. Why isn't Venezuela now leading the US in wealth? They have all the labor, and no capitalists. They should be the most wealthy people on the face of the planet.

So what's going on? Why is your system not working?

When a wealthy minority appropriates and distributes a surplus produced by the majority, social goals like liberty, fraternity, and equality are undermined, no?

Then explain Venezuela again.

All the wealthy people left Venezuela. But all the labor is still there.

If you are right, and the labor creates wealth, and the rich people just horde it... then explain Venezuela? All rich people left. All the labor is still there. Why isn't Venezuela now leading the US in wealth? They have all the labor, and no capitalists. They should be the most wealthy people on the face of the planet.

What happens when the Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World prevents a small minority of Venezuelans from distributing the surplus they have appropriated from their productive majority?

The rich parasites leave the country, as thousands of Venezuelans die from the consequences of illegal economic sanctions:

Economist Jeffrey Sachs: U.S. Sanctions Have Devastated Venezuela & Killed Over 40,000 Since 2017 | Democracy Now!

"It started with sanctions in 2017 that prevented, essentially, the country from accessing international capital markets and the oil company from restructuring its loans.

"That put Venezuela into a hyperinflation.

"That was the utter collapse.

"Oil earnings plummeted.

"The earnings that are used to buy food and medicine collapsed. That’s when the social, humanitarian crisis went spiraling out of control.

"And then, in this year, with this idea, very naive, very stupid, in my view, that there would be this self-proclaimed president, which was all choreographed with the United States very, very closely, another round of even tighter sanctions, essentially confiscating the earnings and the assets of the Venezuelan government, took place."

 

[georgephillip]

Socialism is the ultimate expression of slavery. It assumes people are a resource, owned by the state, to be used for the benefit of the state. I'm not an ant. I'll pass.

Socialism is the ultimate expression of slavery. It assumes people are a resource, owned by the state, to be used for the benefit of the state. I'm not an ant. I'll pass.

Capitalism treats people as commodities subject to the same exploitative forces as serfs and slaves. Productive employees form the vast majority of the economy, yet the surplus they produce is appropriated by a small minority of employers. When the workers who produce the surplus control their workplace democratically, socialism will be the result. If that frightens you, move to China or Russia.

Really? That's funny, given how wages increase in Capitalist economies, and generally do not in socialist ones.

Again, reality contradicts your theory.

I've often thought of socialism as "democratic serfdom".

I've often thought of socialism as "democratic serfdom".

What are your thoughts on capitalism's wage slaves?

The Widening Gap Between the Super-Rich and Other Americans

"According to the AFL-CIO, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio at Walmart (America’s largest private employer) is 1,076 to 1, at Walt Disney Company 1,424-to-1, at McDonald’s 2,124-to-1, and at Gap 3,566-to-1.

"At 49 S&P 500 firms, noted an Institute for Policy Studies report, half the work force―that is, 3.7 million employees―received wages below the official U.S. poverty line for a family of four."

I worked at McDonald's. I quit and got a better job.

If those people are unhappy with their pay.... that's on them to get a better job.

I don't have any problem with how much the CEO's are paid. Again, I have gained far more benefit as a working man, from Walmart and McDonald's, than I ever have from someone like you.

I worked at McDonald's. I quit and got a better job.

If those people are unhappy with their pay.... that's on them to get a better job.

It's not about you.
It's about the 3.7 million US workers whose wages fall below the official US poverty line for a family of four, and their understanding of how their pay is influenced by a CEO-to-worker ratio of 2124 to 1 at McDonald's.
You are obviously content with table scraps.
Not every worker is so timid.
Man up or learn Mandarin.

 

[georgephillip]

When I don't feel comfortable with my own understanding of a term..

I do the most unbelievable thing ever...... I look it up in a dictionary.

OMG, duh.

Right... but you just made that reference, and I just proved it doesn't exist.

So if it does not exist, in the form that is defined, then you must have your definition.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk... what does "wage slave" mean to you? How do YOU define it?

Because the generally assumed meaning, simply does not hold to reality. I had one year where I earned $12,000 of taxable income for the year.

I just got another job. I wasn't somehow "enslaved" to this wage.

And honestly ANYONE can get a higher paying job. Anyone can.

So who is a slave? Where are these 'wage slaves' in a country where anyone can choose to work for anyone they wish? Or even to work for themselves?

The lady across the street was babysitting out of her condo. Charging $150 per kid per week, taking care of 5 kids a week. All she did was let them watch parental controlled netflix, and take them to the condo park, and microwave spaggettios. That and make them have a nap time around 2 PM.

$750 a week.

Now what is the difference between that chick, and the one working for minimum wage at Wendy's? Choice. One is not enslaved, and the other magically has the key to escape slavery.

It's choice. I don't want to put up with everyone's spoiled bratty kids. Yeah, I get it. But that's why you get paid less where you only have to put up with "do you want fries with that?".

You get paid less where your biggest responsibility and risk, is taking the fries out of the firer when the buzzer goes off.

Again, the company 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a teenager with a $900 pickup. Why wasn't he enslaved by wages? And if he can do that, why can't anyone else?

Again, the company 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a teenager with a $900 pickup. Why wasn't he enslaved by wages? And if he can do that, why can't anyone else?

For the same reason not everyone can win an Olympic gold medal or gain admission to MIT at 16. There is a "talented ten percent" and 90% of us are not among it.

Also, not everyone lives in Canada where having a sensible socialized health care system means you can quit school, quit your job, fire all of your employees, etc, and your wife won't fucking kill you because the kids still need braces and your doctor doesn't do Obamacare.
Also, not everyone has a liver transplant surgeon for a father who can no doubt be counted upon to cover any fuckup or shortfall in a GOT-CASH-TO-BURN minute.
Where in the U.S. can one just say they can't read, drop out of High School, and go right to College?
How does one afford College in the U.S. without a rich old man? How much student debt does he owe? Oh, yeah.. Canada,.. like the rest of the industrialized world,.. a place where people actually still largely care about each other, not just money.. Hmm, never mind.

I think many Americans are confused about who creates value in this economic system. Entrepreneurs like to call themselves "wealth creators" to justify their higher incomes, but their success may have more to do with convincing government they deserve high rewards for obfuscating the relationships between value, profit, and economic rent.

If value is defined by price and you earn a lot of money, then you must be a value creator; unless the word "value" has made it easier for value-extracting activities to masquerade as value-creating activities.

Economic rents (unearned income) get confused with profits (earned income) leading to a rise in inequality and a declining real economy. Some would argue huge private "earnings" from record levels of US debt should therefore be subtracted from GDP instead of counting as a positive contribution to the national economy?

I don't believe either major US political party can afford to deal with such fundamental economic contradictions.

Takers and Makers: Who are the Real Value Creators? - Evonomics

No, that would be wrong. Now there are people are rent collectors. We do have that. The sugar lobby for example. The Ethanol lobby for example. Green-energy companies.

So there is economic rent seeking going on.

My favorite example is Elon Musk. His SolarCity company has never turned a profit, and yet Elon made millions off it. How? Government subsidies. Taxing you, so Elon can drive his Tesla Roadster.

However, private earnings benefit all people. Everything that creates value, is a benefit to the economy, and thus the entire nation.

Every product or service, that costs less to produce, than how much it is valued on the market, creates wealth.

No, that would be wrong. Now there are people are rent collectors. We do have that. The sugar lobby for example. The Ethanol lobby for example. Green-energy companies.

So there is economic rent seeking going on.

My favorite example is Elon Musk. His SolarCity company has never turned a profit, and yet Elon made millions off it. How? Government subsidies. Taxing you, so Elon can drive his Tesla Roadster.

The reason why Tesla doubled its worth comes from printing twice as many shares which was underwritten by the Federal Reserve's rent-seeking activities in the stock and bond markets.

High Cost Economy | Michael Hudson

"What the press isn’t talking about is a central bank manipulation of stock and bond prices to keep them up, the enormous purchases of corporate bonds by the European Central Banks, by the Federal Reserve.

"The role of central banks today is to support inflation of asset prices, of stock prices, bond, and real estate and to deflate the economy.

"They want to make sure that labor does not get any share of the added growth. That’s the basic strategy of neoliberalism, which is the new orthodoxy."

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's not about you.

Interesting discussion of that phrase. It can possibly be interpreted as supportive, damning, or anything in between. Context is necessary, but I'd venture it generally means "you are not the intended focus nor have "you" been asked to represent those who are.

 

[georgephillip]

Takers and Makers: Who are the Real Value Creators? - Evonomics
Interesting stuff.

In theory, no income may be judged too high, because in a market economy competition prevents anyone from earning more than he or she deserves. In practice, markets are what economists call imperfect, so prices and wages are often set by the powerful and paid by the weak.

In the prevailing view, prices are set by supply and demand, and any deviation from what is considered the competitive price (based on marginal revenues) must be due to some imperfection which, if removed, will produce the correct distribution of income between actors. The possibility that some activities perpetually earn rent because they are perceived as valuable, while actually blocking the creation of value and/or destroying existing value, is hardly discussed.

Growth is always presumed natural and good. Apparently value growth then as well. I dunno. Avoiding the extremes has always seemed what's logical to me. Growth to keep pace with the population makes sense. Not growth simply because inflation is deemed somehow inevitable or unstoppable. I think growth should diminish as population shrinks, a level of activity (GDP) deemed "sustainable" signaling the reasonable upper bound. Technological advance, on the other hand, is clearly inevitable. Simply replacing older means with new should be considered a wash. A plus if a net gain in decent employment results. A minus if good jobs are lost.

There needs to be something fun incentivising (rewarding) entrepreneurship. It need not be money or power. Many of the most creative and industrious have been poor.They still enjoyed it largely for its own sake. No one needs to be disgustingly rich to the point where they significantly corrupt governments to act on their behalf rather than in the best interests of the people in general. Those they are supposedly accountable to. Being able to vote them out is no longer any threat where they always make out far better by simply doing the bidding of the filthy rich.

No one needs to be disgustingly rich to the point where they significantly corrupt governments to act on their behalf rather than in the best interests of the people in general. Those they are supposedly accountable to. Being able to vote them out is no longer any threat where they always make out far better by simply doing the bidding of the filthy rich.

Separating private wealth from political influence in a capitalist economy seems like separating the white from the rice. There is something inherently corrupt about those who profit the most from an economy that concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation funneling virtually unlimited amounts of money to politicians responsible for regulating their business related perfidy. I suppose we could nationalize Wall Street and the New York Fed, and empower Treasury to replace commercial bank credit thereby becoming the (sole?) source of new money?

Nationalize the Federal Reserve | United Front Against Austerity

Nationalize the Fed?
How do you nationalize a part of the Federal government?

I'm telling you.... he needs lithium.

(I totally missed that on the first read though... absolutely hilarious.... nationalize.... the fed..... wow...)

(I totally missed that on the first read though... absolutely hilarious.... nationalize.... the fed..... wow...)

Nationalize the Federal Reserve | United Front Against Austerity

"Seize the Fed: Federal lending, not Federal spending
We propose to seize the functions of the Federal Reserve System and use it as a national bank to finance the long-term needs of the American people.

"The policy of federal lending, as distinct from federal spending, can be used to break the current political impasse. Federal lending allows us to make massive long-term commitments at modest short-term costs.

"For states and businesses, the cost of capital can be radically lowered – down to 0% for public infrastructure, and a competitive advantage of the United States in world markets can be secured.

"The overriding goal is the creation of 30+ million new jobs in production, with high capital investment, high energy intensity, high value added, and high technology.

"The theoretical basis and historical validation for the program advanced here is the traditional American System of Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, Henry Carey, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, the populists, and the New Deal.

"The method of transforming the central bank into a national bank to finance a recovery derives from the work of Woytinsky and Lautenbach, interpreted in the light of the experience of the US Lend-Lease Program."

 

[Grumblenuts]

Right... but you just made that reference, and I just proved it doesn't exist.

So if it does not exist, in the form that is defined, then you must have your definition.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk... what does "wage slave" mean to you? How do YOU define it?

Because the generally assumed meaning, simply does not hold to reality. I had one year where I earned $12,000 of taxable income for the year.

I just got another job. I wasn't somehow "enslaved" to this wage.

And honestly ANYONE can get a higher paying job. Anyone can.

So who is a slave? Where are these 'wage slaves' in a country where anyone can choose to work for anyone they wish? Or even to work for themselves?

The lady across the street was babysitting out of her condo. Charging $150 per kid per week, taking care of 5 kids a week. All she did was let them watch parental controlled netflix, and take them to the condo park, and microwave spaggettios. That and make them have a nap time around 2 PM.

$750 a week.

Now what is the difference between that chick, and the one working for minimum wage at Wendy's? Choice. One is not enslaved, and the other magically has the key to escape slavery.

It's choice. I don't want to put up with everyone's spoiled bratty kids. Yeah, I get it. But that's why you get paid less where you only have to put up with "do you want fries with that?".

You get paid less where your biggest responsibility and risk, is taking the fries out of the firer when the buzzer goes off.

Again, the company 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a teenager with a $900 pickup. Why wasn't he enslaved by wages? And if he can do that, why can't anyone else?

Again, the company 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a teenager with a $900 pickup. Why wasn't he enslaved by wages? And if he can do that, why can't anyone else?

For the same reason not everyone can win an Olympic gold medal or gain admission to MIT at 16. There is a "talented ten percent" and 90% of us are not among it.

Also, not everyone lives in Canada where having a sensible socialized health care system means you can quit school, quit your job, fire all of your employees, etc, and your wife won't fucking kill you because the kids still need braces and your doctor doesn't do Obamacare.
Also, not everyone has a liver transplant surgeon for a father who can no doubt be counted upon to cover any fuckup or shortfall in a GOT-CASH-TO-BURN minute.
Where in the U.S. can one just say they can't read, drop out of High School, and go right to College?
How does one afford College in the U.S. without a rich old man? How much student debt does he owe? Oh, yeah.. Canada,.. like the rest of the industrialized world,.. a place where people actually still largely care about each other, not just money.. Hmm, never mind.

I think many Americans are confused about who creates value in this economic system. Entrepreneurs like to call themselves "wealth creators" to justify their higher incomes, but their success may have more to do with convincing government they deserve high rewards for obfuscating the relationships between value, profit, and economic rent.

If value is defined by price and you earn a lot of money, then you must be a value creator; unless the word "value" has made it easier for value-extracting activities to masquerade as value-creating activities.

Economic rents (unearned income) get confused with profits (earned income) leading to a rise in inequality and a declining real economy. Some would argue huge private "earnings" from record levels of US debt should therefore be subtracted from GDP instead of counting as a positive contribution to the national economy?

I don't believe either major US political party can afford to deal with such fundamental economic contradictions.

Takers and Makers: Who are the Real Value Creators? - Evonomics

No, that would be wrong. Now there are people are rent collectors. We do have that. The sugar lobby for example. The Ethanol lobby for example. Green-energy companies.

So there is economic rent seeking going on.

My favorite example is Elon Musk. His SolarCity company has never turned a profit, and yet Elon made millions off it. How? Government subsidies. Taxing you, so Elon can drive his Tesla Roadster.

However, private earnings benefit all people. Everything that creates value, is a benefit to the economy, and thus the entire nation.

Every product or service, that costs less to produce, than how much it is valued on the market, creates wealth.

No, that would be wrong. Now there are people are rent collectors. We do have that. The sugar lobby for example. The Ethanol lobby for example. Green-energy companies.

So there is economic rent seeking going on.

My favorite example is Elon Musk. His SolarCity company has never turned a profit, and yet Elon made millions off it. How? Government subsidies. Taxing you, so Elon can drive his Tesla Roadster.

The reason why Tesla doubled its worth comes from printing twice as many shares which was underwritten by the Federal Reserve's rent-seeking activities in the stock and bond markets.

High Cost Economy | Michael Hudson

"What the press isn’t talking about is a central bank manipulation of stock and bond prices to keep them up, the enormous purchases of corporate bonds by the European Central Banks, by the Federal Reserve.

"The role of central banks today is to support inflation of asset prices, of stock prices, bond, and real estate and to deflate the economy.

"They want to make sure that labor does not get any share of the added growth. That’s the basic strategy of neoliberalism, which is the new orthodoxy."

Not to mention, it's never been Elon Musk's company. His cousins started it and gave him a title in return for his investment, but it was their baby until Tesla bought it out. Now it just goes by the name Tesla.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism treats people as commodities subject to the same exploitative forces as serfs and slaves. Productive employees form the vast majority of the economy, yet the surplus they produce is appropriated by a small minority of employers. When the workers who produce the surplus control their workplace democratically, socialism will be the result. If that frightens you, move to China or Russia.

Really? That's funny, given how wages increase in Capitalist economies, and generally do not in socialist ones.

Again, reality contradicts your theory.

I've often thought of socialism as "democratic serfdom".

I've often thought of socialism as "democratic serfdom".

What are your thoughts on capitalism's wage slaves?

The Widening Gap Between the Super-Rich and Other Americans

"According to the AFL-CIO, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio at Walmart (America’s largest private employer) is 1,076 to 1, at Walt Disney Company 1,424-to-1, at McDonald’s 2,124-to-1, and at Gap 3,566-to-1.

"At 49 S&P 500 firms, noted an Institute for Policy Studies report, half the work force―that is, 3.7 million employees―received wages below the official U.S. poverty line for a family of four."

I worked at McDonald's. I quit and got a better job.

If those people are unhappy with their pay.... that's on them to get a better job.

I don't have any problem with how much the CEO's are paid. Again, I have gained far more benefit as a working man, from Walmart and McDonald's, than I ever have from someone like you.

I worked at McDonald's. I quit and got a better job.

If those people are unhappy with their pay.... that's on them to get a better job.

It's not about you.
It's about the 3.7 million US workers whose wages fall below the official US poverty line for a family of four, and their understanding of how their pay is influenced by a CEO-to-worker ratio of 2124 to 1 at McDonald's.
You are obviously content with table scraps.
Not every worker is so timid.
Man up or learn Mandarin.

It's about the 3.7 million US workers whose wages fall below the official US poverty line for a family of four

What's that, 2.5% of the workforce?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Takers and Makers: Who are the Real Value Creators? - Evonomics
Interesting stuff.

In theory, no income may be judged too high, because in a market economy competition prevents anyone from earning more than he or she deserves. In practice, markets are what economists call imperfect, so prices and wages are often set by the powerful and paid by the weak.

In the prevailing view, prices are set by supply and demand, and any deviation from what is considered the competitive price (based on marginal revenues) must be due to some imperfection which, if removed, will produce the correct distribution of income between actors. The possibility that some activities perpetually earn rent because they are perceived as valuable, while actually blocking the creation of value and/or destroying existing value, is hardly discussed.

Growth is always presumed natural and good. Apparently value growth then as well. I dunno. Avoiding the extremes has always seemed what's logical to me. Growth to keep pace with the population makes sense. Not growth simply because inflation is deemed somehow inevitable or unstoppable. I think growth should diminish as population shrinks, a level of activity (GDP) deemed "sustainable" signaling the reasonable upper bound. Technological advance, on the other hand, is clearly inevitable. Simply replacing older means with new should be considered a wash. A plus if a net gain in decent employment results. A minus if good jobs are lost.

There needs to be something fun incentivising (rewarding) entrepreneurship. It need not be money or power. Many of the most creative and industrious have been poor.They still enjoyed it largely for its own sake. No one needs to be disgustingly rich to the point where they significantly corrupt governments to act on their behalf rather than in the best interests of the people in general. Those they are supposedly accountable to. Being able to vote them out is no longer any threat where they always make out far better by simply doing the bidding of the filthy rich.

No one needs to be disgustingly rich to the point where they significantly corrupt governments to act on their behalf rather than in the best interests of the people in general. Those they are supposedly accountable to. Being able to vote them out is no longer any threat where they always make out far better by simply doing the bidding of the filthy rich.

Separating private wealth from political influence in a capitalist economy seems like separating the white from the rice. There is something inherently corrupt about those who profit the most from an economy that concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation funneling virtually unlimited amounts of money to politicians responsible for regulating their business related perfidy. I suppose we could nationalize Wall Street and the New York Fed, and empower Treasury to replace commercial bank credit thereby becoming the (sole?) source of new money?

Nationalize the Federal Reserve | United Front Against Austerity

Nationalize the Fed?
How do you nationalize a part of the Federal government?

I'm telling you.... he needs lithium.

(I totally missed that on the first read though... absolutely hilarious.... nationalize.... the fed..... wow...)

(I totally missed that on the first read though... absolutely hilarious.... nationalize.... the fed..... wow...)

Nationalize the Federal Reserve | United Front Against Austerity

"Seize the Fed: Federal lending, not Federal spending
We propose to seize the functions of the Federal Reserve System and use it as a national bank to finance the long-term needs of the American people.

"The policy of federal lending, as distinct from federal spending, can be used to break the current political impasse. Federal lending allows us to make massive long-term commitments at modest short-term costs.

"For states and businesses, the cost of capital can be radically lowered – down to 0% for public infrastructure, and a competitive advantage of the United States in world markets can be secured.

"The overriding goal is the creation of 30+ million new jobs in production, with high capital investment, high energy intensity, high value added, and high technology.

"The theoretical basis and historical validation for the program advanced here is the traditional American System of Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, Henry Carey, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, the populists, and the New Deal.

"The method of transforming the central bank into a national bank to finance a recovery derives from the work of Woytinsky and Lautenbach, interpreted in the light of the experience of the US Lend-Lease Program."

The Fed is part of the government, idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

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

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

How about stock buybacks that dilute the value of each share but provide executives with exorbitant bonuses? Do non-voting shares influence such perfidy?

How about stock buybacks that dilute the value of each share

You never explained your moronic claim.

Did you misspeak?

 

[dblack]

Takers and Makers: Who are the Real Value Creators? - Evonomics
Interesting stuff.
Growth is always presumed natural and good. Apparently value growth then as well. I dunno. Avoiding the extremes has always seemed what's logical to me. Growth to keep pace with the population makes sense. Not growth simply because inflation is deemed somehow inevitable or unstoppable. I think growth should diminish as population shrinks, a level of activity (GDP) deemed "sustainable" signaling the reasonable upper bound. Technological advance, on the other hand, is clearly inevitable. Simply replacing older means with new should be considered a wash. A plus if a net gain in decent employment results. A minus if good jobs are lost.

There needs to be something fun incentivising (rewarding) entrepreneurship. It need not be money or power. Many of the most creative and industrious have been poor.They still enjoyed it largely for its own sake. No one needs to be disgustingly rich to the point where they significantly corrupt governments to act on their behalf rather than in the best interests of the people in general. Those they are supposedly accountable to. Being able to vote them out is no longer any threat where they always make out far better by simply doing the bidding of the filthy rich.

No one needs to be disgustingly rich to the point where they significantly corrupt governments to act on their behalf rather than in the best interests of the people in general. Those they are supposedly accountable to. Being able to vote them out is no longer any threat where they always make out far better by simply doing the bidding of the filthy rich.

Separating private wealth from political influence in a capitalist economy seems like separating the white from the rice. There is something inherently corrupt about those who profit the most from an economy that concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation funneling virtually unlimited amounts of money to politicians responsible for regulating their business related perfidy. I suppose we could nationalize Wall Street and the New York Fed, and empower Treasury to replace commercial bank credit thereby becoming the (sole?) source of new money?

Nationalize the Federal Reserve | United Front Against Austerity

Nationalize the Fed?
How do you nationalize a part of the Federal government?

I'm telling you.... he needs lithium.

(I totally missed that on the first read though... absolutely hilarious.... nationalize.... the fed..... wow...)

(I totally missed that on the first read though... absolutely hilarious.... nationalize.... the fed..... wow...)

Nationalize the Federal Reserve | United Front Against Austerity

"Seize the Fed: Federal lending, not Federal spending
We propose to seize the functions of the Federal Reserve System and use it as a national bank to finance the long-term needs of the American people.

"The policy of federal lending, as distinct from federal spending, can be used to break the current political impasse. Federal lending allows us to make massive long-term commitments at modest short-term costs.

"For states and businesses, the cost of capital can be radically lowered – down to 0% for public infrastructure, and a competitive advantage of the United States in world markets can be secured.

"The overriding goal is the creation of 30+ million new jobs in production, with high capital investment, high energy intensity, high value added, and high technology.

"The theoretical basis and historical validation for the program advanced here is the traditional American System of Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, Henry Carey, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, the populists, and the New Deal.

"The method of transforming the central bank into a national bank to finance a recovery derives from the work of Woytinsky and Lautenbach, interpreted in the light of the experience of the US Lend-Lease Program."

The Fed is part of the government, idiot.

It's an unholy combo of private banksters and federal "oversight". It should be abolished.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Separating private wealth from political influence in a capitalist economy seems like separating the white from the rice. There is something inherently corrupt about those who profit the most from an economy that concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation funneling virtually unlimited amounts of money to politicians responsible for regulating their business related perfidy. I suppose we could nationalize Wall Street and the New York Fed, and empower Treasury to replace commercial bank credit thereby becoming the (sole?) source of new money?

Nationalize the Federal Reserve | United Front Against Austerity

Nationalize the Fed?
How do you nationalize a part of the Federal government?

I'm telling you.... he needs lithium.

(I totally missed that on the first read though... absolutely hilarious.... nationalize.... the fed..... wow...)

(I totally missed that on the first read though... absolutely hilarious.... nationalize.... the fed..... wow...)

Nationalize the Federal Reserve | United Front Against Austerity

"Seize the Fed: Federal lending, not Federal spending
We propose to seize the functions of the Federal Reserve System and use it as a national bank to finance the long-term needs of the American people.

"The policy of federal lending, as distinct from federal spending, can be used to break the current political impasse. Federal lending allows us to make massive long-term commitments at modest short-term costs.

"For states and businesses, the cost of capital can be radically lowered – down to 0% for public infrastructure, and a competitive advantage of the United States in world markets can be secured.

"The overriding goal is the creation of 30+ million new jobs in production, with high capital investment, high energy intensity, high value added, and high technology.

"The theoretical basis and historical validation for the program advanced here is the traditional American System of Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, Henry Carey, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, the populists, and the New Deal.

"The method of transforming the central bank into a national bank to finance a recovery derives from the work of Woytinsky and Lautenbach, interpreted in the light of the experience of the US Lend-Lease Program."

The Fed is part of the government, idiot.

It's an unholy combo of private banksters and federal "oversight". It should be abolished.

About 80% of the federal government should be abolished before the Fed.

Besides, who else would be the lender of last resort?

 

[Bush92]

Uh... you need to think that through. If fraudsters control government, how you gonna use it to neuter them?

You neuter them by limiting government's ability to manipulate the economy in the first place. Certainly not by giving it (them) even more power to coerce our economic decisions.

Uh... you need to think that through. If fraudsters control government, how you gonna use it to neuter them?

By removing corporate politicians like Clinton and Biden and Bush and Romney from the ranks of elected officials. If you shrink government, parasites like Trump and Dimon will find it even easier to perpetuate their capitalistic frauds upon society.

Ironically the US census posted key factors in becoming wealthy.... hold a job, get married, and obey the law.

It's funny how stupid people mock how rich people end up rich... and then wonder why they are poor.

Ironically the US census posted key factors in becoming wealthy.... hold a job, get married, and obey the law.

It's funny how stupid people mock how rich people end up rich... and then wonder why they are poor.

How does the census explain unequal starting points when embarking on your quest for wealth?

Worsening wealth inequality by race

Pew found that in 2005, home equity made up nearly two-thirds of the net worth of Hispanics and 59% of blacks, but only 44% of whites.

Blacks and Hispanics are also less likely to have assets in the financial system, such as savings accounts or stocks, Kochhar said.

Looks like they should buy more stock.

Blacks and Hispanics are also less likely to have assets in the financial system, such as savings accounts or stocks, Kochhar said.

Looks like they should buy more stock.

By working a few hours more every day?

Maybe you could donate your job to a deserving black or brown worker so they could buy more stock?

Fuck black and brown workers. They can earn a living like everyone else.

 

[georgephillip]

It's not about you.

Interesting discussion of that phrase. It can possibly be interpreted as supportive, damning, or anything in between. Context is necessary, but I'd venture it generally means "you are not the intended focus nor have "you" been asked to represent those who are.

of that phrase. It can possibly be interpreted as supportive, damning, or anything in between. Context is necessary, but I'd venture it generally means "you are not the intended focus nor have "you" been asked to represent those who are.

I had not considered the ambiguity of the sentence "it's not about you" when I wrote my response to Andy's latest anecdote about his time at McDonald's. I wanted to convey my belief that millions of other workers who may have found it difficult to find a "better job" toiled as wage slaves in an organization that paid its CEO 2124 times as much as the vast majority of its labor force.

Obviously, Andy's decision to leave McDonald's was all about him...

How to parse "It's not about you"

"As far as I could understand, this phrase somehow means 'You're acting selfishly and you don't have the right to do this'. But I am having a hard time putting that into the words 'it's not about you'.

"On the surface the words are gibberish.

"Of course a decision I make for myself is 'about me'. Does the phrase mean "a personal decision that affects you should not concern you'? That also makes little sense."

 

[georgephillip]

By removing corporate politicians like Clinton and Biden and Bush and Romney from the ranks of elected officials. If you shrink government, parasites like Trump and Dimon will find it even easier to perpetuate their capitalistic frauds upon society.

Ironically the US census posted key factors in becoming wealthy.... hold a job, get married, and obey the law.

It's funny how stupid people mock how rich people end up rich... and then wonder why they are poor.

Ironically the US census posted key factors in becoming wealthy.... hold a job, get married, and obey the law.

It's funny how stupid people mock how rich people end up rich... and then wonder why they are poor.

How does the census explain unequal starting points when embarking on your quest for wealth?

Worsening wealth inequality by race

Pew found that in 2005, home equity made up nearly two-thirds of the net worth of Hispanics and 59% of blacks, but only 44% of whites.

Blacks and Hispanics are also less likely to have assets in the financial system, such as savings accounts or stocks, Kochhar said.

Looks like they should buy more stock.

Blacks and Hispanics are also less likely to have assets in the financial system, such as savings accounts or stocks, Kochhar said.

Looks like they should buy more stock.

By working a few hours more every day?

Maybe you could donate your job to a deserving black or brown worker so they could buy more stock?

Fuck black and brown workers. They can earn a living like everyone else.

Fuck black and brown workers. They can earn a living like everyone else

Dat's mighty White of you, Massa 92

 

[georgephillip]

How much went to accidents of birth?

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

"'The Waltons are using their foundation to game the system. At almost no cost to themselves and with the help of financial experts, they have funneled money to their foundation from special trusts to avoid paying an estimated $3 billion in estate taxes,' Jessie Spector of Resource Generation, a group that helps wealthy young people become transformative leaders, said in a press release."

You post that like it matters. Like you made some sort of point.

Years ago, I had a garbage vacuum sweeper. I found the sweeper I wanted, but at one store it was $70, and another store it was $60. I went to Walmart, and the exact identical sweeper was $47. I still use that sweeper to this day, now 10 years later.

Which is better.... to give out a some money to help people who refuse to work for a living? Some donation to a charity that helps people hooked on drugs by choice?

Or a company that provides goods and services cheaper to working people like me?

People like me, who don't have tons of money laying around to buys stuff, benefit a great deal from the Waltons. In fact, even those of us who don't shop Walmart have benefited from the Waltons, because more expensive stores, have lowered their prices, to compete with Walmart.

In contrast, who has ever benefited from you? No one.

MOVEOVER... your entire post is a fraud to begin with. Net Worth, has nothing to do with liquid cash. Just because someone has a large net worth, has nothing to do with how much cash they could give to charity.

For example, my parents are millionaires. But their retirement income is only a couple thousand a month. Just because they own a lake house worth $400,000, doesn't mean that when the roof spring a leak last year, that they just had piles of cash laying around to fix it. They had to save up money from their retirement income, and then fix the roof.

Similarly, I have no idea how much liquid cash income the Walton's have each month. But even if they were collecting $500,000 a year, and giving 50% of that to charity, it wouldn't be but a few tenths of a percent of their net worth.

Still a ton more than some left-winger like you has ever given.... so shut up sparky.

LASTLY....

What business is it of yours? Did you have parents that taught you to mind your own freakin business? Even if the Walton's were to give 50% of their entire networth.. it wouldn't help any working man, and it still wouldn't be any of your business.

Learn what your grand parents should have taught your parents..... MIND.... YOUR.... OWN.... BUSINESS.

Stop being a greed and envy driven prick.

People like me, who don't have tons of money laying around to buys stuff, benefit a great deal from the Waltons. In fact, even those of us who don't shop Walmart have benefited from the Waltons, because more expensive stores, have lowered their prices, to compete with Walmart

People like you are slaves.
Do humanity a favor and die.

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

“While the Waltons accumulate $8.6 million per day in Walmart dividends, Walmart workers are struggling to get by,” said Sarita Gupta, executive director of Jobs with Justice, in a press release announcing the publication of the report. “Many of them rely on taxpayer-funded programs like food stamps to provide for their families.”

“Workers have been calling on the company to pay a minimum of $25,000, offer full-time work, and end retaliation against workers who speak out for better jobs,” she added. “The Waltons could earn goodwill and public respect by improving conditions for workers and their families.”

Communists can't handle dissent, and want the dissenters dead.

Communists can't handle dissent, and want the dissenters dead

Too much winning

Protip: If you had facts, logic, and reason on your side, you wouldn't have to put people in mass graves.

Protip: If you had facts, logic, and reason on your side, you wouldn't have to put people in mass graves.

Few killers have filled more mass graves than capitalism

 

[daveman]

No results found for "Nearly every left-wing government ends up in violence".

I got "About 380,000,000 results (0.80 seconds)" on that Google search. I bet you thought you scored a devastating point, too.

Yeah, Duhh, "Results for Nearly every left-wing government ends up in violence (without quotes):"

I posted the direct result quote. STILL NO HITS. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? Brain damage?

Well, if it's not on Google, it never happened.

Is that what you're saying? Google defines reality for you?