Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[georgephillip]

You people are too dense to understand when rich corporations dodge their taxes, you pay the difference.

i dunno George, i'm a completely uneducated, uncultured reclusive scarecrow out in Gawd's country raising livestock to eat.......and i get it....

~S~

i dunno George, i'm a completely uneducated, uncultured reclusive scarecrow out in Gawd's country raising livestock to eat.......and i get it....

Andy Delusion brings his own special brand of myopia to how this economy functions, imho. I suspect he represent a majority on this board but a minority in the country.

I agree with that. I don't know if my views are the majority of this forum.... maybe... but I am most certainly the minority in the country, which suits me just fine.

Let me ask you.... out of any given group of 100 adults... how many do you think have read all the research on the effects of the minimum wage? Keep in mind, I don't mean "read a headline".... I mean actually pulled up the research itself, and read through it?

The answer is barely 1 in 100. Honestly it could be 1 in 1,000.

So when you say the majority of the general public, that's the majority of ignorance. That's not an insult, just a fact. The vast majority of people are just flat out ignorant.

And again, that's not an insult. The majority of people are busy with their lives. They have kids to raise, careers to work, and family to take care of, vacations to go on.

Doing hours of reading on how economics works, is things that losers like me, who have no life, do. Again, just being honest. I don't do anything else. My weekends are usually me finding a documentary on Thomas Sowell, or nuclear physics, and watching it. I'm a nerd. I know it.

But the bottom line is, yeah.... ignorant people have uninformed views. Me, being informed, have a different view.

I'm ok with this. I know I'm right.... that's all I need to know. I don't base the 'correctness' of my views, on how popular they are with the public which hasn't been educated on any of the things they support.

By the way, this is one of the reasons the founding fathers didn't want a public vote on national policy. They didn't want us voting on the president, because a politician from Washington can convince many people with smooth talking, that you can have unlimited government services, and no tax, because someone else will pay for it.

We are living out the failures, that the founding fathers tried to avoid.

Doing hours of reading on how economics works, is things that losers like me, who have no life, do. Again, just being honest. I don't do anything else. My weekends are usually me finding a documentary on Thomas Sowell, or nuclear physics, and watching it. I'm a nerd. I know it.

But the bottom line is, yeah.... ignorant people have uninformed views. Me, being informed, have a different view.

I commend your diligence; however, I'm not sure it translates into being informed. Do you study arguments that run counter to Sowell's? Have you had any formalized training that would allow you to better understand the intricacies of economics or the interactions of protons and neutrons? You seem to underestimate the possibility that some people don't require as much time as you to form their opinion. A little knowledge can be delusional.

 

[georgephillip]

That doesn't support your claim.

Hey, George, quick question here:

Have you talked anyone into supporting your political philosophy?

That doesn't support your claim.

Hey, George, quick question here:

Have you talked anyone into supporting your political philosophy?

Katrina was the match and capitalism is the fuel that destroyed New Orleans; blaming "government" makes as much sense as blaming WMDs for the capitalist looting of Iraq.

"Profits Over People

"Clearly, in the minds of the billionaires who rule this country, war and profits come before relief for ordinary people faced with the most difficult of situations.

"Partially due to the huge amount of resources devoted to the Iraq war, state and local governments have implemented vicious budget cuts that have caused, amongst other things, less money to be devoted to dealing with natural disasters.

"Recent years have seen a marked increase in the number of hurricanes and other major natural disasters, some of which the probably the result of climate change.

"Of course, it would have been impossible to prevent all the damage done by Katrina, but much of it was preventable.

"New Orleans has a record of flooding during hurricanes. The city is built below sea level, and it is kept from constant flooding by a system of levees and pumps.

"The levees are set up to withstand some level three hurricanes, but Katrina was a level four hurricane. There is plenty of technology to create levees that withstand even level five hurricanes."

Hurricane Katrina: A Disaster Worsened by Capitalism | Socialist Alternative

So...you prove capitalism is evil by posting a picture of police state tactics.

Yeah, not seeing a real selling point for increased government control here.

So, if your job here is selling people (Ha! See what I did there?) on the joys of all-powerful government, Imma be real with you, Chief -- it ain't workin'.

So...you prove capitalism is evil by posting a picture of police state tactics.

Yeah, not seeing a real selling point for increased government control here.

Who controls government in the US, capitalists or workers?

The Making of the American Police State

"The vast majority of the American police state remains firmly within the public sector. But this does not mean the criminal justice buildup has nothing to do with capitalism.

"At its heart, the new American repression is very much about the restoration and maintenance of ruling class power.

"American society and economy have from the start evolved through forms of racialized violence, but criminal justice was not always so politically central.

"For the better part of a century after the end of Reconstruction in the 1870s, the national incarceration rate hovered at around 100 to 110 per 100,000. But then, in the early 1970s, the incarceration rate began a precipitous and continual climb upward."

Government responds to those who control the economy.
A democratic economy will produce a government that doesn't have to rely on police state tactics.

It always has so far.

You condemn oppression by corporatists.

And you think the answer is oppression by bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats are corporatists.

Bureaucrats are corporatists.

Would you like to explain how you've arrived at that conclusion?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You people are too dense to understand when rich corporations dodge their taxes, you pay the difference.

i dunno George, i'm a completely uneducated, uncultured reclusive scarecrow out in Gawd's country raising livestock to eat.......and i get it....

~S~

i dunno George, i'm a completely uneducated, uncultured reclusive scarecrow out in Gawd's country raising livestock to eat.......and i get it....

Andy Delusion brings his own special brand of myopia to how this economy functions, imho. I suspect he represent a majority on this board but a minority in the country.

I agree with that. I don't know if my views are the majority of this forum.... maybe... but I am most certainly the minority in the country, which suits me just fine.

Let me ask you.... out of any given group of 100 adults... how many do you think have read all the research on the effects of the minimum wage? Keep in mind, I don't mean "read a headline".... I mean actually pulled up the research itself, and read through it?

The answer is barely 1 in 100. Honestly it could be 1 in 1,000.

So when you say the majority of the general public, that's the majority of ignorance. That's not an insult, just a fact. The vast majority of people are just flat out ignorant.

And again, that's not an insult. The majority of people are busy with their lives. They have kids to raise, careers to work, and family to take care of, vacations to go on.

Doing hours of reading on how economics works, is things that losers like me, who have no life, do. Again, just being honest. I don't do anything else. My weekends are usually me finding a documentary on Thomas Sowell, or nuclear physics, and watching it. I'm a nerd. I know it.

But the bottom line is, yeah.... ignorant people have uninformed views. Me, being informed, have a different view.

I'm ok with this. I know I'm right.... that's all I need to know. I don't base the 'correctness' of my views, on how popular they are with the public which hasn't been educated on any of the things they support.

By the way, this is one of the reasons the founding fathers didn't want a public vote on national policy. They didn't want us voting on the president, because a politician from Washington can convince many people with smooth talking, that you can have unlimited government services, and no tax, because someone else will pay for it.

We are living out the failures, that the founding fathers tried to avoid.

Doing hours of reading on how economics works, is things that losers like me, who have no life, do. Again, just being honest. I don't do anything else. My weekends are usually me finding a documentary on Thomas Sowell, or nuclear physics, and watching it. I'm a nerd. I know it.

But the bottom line is, yeah.... ignorant people have uninformed views. Me, being informed, have a different view.

I commend your diligence; however, I'm not sure it translates into being informed. Do you study arguments that run counter to Sowell's? Have you had any formalized training that would allow you to better understand the intricacies of economics or the interactions of protons and neutrons? You seem to underestimate the possibility that some people don't require as much time as you to form their opinion. A little knowledge can be delusional.

A little knowledge can be delusional.

Unintentionally hilarious!!!

 

[dblack]

Bureaucrats are corporatists.

Would you like to explain how you've arrived at that conclusion?

I actually read the wiki page on Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of government that setups up the state as the principal power broker in society. The purpose of government, under corporatism, is to distribute power to organized interest groups (labor, religion, racial, industry, military, academia, etc ...). The key feature of Corporatism, or at least the feature that makes it completely unacceptable to me, is that it dismisses universal, individual rights and replaces them with group privilege. Your rights under corporatism aren't seen as universal and inalienable - they are privileges, granted to you by the state, based on which interest groups you belong to, and how well those interest groups can lobby government.

 

[georgephillip]

You're a corporate parasite.

"Classical economics divided income into two types: earned and unearned. Earned income came from productive labor combined with capital investment.

"Unearned income was considered parasitical and consisted of rent, interest and dividends.

"It was not considered as adding to GDP but as subtracting from it.

"It was money made by manipulating money much as feudal landlords made their money in what has been called a rentier economy."

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

You're a corporate parasite.

You're a whiney twat.

"Unearned income was considered parasitical and consisted of rent, interest and dividends.

Yeah, Marxist economics worked so much better. LOL!

Unearned income was considered parasitical and consisted of rent, interest and dividends.

Yeah, Marxist economics worked so much better. LOL!

You prefer crony capitalism, Kulak?

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

Today, most of the money earned by the 1% driving the income inequality gap is being made in the financialized, rentier economy but is now considered earned income.

"New methods have been devised to make money not by productive labor and investment but by manipulating financial instruments.

"One such manipulation consists of stock buybacks."

You prefer crony capitalism, Kulak?

Under crony capitalism, I'm free to quit my job and accept another.
Under Marxist capitalism, I'm free to quit my job and enter the gulag.

"One such manipulation consists of stock buybacks."

Allowing corporations to do what they want with their own earnings. Dreadful!!! LOL!

You commies are so funny.

"One such manipulation consists of stock buybacks."

Allowing corporations to do what they want with their own earnings. Dreadful!!! LOL!

"Why would a company buy back its own stock, stock issued in the first place supposedly to give the company money it needed for productive investment to produce goods and services?

"The answer is very simple.

"When a corporation buys its own stock (often with borrowed money), the stock usually goes up at least temporarily.

"That gives the executives of the company and activist hedge funds time to cash in their stock grants, options and garden variety stocks and make a killing."

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

There are a number of reasons a company will buy back stock.

One is certainly that it will cause stock manipulation. I don't have a problem with that. It is THEIR stock. They can do what they want. Again, this is just you, shoving your nose half way up the butt, of someone elses business. Mind your own business? What do you care if they buy back their stock or not, to increase stock values? What business is that of yours?

As a shareholder, I have no problem with that. Because if they buy back stock and get more money because of it... who else also benefits? Me. I have stock in the company. My stock will end up more valuable. Same is true with Union workers, whose pensions are wrapped up in stock. Same is true of 401Ks in stock. Same is true of annuities invested in stock.

You claim to care about the working people... well...? That's a benefit to the working people. So shut up, and do what your parents should have taught you, and mind your own business.

But if you are curious about the other reasons.....

There are two other often mentioned reasons companies buy back stock.

1. It reduces in the long term, the dividend payouts to shareholders.

Obviously, if the company buys back it's stock, it doesn't have to pay dividends to itself.

2. It consolidates control of the company, and reduces the chance of a hostile vote.

Famously Apple in the mid-2000s I believe, had a faction of shareholders who were pushing Apple to dole out it's saved money into shareholder dividends. While Apple's leadership has always been rather left-wing ideology, fiscally Apple is one of the most conservative companies in the country, and is usually sitting on millions, if not a few billion dollars in saved money. It's one of the reasons Apple never filed bankruptcy in the 90s, when they were bleeding money year over year.

As soon as Apple fended off the rouge faction of shareholders, Apple quickly moved to buy back stock, to prevent a future attempt to corner management.

And there are a few other lesser reasons to buy back stock, involving SEC rules and such. The bottom line is, as I said before... nonya bidnes.

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

Ummmm.... No? If that was true, then how did Enron fail? Because I guarantee that if Enron was a feudal landlord, it would be impossible to go bankrupt, when you have guaranteed income from state imposed tenets.

How did 2008 ever happen then? Where is WaMu today? Doesn't exist. How is that possible if they are a feudal lord?

Ridiculous.

One is certainly that it will cause stock manipulation. I don't have a problem with that. It is THEIR stock. They can do what they want. Again, this is just you, shoving your nose half way up the butt, of someone elses business

Of course, it is NOT exclusively THEIR business, is it? Why else would stock buybacks have been illegal prior to the Reagan administration when the incomes of rich parasites began rising dramatically?

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

"Why would a company buy back its own stock, stock issued in the first place supposedly to give the company money it needed for productive investment to produce goods and services?

"The answer is very simple.

"When a corporation buys its own stock (often with borrowed money), the stock usually goes up at least temporarily.

"That gives the executives of the company and activist hedge funds time to cash in their stock grants, options and garden variety stocks and make a killing.

"The boost in stock value also impresses Wall Street which cares solely about the short-term financial indicators for a company and not at all about what the company did to achieve those indicators."

Do you see how making money from money wraps the productive economy in suffocating levels of debt; why would you want to support such policies if you are not among the richest one percent of Americans?

 

[georgephillip]

Bureaucrats are corporatists.

Would you like to explain how you've arrived at that conclusion?

I actually read the wiki page on Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of government that setups up the state as the principal power broker in society. The purpose of government, under corporatism, is to distribute power to organized interest groups (labor, religion, racial, industry, military, academia, etc ...). The key feature of Corporatism, or at least the feature that makes it completely unacceptable to me, is that it dismisses universal, individual rights and replaces them with group privilege. Your rights under corporatism aren't seen as universal and inalienable - they are privileges, granted to you by the state, based on which interest groups you belong to, and how well those interest groups can lobby government.

actually read the wiki page on Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of government that setups up the state as the principal power broker in society. The purpose of government, under corporatism, is to distribute power to organized interest groups (labor, religion, racial, industry, military, academia, etc ...).

Your link:

"Corporatism is a political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations on the basis of their common interests.[1][2]

"The term is derived from the Latin corpus, or 'human body'.

"The hypothesis that society will reach a peak of harmonious functioning when each of its divisions efficiently performs its designated function, such as a body's organs individually contributing its general health and functionality, lies at the center of corporatist theory.

"Corporatist ideas have been expressed since Ancient Greek and Roman societies, with integration into Catholic social teaching and Christian democracy political parties.

"They have been paired by various advocates and implemented in various societies with a wide variety of political systems, including authoritarianism, absolutism, fascism, liberalism and socialism.[3]"

The morality of any political ideology that lends itself to governments ranging from fascism to socialism would seem to depend on whether or not it is controlled democratically or by the richest one percent of its citizens.

 

[Andylusion]

You're a corporate parasite.

You're a whiney twat.

"Unearned income was considered parasitical and consisted of rent, interest and dividends.

Yeah, Marxist economics worked so much better. LOL!

Unearned income was considered parasitical and consisted of rent, interest and dividends.

Yeah, Marxist economics worked so much better. LOL!

You prefer crony capitalism, Kulak?

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

Today, most of the money earned by the 1% driving the income inequality gap is being made in the financialized, rentier economy but is now considered earned income.

"New methods have been devised to make money not by productive labor and investment but by manipulating financial instruments.

"One such manipulation consists of stock buybacks."

You prefer crony capitalism, Kulak?

Under crony capitalism, I'm free to quit my job and accept another.
Under Marxist capitalism, I'm free to quit my job and enter the gulag.

"One such manipulation consists of stock buybacks."

Allowing corporations to do what they want with their own earnings. Dreadful!!! LOL!

You commies are so funny.

"One such manipulation consists of stock buybacks."

Allowing corporations to do what they want with their own earnings. Dreadful!!! LOL!

"Why would a company buy back its own stock, stock issued in the first place supposedly to give the company money it needed for productive investment to produce goods and services?

"The answer is very simple.

"When a corporation buys its own stock (often with borrowed money), the stock usually goes up at least temporarily.

"That gives the executives of the company and activist hedge funds time to cash in their stock grants, options and garden variety stocks and make a killing."

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

There are a number of reasons a company will buy back stock.

One is certainly that it will cause stock manipulation. I don't have a problem with that. It is THEIR stock. They can do what they want. Again, this is just you, shoving your nose half way up the butt, of someone elses business. Mind your own business? What do you care if they buy back their stock or not, to increase stock values? What business is that of yours?

As a shareholder, I have no problem with that. Because if they buy back stock and get more money because of it... who else also benefits? Me. I have stock in the company. My stock will end up more valuable. Same is true with Union workers, whose pensions are wrapped up in stock. Same is true of 401Ks in stock. Same is true of annuities invested in stock.

You claim to care about the working people... well...? That's a benefit to the working people. So shut up, and do what your parents should have taught you, and mind your own business.

But if you are curious about the other reasons.....

There are two other often mentioned reasons companies buy back stock.

1. It reduces in the long term, the dividend payouts to shareholders.

Obviously, if the company buys back it's stock, it doesn't have to pay dividends to itself.

2. It consolidates control of the company, and reduces the chance of a hostile vote.

Famously Apple in the mid-2000s I believe, had a faction of shareholders who were pushing Apple to dole out it's saved money into shareholder dividends. While Apple's leadership has always been rather left-wing ideology, fiscally Apple is one of the most conservative companies in the country, and is usually sitting on millions, if not a few billion dollars in saved money. It's one of the reasons Apple never filed bankruptcy in the 90s, when they were bleeding money year over year.

As soon as Apple fended off the rouge faction of shareholders, Apple quickly moved to buy back stock, to prevent a future attempt to corner management.

And there are a few other lesser reasons to buy back stock, involving SEC rules and such. The bottom line is, as I said before... nonya bidnes.

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

Ummmm.... No? If that was true, then how did Enron fail? Because I guarantee that if Enron was a feudal landlord, it would be impossible to go bankrupt, when you have guaranteed income from state imposed tenets.

How did 2008 ever happen then? Where is WaMu today? Doesn't exist. How is that possible if they are a feudal lord?

Ridiculous.

One is certainly that it will cause stock manipulation. I don't have a problem with that. It is THEIR stock. They can do what they want. Again, this is just you, shoving your nose half way up the butt, of someone elses business

Of course, it is NOT exclusively THEIR business, is it? Why else would stock buybacks have been illegal prior to the Reagan administration when the incomes of rich parasites began rising dramatically?

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

"Why would a company buy back its own stock, stock issued in the first place supposedly to give the company money it needed for productive investment to produce goods and services?

"The answer is very simple.

"When a corporation buys its own stock (often with borrowed money), the stock usually goes up at least temporarily.

"That gives the executives of the company and activist hedge funds time to cash in their stock grants, options and garden variety stocks and make a killing.

"The boost in stock value also impresses Wall Street which cares solely about the short-term financial indicators for a company and not at all about what the company did to achieve those indicators."

Do you see how making money from money wraps the productive economy in suffocating levels of debt; why would you want to support such policies if you are not among the richest one percent of Americans?

Nothing you posted here, contradicted anything I said.

Please don't cut and paste identical posts, that provide nothing more to the conversation.

Do you see how making money from money wraps the productive economy in suffocating levels of debt;

Then stop borrowing money. I'm all for that.

 

[Andylusion]

Bureaucrats are corporatists.

Would you like to explain how you've arrived at that conclusion?

I actually read the wiki page on Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of government that setups up the state as the principal power broker in society. The purpose of government, under corporatism, is to distribute power to organized interest groups (labor, religion, racial, industry, military, academia, etc ...). The key feature of Corporatism, or at least the feature that makes it completely unacceptable to me, is that it dismisses universal, individual rights and replaces them with group privilege. Your rights under corporatism aren't seen as universal and inalienable - they are privileges, granted to you by the state, based on which interest groups you belong to, and how well those interest groups can lobby government.

actually read the wiki page on Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of government that setups up the state as the principal power broker in society. The purpose of government, under corporatism, is to distribute power to organized interest groups (labor, religion, racial, industry, military, academia, etc ...).

Your link:

"Corporatism is a political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations on the basis of their common interests.[1][2]

"The term is derived from the Latin corpus, or 'human body'.

"The hypothesis that society will reach a peak of harmonious functioning when each of its divisions efficiently performs its designated function, such as a body's organs individually contributing its general health and functionality, lies at the center of corporatist theory.

"Corporatist ideas have been expressed since Ancient Greek and Roman societies, with integration into Catholic social teaching and Christian democracy political parties.

"They have been paired by various advocates and implemented in various societies with a wide variety of political systems, including authoritarianism, absolutism, fascism, liberalism and socialism.[3]"

The morality of any political ideology that lends itself to governments ranging from fascism to socialism would seem to depend on whether or not it is controlled democratically or by the richest one percent of its citizens.

The idea that government is controlled by the people, has always been a dubious claim in my opinion.

I would say the morality is more determined by if the government is limited by the rule of law, rather than the people.

After all, if you claim the only determination of whether or not the rule of the government is moral, is whether or not the people support it, then the mass starvation in Venezuela, and the political based violence in the country, by your own standard is 'moral'.... after all the people voted for Hugo Chavez.

You could say the same for Lenin in Russia.

I reject those notions. It's self serving, but not morally true, that simply because you vote for something, that makes it morally good.

If everyone in the country voted that we should re-institute slavery of black people.... would that make it morally right?

 

[Andylusion]

You people are too dense to understand when rich corporations dodge their taxes, you pay the difference.

i dunno George, i'm a completely uneducated, uncultured reclusive scarecrow out in Gawd's country raising livestock to eat.......and i get it....

~S~

i dunno George, i'm a completely uneducated, uncultured reclusive scarecrow out in Gawd's country raising livestock to eat.......and i get it....

Andy Delusion brings his own special brand of myopia to how this economy functions, imho. I suspect he represent a majority on this board but a minority in the country.

I agree with that. I don't know if my views are the majority of this forum.... maybe... but I am most certainly the minority in the country, which suits me just fine.

Let me ask you.... out of any given group of 100 adults... how many do you think have read all the research on the effects of the minimum wage? Keep in mind, I don't mean "read a headline".... I mean actually pulled up the research itself, and read through it?

The answer is barely 1 in 100. Honestly it could be 1 in 1,000.

So when you say the majority of the general public, that's the majority of ignorance. That's not an insult, just a fact. The vast majority of people are just flat out ignorant.

And again, that's not an insult. The majority of people are busy with their lives. They have kids to raise, careers to work, and family to take care of, vacations to go on.

Doing hours of reading on how economics works, is things that losers like me, who have no life, do. Again, just being honest. I don't do anything else. My weekends are usually me finding a documentary on Thomas Sowell, or nuclear physics, and watching it. I'm a nerd. I know it.

But the bottom line is, yeah.... ignorant people have uninformed views. Me, being informed, have a different view.

I'm ok with this. I know I'm right.... that's all I need to know. I don't base the 'correctness' of my views, on how popular they are with the public which hasn't been educated on any of the things they support.

By the way, this is one of the reasons the founding fathers didn't want a public vote on national policy. They didn't want us voting on the president, because a politician from Washington can convince many people with smooth talking, that you can have unlimited government services, and no tax, because someone else will pay for it.

We are living out the failures, that the founding fathers tried to avoid.

Doing hours of reading on how economics works, is things that losers like me, who have no life, do. Again, just being honest. I don't do anything else. My weekends are usually me finding a documentary on Thomas Sowell, or nuclear physics, and watching it. I'm a nerd. I know it.

But the bottom line is, yeah.... ignorant people have uninformed views. Me, being informed, have a different view.

I commend your diligence; however, I'm not sure it translates into being informed. Do you study arguments that run counter to Sowell's? Have you had any formalized training that would allow you to better understand the intricacies of economics or the interactions of protons and neutrons? You seem to underestimate the possibility that some people don't require as much time as you to form their opinion. A little knowledge can be delusional.

Most certainly sir. Yes of course I have read up on views based on Kaynes, and more modern left-wing views like Paul Krugman and such.

In fact, I've found that you tend to understand even your own views better, when you learn the views of others.

 

[daveman]

So...you prove capitalism is evil by posting a picture of police state tactics.

Yeah, not seeing a real selling point for increased government control here.

So, if your job here is selling people (Ha! See what I did there?) on the joys of all-powerful government, Imma be real with you, Chief -- it ain't workin'.

So...you prove capitalism is evil by posting a picture of police state tactics.

Yeah, not seeing a real selling point for increased government control here.

Who controls government in the US, capitalists or workers?

The Making of the American Police State

"The vast majority of the American police state remains firmly within the public sector. But this does not mean the criminal justice buildup has nothing to do with capitalism.

"At its heart, the new American repression is very much about the restoration and maintenance of ruling class power.

"American society and economy have from the start evolved through forms of racialized violence, but criminal justice was not always so politically central.

"For the better part of a century after the end of Reconstruction in the 1870s, the national incarceration rate hovered at around 100 to 110 per 100,000. But then, in the early 1970s, the incarceration rate began a precipitous and continual climb upward."

Government responds to those who control the economy.
A democratic economy will produce a government that doesn't have to rely on police state tactics.

It always has so far.

You condemn oppression by corporatists.

And you think the answer is oppression by bureaucrats.

Not when the corporatists Own them....

~S~

I hope you're not pretending Democrat politicians care about you.

Because they don't.

None of them care, or work for you Dave

~S~

Didn't say they do. Nor am I saying politicians who want to control my life even more are the answer.

What will make America succeed is government getting the hell out of the way of Americans.

 

[daveman]

It's not cooperative if it's done with a government gun pointed at your head.

I accept your acknowledgement that you're unable to form a rational argument.

Excellent strategy. Screech even more incoherently.

 

[dblack]

Bureaucrats are corporatists.

Would you like to explain how you've arrived at that conclusion?

I actually read the wiki page on Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of government that setups up the state as the principal power broker in society. The purpose of government, under corporatism, is to distribute power to organized interest groups (labor, religion, racial, industry, military, academia, etc ...). The key feature of Corporatism, or at least the feature that makes it completely unacceptable to me, is that it dismisses universal, individual rights and replaces them with group privilege. Your rights under corporatism aren't seen as universal and inalienable - they are privileges, granted to you by the state, based on which interest groups you belong to, and how well those interest groups can lobby government.

actually read the wiki page on Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of government that setups up the state as the principal power broker in society. The purpose of government, under corporatism, is to distribute power to organized interest groups (labor, religion, racial, industry, military, academia, etc ...).

Your link:

"Corporatism is a political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations on the basis of their common interests.[1][2]

"The term is derived from the Latin corpus, or 'human body'.

"The hypothesis that society will reach a peak of harmonious functioning when each of its divisions efficiently performs its designated function, such as a body's organs individually contributing its general health and functionality, lies at the center of corporatist theory.

"Corporatist ideas have been expressed since Ancient Greek and Roman societies, with integration into Catholic social teaching and Christian democracy political parties.

"They have been paired by various advocates and implemented in various societies with a wide variety of political systems, including authoritarianism, absolutism, fascism, liberalism and socialism.[3]"

Yep. That's what it says. Which has nothing at all to do with:

The morality of any political ideology that lends itself to governments ranging from fascism to socialism would seem to depend on whether or not it is controlled democratically or by the richest one percent of its citizens.

So what? I mean, I don't agree. There's no divine guidance bestowed upon the democratic majority, no guarantee of morality or reason. But what in the meandering, propagandizing fuck does that have to do with corporatism?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're a corporate parasite.

You're a whiney twat.

"Unearned income was considered parasitical and consisted of rent, interest and dividends.

Yeah, Marxist economics worked so much better. LOL!

Unearned income was considered parasitical and consisted of rent, interest and dividends.

Yeah, Marxist economics worked so much better. LOL!

You prefer crony capitalism, Kulak?

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

Today, most of the money earned by the 1% driving the income inequality gap is being made in the financialized, rentier economy but is now considered earned income.

"New methods have been devised to make money not by productive labor and investment but by manipulating financial instruments.

"One such manipulation consists of stock buybacks."

You prefer crony capitalism, Kulak?

Under crony capitalism, I'm free to quit my job and accept another.
Under Marxist capitalism, I'm free to quit my job and enter the gulag.

"One such manipulation consists of stock buybacks."

Allowing corporations to do what they want with their own earnings. Dreadful!!! LOL!

You commies are so funny.

"One such manipulation consists of stock buybacks."

Allowing corporations to do what they want with their own earnings. Dreadful!!! LOL!

"Why would a company buy back its own stock, stock issued in the first place supposedly to give the company money it needed for productive investment to produce goods and services?

"The answer is very simple.

"When a corporation buys its own stock (often with borrowed money), the stock usually goes up at least temporarily.

"That gives the executives of the company and activist hedge funds time to cash in their stock grants, options and garden variety stocks and make a killing."

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

There are a number of reasons a company will buy back stock.

One is certainly that it will cause stock manipulation. I don't have a problem with that. It is THEIR stock. They can do what they want. Again, this is just you, shoving your nose half way up the butt, of someone elses business. Mind your own business? What do you care if they buy back their stock or not, to increase stock values? What business is that of yours?

As a shareholder, I have no problem with that. Because if they buy back stock and get more money because of it... who else also benefits? Me. I have stock in the company. My stock will end up more valuable. Same is true with Union workers, whose pensions are wrapped up in stock. Same is true of 401Ks in stock. Same is true of annuities invested in stock.

You claim to care about the working people... well...? That's a benefit to the working people. So shut up, and do what your parents should have taught you, and mind your own business.

But if you are curious about the other reasons.....

There are two other often mentioned reasons companies buy back stock.

1. It reduces in the long term, the dividend payouts to shareholders.

Obviously, if the company buys back it's stock, it doesn't have to pay dividends to itself.

2. It consolidates control of the company, and reduces the chance of a hostile vote.

Famously Apple in the mid-2000s I believe, had a faction of shareholders who were pushing Apple to dole out it's saved money into shareholder dividends. While Apple's leadership has always been rather left-wing ideology, fiscally Apple is one of the most conservative companies in the country, and is usually sitting on millions, if not a few billion dollars in saved money. It's one of the reasons Apple never filed bankruptcy in the 90s, when they were bleeding money year over year.

As soon as Apple fended off the rouge faction of shareholders, Apple quickly moved to buy back stock, to prevent a future attempt to corner management.

And there are a few other lesser reasons to buy back stock, involving SEC rules and such. The bottom line is, as I said before... nonya bidnes.

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

Ummmm.... No? If that was true, then how did Enron fail? Because I guarantee that if Enron was a feudal landlord, it would be impossible to go bankrupt, when you have guaranteed income from state imposed tenets.

How did 2008 ever happen then? Where is WaMu today? Doesn't exist. How is that possible if they are a feudal lord?

Ridiculous.

One is certainly that it will cause stock manipulation. I don't have a problem with that. It is THEIR stock. They can do what they want. Again, this is just you, shoving your nose half way up the butt, of someone elses business

Of course, it is NOT exclusively THEIR business, is it? Why else would stock buybacks have been illegal prior to the Reagan administration when the incomes of rich parasites began rising dramatically?

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

"Why would a company buy back its own stock, stock issued in the first place supposedly to give the company money it needed for productive investment to produce goods and services?

"The answer is very simple.

"When a corporation buys its own stock (often with borrowed money), the stock usually goes up at least temporarily.

"That gives the executives of the company and activist hedge funds time to cash in their stock grants, options and garden variety stocks and make a killing.

"The boost in stock value also impresses Wall Street which cares solely about the short-term financial indicators for a company and not at all about what the company did to achieve those indicators."

Do you see how making money from money wraps the productive economy in suffocating levels of debt; why would you want to support such policies if you are not among the richest one percent of Americans?

Of course, it is NOT exclusively THEIR business, is it?

It's not your business, at all.

Why else would stock buybacks have been illegal prior to the Reagan administration

Lots of stupid rules have been repealed. More need to be eliminated.

Do you see how making money from money wraps the productive economy in suffocating levels of debt;

You want "making money from money" to be illegal?

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[Grumblenuts]

There's no divine guidance bestowed upon the democratic majority, no guarantee of morality or reason.

No wonder you're so lost if divine guidance and guarantees are what you look for first.

 

[sparky]

Do you see how making money from money wraps the productive economy in suffocating levels of debt;

You want "making money from money" to be illegal?

Extend that notion to the creation of valuation, from thin air.

Consider our present failing fiat , juxtaposed to our fractional banking system

The unregulated model creates debt from risk , with your annuities, mortgages, investments

This is WHY bureaucratic leashes re> Glass Steagal were created....

Because THIS is what happens w/out it>>>

Derivatives Time Bomb
~S~

 

[georgephillip]

Bureaucrats are corporatists.

Would you like to explain how you've arrived at that conclusion?

I actually read the wiki page on Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of government that setups up the state as the principal power broker in society. The purpose of government, under corporatism, is to distribute power to organized interest groups (labor, religion, racial, industry, military, academia, etc ...). The key feature of Corporatism, or at least the feature that makes it completely unacceptable to me, is that it dismisses universal, individual rights and replaces them with group privilege. Your rights under corporatism aren't seen as universal and inalienable - they are privileges, granted to you by the state, based on which interest groups you belong to, and how well those interest groups can lobby government.

actually read the wiki page on Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of government that setups up the state as the principal power broker in society. The purpose of government, under corporatism, is to distribute power to organized interest groups (labor, religion, racial, industry, military, academia, etc ...).

Your link:

"Corporatism is a political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations on the basis of their common interests.[1][2]

"The term is derived from the Latin corpus, or 'human body'.

"The hypothesis that society will reach a peak of harmonious functioning when each of its divisions efficiently performs its designated function, such as a body's organs individually contributing its general health and functionality, lies at the center of corporatist theory.

"Corporatist ideas have been expressed since Ancient Greek and Roman societies, with integration into Catholic social teaching and Christian democracy political parties.

"They have been paired by various advocates and implemented in various societies with a wide variety of political systems, including authoritarianism, absolutism, fascism, liberalism and socialism.[3]"

The morality of any political ideology that lends itself to governments ranging from fascism to socialism would seem to depend on whether or not it is controlled democratically or by the richest one percent of its citizens.

The idea that government is controlled by the people, has always been a dubious claim in my opinion.

I would say the morality is more determined by if the government is limited by the rule of law, rather than the people.

After all, if you claim the only determination of whether or not the rule of the government is moral, is whether or not the people support it, then the mass starvation in Venezuela, and the political based violence in the country, by your own standard is 'moral'.... after all the people voted for Hugo Chavez.

You could say the same for Lenin in Russia.

I reject those notions. It's self serving, but not morally true, that simply because you vote for something, that makes it morally good.

If everyone in the country voted that we should re-institute slavery of black people.... would that make it morally right?

The morality of any political ideology that lends itself to governments ranging from fascism to socialism would seem to depend on whether or not it is controlled democratically or by the richest one percent of its citizens.

The idea that government is controlled by the people, has always been a dubious claim in my opinion.

I would say the morality is more determined by if the government is limited by the rule of law, rather than the people.

By a small minority of rich people or by a majority of all people? If democracy is a moral idea of how people can live and work together in peace by means of rational discourse instead of violence and power, I would think a government shaped by discussions on the basis of shared moral principles TRUMPS one shaped by a king or dictator.

About the work area "morality and democracy"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you see how making money from money wraps the productive economy in suffocating levels of debt;

You want "making money from money" to be illegal?

Extend that notion to the creation of valuation, from thin air.

Consider our present failing fiat , juxtaposed to our fractional banking system

The unregulated model creates debt from risk , with your annuities, mortgages, investments

This is WHY bureaucratic leashes re> Glass Steagal were created....

Because THIS is what happens w/out it>>>

Derivatives Time Bomb
~S~

Extend that notion to the creation of valuation, from thin air.

Who do you imagine can do that?

Consider our present failing fiat , juxtaposed to our fractional banking system

What about it?

The unregulated model creates debt from risk , with your annuities, mortgages, investments

My mortgage is already debt. How is debt "created" from my other investments?

This is WHY bureaucratic leashes re> Glass Steagal were created

Glass-Steagall never prevented banks from writing bad mortgages.
Never prevented banks from buying bad mortgages.

Because THIS is what happens w/out it>>>

It's clear you don't understand derivatives. What would you like to know?

 

[georgephillip]

You prefer crony capitalism, Kulak?

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

Today, most of the money earned by the 1% driving the income inequality gap is being made in the financialized, rentier economy but is now considered earned income.

"New methods have been devised to make money not by productive labor and investment but by manipulating financial instruments.

"One such manipulation consists of stock buybacks."

You prefer crony capitalism, Kulak?

Under crony capitalism, I'm free to quit my job and accept another.
Under Marxist capitalism, I'm free to quit my job and enter the gulag.

"One such manipulation consists of stock buybacks."

Allowing corporations to do what they want with their own earnings. Dreadful!!! LOL!

You commies are so funny.

"One such manipulation consists of stock buybacks."

Allowing corporations to do what they want with their own earnings. Dreadful!!! LOL!

"Why would a company buy back its own stock, stock issued in the first place supposedly to give the company money it needed for productive investment to produce goods and services?

"The answer is very simple.

"When a corporation buys its own stock (often with borrowed money), the stock usually goes up at least temporarily.

"That gives the executives of the company and activist hedge funds time to cash in their stock grants, options and garden variety stocks and make a killing."

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

There are a number of reasons a company will buy back stock.

One is certainly that it will cause stock manipulation. I don't have a problem with that. It is THEIR stock. They can do what they want. Again, this is just you, shoving your nose half way up the butt, of someone elses business. Mind your own business? What do you care if they buy back their stock or not, to increase stock values? What business is that of yours?

As a shareholder, I have no problem with that. Because if they buy back stock and get more money because of it... who else also benefits? Me. I have stock in the company. My stock will end up more valuable. Same is true with Union workers, whose pensions are wrapped up in stock. Same is true of 401Ks in stock. Same is true of annuities invested in stock.

You claim to care about the working people... well...? That's a benefit to the working people. So shut up, and do what your parents should have taught you, and mind your own business.

But if you are curious about the other reasons.....

There are two other often mentioned reasons companies buy back stock.

1. It reduces in the long term, the dividend payouts to shareholders.

Obviously, if the company buys back it's stock, it doesn't have to pay dividends to itself.

2. It consolidates control of the company, and reduces the chance of a hostile vote.

Famously Apple in the mid-2000s I believe, had a faction of shareholders who were pushing Apple to dole out it's saved money into shareholder dividends. While Apple's leadership has always been rather left-wing ideology, fiscally Apple is one of the most conservative companies in the country, and is usually sitting on millions, if not a few billion dollars in saved money. It's one of the reasons Apple never filed bankruptcy in the 90s, when they were bleeding money year over year.

As soon as Apple fended off the rouge faction of shareholders, Apple quickly moved to buy back stock, to prevent a future attempt to corner management.

And there are a few other lesser reasons to buy back stock, involving SEC rules and such. The bottom line is, as I said before... nonya bidnes.

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

Ummmm.... No? If that was true, then how did Enron fail? Because I guarantee that if Enron was a feudal landlord, it would be impossible to go bankrupt, when you have guaranteed income from state imposed tenets.

How did 2008 ever happen then? Where is WaMu today? Doesn't exist. How is that possible if they are a feudal lord?

Ridiculous.

One is certainly that it will cause stock manipulation. I don't have a problem with that. It is THEIR stock. They can do what they want. Again, this is just you, shoving your nose half way up the butt, of someone elses business

Of course, it is NOT exclusively THEIR business, is it? Why else would stock buybacks have been illegal prior to the Reagan administration when the incomes of rich parasites began rising dramatically?

Financial Parasites Have Become Neo-Feudal Landlords

"Why would a company buy back its own stock, stock issued in the first place supposedly to give the company money it needed for productive investment to produce goods and services?

"The answer is very simple.

"When a corporation buys its own stock (often with borrowed money), the stock usually goes up at least temporarily.

"That gives the executives of the company and activist hedge funds time to cash in their stock grants, options and garden variety stocks and make a killing.

"The boost in stock value also impresses Wall Street which cares solely about the short-term financial indicators for a company and not at all about what the company did to achieve those indicators."

Do you see how making money from money wraps the productive economy in suffocating levels of debt; why would you want to support such policies if you are not among the richest one percent of Americans?

Nothing you posted here, contradicted anything I said.

Please don't cut and paste identical posts, that provide nothing more to the conversation.

Do you see how making money from money wraps the productive economy in suffocating levels of debt;

Then stop borrowing money. I'm all for that.

Do you see how making money from money wraps the productive economy in suffocating levels of debt;

Then stop borrowing money. I'm all for that.

Just because you manage to live debt-free, that doesn't mean your society has the same option

Conflating real capital with finance capital obscures the contemporary consequences of the FIRE sector's malformation and overdevelopment.

Between the mid-1980s and 2007 we saw "the fastest and most corrosive inflation in real estate, stock, and bonds since WWII"

Finance is Not the Economy | Michael Hudson

"Nearly all this asset-price inflation was debt-leveraged.

"Money and credit were not spent on tangible capital investment to produce goods and non-financial services, and did not raise wage levels.

"The traditional monetary tautology MV=PT, which excludes assets and their prices, is irrelevant to this process.

"Current cutting-edge macroeconomic models since the 1980s do not include credit, debt, or a financial sector (King 2012; Sbordone et al. 2010), and are equally unhelpful.

"They are the models of those who “did not see it coming” (Bezemer 2010, 676)."

 

[georgephillip]

You people are too dense to understand when rich corporations dodge their taxes, you pay the difference.

i dunno George, i'm a completely uneducated, uncultured reclusive scarecrow out in Gawd's country raising livestock to eat.......and i get it....

~S~

i dunno George, i'm a completely uneducated, uncultured reclusive scarecrow out in Gawd's country raising livestock to eat.......and i get it....

Andy Delusion brings his own special brand of myopia to how this economy functions, imho. I suspect he represent a majority on this board but a minority in the country.

I agree with that. I don't know if my views are the majority of this forum.... maybe... but I am most certainly the minority in the country, which suits me just fine.

Let me ask you.... out of any given group of 100 adults... how many do you think have read all the research on the effects of the minimum wage? Keep in mind, I don't mean "read a headline".... I mean actually pulled up the research itself, and read through it?

The answer is barely 1 in 100. Honestly it could be 1 in 1,000.

So when you say the majority of the general public, that's the majority of ignorance. That's not an insult, just a fact. The vast majority of people are just flat out ignorant.

And again, that's not an insult. The majority of people are busy with their lives. They have kids to raise, careers to work, and family to take care of, vacations to go on.

Doing hours of reading on how economics works, is things that losers like me, who have no life, do. Again, just being honest. I don't do anything else. My weekends are usually me finding a documentary on Thomas Sowell, or nuclear physics, and watching it. I'm a nerd. I know it.

But the bottom line is, yeah.... ignorant people have uninformed views. Me, being informed, have a different view.

I'm ok with this. I know I'm right.... that's all I need to know. I don't base the 'correctness' of my views, on how popular they are with the public which hasn't been educated on any of the things they support.

By the way, this is one of the reasons the founding fathers didn't want a public vote on national policy. They didn't want us voting on the president, because a politician from Washington can convince many people with smooth talking, that you can have unlimited government services, and no tax, because someone else will pay for it.

We are living out the failures, that the founding fathers tried to avoid.

Doing hours of reading on how economics works, is things that losers like me, who have no life, do. Again, just being honest. I don't do anything else. My weekends are usually me finding a documentary on Thomas Sowell, or nuclear physics, and watching it. I'm a nerd. I know it.

But the bottom line is, yeah.... ignorant people have uninformed views. Me, being informed, have a different view.

I commend your diligence; however, I'm not sure it translates into being informed. Do you study arguments that run counter to Sowell's? Have you had any formalized training that would allow you to better understand the intricacies of economics or the interactions of protons and neutrons? You seem to underestimate the possibility that some people don't require as much time as you to form their opinion. A little knowledge can be delusional.

Most certainly sir. Yes of course I have read up on views based on Kaynes, and more modern left-wing views like Paul Krugman and such.

In fact, I've found that you tend to understand even your own views better, when you learn the views of others.

Most certainly sir. Yes of course I have read up on views based on Kaynes, and more modern left-wing views like Paul Krugman and such.

Keynes and Krugman are not left wing compared to Steve Keen and Michael Hudson:

https://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/superimperialism.pdf (P. 3)

"This Treasury-bond standard of international finance has enabled the United States to obtain the largest free lunch ever achieved in history.

"America has turned the international financial system upside down.

"Whereas formerly it rested on gold, central bank reserves are now held in the form of U.S. Government IOUs that can be run up without limit.

"In effect, America has been buying up Europe, Asia and other regions with paper credit – U.S. Treasury IOUs that it has informed the world it has little intention of ever paying off.

" And there is little Europe or Asia can do about it, except to abandon the dollar and create their own financial system