Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

It's true.

No one wants to hold any Marxist fiat currency. Not even other Marxists.

 

[dblack]

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...

It's not. There's nothing particularly moral about it. Its benefits are primarily pragmatic - people are less likely to revolt if the majority of them approve of government leadership.

And democracy depends on violence and power just as much as any other compulsory state government. Otherwise the minority would simply ignore the dictates of the majority.

 

[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]"

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?

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?

According to your link, corporatism is a political ideology and liberalism, fascism, and socialism are forms of government; did you understand your own link. Aristotle?

Corporate group (sociology) - Wikipedia

"A corporate group is two or more individuals, usually in the form of a family, clan, organization, or company. A major distinction between different political cultures is whether they believe the individual is the basic unit of their society, in which case they are individualistic, or whether corporate groups are the basic unit of their society, in which case they are corporatist."

 

[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?

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?

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

It's not your business, at all.

Corruption is everybody's business, Vlad

"A notorious Ukrainian oligarch fighting extradition to the United States on bribery and racketeering charges is seeking to link his defense to allegations made by U.S. President Donald Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani that former Vice President Joe Biden tried to pressure Ukrainian politicians."

Giuliani’s Claims Spread to Another Ukraine Corruption Case

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

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?

According to your link, corporatism is a political ideology and liberalism, fascism, and socialism are forms of government; did you understand your own link. Aristotle?

Corporate group (sociology) - Wikipedia

"A corporate group is two or more individuals, usually in the form of a family, clan, organization, or company. A major distinction between different political cultures is whether they believe the individual is the basic unit of their society, in which case they are individualistic, or whether corporate groups are the basic unit of their society, in which case they are corporatist."

Surplus value.....what is something Marxism can't produce?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

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

It's not your business, at all.

Corruption is everybody's business, Vlad

"A notorious Ukrainian oligarch fighting extradition to the United States on bribery and racketeering charges is seeking to link his defense to allegations made by U.S. President Donald Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani that former Vice President Joe Biden tried to pressure Ukrainian politicians."

Giuliani’s Claims Spread to Another Ukraine Corruption Case

A corporation deciding to use its own money to buy back its own stock.

What is, "not corruption"?

 

[georgephillip]

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...

It's not. There's nothing particularly moral about it. Its benefits are primarily pragmatic - people are less likely to revolt if the majority of them approve of government leadership.

And democracy depends on violence and power just as much as any other compulsory state government. Otherwise the minority would simply ignore the dictates of the majority.

And democracy depends on violence and power just as much as any other compulsory state government. Otherwise the minority would simply ignore the dictates of the majority.

Which is your choice?

Types of Governments - Fact / Myth

 

[georgephillip]

"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?

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

It's not your business, at all.

Corruption is everybody's business, Vlad

"A notorious Ukrainian oligarch fighting extradition to the United States on bribery and racketeering charges is seeking to link his defense to allegations made by U.S. President Donald Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani that former Vice President Joe Biden tried to pressure Ukrainian politicians."

Giuliani’s Claims Spread to Another Ukraine Corruption Case

A corporation deciding to use its own money to buy back its own stock.

What is, "not corruption"?

"So what’s changed?

"Before 1982, when John Shad, a former Wall Street CEO in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission loosened regulations that define stock manipulation, corporate managers avoided stock buybacks out of fear of prosecution.

"That rule change, combined with a shift toward stock-based compensation for top executives, has essentially created a gigantic game of financial 'keep away,' with CEOs and shareholders tossing a $700-billion ball back and forth over the heads of American workers, whose wages as a share of GDP have fallen in almost exact proportion to profit’s rise."

Stock Buybacks Are Killing the American Economy

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

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

It's not your business, at all.

Corruption is everybody's business, Vlad

"A notorious Ukrainian oligarch fighting extradition to the United States on bribery and racketeering charges is seeking to link his defense to allegations made by U.S. President Donald Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani that former Vice President Joe Biden tried to pressure Ukrainian politicians."

Giuliani’s Claims Spread to Another Ukraine Corruption Case

A corporation deciding to use its own money to buy back its own stock.

What is, "not corruption"?

"So what’s changed?

"Before 1982, when John Shad, a former Wall Street CEO in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission loosened regulations that define stock manipulation, corporate managers avoided stock buybacks out of fear of prosecution.

"That rule change, combined with a shift toward stock-based compensation for top executives, has essentially created a gigantic game of financial 'keep away,' with CEOs and shareholders tossing a $700-billion ball back and forth over the heads of American workers, whose wages as a share of GDP have fallen in almost exact proportion to profit’s rise."

Stock Buybacks Are Killing the American Economy

the Securities and Exchange Commission loosened regulations that define stock manipulation, corporate managers avoided stock buybacks out of fear of prosecution.

The only way buybacks could be considered manipulation is if a corporation released bad news, bought back a bunch of shares, released good news, sold a bunch of new shares.
Or if they knew they were going to release good news and bought back a bunch of shares before the news.

Just buying shares, because they can't use their money for something better, is a good thing, not manipulation.

That rule change, combined with a shift toward stock-based compensation for top executives,

When did that shift happen? Why did it happen?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

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

It's not your business, at all.

Corruption is everybody's business, Vlad

"A notorious Ukrainian oligarch fighting extradition to the United States on bribery and racketeering charges is seeking to link his defense to allegations made by U.S. President Donald Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani that former Vice President Joe Biden tried to pressure Ukrainian politicians."

Giuliani’s Claims Spread to Another Ukraine Corruption Case

A corporation deciding to use its own money to buy back its own stock.

What is, "not corruption"?

"So what’s changed?

"Before 1982, when John Shad, a former Wall Street CEO in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission loosened regulations that define stock manipulation, corporate managers avoided stock buybacks out of fear of prosecution.

"That rule change, combined with a shift toward stock-based compensation for top executives, has essentially created a gigantic game of financial 'keep away,' with CEOs and shareholders tossing a $700-billion ball back and forth over the heads of American workers, whose wages as a share of GDP have fallen in almost exact proportion to profit’s rise."

Stock Buybacks Are Killing the American Economy

Meanwhile, the shift toward stock-based compensation helped drive the rise of the 1 percent by inflating the ratio of CEO-to-worker compensation from twenty-to-one in 1965 to about 300-to-one today.

Love these stupid claims.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay George, sparky? Back to the old school definition it is then. All the fun has once again been removed from simply blaming "corporatists." They'll be no more of that. Trouble is, we still need a term for those, mainly influenced and empowered by having too much already, who, whether legally or no,.. use and hide behind their corporate holdings and identities to leverage and screw all they can reach with their evil, tricksy pry bars and spanners? Then there's all those who promote such jerkdom?

 

[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?

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"

I would have a difficult time finding anything that Trump has done, that previous presidents, have not.

Moreover, as I said before, I don't think democracy is inherently moral. If the people themselves are evil, such as demanding to steal the wealth of others, for their own benefit.... then democracy is no more moral, than stealing is moral, since that is what the Democracy wants.

That's why you need to have a rule of law, such as don't take what isn't yours... that supersedes democracy.

 

[Andylusion]

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

Right, and I don't think of them as much as being left-wingers, as being just insane.

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)."

Oh bull crap. Anyone can choose to live below their means. They simply don't make that choice.

I have had years, where I lost my job, and was unemployed for a month, and still managed to pay down debt over the course of a year.

It's a matter of choice. You *CAN* eat just cooked rice, and canned beans. You don't want to, I get that. But you can.

You can choose to cancel your expensive cell phone plan. You don't want to, I get that. But you can. I went almost a whole year, without a phone at all.

I didn't die.

You can live on less than you make. You can live debt free. Anyone can. It's a choice. You can buy a used $1,000 car, and get rid of your car payment. You don't want to, I get that. But you can.

I've driven old cars for the last 20 years, and haven't had a car payment, since I was in high school.

Stop giving me this crap about how you hate giving all your money to the banks, and then turn around around and tell me you have no choice in the matter. That's the argument of a pathetic, ball-less man. Grow a pair, man-up, and change how you live.

 

[Andylusion]

Okay George, sparky? Back to the old school definition it is then. All the fun has once again been removed from simply blaming "corporatists." They'll be no more of that. Trouble is, we still need a term for those, mainly influenced and empowered by having too much already, who, whether legally or no,.. use and hide behind their corporate holdings and identities to leverage and screw all they can reach with their evil, tricksy pry bars and spanners? Then there's all those who promote such jerkdom?

Give me an example of this "screw all they can"? What exactly are we talking about?

 

[Andylusion]

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~

Glass Steagal didn't have anything to do with it though.

Glass Steagal did not prevent a single bad mortgage from being made, or bought.

In fact, the vast majority of all the banks that crashed in 2008, were never covered by Glass Steagal, and would not have been affected had Glass Steagal never existed, or had never been repealed.

Further, most of the rest of the world, never had Glass Steagal type regulations ever. Yet the problem originated here, not there.

 

[basquebromance]

we need to spend less money locking people up and more money lifting people up

that starts with ending private prisons. President Pocahontas has a plan for that, my friends!

 

[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]"

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?

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?

According to your link, corporatism is a political ideology and liberalism, fascism, and socialism are forms of government; did you understand your own link. Aristotle?

Corporate group (sociology) - Wikipedia

"A corporate group is two or more individuals, usually in the form of a family, clan, organization, or company. A major distinction between different political cultures is whether they believe the individual is the basic unit of their society, in which case they are individualistic, or whether corporate groups are the basic unit of their society, in which case they are corporatist."

Let me ask you, if you hired someone to fix the roof of your house.... do you pay that guy the total value of his labor? Do you? Because having a roof that doesn't leak, likely adds $50,000 to the value of your house, over having a house that leaks, and is rotting out the frame.

Let me ask you... if your car breaks down, what is the value of that car? A broken down 2011 Dodge Charger, does not start... you can buy one for $2,000.

You fix that car, the value is $6,000. Do you pay whoever fixes that car, the full $4,000 of produced value? No you don't. You pay him how much it costs to fix the car. You don't give him the "Total value produced by his labor".

This is the problem with all left-wing economics. You never apply what you claim others should do, to yourself.

If you build a deck on the back of your house... you know that a good quality deck, can add $10,000 to the value of the home, while costing only $5,000 to have built. Do you pay the people you hire to build the deck, the other $5,000?

Or even simpler than that. Simply having a clean home, can increase the value you sell it, by as much as $5,000 to even $20,000.

When you hire a professional cleaning crew to clean the house for $400.... do you pay them the other $4,600?


The answer is no, to all of that. You would never pay people the "surplus value" they created. You would never do that. Yet you expect companies to do that for you.

You expect others to operate in a way, that you yourself would never operate.

There is no right to values, you don't agree to work for. You have a right to the wage, that you agree with the employer, to be paid for the work you do. Nothing more.

Just like when you take your car in for an oil change, you pay the guy the agreed to price. The oil change guy doesn't come to you after changing the oil, and say "Well I produced a lot of value in the fact that my labor keeps your car running, so I expect a much larger pay than the $19.95 price we agreed to".

You would never go back to that oil change guy. And you wouldn't be accept it, if he started mouthing off about 'surplus value'... you would simply go somewhere else to get your oil changed.

So the bottom line is, nothing outside of that orange "your income" bubble matters. You don't follow that ideology yourself, and nor should anyone else.

 

[Andylusion]

we need to spend less money locking people up and more money lifting people up

that starts with ending private prisons. President Pocahontas has a plan for that, my friends!

You can't lift people up though. You can offer ways to lift people up, but you can't make them. You can't make anyone do anything.

My father learned this the hard way. He was a public school teacher. Some years ago a former student showed up in town, and somehow ran into my father. He was kicked out by his wife, who gave him a bus ticket back to Ohio from Florida. He showed up here, no car, no money, no home, nothing but the clothes he was wearing.

Long story shortened, my father bought him a used car, paid for a months rent, and then got him clothes, and a job. My father had connections to a Lumber 84 type place, and got him a low-level manager position, like a shift manager.

The guy quit the job, because he didn't like dressing up..... now I know that sounds insane, but that's what I was told his excuse was for quitting. After helping him for months, my parents decided to cut him off. He lost the car, got kicked out of the apartment, and haven't heard from him since.

You can't 'lift people up'. You are living in a fantasy world, where you help people, and it works. It doesn't work.

People that you can help, often are helping themselves already. We live in a society where there is real help for people all over the place, if they simply have the motivation to use it.

Those that don't....... don't. And you are not going to 'make them' get helped and lifted up.

I myself had a very similar experience. I had a co-worker, that was laid off from her job. Then she ended up being kicked out of her apartment. I offered her a place to stay, with a very low rent, because I wanted to help.

This woman then lived more irresponsibly than ever before. Now with a lower rent payment, she blew every dollar she had, every single week. Paid on Friday, broke by Thursday. She started skipping her rent payment, and yet still didn't have money when her car needed a $100 alternator, and asked me to help her out.

I started trying to talk to her about, maybe not blowing every dollar she had, and her response was "You always criticize me". The next time she ended up two months late on rent, I told her to find a new place to live.

To the point.....

There is nothing wrong with private prisons. Completely irrelevant to the conversations.

We already have endless ways for people to be lifted up. Prisons have training programs. The local church has a con-lodge, where released convicts can get free room and board, provided they agree to take a job training program, and then agree to work whatever job they are placed at. From there, they can take either trade skill programs, or even take college classes, where the cost is split.

The bottom line is, anyone can succeed in this country. It's a matter of choice of the individual.

 

[georgephillip]

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

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

It's true.

No one wants to hold any Marxist fiat currency. Not even other Marxists.

Better brush up on your Mandarin, Mutt.
Chinese Yuan: New World Reserve Currency? | BEST FQ

 

[georgephillip]

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?

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?

According to your link, corporatism is a political ideology and liberalism, fascism, and socialism are forms of government; did you understand your own link. Aristotle?

Corporate group (sociology) - Wikipedia

"A corporate group is two or more individuals, usually in the form of a family, clan, organization, or company. A major distinction between different political cultures is whether they believe the individual is the basic unit of their society, in which case they are individualistic, or whether corporate groups are the basic unit of their society, in which case they are corporatist."

Surplus value.....what is something Marxism can't produce?

Surplus value.....what is something Marxism can't produce?