Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[georgephillip]

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.

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.

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.

What is today's banking system major role?
From Marx to Goldman Sachs: The Fictions of Fictitious Capital | Michael Hudson

Finance is Not the Economy | Michael Hudson

"To explain the evolution and distribution of wealth and debt in today’s global economy, it is necessary to drop the traditional assumption that the banking system’s major role is to provide credit to finance tangible capital investment in new means of production.

"Banks mainly finance the purchase and transfer of property and financial assets already in place.

"This distinction between funding 'real' versus 'financial' capital and real estate implies a 'functional differentiation of credit' (Bezemer 2014, 935), which was central to the work of Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, and Schumpeter.

"Since the 1980s, the economy has been in a long cycle in which increasing bank credit has inflated prices for real estate, stocks, and bonds, leading borrowers to hope that capital gains will continue. Speculation gains momentum — on credit, so that debts rise almost as rapidly as asset valuations.

"When the financial bubble bursts, negative equity spreads as asset prices fall below the mortgages, bonds, and bank loans attached to the property. We are still in the unwinding of the biggest bust yet."

The result is that today’s economy is burdened with property and financial claims that Marx and other critics deemed “fictitious” –

Hilarious!!

I wonder why Marxism failed everywhere it was tried?

Hilarious!!

I wonder why Marxism failed everywhere it was tried?

Because it hasn't been tried here

Yet.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Of course, Bernie professes Democratic Socialism as opposed to

Marx·ism
/ˈmärkˌsizəm/
noun

1. the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.

though all are just "theories" as opposed to being a "practice" like "communism" as poorly developed by others. It's incredible the amount of wasted time and energy spent here disparaging theory that has obviously long informed crucial parts of our political and economic reality. Howling at the moon is all it amounts to.

 

[Andylusion]

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

China becoming a world economic power, is almost inevitable, unless they turn back towards socialism.

No matter what policy we put in place here in the US, whether we are successful, or fail, whether we have high growth, or low growth.... China will be a world economic power, and the Yuan will without a doubt be a reserve currency.

This is unavoidable.

The reason is because China has 1.4 Billion people.

What this means, is that if wages in China ever reach, the minimum wage of the US.... just $7.25 an hour.... That would mean they would match the current total GDP of the US. Our median income is up near $50K a year. That nets us a GDP of around $20 Trillion. They would only need to reach $15,000 a year, to reach the same GDP. So you see, simply because they have more people, it is unavoidable that they will be an economic leader, assuming they continue with their capitalist reforms.

Now if they were to return back to the socialism of the past, they would decline again.

But what happens in China, will happen no matter what we in the US do. Does not matter if we have good or bad policies. If China engages in Capitalism, they would dominate the world economically. If they have bad left-wing policies, then the won't.

Being a reserve currency, has nothing to do with paper credit. All countries, have paper credit.

The only country I know of in recent memory, that ever had a non-fiat currency for a short time, was Zimbabwe, when the Zimbabwe dollar was devalued so badly by the government, that there was a short period of time, about a year or two, where everyone was engaging in exchange, using gold dust.

Of course during that time, the economy sucked. So not having a fiat currency, didn't turn out to be a big boon for the country.

 

[Andylusion]

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"?

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

What is, "not corruption"?

Greed is not good.

Stock Buybacks Are Killing the American Economy

"As economic power has shifted from workers to owners over the past 40 years, corporate profit’s take of the U.S. economy has doubled—from an average of 6 percent of GDP during America’s post-war economic heyday to more than 12 percent today.

"Yet despite this extra $1 trillion a year in corporate profits, job growth remains anemic, wages are flat, and our nation can no longer seem to afford even its most basic needs.

"A $3.6 trillion budget shortfall has left many roads, bridges, dams, and other public infrastructure in disrepair.

"Federal spending on economically crucial research and development has plummeted 40 percent, from 1.25 percent of GDP in 1977 to only 0.75 percent today.

"Adjusted for inflation, public university tuition—once mostly covered by the states—has more than doubled over the past 30 years, burying recent graduates under $1.2 trillion in student debt.

"Many public schools and our police and fire departments are dangerously underfunded."

OH PLEASE. Sir, that is a bunch of crap from the start.

"economic power has shifted from workers to owners over the past 40 years"
Are you serious? That's a bunch of crap.

Back in the late 1800s, to middle of the 1900s, people would get a job at a company, and stay at that job until they died, because that was the only job they could ever have.

People would be at mining towns, and the only job in the entire town was that job. Employers had a TON more power in that relationship.


Today though, you think employers have more power? Are you crazy? I can, and in fact I have, simply walked off jobs. Just oh you think you can treat me like that? And walked off. All I did, was get another job.

Why do you think that people in India paid a fraction of what we get paid here, to do the same job? Because in India, there are far fewer of those jobs. If you have an InfoTech Job in India, you have to keep at it, because you may never get another one.

Here, crap... you can walk off a dozen IT jobs, and still have a thousand employers looking for someone with your skills. They have to pay us more, to keep us on the job, because we can find another.

So, no. Sorry, but no. Employers have far less power over employees today, than they did in the past. That goofy nut you keep quoting is wrong.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Bill Gates says he’s happy to pay $20 billion in taxes, but Warren’s plan will make him ‘do a little math on what I have left over"
I know Bill Gates. Bill Gates is a friend of mine. He's also the biggest liar among them by far. However, I must credit him with always being exceptionally manipulative, greedy, control freakish, narcissistic, and stubborn. Also, no one in history has benefited more personally from simply being in the right place at the right time. For someone so average to accomplish so little of actual note other than destroying public education and extracting massive wealth from Microsoft for decades while always pretending to be giving it away, he's certainly snowed the general public.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Back in the late 1800s, to middle of the 1900s, people would get a job at a company, and stay at that job until they died, because that was the only job they could ever have.

First off, on principle, just gotta say, IT'S NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS! That out of the way, next, obviously, it was a simpler time. Grandpas have always harkened back to the good/bad old, cherry picked days of yore. Next, keeping the same job is fucking great if you like the work, if the working conditions are decent and meet your needs. Everyone would love that. Changing jobs all the time blows by comparison. Face it, you know nothing. Get a clue, then spew.

 

[daveman]

George, a serious question:

Have you ever talked anyone into abandoning their political philosophy and adopting yours?

I've never tried.
Until the Internet arrived it was seldom useful to engage in political/economic discussions with people who held opposing beliefs. I think we would have to experience a major upheaval (911 meets the Great Recession) before finding any common ground between left and right in the US would become possible.

So, you keep spouting your Commie drivel -- why?

Are you paid to?

If you are, your employer needs a better quality assurance program. Because he's not getting any return on his investment.

 

[daveman]

Back in the late 1800s, to middle of the 1900s, people would get a job at a company, and stay at that job until they died, because that was the only job they could ever have.

First off, on principle, just gotta say, IT'S NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS! That out of the way, next, obviously, it was a simpler time. Grandpas have always harkened back to the good/bad old, cherry picked days of yore. Next, keeping the same job is fucking great if you like the work, if the working conditions are decent and meet your needs. Everyone would love that. Changing jobs all the time blows by comparison. Face it, you know nothing. Get a clue, then spew.

So it's none of his business...but what billionaires make and do with their money is your business.

Is that right?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Careful!

 

[georgephillip]

Of course, Bernie professes Democratic Socialism as opposed to

Marx·ism
/ˈmärkˌsizəm/
noun

1. the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.

though all are just "theories" as opposed to being a "practice" like "communism" as poorly developed by others. It's incredible the amount of wasted time and energy spent here disparaging theory that has obviously long informed crucial parts of our political and economic reality. Howling at the moon is all it amounts to.

Sometimes I wonder if many of us will live to see the demise of communism and capitalism?

The level of wealth-worship mixed with wishful thinking in this country would be funny if it didn't translate into putting "populists" like Trump in the White House.

From Marx to Goldman Sachs: The Fictions of Fictitious Capital | Michael Hudson

"In keeping with his materialist view of history, Marx expected banking to be subordinated to the needs of industrial capitalism.

"Equity investment – followed by public ownership of the means of production under socialism – seemed likely to replace the interest-extracting 'usury capital' inherited from antiquity and feudal times: debts mounting up at compound interest in excess of the means to pay, culminating in crises marked by bank runs and property foreclosures.

"But as matters have turned out, the rentier interests mounted a Counter-Enlightenment to undermine the reforms that promised to liberate society from special privilege."

"Instead of promoting capital investment in an alliance with industry and government, financial planners have sponsored a travesty of free markets.

"Realizing that income not taxed is free to be capitalized, bought and sold on credit, and paid out as interest, bankers have formed an alliance between finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) to free land rent and monopoly rent (as well as debt-leveraged “capital” gains) from taxation."

 

[georgephillip]

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

China becoming a world economic power, is almost inevitable, unless they turn back towards socialism.

No matter what policy we put in place here in the US, whether we are successful, or fail, whether we have high growth, or low growth.... China will be a world economic power, and the Yuan will without a doubt be a reserve currency.

This is unavoidable.

The reason is because China has 1.4 Billion people.

What this means, is that if wages in China ever reach, the minimum wage of the US.... just $7.25 an hour.... That would mean they would match the current total GDP of the US. Our median income is up near $50K a year. That nets us a GDP of around $20 Trillion. They would only need to reach $15,000 a year, to reach the same GDP. So you see, simply because they have more people, it is unavoidable that they will be an economic leader, assuming they continue with their capitalist reforms.

Now if they were to return back to the socialism of the past, they would decline again.

But what happens in China, will happen no matter what we in the US do. Does not matter if we have good or bad policies. If China engages in Capitalism, they would dominate the world economically. If they have bad left-wing policies, then the won't.

Being a reserve currency, has nothing to do with paper credit. All countries, have paper credit.

The only country I know of in recent memory, that ever had a non-fiat currency for a short time, was Zimbabwe, when the Zimbabwe dollar was devalued so badly by the government, that there was a short period of time, about a year or two, where everyone was engaging in exchange, using gold dust.

Of course during that time, the economy sucked. So not having a fiat currency, didn't turn out to be a big boon for the country.

Now if they were to return back to the socialism of the past, they would decline again.

But what happens in China, will happen no matter what we in the US do. Does not matter if we have good or bad policies. If China engages in Capitalism, they would dominate the world economically. If they have bad left-wing policies, then the won't.

Your conception of capitalism and socialism is fifty years out-of-date:

State capitalism - Wikipedia

"Many analysts assert that China is one of the main examples of state capitalism in the 21st century.[63][64][65]

"In his book, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations, political scientist Ian Bremmer describes China as the primary driver for the rise of state capitalism as a challenge to the free market economies of the developed world, particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007–2008.[66]

"Bremmer draws a broad definition of state capitalism as such:[67]

"In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs.

"They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors.

"They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit.

"And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival).

"This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain."

Who wins the war between states and corporations?

 

[georgephillip]

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"?

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

What is, "not corruption"?

Greed is not good.

Stock Buybacks Are Killing the American Economy

"As economic power has shifted from workers to owners over the past 40 years, corporate profit’s take of the U.S. economy has doubled—from an average of 6 percent of GDP during America’s post-war economic heyday to more than 12 percent today.

"Yet despite this extra $1 trillion a year in corporate profits, job growth remains anemic, wages are flat, and our nation can no longer seem to afford even its most basic needs.

"A $3.6 trillion budget shortfall has left many roads, bridges, dams, and other public infrastructure in disrepair.

"Federal spending on economically crucial research and development has plummeted 40 percent, from 1.25 percent of GDP in 1977 to only 0.75 percent today.

"Adjusted for inflation, public university tuition—once mostly covered by the states—has more than doubled over the past 30 years, burying recent graduates under $1.2 trillion in student debt.

"Many public schools and our police and fire departments are dangerously underfunded."

OH PLEASE. Sir, that is a bunch of crap from the start.

"economic power has shifted from workers to owners over the past 40 years"
Are you serious? That's a bunch of crap.

Back in the late 1800s, to middle of the 1900s, people would get a job at a company, and stay at that job until they died, because that was the only job they could ever have.

People would be at mining towns, and the only job in the entire town was that job. Employers had a TON more power in that relationship.


Today though, you think employers have more power? Are you crazy? I can, and in fact I have, simply walked off jobs. Just oh you think you can treat me like that? And walked off. All I did, was get another job.

Why do you think that people in India paid a fraction of what we get paid here, to do the same job? Because in India, there are far fewer of those jobs. If you have an InfoTech Job in India, you have to keep at it, because you may never get another one.

Here, crap... you can walk off a dozen IT jobs, and still have a thousand employers looking for someone with your skills. They have to pay us more, to keep us on the job, because we can find another.

So, no. Sorry, but no. Employers have far less power over employees today, than they did in the past. That goofy nut you keep quoting is wrong.

OH PLEASE. Sir, that is a bunch of crap from the start.

"economic power has shifted from workers to owners over the past 40 years"
Are you serious? That's a bunch of crap.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2013b_elsby_labor_share.pdf

"Over the past quarter century, labor’s share of income in the United States has trended downward, reaching its lowest level in the postwar period after the Great Recession. A detailed examination of the magnitude, determinants, and implications of this decline delivers five conclusions.

"First, about a third of the decline in the published labor share appears to be an artifact of statistical procedures used to impute the labor income of the self-employed that underlies the headline measure.

"Second, movements in labor’s share are not solely a feature of recent U.S. history: The relative stability of the aggregate labor share prior to the 1980s in fact veiled substantial, though offsetting, movements in labor shares within industries. By contrast, the recent decline has been dominated by the trade and manufacturing sectors.

"Third, U.S. data provide limited support for neoclassical explanations based on the substitution of capital for (unskilled) labor to exploit technical change embodied in new capital goods.

"Fourth, prima facie evidence for institutional explanations based on the decline in unionization is inconclusive.

"Finally, our analysis identifies offshoring of the labor-intensive component of the U.S. supply chain as a leading potential explanation of the decline in the U.S. labor share over the past 25 year."

 

[dblack]

First off, on principle, just gotta say, IT'S NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS!

Agreed. If only we could all remember that principle, and apply it consistently.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

China becoming a world economic power, is almost inevitable, unless they turn back towards socialism.

No matter what policy we put in place here in the US, whether we are successful, or fail, whether we have high growth, or low growth.... China will be a world economic power, and the Yuan will without a doubt be a reserve currency.

This is unavoidable.

The reason is because China has 1.4 Billion people.

What this means, is that if wages in China ever reach, the minimum wage of the US.... just $7.25 an hour.... That would mean they would match the current total GDP of the US. Our median income is up near $50K a year. That nets us a GDP of around $20 Trillion. They would only need to reach $15,000 a year, to reach the same GDP. So you see, simply because they have more people, it is unavoidable that they will be an economic leader, assuming they continue with their capitalist reforms.

Now if they were to return back to the socialism of the past, they would decline again.

But what happens in China, will happen no matter what we in the US do. Does not matter if we have good or bad policies. If China engages in Capitalism, they would dominate the world economically. If they have bad left-wing policies, then the won't.

Being a reserve currency, has nothing to do with paper credit. All countries, have paper credit.

The only country I know of in recent memory, that ever had a non-fiat currency for a short time, was Zimbabwe, when the Zimbabwe dollar was devalued so badly by the government, that there was a short period of time, about a year or two, where everyone was engaging in exchange, using gold dust.

Of course during that time, the economy sucked. So not having a fiat currency, didn't turn out to be a big boon for the country.

Now if they were to return back to the socialism of the past, they would decline again.

But what happens in China, will happen no matter what we in the US do. Does not matter if we have good or bad policies. If China engages in Capitalism, they would dominate the world economically. If they have bad left-wing policies, then the won't.

Your conception of capitalism and socialism is fifty years out-of-date:

State capitalism - Wikipedia

"Many analysts assert that China is one of the main examples of state capitalism in the 21st century.[63][64][65]

"In his book, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations, political scientist Ian Bremmer describes China as the primary driver for the rise of state capitalism as a challenge to the free market economies of the developed world, particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007–2008.[66]

"Bremmer draws a broad definition of state capitalism as such:[67]

"In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs.

"They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors.

"They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit.

"And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival).

"This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain."

Who wins the war between states and corporations?

Green New Deal? What a stupid joke.

 

[dblack]

Of course, Bernie professes Democratic Socialism as opposed to

Marx·ism
/ˈmärkˌsizəm/
noun

1. the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.

So what? The differences between communism and democratic socialism are irrelevant in my view. Both give government way too much power.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Don't get mad. You're entitled.

 

[georgephillip]

George, a serious question:

Have you ever talked anyone into abandoning their political philosophy and adopting yours?

I've never tried.
Until the Internet arrived it was seldom useful to engage in political/economic discussions with people who held opposing beliefs. I think we would have to experience a major upheaval (911 meets the Great Recession) before finding any common ground between left and right in the US would become possible.

So, you keep spouting your Commie drivel -- why?

Are you paid to?

If you are, your employer needs a better quality assurance program. Because he's not getting any return on his investment.

I'm not compensated in any way for posting here.
Are you?

 

[georgephillip]

"Bill Gates says he’s happy to pay $20 billion in taxes, but Warren’s plan will make him ‘do a little math on what I have left over"
I know Bill Gates. Bill Gates is a friend of mine. He's also the biggest liar among them by far. However, I must credit him with always being exceptionally manipulative, greedy, control freakish, narcissistic, and stubborn. Also, no one in history has benefited more personally from simply being in the right place at the right time. For someone so average to accomplish so little of actual note other than destroying public education and extracting massive wealth from Microsoft for decades while always pretending to be giving it away, he's certainly snowed the general public.

“Bill Gates is a Parasite”

"'Bill Gates is a Parasite'"

"Noam Chomsky, interviewed by the BBC:

"'My success comes from my ability to embrace and expand the ideas of others.' — Bill Gates. He is a parasite. All he has to add to that is that he’s a parasite off the public sector.

"Because, in fact, almost everything that he does, whether it’s computers or the internet or anything else, are things that the ordinary person paid for.

"Think of the internet.

"That’s thirty years of development, inside the public sector, mostly out of the pentagon.

"All of the ideas, the technology, the hardware, the software, everything. Finally, just two or three years ago it’s given over to Bill Gates. And that’s called a victory of the market."

Bill has certainly made the most of an accident of birth.

 

[Andylusion]

Back in the late 1800s, to middle of the 1900s, people would get a job at a company, and stay at that job until they died, because that was the only job they could ever have.

First off, on principle, just gotta say, IT'S NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS! That out of the way, next, obviously, it was a simpler time. Grandpas have always harkened back to the good/bad old, cherry picked days of yore. Next, keeping the same job is fucking great if you like the work, if the working conditions are decent and meet your needs. Everyone would love that. Changing jobs all the time blows by comparison. Face it, you know nothing. Get a clue, then spew.

Well of course I'd prefer to keep the same job if I like it......

But the point wasn't whether you liked it or not.... the point was who had more power. OBVIOUSLY........ if your employer, is the ONLY employer in the entire town..... That employer has more power over you.

To claim that employers today have more power, when they have to compete for workers in a vast market... is insane compared to times past, when you had barely 5 jobs, and sometimes only 1 job in the whole town.

The claim is nuts. Not true. Employees have a TON more negotiating power today, than in times past.

 

[Andylusion]

"Bill Gates says he’s happy to pay $20 billion in taxes, but Warren’s plan will make him ‘do a little math on what I have left over"
I know Bill Gates. Bill Gates is a friend of mine. He's also the biggest liar among them by far. However, I must credit him with always being exceptionally manipulative, greedy, control freakish, narcissistic, and stubborn. Also, no one in history has benefited more personally from simply being in the right place at the right time. For someone so average to accomplish so little of actual note other than destroying public education and extracting massive wealth from Microsoft for decades while always pretending to be giving it away, he's certainly snowed the general public.

“Bill Gates is a Parasite”

"'Bill Gates is a Parasite'"

"Noam Chomsky, interviewed by the BBC:

"'My success comes from my ability to embrace and expand the ideas of others.' — Bill Gates. He is a parasite. All he has to add to that is that he’s a parasite off the public sector.

"Because, in fact, almost everything that he does, whether it’s computers or the internet or anything else, are things that the ordinary person paid for.

"Think of the internet.

"That’s thirty years of development, inside the public sector, mostly out of the pentagon.

"All of the ideas, the technology, the hardware, the software, everything. Finally, just two or three years ago it’s given over to Bill Gates. And that’s called a victory of the market."

Bill has certainly made the most of an accident of birth.

Never quote Noam Chomsky. If there is any idiot that knows nothing, that's the man. Dude... he's a linguist. You are quoting a linguist, on an economics topic. Do you quote the mechanic at your oil change place, on his opinion of orthopedic surgeon topics? Do you go ask an accountant his opinion on quantum physics?

He has no economics training. He has never worked a full day in the real world. Never quote him. To me, someone quoting Noam Chomsky about economics, is like asking the Soviets the best options for Nuclear power in 1986.

If you have a question about languages, then go read what Noam Chomsky has to say. Otherwise, it's one ignorant person, quoting another ignorant person.