REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Does Profit Equal Theft?

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 07:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3976
PAGE 2 of 2

Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:24 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Who's the more stupid, the person who takes a loan they can't afford, or the one that hands over money they'll never see again?


The one who bails both of them out afterwards.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:26 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The one who bails both of them out afterwards


Isn't that you :p



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:27 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The one who bails both of them out afterwards


Isn't that you :p



Indeed.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:28 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"I'm a little curious Signy and Rue. What do you two do with your 'profit'?"

I don't make a 'profit'. And I'm smart enough to know that the money I make by working is a 'wage' - not a 'profit'.

You see, unlike you, I know what a profit is, and who makes it. And unless you own a business, it's not you either. It's the place you work for.

***************************************************************

Enjoy your life making the owner rich.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:31 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I don't make a 'profit'. And I'm smart enough to know that the money I make by working is a 'wage' - not a 'profit'.



Do you have any investments? Savings?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Investments ? No. I'm not that stupid. I saw what dubya was going to do to the economy and stayed way, waaaay far away. Thank god.

No savings either - I saw what was going to happen with the banks and stayed waaaay far away from that was well.

And your point ?


Is it that people who HAVE to work for a living are somehow - capitalists ?

Boy, are you silly.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:40 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
And your point ?



The point is, if you have a savings account, stocks, bonds, an IRA, or anything that earns interest, you are a capitalist. A "silly" one if you like, but a capitalist nonetheless.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:01 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"if you have a savings account, stocks, bonds, an IRA, or anything that earns interest, you are a capitalist ..."

And that is your problem. You think you are something that you're not. You are one of the 19% who think they are one of the 1% top income earners, or the 20% who think they will be some day.

THIS is a capitalist:

cap·i·tal·ist (kp-tl-st)
n.
1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth.

A minority owner who is too small an investor to exercise rights of ownership - that's you, me, and everyone else except the very wealthy who can LIVE OFF THEIR INVESTMENTS - are not capitalists.

We need to work day in and day out for our living. That makes us - well, you're a lumpen. I'm not.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:13 AM

SERGEANTX


Heh... whatever rue.

I'll let you worry about the nomenclature. The point isn't that wages and profits are the same thing. The point is that they are similar in that they are both payment for a service rendered. Despite your contention that capitalists "do nothing", they do provide a valuable service. Its one that a lot of people are ignorant of, but when you propose taking profits out of the mix, you realize very quickly the services they provide. At that point, you either have to replace those functions somehow, or let everything grind to a halt.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Morlocks and Loti, innit, really ?

Wrote a wonderfully blistering letter earlier about the irony of the CEOs most responsible for the tanking of the auto industry whining about union laborers being lazy and greedy - when they do actually managed to still do their jobs, which is building the product, and have taken numerous pay and benefit cuts, while the CEOs who make a thousand times more have utterly failed in their jobs, which is keeping the company running, get massive bonuses and huge severance packages.

Henry Ford was a bastard, but this much is true, unless your employees can afford to buy your product, they're underpaid - and these days who else BUT UAW members can afford those massive gas guzzling SUV's the big three keep churning out to rot on dealer lots while the public howls for a fuel efficient econobox ?

Foreign companies have the edge on us with hybrid and electrics - which are still so damn expensive you don't save any money when you can buy some used vehicle of moderate efficiency and come out even further ahead - so what they SHOULD have done, and still could do, is come out with a bare bones high efficiency four-banger with the old school CVH rattlebox and market it to the Student/Second Car/In Town Car demographic.

And golly gee, don't ya know, some internet jerk can say this - why didn't it occur to folks paid a thousand times more to know it, ehe ?

Never reward incompetence, it just encourages it - half the reason the big three are at this point is KNOWING the Gov would step in and bail em out no matter how badly they screwed it, and we really should put an end to that.

The concept of wage scale imho should be related to how much value was added to the materials or product by your efforts, and in the case of said CEOs, who's actions REMOVED value from the product, I would be presenting their ass with a bill, not a salary!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:28 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"The point is that they are similar in that they are both payment for a service rendered."

Not at all. A profit is the fallout of an investment of money. No WORK is required. That's what makes it different from a wage.

But whatever. If your ego requires it tell yourself that even though you work for your money, you're really a capitalist. I'm not going to stand in your way.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:40 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
But whatever. If your ego requires it tell yourself that even though you work for your money, you're really a capitalist. I'm not going to stand in your way.



LOL. You really can't have a discussion without petty insults, can you?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 11:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Not at all. A profit is the fallout of an investment of money. No WORK is required. That's what makes it different from a wage.



If only it were that easy. Most entrepreneurial capitalists I know not only invest their money, but work quite hard to make their businesses a success. It's easy to cherry-pick examples from recent news, but there's still a lot of capitalist folks out there who put in a bunch of hours successfully managing and growing their businesses. Ben & Jerry come to mind.

Edit to add: Decided where in the Caribbean you wanna live yet? I'm thinking Aruba or the (combined) Virgin Islands.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 28, 2009 11:49 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I don't make a 'profit'. And I'm smart enough to know that the money I make by working is a 'wage' - not a 'profit'.


That's why I used quotation marks for profit.
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
You see, unlike you, I know what a profit is, and who makes it. And unless you own a business, it's not you either. It's the place you work for.


Just trying a little thought experiment. In the other thread it was postulated that profit only comes about because the capitalist short changes his/her workers. That the capitalist is somehow in the wrong for not breaking even. I was just curious as to how this thinking impacts your life and the choices you make. Does your income exactly match your expenditures? Are you a greedy person if they do not? Who sets the guidelines regarding how much profit is too much?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 1, 2009 7:31 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Bump for Rue and Signy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 2, 2009 6:24 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Wonders if Rue and Signy are busy bump.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 2, 2009 1:52 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Wonders if Rue and Signy are busy bump.



The SickyNym-RueTard Axis are MIA , presumed killed...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 2, 2009 3:27 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


I've seen them around these parts lately, just not this thread in particular. I wonder why?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 2, 2009 3:34 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hey trolls ! Over HEEEeeeeere !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 2, 2009 3:36 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"In the other thread it was postulated that profit only comes about because the capitalist short changes his/her workers. That the capitalist is somehow in the wrong for not breaking even."

Breaking even and making a profit are not the same. This is how it works out in deep mathematical jargon:

PROFIT: money in - expenses(incl. direct wages) = extra money
BREAKING EVEN: money in - expenses(incl. direct wages) = 0

And, to be complete

LOSS: money in - expenses(incl. direct wages) = in the hole

***************************************************************

As you can see, making a profit, breaking even, and taking a loss are not the same.

Try coming back with something not quite so hopelessly silly and maybe we'll have something to discuss.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 2, 2009 3:51 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So, since I really don't expect much from the trolls, I'm going to continue on my own.

What is the goal of every capitalist ?

It's to continue to make money AFTER the investments are paid off, ABOVE and beyond expenses. In other words, to make free money for no work.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 2, 2009 3:53 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Breaking even and making a profit are not the same. This is how it works out in deep mathematical jargon:

PROFIT: money in - expenses(incl. direct wages) = extra money
BREAKING EVEN: money in - expenses(incl. direct wages) = 0

And, to be complete

LOSS: money in - expenses(incl. direct wages) = in the hole

***************************************************************

As you can see, making a profit, breaking even, and taking a loss are not the same.

Try coming back with something not quite so hopelessly silly and maybe we'll have something to discuss.


Well thank-you for your complete dodge of the question. Let me know when you are willing to discuss the present topic and not throw up another smoke screen.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 2, 2009 4:32 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


See the quote of yours that I included ? Doesn't it equate profit with breaking even ? And isn't that wrong ?

If you have some OTHER topic in mind - besides what you posted - it would be really nice of you to clue to rest of us in.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 2, 2009 5:36 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
See the quote of yours that I included ? Doesn't it equate profit with breaking even ? And isn't that wrong ?

If you have some OTHER topic in mind - besides what you posted - it would be really nice of you to clue to rest of us in.


Let's try this again.
Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Just trying a little thought experiment. In the other thread it was postulated that profit only comes about because the capitalist short changes his/her workers. That the capitalist is somehow in the wrong for not breaking even. I was just curious as to how this thinking impacts your life and the choices you make. Does your income exactly match your expenditures? Are you a greedy person if they do not? Who sets the guidelines regarding how much profit is too much?


In this very thread, you mused that profit comes about because the capitalist does not give the worker the full value of their work. So in your opinion, no capitalist should ever make a profit because they are robbing their employees to make it. So if there is no profit to be made, where is the incentive to start a capitalistic venture? If there is no reward, why take the risk?
I tried to personalize the scenario to get a better understanding of where you are coming from.
If your 'profit' or income is greater than your expenditures, why can it not be the same for the capitalist?
If you want to get ahead, why should it not be the same for the capitalist?

Say you have been buying milk from the same store for a number of years. Then one day you find milk at another store for less money. Do you continue to buy the more expensive milk or do you start to buy the cheaper milk? Do you go to the store with the cheaper milk but pay them extra to make up the difference with the more expensive store?

Now say a capitalist has employees making widgets a certain way for a number of years. Then new technology comes about which makes the same quality widgets but faster and less expensively. Should the capitalist continue to make widgets the old fashioned way or invest in the new technology? Should the capitalist invest in the new technology yet pay the workers the difference even though their jobs are now easier?

If you are a good person for providing for your family at the lowest cost why is it not the same for the capitalist providing for their family (investors)?

Is it simply the numbers we are dealing with that are tripping you up? You see the capitalist as having too much money. Would someone in a much lower tax bracket than you think the same of you?
Do you live in a house? Could you live in a smaller house? Do you drive a car? Could you take the bus instead?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:32 AM

SERGEANTX


Stop that!

Profit is only something acquired by the rich and powerful (and evil) for doing nothing at all.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:33 AM

SERGEANTX


dp

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

In this very thread, you mused that profit comes about because the capitalist does not give the worker the full value of their work. So in your opinion, no capitalist should ever make a profit because they are robbing their employees to make it. So if there is no profit to be made, where is the incentive to start a capitalistic venture? If there is no reward, why take the risk?
There are a lot of misunderstandings in your post.

I've been excruciatingly busy and need to catch up, but I'd definitely like to get back on this.


---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The SickyNym-RueTard Axis are MIA , presumed killed...
As always, thank you for your logical, factual insight.


---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

If only it were that easy. Most entrepreneurial capitalists I know not only invest their money, but work quite hard to make their businesses a success.
Yes, but since I know that you're smart enough to mentally disentangle these concepts, why don't you give it a try???

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 9:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The point is that they are similar in that they are both payment for a service rendered.
Your ignorance of capitalism is inexcusable considering that you're so vehement in its defense.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 9:52 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Your ignorance of capitalism is inexcusable considering that you're so vehement in its defense.



Nice...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 9:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Sorry, just playing your game.

Too busy for a detailed rebuttal.

Still, you apparently really DON'T know anything about capitalism!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 10:15 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Sorry, just playing your game.



My game!?!? Ahem...

Anyway, I know enough about capitalism to recognize the part that investors and owners play. Far from "doing nothing" they fill an important role that can't just be done away with. As I've spelled out in previous posts, they make crucial decisions that seek to satisfy consumers' needs and wants. Profit is their compensation for making theses calls correctly.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 10:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Was listening to This American Life on NPR this morning, and they mentioned that the total private debt in the U.S. is currently about equal to the GDP (14 trillion or so), up from 20% of GDP in the '40s/50s. The last time debt equaled GDP was...1929.
There are two figures I've been trackng for the last couple of decades (yes, decades); income disparity and private debt. (BTW Geezer if private debt = GDP, how can you claim that typical household net worth is positive? The answer is- you can't.)

The two are inextricably related. When I saw that income disparity was reaching 1929 proportions (about three years ago) I got a 1929-size butt pucker. Job creation is pulled by consumption, not pushed by investment (Who would be fool enough to create jobs without the glimmer of a market?) In purely Keynsian fashion, Greenspan thought he make up for loss of purchasing power by growing the money supply through artificially low interest-rates*. What he did was set off a bubble of horrific proportions. What you don't realize is that all of that leveraged "funny money" flooding the economy... THAT was inflation. THAT was when the dollar was destroyed.

Economists (except Roubini and several others) thought that the world economy would "decouple". How the frak did they think THAT???? Every capitalist economy needs a consumer who WILL consume beyond their earnings, because otherwise the friggin' economy collapses! And the USA filled that role: World's Stupidest Consumer. They (we) followed Bush's exhortation to Go forth and SHOP! Well, now that we're not shopping so much, China, Japan, and Germany are wondering who's gonna buy their sh*t.

* Greenspan thought that bankers' self-interest would keep them from going too far out on a limb. He said that given control of interest rates he could even stop a Kondratieff Winter (great depression). Looks like he was wrong on both counts.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 10:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Anyway, I know enough about capitalism to recognize the part that investors and owners play. Far from "doing nothing" they fill an important role that can't just be done away with. As I've spelled out in previous posts, they make crucial decisions that seek to satisfy consumers' needs and wants. Profit is their compensation for making theses calls correctly.
Okay, I have a little more time.

It's very clear that profit is killing the system which creates it. Taking a percentage money out of circulation at each turn of the production-consumption cycle brings the system closer and closer to collapse, because people simply don't have the money to consume what they've just produced. Eventually, you wind up... where we are now: with the collapse of debt-financed economy.

However, there is another more benign name for not consuming everything that you have produced, and it's called savings.

Whether you all it savings or profit, it is a sequestration of money from circulation, and therefore you better have a damn good reason to take money OUT of circulation, because you're going to have to make up for it somehow. At THIS stage of our production technology we really don't need to "improve production". In a world where billions are unemployed or under-employed, the drive for constantly improving productivity is simply based on the drive for increased profit, not for any real NEED to "do more with less". IMHO the only valid areas are research and infrastructure. And that requires far less "profit" (or "savings") than is currently being skimmed out of circulation: prolly less than 2%. We could tolerate a 2% inflation rate, if we needed to.

AFA "investment"... quite often the businessperson starts up a business with other peeps money, typically a loan, but sometimes a bond or IPO. Its really the lender/ investor who is taking the risk, not the business-owner. Even then there is no reason to "make money" on money. Interest rates could be simply set to reflect the average risk (based on the failure rate of that particular sector.)

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 10:41 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
If you are a good person for providing for your family at the lowest cost why is it not the same for the capitalist providing for their family (investors)?


Actually the investors would be the Capitalists.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 11:21 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
It's very clear that profit is killing the system which creates it. Taking a percentage money out of circulation at each turn of the production-consumption cycle brings the system closer and closer to collapse, because people simply don't have the money to consume what they've just produced. Eventually, you wind up... where we are now: with the collapse of debt-financed consumption/ economy.



I'm not seeing any cause and effect in what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that increased savings will lead to inflation, though not sure how that would play out. Doesn't the opposite usually happen? And how does that connect with debt financed consumption?

Quote:

Whether you all it savings or profit, it is a sequestration of money from circulation, and therefore you better have a damn good reason to take money OUT of circulation, because you're going to have to make up for it somehow.


Really? People can only save money if they have a "damned good reason"? So who get's to decide?



SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:12 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Was listening to This American Life on NPR this morning, and they mentioned that the total private debt in the U.S. is currently about equal to the GDP (14 trillion or so), up from 20% of GDP in the '40s/50s. The last time debt equaled GDP was...1929.
There are two figures I've been trackng for the last couple of decades (yes, decades); income disparity and private debt.

...When I saw that income disparity was reaching 1929 proportions (about three years ago) I got a 1929-size butt pucker. Job creation is pulled by consumption, not pushed by investment (Who would be fool enough to create jobs without the glimmer of a market?) In purely Keynsian fashion, Greenspan thought he make up for loss of purchasing power by growing the money supply through artificially low interest-rates*. What he did was set off a bubble of horrific proportions. What you don't realize is that all of that leveraged "funny money" flooding the economy... THAT was inflation. THAT was when the dollar was destroyed.

Economists (except Roubini and several others) thought that the world economy would "decouple". How the frak did they think THAT???? Every capitalist economy needs a consumer who WILL consume beyond their earnings, because otherwise the friggin' economy collapses! And the USA filled that role: World's Stupidest Consumer. They (we) followed Bush's exhortation to Go forth and SHOP! Well, now that we're not shopping so much, China, Japan, and Germany are wondering who's gonna buy their sh*t.

* Greenspan thought that bankers' self-interest would keep them from going too far out on a limb. He said that given control of interest rates he could even stop a Kondratieff Winter (great depression). Looks like he was wrong on both counts.




The inflation is BUILT INTO the system , since the establishment of the International Bankster FEDERAL RESERVE in 1913 , at which time the EVIL TWIN collection mechanism , Internal Revenue Service , was also set into motion , to pay the INTEREST on the DEBT...

It only took them 20 years , 'til 1933 , to CRASH the SYSTEM , and put the United States into receivership ; hence the outlawing of LAWFUL MONEY (Gold), and the subsequent uptake of the other Lawful MONEY , SILVER , in the Interim between THEN and NOW...

As before , the Solution remains ther same : Disestablish the Bankster-Controlled Private Bank 'FEDERAL RESERVE' , and re-establish the States' Sovereign LAWFUL MONEY...

'Financial Disarmament

There are no solutions under the prevailing global financial architecture. Meaningful policies cannot be achieved without radically reforming the workings of the internaional banking system.

What is required is an overhaul of the monetary system including the functions and ownership of the central bank, the arrest and prosecution of those involved in financial fraud both in the financial system and in governmental agencies, the freeze of all accounts where fraudulent transfers have been deposited, the cancellation of debts resulting from fraudulent trade and/or market manipulation.

People across the land, nationally and internationally must mobilize. This struggle to democratise the financial and fiscal apparatus must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels, in all countries. What is ultimately required is to disarm the financial establishment:



-confiscate those assets which were obtained through fraud and financial manipulation.

-restore the savings of households through reverse transfers

-return the bailout money to the Treasury, freeze the activities of the hedge funds.

- freeze the gamut of speculative transactions including short-selling and derivative trade.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12517

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:37 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


"Slumdog Millionaire" and Its Critics

When "Slumdog Millionaire" won the Oscar last month for Best Picture, residents of Mumbai's slums celebrated. In contrast, Indian activists and intellectuals who have decried the movie for its portrayal of poverty and violence and its alleged exploitation of child actors and slum dwellers lamented the victory.
Some critics even lobbed the charge of "cultural imperialism," claiming that the movie is a flawed Western interpretation of Mumbai. This claim, however, overlooks both the film's basic faithfulness to the novel by Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup on which it is based and Bollywood's own tradition of uplifting stories.
Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and editor of Lessons from the Poor: Triumph of the Entrepreneurial Spirit, defends the film from such Indian critics.

"The charge that 'Slumdog Millionaire' exploits Mumbai's poverty is so absurd that by the same token Charles Dickens' entire body of work would have to be invalidated as a defamation of 19th-century England," Vargas Llosa writes. "Like all accomplished stories, 'Slumdog Millionaire'is probably resonating with audiences because it gives a glimpse of complex truths and tells us something about ourselves that we had trouble defining. In that sense, the Motion Picture Academy did not honor a 'foreign' film, but one strangely familiar."

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2442

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Edit:
Quote:

I'm not seeing any cause and effect in what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that increased savings will lead to inflation, though not sure how that would play out. Doesn't the opposite usually happen? And how does that connect with debt financed consumption
It's a multi-step process, involving the "politics" end of political economics. As I'm about tell O2B, there have been regular deep recessions/ depressions with major currency dislocation throughout the USA history of capitalism: 1837, 1873, 1929, (minorly 1981 with the S&L debacle), 2008. Didn't matter whether the currency was on a gold standard or whether "The Fed" existed. In previous depressions the govt stood pat on currency. "Money" (currency) became EXTREMELY valuable, the problem was that ordinary peeps simply didn't have it (physically). So they were driven out of their homes and starved. That's where the "You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold" came from: WJ Bryan was arguing to go the silver standard (basically, arguing for increasing the money supply, amking it available to people who didn't have it).

In the great depression of 1929, Roosevelt took a clue from Keynes (a British economist) who said that the reason why depressions occurred was because of capital concentration, and that the solution was simply to "create more currency" and inject it at the bottom of the food chain. Unlike the wealthy, who will hoard money, poor people will spend it, which will create jobs, and THOSE people will demand goods and create even more job, getting currency to circulate again. (It was called "pump priming".) So there is nothing inherent about inflation resulting from depressions, it's just policy.

ONE way of growing the money supply is simply to make credit available to people who, until then, didn't have access to it. It's even more insidious than simply printing more money and handing it out.
Quote:

Really? People can only save money if they have a "damned good reason"? So who get's to decide?
Here I am trying to put this in terms ammenable to you and you're (I swear to god) deliberately taking it out of context. The point is that if you TAKE MONEY OUT OF CIRCULATION you better have a damn good reason for it.


---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:55 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

...It's very clear that profit is killing the system which creates it. Taking a percentage money out of circulation at each turn of the production-consumption cycle brings the system closer and closer to collapse, because people simply don't have the money to consume what they've just produced. Eventually, you wind up... where we are now: with the collapse of debt-financed economy.




It's not PROFIT that kills the system , except the BANKSTER-Profit , USURY , and the FED-RESERVE-induced INFLATION...

When you look deeply enough into it , you'll know what ails you...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:59 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The inflation is BUILT INTO the system , since the establishment of the International Bankster FEDERAL RESERVE in 1913 , at which time the EVIL TWIN collection mechanism , Internal Revenue Service , was also set into motion , to pay the INTEREST on the DEBT...It's not PROFIT that kills the system , except the BANKSTER-Profit , USURY , and the FED-RESERVE-induced INFLATION...

In the early 1900s "the great depression" was the depression of 1873. Previous to that, there was the great depression of 1837.

Inflation is the Keynsian "solution" to regularly recurring depressions, but not the cause of them. With or without inflation, ordinary people still fell on starving times.


---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 2:02 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

The inflation is BUILT INTO the system , since the establishment of the International Bankster FEDERAL RESERVE in 1913 , at which time the EVIL TWIN collection mechanism , Internal Revenue Service , was also set into motion , to pay the INTEREST on the DEBT...It's not PROFIT that kills the system , except the BANKSTER-Profit , USURY , and the FED-RESERVE-induced INFLATION...

In the early 1900s "the great depression" was the depression of 1873. Previous to that, there was the great depression of 1837.

Inflation is the Keynsian "solution" to regularly recurring depressions, but not the cause of them. With or without inflation, ordinary people still fell on starving times.




...And , the Central Banks were responsible in each case...

Again , check your History before passing judgment...

SignyM has a hard time doing her homework...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 2:02 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


"Government has within it a tendency to abuse its powers." - -- John C. Calhoun - (1782-1850) American statesman


"By far the most numerous and most flagrant violations of personal liberty and individual rights are performed by governments. The major crimes throughout history, the ones executed on the largest scale, have been committed not by individuals or bands of individuals but by governments, as a deliberate policy of those governments, that is, by the official representatives of governments, acting in their official capacity." -- John Hospers (1918- ) Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Southern California, author

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 6:15 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Quote:

Really? People can only save money if they have a "damned good reason"? So who get's to decide?
Here I am trying to put this in terms ammenable to you and you're (I swear to god) deliberately taking it out of context. The point is that if you TAKE MONEY OUT OF CIRCULATION you better have a damn good reason for it.



It certainly wasn't my intent to take anything out of context. Your statement naturally leads to that question. I'm simply curious what you mean by a "damn good reason" and how that translates into policy, i.e. "who decides?"

Anyway, I'm curious why you haven't answered the questions from CIA, O2B, BigDammNobody and myself about incentives for people to start business or make investments outside of profit. You and rue seem to be suggesting that it's wrong for business owners and investors to make any money from their ventures, so we're asking - how do you expect anyone to pursue such projects without any compensation?

Now, for the sake of discussion, I'll assume that you don't really expect a store owner, for example, to sell their products at cost. I'll assume you recognize their need to cover overhead and related expenses. I'll even assume you realize that they need to provide for their own needs and creature comforts. The question is, who decides how much their efforts are worth? You seem to be suggesting that there is some objective value in the work that they do, with anything else being corrupt "profit", but who determines what that value is?

The other thing you've been ignoring is my point about the service provided by investors and business owners even if they don't provide direct management of their companies. You and rue seem to consider this the evilest form of profit because the beneficiaries "do nothing" to earn it. My point is that they are indeed doing something, they're making important decisions about what projects to pursue, what goods to produce, what resources to collect, etc, etc... As you said, they provide the "top level" management.

If they don't do this, if they simply sit on their money and hoard it, well, you've already outlined how that is bad for all of us. Is it your position that they simply shouldn't be allowed to decide what happens with their own money? Or are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed to accrue wealth to begin with, that we should be required to spend everything we make?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 6:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Now, for the sake of discussion, I'll assume that you don't really expect a store owner, for example, to sell their products at cost. I'll assume you recognize their need to cover overhead and related expenses. I'll even assume you realize that they need to provide for their own needs and creature comforts.
First of all, nobody is expected to go into business to LOSE money. Nobody is expected to go into business just so they can kill a lot of time into the venture without recompense.

But the whole concept of "the owner" as the person "at risk" needs to be re-thought. First of all, as mentioned before, a business owner USUALLY goes into business on someone else's money- typically, a loan. Please don't tell me it doesn't work that way: I know peeps who opened an Ethiopian restaurant (have to lease the building, buy industrial kitchen equipment, rennovate, get the necessary licenses incl liquor license etc) and peeps who operate franchises. If someone goes into business on their own money it's usually because the cost of entry (and therefore the risk) is low: consulting, gardening, housecleaning, dogwalking, private-duty nursing.

So generally the people "at risk" are really the INVESTORS and the question is really: Why would an INVESTOR risk their money w/o the lure of SOME sort of gain and the answer is: they wouldn't.

Shit.

Out of time.


---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:04 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But the whole concept of "the owner" as the person "at risk" needs to be re-thought. First of all, as mentioned before, a business owner USUALLY goes into business on someone else's money- typically, a loan. Please don't tell me it doesn't work that way: I know peeps who opened an Ethiopian restaurant (have to lease the building, buy industrial kitchen equipment, rennovate, get the necessary licenses incl liquor license etc) and peeps who operate franchises. If someone goes into business on their own money it's usually because the cost of entry (and therefore the risk) is low: consulting, gardening, housecleaning, dogwalking, private-duty nursing.

So generally the people "at risk" are really the INVESTORS and the question is really: Why would an INVESTOR risk their money w/o the lure of SOME sort of gain and the answer is: they wouldn't.



While I don't disagree with the distinction you're making here, I'm not sure how it applies. I'm not really holding up 'risk' as the primary reason for compensation. It's the scrutiny and judgment that goes into deciding which projects should go forward and which should not. That's the "work" that investors do. Even in a socialist state, this sort of decision making would need to happen. The difference is that the risk element provides a powerful incentive for private investors to get it right. A state official, presumably, wouldn't have such "performance-related" pay.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:50 - 3410 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL