changed to "wealth inequality"

[JohnRoberts]

Apparently the corporation/stock market wealth is the next piggy bank to raid for wealth transfer.

Looks like she is laying out parts of her election campaign brief for 2020.

Interesting times.. what could be wrong about saving capitalism?  ;D

She wrote an editorial in WSJ that I didn't get today... I may have to actually read it on the WWW.

JR

PS: I am only halfway through reading the blank slate... good read, so far.

 

[dmp]

History repeats itself. Teddy Roosevelt formed the Progressive party in response to the wealth inequality of a century ago: the robber barrons , etc...
The 'wealth transfer' has already been happening for the past 30 yrs. The fatal flaw of Capitalism is that it does not reach a stable equilibrium - it concentrates wealth and power. The monopoly outcome (as in the game).
Teddy Roosevelt proposed a Square Deal : conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection
There will be a lot of talk on reinventing the wheel but I expect to see a lot of the same things play out. 

Progressive party platform (pasted from wikipedia). Awfully familiar eh?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The platform's main theme was reversing the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled the Republican and Democratic parties, alike. The platform asserted:

To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.[13]

To that end, the platform called for:

Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
In the social sphere, the platform called for:

A national health service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited the ability of judges to order injunctions to limit labor strikes.
A minimum wage law for women
An eight-hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
The political reforms proposed included:

Women's suffrage
Direct election of Senators
Primary elections for state and federal nominations
Easier amending of the United States Constitution[14][15][16]
The platform also urged states to adopt measures for "direct democracy", including:

The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term)
The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote)
The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote)
Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)[17]

 

[john12ax7]

I find one of the biggest problems of current "capitalism" is the lack of actual capitalism.  An actual level playing field where the rich didn't get constant handouts would solve a lot of problems.

If the regular guy invests or starts a business and fails,  they lose their money.  The big companies write rules to keep competition out,  and get to gamble away,  knowing they will never be held responsible for any misdeeds or losses.

It's an incredibly profitable system for those at the top,  but also not actually capitalism.

 

[Scodiddly]

This whole "wealth transfer" argument seems kind of silly to me.

Let's say that the middle and lower classes seem to have a lot less money these days, and communities are kind of suffering too.

Meanwhile rich people seem to have gotten quite a lot richer than they used to be.

Would you consider this a form of "wealth transfer"?  Would it maybe qualify as "class warfare"?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I watcher Liz get interviewed by a relatively friendly business news guy... She has crafted a much better message for 2020 than in the past but it does remind me a little of George Orwell's "doublethink", not that she is alone in that swamp practice.

That is the humor in her claiming to be a capitalist.  Yes believe both this, and that..as if they are not in complete conflict.  :

JR

PS: I had to work hard to resist hitting the FF button but gave her the benefit of one listen.

PPS; Wealth transfer is what class warfare is all about..  you don't want to kill the rich people because then they stop creating new wealth. If government proved they were better at spending OPM (other people's money) this wouldn't be so scary, but government sucks at prudent money management.  As i said interesting times.

 

[Scodiddly]

PPS; Wealth transfer is what class warfare is all about..  you don't want to kill the rich people because then they stop creating new wealth.

The problem with systematically starving the lower classes is that you eventually get a torches-and-pitchforks revolution.  And these days the rich people don't seem to be creating new wealth so much as squeezing as much blood out of the corpse as possible before it rots away.

 

[boji]

To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics

Where is the call to abolish corporate personhood?
And what about the Federal Reserve which is neither federal nor in the business of preserving our nation's wealth?

I won't believe there's any reformation at work until I start hearing this kind of language.

 

[hodad]

Apparently the corporation/stock market wealth is the next piggy bank to raid for wealth transfer.

Hasn't that piggy bank been getting stuffed lately with stock buybacks fueled by corporate tax cuts? 

The "job creators" are well past having enough money to indulge in job creation; at this point they have so much money they have nothing to do with it but buy back stocks to plump up their stock prices.  Meanwhile, down at the bottom, real wages are stagnant to dropping. 

Note that the tax cuts that have fueled this concentration of wealth at the top have nothing to do with what's right or good for people, or the nation, or the economy.  It's all about who holds the strings of power.  The rich aren't getting richer because of all the wonderful things they're doing for the economy; they're getting richer because might makes "right." 

 

[L´Andratté]

You know the movie
It can´t be saved.
Capitalism needs constant growth in a world that doesn´t sustain constant growth.
That contradiction never ever gets adressed.
Capitalism doesn´t play by it´s own rules. That´s imho an inherent flaw.
There´s no trickle-down-effect, that´s a useful legend, such a pity.

The interesting question is can the planet be saved?

 

[Script]

Actually, I'm growing a bit tired of fundamental 'capitalist-is-bad-in-itself' discussions.

Also, the following is not meant to be apologetic -- just observational:

(1) There is a thing called CSR (corporate social responsibility). Corporations could easily be forced to put more emphasis on that and then held responsible if they fail to comply with stricter pratices. Ultimately, it boils down to a question of political will.

(2) Corporations certainly aim at creating wealth for investors. That is the game. But anyone, even those not belonging into that group of the 10% wealthiest people in a country, can easily become investors. How so?

Well, the stock markets are open to anyone with a bank account. A one-time investment of $10 into a savings plan makes neither sense, nor a difference. But investing $10 every week does, or even better, $1000 for starters into something that promises to be successful also in a more-distant future.

However, there is no free lunch here, so also  expect a bit of work to come with it. Rule-of-thumb: the higher the investment, the higher the potential payoff for the invested work time.

----
Ignoring point 1 above creates societal problems in the long run. And it has already created many problems that are in dire need of being addressed. Ultimately, I see that too as a question of political will.

Ignoring point 2 above creates personal problems in the long run, problems that often continue to be ignored by too many. I know there are people who simply cannot 'afford' saving anything, they are always short (please refer to point 1). But to the rest who could afford with a little bit of discipline:

Good luck!

------
We all entertain 'expensive' hobbies to certain degrees. I mean, why not skip on the obvious luxury item of an iPhone, for example (really just an example!). Why not go buy a cheaper model by a different maker instead? It'd save 'some' money.  Just make sure to not blindly 'bonfire' the saved money elsewhere -- rather go buy a couple of Apple* stocks, for example.

* Note: Really just an example., no stock purchase recommendation.

 

[Script]

What is Elisabeth Warren's plan? Can't find it on the net.

 

[L´Andratté]

Actually, I'm growing a bit tired of fundamental 'capitalist-is-bad-in-itself' discussions.

I am also tired of it, but I am really serious about the points I mentioned, which you didn´t adress too.
I´m not orthodox. "Capitalism" is just an abstract term. I don´t really care about that and I don´t see a working alternative. But I see the world being destroyed all around, that´s what scares me.

For me it´s not about wanting to be wealthy too. I have food a place and still healthcare in my country
for my family and me, that´s all I really need, plus a guitar. That´s probably close to all anybody really needs.

 

[living sounds]

Elisabeth Warren wants to introduce negative feedback to a system that is distorting permanently. To make it stable, to make it work. I haven't looked at the details, but I read her latest book. A new "New Deal" is long overdue in any case.

 

[Script]

I don't recognise that movie. Which one is it?

 

[Script]

Thanks. Looks like it up on Youtube for now

 

[Script]

Elisabeth Warren wants to introduce negative feedback to a system that is distorting permanently.

A feedback path that allows attenuating odd and even harmonics independently?

Is that her book about saving the middle class?

 

[JohnRoberts]

A feedback path that allows attenuating odd and even harmonics independently?

Is that her book about saving the middle class?

Just speaking hypothetically a successful political plan needs to make the most people happy (hopefully a more than 50% voting majority), so  saving the middle class makes more sense than those in poverty, that are a shrinking group, and not reliable voters. To give more stuff away, requires access to funds, lumping large public corporation stock market capitalization with their working capital makes an attractive looking pile of money.

I am not convinced that there is ever an answer for unequal outcomes, it is hard enough to provide people with equal opportunity to succeed.

I expect to hear more of this from her wing of the democratic party.

IMO this is a 2020 thing more than a 2018 rallying cry. But we seem to locked into one never ending political cycle.

JR

 

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Corporations certainly aim at creating wealth for investors.

That is not their primary goal. They want to make profit for their founders. Making external investors rich is a side effect.

But investing $10 every week does, or even better, $1000 for starters into something that promises to be successful also in a more-distant future.

That's what millions of people have done, and they've lost everything in the 2008 krach.

We all entertain 'expensive' hobbies to certain degrees. I mean, why not skip on the obvious luxury item of an iPhone, for example (really just an example!). Why not go buy a cheaper model by a different maker instead? It'd save 'some' money.

So, you propose being thrifty as an alternative to being well paid? Thank you! The millions of people who live on minimum wages wouldn't have thought that by themselves, would they?

 

[Matador]

PPS; Wealth transfer is what class warfare is all about..  you don't want to kill the rich people because then they stop creating new wealth.

I wish you would cite a source for this belief, because it isn't backed by many (if any) studies of the flow of capital around the world.

Oxfam published a paper last year which details this:  as a TLR; the top 1% of wealth holders accumulated 82% of all new wealth between 2016-2017, based on data collected by Credit Suisse.  Accumulated, as in added to their coffers.  Which leaves 18% of all new wealth to be distributed amongst the remaining 99% of people.

So is your argument that we must allow the wealthy 82% of the benefit so that the remaining 18% trickles down, and this results in a net win?  This also is not borne out by evidence.

World Bank published a study that shows, amongst other factors, a high correlation with reduced income inequality and lowering wealth gaps due to the following causes:  public health care systems, public education systems, pensions and social assistance...or said another way, those evil government programs we all hear about.

 

[dmp]

That's the thesis of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Does that count?  ;D