|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 07 2013 08:10 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 07:32 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 07:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 05:20 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company.
That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405 Sounds like a left-wing version of "End the Fed". Isn't ending the fed a left-wing position anyways? I thought sam advocated it. At any rate your comment is impotent and frankly irrelevant. It's more populist, I'd say. Hating on the Fed is more common with Republicans than Democrats. I don't see why my comment is irrelevant. The RS piece was mainly about bubbles, which is mainly a complaint that in good times money is too easy. Taibbi has a deeper problem with financialization itself, and that complaint isn't even that controversial (though actually doing anything at all about it of course is).
What complaint is that?
|
On November 07 2013 08:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 08:10 HunterX11 wrote:On November 07 2013 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 07:32 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 07:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 05:20 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:
[quote]
That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405 Sounds like a left-wing version of "End the Fed". Isn't ending the fed a left-wing position anyways? I thought sam advocated it. At any rate your comment is impotent and frankly irrelevant. It's more populist, I'd say. Hating on the Fed is more common with Republicans than Democrats. I don't see why my comment is irrelevant. The RS piece was mainly about bubbles, which is mainly a complaint that in good times money is too easy. Taibbi has a deeper problem with financialization itself, and that complaint isn't even that controversial (though actually doing anything at all about it of course is). What complaint is that?
It would be a good experience to read through the whole article  Even if you don't agree, you can sharpen your reading/critical thinking skills!
|
On November 07 2013 08:19 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 08:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 08:10 HunterX11 wrote:On November 07 2013 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 07:32 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 07:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 05:20 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405 Sounds like a left-wing version of "End the Fed". Isn't ending the fed a left-wing position anyways? I thought sam advocated it. At any rate your comment is impotent and frankly irrelevant. It's more populist, I'd say. Hating on the Fed is more common with Republicans than Democrats. I don't see why my comment is irrelevant. The RS piece was mainly about bubbles, which is mainly a complaint that in good times money is too easy. Taibbi has a deeper problem with financialization itself, and that complaint isn't even that controversial (though actually doing anything at all about it of course is). What complaint is that? It would be a good experience to read through the whole article Even if you don't agree, you can sharpen your reading/critical thinking skills!
Or someone can do that for me and as a consequence improve his / her communication skills 
(and I can stay lazy, that too)
|
financialization is a way to use shell games to hoover up surplus-value out of the economy
there's a reason that most of the world's religions prohibited usury (yes christianity, yes judaism, exception of hinduism)
|
On November 07 2013 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
financialization is a way to use shell games to hoover up surplus-value out of the economy
there's a reason that most of the world's religions prohibited usury (yes christianity, yes judaism, exception of hinduism)
What aspects of financialization and what shell games are you referring to?
Religions say a lot of things. Sometimes really stupid things.
|
On November 07 2013 08:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
financialization is a way to use shell games to hoover up surplus-value out of the economy
there's a reason that most of the world's religions prohibited usury (yes christianity, yes judaism, exception of hinduism) What aspects of financialization and what shell games are you referring to? Religions say a lot of things. Sometimes really stupid things.
Funny he should use an example from judaism considering that the lending of money in medieval Catholic-dominated regions led them to acquire one of the more commonly associated negative stereotypes. Had their been more competition in the lending market, this would not have happened.
|
the scriptural justification for moneylending in judaism is a casuistry
|
On November 07 2013 09:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 08:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
financialization is a way to use shell games to hoover up surplus-value out of the economy
there's a reason that most of the world's religions prohibited usury (yes christianity, yes judaism, exception of hinduism) What aspects of financialization and what shell games are you referring to? Religions say a lot of things. Sometimes really stupid things. Funny he should use an example from judaism considering that the lending of money in medieval Catholic-dominated regions led them to acquire one of the more commonly associated negative stereotypes. Had their been more competition in the lending market, this would not have happened.
Funny you should miss the point entirely.
|
On November 07 2013 09:26 sam!zdat wrote:
the scriptural justification for moneylending in judaism is a casuistry
The historical record shows that your nominal argument of prohibition is a wash.
|
France8650 Posts
On November 07 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:00 WhiteDog wrote:On November 07 2013 04:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit? Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. Laying off workers when a firm is turning a profit isn't necessarily wrong. Ex. B of A laying off mortgage processors when mortgage processing is down is perfectly reasonable, even if B of A is turning a nice profit as a whole. CEO / corporate excess is an issue that gets lots of attention. It's something that the right does not typically want to deal with publicly, because they see the private sector as already working on it. It's also worth noting that previous attempts at reigning in CEO pay with government regs may have backfired and lead to greater CEO pay. ( source, see comments on section 162) Microeconomics and macroeconomics have completly different point of view on laying off workers. We're in a society that is way too dominated by microeconomics (the discussion around competitivity is a good exemple of that, where seeking competitivity from the perspective of the firm is just nonsensical for anyone who study the competitivity of nations). I don't think the points of view are that different. Not laying off workers when you don't need them can result in more employment, but you'll end up with less productivity. That can end up a wash in terms of overall economic output.
From a macroeconomic stand point, if a firm makes profit, it is better if the profit is widely distributed as it will maximise cconsmption and thus might be at the birth of a virtuous circle. This is really basic economics : from a microeconomic standpoint the wage are costs, from a macroeconomic standpoint they represent the agregate demand...
Laying off workers can be seen as a way to reallocate ressource' but that argument to me is hypocritical. It is just a way to maximise profit, a profit never redistributed afterward, nor invested, but distrited as dividends.
So yes the point of views are strictly different.
I will clarify : if one or two firms decide to lay off workers to prepare themselves for the future, then it is a good idea. When most firms are managed by people who believe that pushing wages down is a good way to make your firm competitive, then you might have a problem (which is exactly what is happening in most developped countries since some yime).
|
I daresay you are rather unqualified to speak on behalf of the historical record, Danglars, particularly since you just assuredly played a game of historical fiction in saying that Jews owe their negative financial stigma solely to lack of competition in medieval money lending. Hilarious.
|
Voters in three communities in Colorado succeeded in passing fracking moratoriums or outright bans on election night Tuesday.
By Wednesday morning, nearly all of the votes had been tallied and the anti-fracking measures had passed handily in the Colorado cities of Lafayette, Boulder and Fort Collins, but appeared to be failing in neighboring Broomfield, where rumors began swirling of a recount.
Boulder voted an overwhelming "no" to fracking with 78 percent approving a five-year extension of the city's moratorium.
Lafayette voters called for a complete ban on oil and gas drilling within city limits, with 59 percent in support of the measure. The city now joins Longmont, which has a fracking ban already in place and is currently being sued by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association and Gov. John Hickenlooper's (D) administration. Hickenlooper -- who claims to have once drunk fracking fluid -- has also said that he will sue any municipality in Colorado that bans fracking.
Source
|
On November 07 2013 10:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 09:26 sam!zdat wrote:
the scriptural justification for moneylending in judaism is a casuistry The historical record shows that your nominal argument of prohibition is a wash.
what?
"nominal"?
"prohibition"?
"a wash"?
i can't parse any of the things in this sentence. can you say it again in smaller words
|
On November 07 2013 08:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
financialization is a way to use shell games to hoover up surplus-value out of the economy
there's a reason that most of the world's religions prohibited usury (yes christianity, yes judaism, exception of hinduism) What aspects of financialization and what shell games are you referring to? Religions say a lot of things. Sometimes really stupid things.
The article spells it out that Goldman Sachs positions itself as an underwriter for financial products and manipulates the sale of those products to create a bubble that they profit from.
Goldman Sachs would buy worthless sets of mortgage securities, re-brand them in a new name, have a MIT rocket scientist stamp his approval that some complex bullshit formula proved they were risk-free, and then parade it around with a AAA rating and sell it for a premium. It is the financial equivalent to buying expired food for pennies on the dollar, restamping the expiration date, and then selling it as though it were new, possibly even better than new. They also used known intermediaries to create rival bids or create hype to make the product seem even more exciting, like selling something on eBay but using your friends' or fake accounts to push up the bids.
It's weird to rehash 2009 again.
|
On November 07 2013 11:22 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 08:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
financialization is a way to use shell games to hoover up surplus-value out of the economy
there's a reason that most of the world's religions prohibited usury (yes christianity, yes judaism, exception of hinduism) What aspects of financialization and what shell games are you referring to? Religions say a lot of things. Sometimes really stupid things. The article spells it out that Goldman Sachs positions itself as an underwriter for financial products and manipulates the sale of those products to create a bubble that they profit from. Goldman Sachs would buy worthless sets of mortgage securities, re-brand them in a new name, have a MIT rocket scientist stamp his approval that some complex bullshit formula proved they were risk-free, and then parade it around with a AAA rating and sell it for a premium. It is the financial equivalent to buying expired food for pennies on the dollar, restamping the expiration date, and then selling it as though it were new, possibly even better than new. They also used known intermediaries to create rival bids or create hype to make the product seem even more exciting, like selling something on eBay but using your friends' or fake accounts to push up the bids. It's weird to rehash 2009 again.
I'm not sure about the intermediaries bidding up prices aspect, but the other two complaints, that GS creates bubbles to sell at higher prices, or that GS takes junk and falsely repackages it as something great, don't sound correct.
|
On November 07 2013 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 11:22 coverpunch wrote:On November 07 2013 08:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
financialization is a way to use shell games to hoover up surplus-value out of the economy
there's a reason that most of the world's religions prohibited usury (yes christianity, yes judaism, exception of hinduism) What aspects of financialization and what shell games are you referring to? Religions say a lot of things. Sometimes really stupid things. The article spells it out that Goldman Sachs positions itself as an underwriter for financial products and manipulates the sale of those products to create a bubble that they profit from. Goldman Sachs would buy worthless sets of mortgage securities, re-brand them in a new name, have a MIT rocket scientist stamp his approval that some complex bullshit formula proved they were risk-free, and then parade it around with a AAA rating and sell it for a premium. It is the financial equivalent to buying expired food for pennies on the dollar, restamping the expiration date, and then selling it as though it were new, possibly even better than new. They also used known intermediaries to create rival bids or create hype to make the product seem even more exciting, like selling something on eBay but using your friends' or fake accounts to push up the bids. It's weird to rehash 2009 again. I'm not sure about the intermediaries bidding up prices aspect, but the other two complaints, that GS creates bubbles to sell at higher prices, or that GS takes junk and falsely repackages it as something great, don't sound correct.
Why aren't they correct? I'm assuming you've read the article since it was homework for today's class.
|
On November 07 2013 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 11:22 coverpunch wrote:On November 07 2013 08:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
financialization is a way to use shell games to hoover up surplus-value out of the economy
there's a reason that most of the world's religions prohibited usury (yes christianity, yes judaism, exception of hinduism) What aspects of financialization and what shell games are you referring to? Religions say a lot of things. Sometimes really stupid things. The article spells it out that Goldman Sachs positions itself as an underwriter for financial products and manipulates the sale of those products to create a bubble that they profit from. Goldman Sachs would buy worthless sets of mortgage securities, re-brand them in a new name, have a MIT rocket scientist stamp his approval that some complex bullshit formula proved they were risk-free, and then parade it around with a AAA rating and sell it for a premium. It is the financial equivalent to buying expired food for pennies on the dollar, restamping the expiration date, and then selling it as though it were new, possibly even better than new. They also used known intermediaries to create rival bids or create hype to make the product seem even more exciting, like selling something on eBay but using your friends' or fake accounts to push up the bids. It's weird to rehash 2009 again. I'm not sure about the intermediaries bidding up prices aspect, but the other two complaints, that GS creates bubbles to sell at higher prices, or that GS takes junk and falsely repackages it as something great, don't sound correct.
are you serious
where have you been
here: http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Capitalist-Democracy-Honorable-Richard/dp/0674062191
|
It's funny to come to the US politics thread and see no one talking about the disastrous roll-out of the Obamacare federal insurance exchanges. No one is talking about "if you like your policy, you can keep it". I would love to know what all the liberals here think about these issues!
|
^ This has already been discussed.
|
On November 07 2013 11:52 ziggurat wrote:
It's funny to come to the US politics thread and see no one talking about the disastrous roll-out of the Obamacare federal insurance exchanges. No one is talking about "if you like your policy, you can keep it". I would love to know what all the liberals here think about these issues!
There is no lack of coverage of Obamacare's problematic rollout in the current mediasphere, and as a general talking point there is little to say. Yes, the rollout hasn't been good, and that Sebelius still has her job is remarkable. Past that, the only things one can say on the matter boil down to partisan differences as to how much error one can expect when launching an unusually massive website. The system by which the government vets contractors most certainly needs to be re-evaluated.
And as the above poster points, we already did discuss this lol. I remember having a typical argument with Jonny over source material on the subject
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
