Corporate profits hit record as wages get squeezed

TruthOut10

Active Member
Dec 3, 2012
627
100
28
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Just four years after the worst shock to the economy since the Great Depression, U.S. corporate profits are stronger than ever.
In the third quarter, corporate earnings were $1.75 trillion, up 18.6% from a year ago, according to last week'si gross domestic product report. That took after-tax profits to their greatest percentage of GDP in history.

Corporate profits hit record as wages get squeezed - Dec. 3, 2012
 
The "job creators" are just getting their money together in preparation for "creating" a whole lot of new jobs. They are the "job creators".
 
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Just four years after the worst shock to the economy since the Great Depression, U.S. corporate profits are stronger than ever.
In the third quarter, corporate earnings were $1.75 trillion, up 18.6% from a year ago, according to last week'si gross domestic product report. That took after-tax profits to their greatest percentage of GDP in history.

Corporate profits hit record as wages get squeezed - Dec. 3, 2012

The "job creators" are just getting their money together in preparation for "creating" a whole lot of new jobs. They are the "job creators".

Either one of you morans ever own a business with employess and payroll?
 
You see cons consistently preaching the dogma that the wealthy should be approved of as they get more and more of the income growth. So, the 1% gets 93% of the income growth, while the remaining 99% gets to share 7%. How does that work for you.
So this is how, as economic historians can attest, economies of the greatest economic powers have fallen. And revolutions have been fueled. Revolutions of protest, and revolutions of violence.
So, the cons will all say that this is the way capitalism works. But you need to ask yourself, at some time, what do you want your economy to provide? While the cons holler about income redistribution, we have witnessed over the past 35 years, the greatest income redistribution ever. From the poor, and from the middle class, to the upper 1%.
 
Employees are employess, and they come in all classifications and pay scales.

If they want a share of the profits, they can go out and buy some fucking stock.

Uh, perhaps you don't have a good understanding of the work-reward relationship.

Employees are the SOURCES OF ALL WEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY, and they should be appropriately compensated.

If you want a share of the profits, you should actually perform some work that is linked to creating that profit.

Your determinination and ambition to amass more dollars than anyone else does not excuse your behavior or your pathology.
 
Employees are employess, and they come in all classifications and pay scales.

If they want a share of the profits, they can go out and buy some fucking stock.

Uh, perhaps you don't have a good understanding of the work-reward relationship.

Employees are the SOURCES OF ALL WEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY, and they should be appropriately compensated.

If you want a share of the profits, you should actually perform some work that is linked to creating that profit.

Your determinination and ambition to amass more dollars than anyone else does not excuse your behavior or your pathology.

Then why should government get a cut via taxes, if they dont produce jack squat?
 
Employees are employess, and they come in all classifications and pay scales.

If they want a share of the profits, they can go out and buy some fucking stock.

Uh, perhaps you don't have a good understanding of the work-reward relationship.

Employees are the SOURCES OF ALL WEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY, and they should be appropriately compensated.

If you want a share of the profits, you should actually perform some work that is linked to creating that profit.

Your determinination and ambition to amass more dollars than anyone else does not excuse your behavior or your pathology.

Then why should government get a cut via taxes, if they dont produce jack squat?

In theory, government is not separate from the governed; that is, the government exists as an extension of the will of the people, and it exists for a common benefit per the desire and demand of the citizens. It is NOT the separate entity that you imagine it to be.
 
Uh, perhaps you don't have a good understanding of the work-reward relationship.

Employees are the SOURCES OF ALL WEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY, and they should be appropriately compensated.

If you want a share of the profits, you should actually perform some work that is linked to creating that profit.

Your determinination and ambition to amass more dollars than anyone else does not excuse your behavior or your pathology.

Then why should government get a cut via taxes, if they dont produce jack squat?

In theory, government is not separate from the governed; that is, the government exists as an extension of the will of the people, and it exists for a common benefit per the desire and demand of the citizens. It is NOT the separate entity that you imagine it to be.

Nice dodge, but you implied stockholders have no right to the profits because they provided no work towards the companies production. Government provided no work towards the companies production, why should they share in the profits?

And stockholders, via the initial capital provided by the stock buy, as well as the increase in stock value caused by its desireablilty (which allows the company to sell its held stock at a higher value, and thus raise more capital).

Stockholders have an even larger vested interest than employees. Employees can leave if a company goes under. A stockholder, unless they managed to sell early enough, is left with a scrap of paper.
 
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Just four years after the worst shock to the economy since the Great Depression, U.S. corporate profits are stronger than ever.
In the third quarter, corporate earnings were $1.75 trillion, up 18.6% from a year ago, according to last week'si gross domestic product report. That took after-tax profits to their greatest percentage of GDP in history.

Corporate profits hit record as wages get squeezed - Dec. 3, 2012

The "job creators" are just getting their money together in preparation for "creating" a whole lot of new jobs. They are the "job creators".

Either one of you morans ever own a business with employess and payroll?

I'm sorry dumb ass, didn't realized posting an article was dependent on whether or not I owned a business. Particularly since I only posted it and offered no opinion one way or the other on where I stood on this.

Don't understand why this would make a difference in the first place, but in that peanut sized brain of yours it does....go figure. :confused:

So was that the only problem you read about this article?
 
Nice dodge, but you implied stockholders have no right to the profits because they provided no work towards the companies production. Government provided no work towards the companies production, why should they share in the profits?
Governments exist to provide services. Our government provides a vast array of services, and those services are exploited by corporations each and every day to help them operate profitablity (example: money supply regulation). Hell, THINK about what you say, man.

And stockholders, via the initial capital provided by the stock buy, as well as the increase in stock value caused by its desireablilty (which allows the company to sell its held stock at a higher value, and thus raise more capital).
This isn't structurally a complete sentence, and I don't actually know how to respond to it.

Stockholders have an even larger vested interest than employees. Employees can leave if a company goes under. A stockholder, unless they managed to sell early enough, is left with a scrap of paper.
Stockholders aren't necessary for production--they are an artifact of this economic system, which is actually a modernization of feudalism.
 
Why then is the GDP so low?

Really? :lol:

Obama outlined his economic policies in the 2008 Presidential election campaign. Once elected, he named former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who advocated tougher financial restrictions, to head his Economic Advisory Panel. He then launched the $787 billion Economic Stimulus Package, which returned the economy to positive GDP growth by the third quarter 2009.

Comparison of Obama and Bush Economic Policies
 
Nice dodge, but you implied stockholders have no right to the profits because they provided no work towards the companies production. Government provided no work towards the companies production, why should they share in the profits?
Governments exist to provide services. Our government provides a vast array of services, and those services are exploited by corporations each and every day to help them operate profitablity (example: money supply regulation). Hell, THINK about what you say, man.

And stockholders, via the initial capital provided by the stock buy, as well as the increase in stock value caused by its desireablilty (which allows the company to sell its held stock at a higher value, and thus raise more capital).
This isn't structurally a complete sentence, and I don't actually know how to respond to it.

Stockholders have an even larger vested interest than employees. Employees can leave if a company goes under. A stockholder, unless they managed to sell early enough, is left with a scrap of paper.
Stockholders aren't necessary for production--they are an artifact of this economic system, which is actually a modernization of feudalism.

Modernization of Feudalism... Ok kid, go back to your industrial history 301 course.

let me simplify the middle paragraph Mr Grammar Nazi, Stock provides capital, both during the original stock issuance, and after, when value goes up and the company can sell part of its retained stock for MORE capital. Thus it is an integral part of funding company growth and expansion.
 
Martybegan,

Feudalism was a way for more aggressive, ambitious individuals (the "1%," say) to control the lives of the other 99%. That is, in my view, a kind of human pathology in that it is abnormal and deviant as compared to the general population. Feudalism ended because the oppressed 99% attacked the lords and demanded better lives.

The lords (the 1%) never went away, though, any more than schizophrenics can disappear from our society (interestingly, about 1% of our general population is schizophrenic). The remaining 99% are easy prey to the 1% because the 99% do not think in the same manner. That 1% wants to control people--and, since currency represents a claim on the labor of another, more money means more control.

Capital is not necessary at all for human endeavor and progress. Human labor is the only important component. Capital is simply a means of extracting the profits of labor from those that do the work. And the 99% are generally too busy living lives to pay much attention to what the 1% does. (Until it gets out of hand, that is.)
 
Martybegan,

Feudalism was a way for more aggressive, ambitious individuals (the "1%," say) to control the lives of the other 99%. That is, in my view, a kind of human pathology in that it is abnormal and deviant as compared to the general population. Feudalism ended because the oppressed 99% attacked the lords and demanded better lives.

The lords (the 1%) never went away, though, any more than schizophrenics can disappear from our society (interestingly, about 1% of our general population is schizophrenic). The remaining 99% are easy prey to the 1% because the 99% do not think in the same manner. That 1% wants to control people--and, since currency represents a claim on the labor of another, more money means more control.

Capital is not necessary at all for human endeavor and progress. Human labor is the only important component. Capital is simply a means of extracting the profits of labor from those that do the work. And the 99% are generally too busy living lives to pay much attention to what the 1% does. (Until it gets out of hand, that is.)

Spoken like a true communist, comrade. Now can you tell me why your system doesn't actually work?

And you are trying to sound smarter than you probably are. Take a hint, stop doing it.
 
Martybegan,

Feudalism was a way for more aggressive, ambitious individuals (the "1%," say) to control the lives of the other 99%. That is, in my view, a kind of human pathology in that it is abnormal and deviant as compared to the general population. Feudalism ended because the oppressed 99% attacked the lords and demanded better lives.

The lords (the 1%) never went away, though, any more than schizophrenics can disappear from our society (interestingly, about 1% of our general population is schizophrenic). The remaining 99% are easy prey to the 1% because the 99% do not think in the same manner. That 1% wants to control people--and, since currency represents a claim on the labor of another, more money means more control.

Capital is not necessary at all for human endeavor and progress. Human labor is the only important component. Capital is simply a means of extracting the profits of labor from those that do the work. And the 99% are generally too busy living lives to pay much attention to what the 1% does. (Until it gets out of hand, that is.)

Spoken like a true communist, comrade. Now can you tell me why your system doesn't actually work?

And you are trying to sound smarter than you probably are. Take a hint, stop doing it.

What, pray tell, is "my system?" Because I don't profess to have one. I know this current economic system is on the back end of the curve, and will soon collapse. Even Smith predicted it. The "communist" comment on your part merely exposes you as a victim of propaganda. Most Americans cannot successfully explain socialism, fascism, or communism. They merely know that they are "bad things."

How can I possibly "sound smarter" than I am? That makes no sense whatever.
 

Forum List

Back
Top