Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.

CDOs are bonds, not derivatives.

CDOs are securities backed by a pool of bonds, loans, or other assets.

Yes, when you slice up a bond, you have bonds.

So what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CDOs are securities backed by a pool of bonds, loans, or other assets.

Yes, when you slice up a bond, you have bonds.

So what?

Your silly source gave a bad definition for a derivative.

I corrected her.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes, when you slice up a bond, you have bonds.

So what?

Your silly source gave a bad definition for a derivative.

I corrected her.

Who are you?

 

[dblack]

I won't be happy until the state controls every move I make.

 

[georgephillip]

I won't be happy until the state controls every move I make.

Too late?
Would you be any happier if Wall Street controlled your every movement?

 

[dblack]

I won't be happy until the state controls every move I make.

Too late?
Would you be any happier if Wall Street controlled your every movement?

No way! Wall street doesn't have cops. i want the full meal deal.

 

[georgephillip]

I won't be happy until the state controls every move I make.

Too late?
Would you be any happier if Wall Street controlled your every movement?

No way! Wall street doesn't have cops. i want the full meal deal.

Wall Street has cops:

"A private military company (PMC), private military firm (PMF),[1] or private military or security company, provides armed security services. PMCs refer to their staff as 'security contractors' or 'private military contractors'.

"Private military companies refer to their business generally as the 'private military industry' or 'The Circuit'.[2][3]

"The hiring of mercenaries is a common practice in the history of armed conflict and prohibited in the modern age by the United Nations Mercenary Convention; the United Kingdom and United States are not signatories to the convention, but the United States has stated that describing PMCs under US contract as mercenaries is inaccurate."

Private military company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

Too late?
Would you be any happier if Wall Street controlled your every movement?

No way! Wall street doesn't have cops. i want the full meal deal.

Wall Street has cops:

"A private military company (PMC), private military firm (PMF),[1] or private military or security company, provides armed security services. PMCs refer to their staff as 'security contractors' or 'private military contractors'.

"Private military companies refer to their business generally as the 'private military industry' or 'The Circuit'.[2][3]



"The hiring of mercenaries is a common practice in the history of armed conflict and prohibited in the modern age by the United Nations Mercenary Convention; the United Kingdom and United States are not signatories to the convention, but the United States has stated that describing PMCs under US contract as mercenaries is inaccurate."

Private military company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OH, bullshit. Fringe case don't amount to reality.

Listen, if you wanna submit to government as your master - go for it. But I'll fight you all the way.

 

[georgephillip]

No way! Wall street doesn't have cops. i want the full meal deal.

Wall Street has cops:

"A private military company (PMC), private military firm (PMF),[1] or private military or security company, provides armed security services. PMCs refer to their staff as 'security contractors' or 'private military contractors'.

"Private military companies refer to their business generally as the 'private military industry' or 'The Circuit'.[2][3]



"The hiring of mercenaries is a common practice in the history of armed conflict and prohibited in the modern age by the United Nations Mercenary Convention; the United Kingdom and United States are not signatories to the convention, but the United States has stated that describing PMCs under US contract as mercenaries is inaccurate."

Private military company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OH, bullshit. Fringe case don't amount to reality.

Listen, if you wanna submit to government as your master - go for it. But I'll fight you all the way.

"In December, 2006, in Iraq there were estimated to be at least 100,000 contractors working directly for the United States Department of Defense which was a tenfold increase in the use of private contractors for military operations since the Persian Gulf War, just over a decade earlier.[19]

"The prevalence of PMCs led to the foundation of trade group the Private Security Company Association of Iraq. In Iraq, the issue of accountability, especially in the case of contractors carrying weapons, was a sensitive one. Iraqi laws do not hold over contractors."

Think it can't happen here?

Private military company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Hi gnarly,

Thank you for your insight. I snipped your quote because I think it would be best if we got this discussion back on track.

Thirdly, do you suspect a boom-bust pattern or the business cycle is sustainable? Hasn't government necessarily served as the safety valve for the normal processes of mass transfer of wealth upwards that capitalism succeeds in doing so well? The 40s-60s were egalitarian-ish but then free market ideology took over and we see the results. Wouldn't it make sense to investigate whether this boom-bust pattern is really beneficial for society in comparison to potential alternatives? I'm not advocating for anything in particular, merely an inquiry. I don't think regular crisis is appropriate for wealthiest and most free nation in history.

I think the boom and bust cycle occur naturally. Let's consider Tulip bulbs in the Netherlands. The reason Tulip bulbs became worth so much is because everyone wanted to have them. People would invest in and then resell Tulip bulbs to cash in on the mania. Then the price collapsed.
First, do people have the right to be so inexplicably infatuated with some material thing? I think they do. Second, do other people have the right to observe this infatuation and begin making speculative investments to profit from this demand? I think they do.
What I'm describing is a speculative bubble not a boom-bust cycle, but these two concepts share some traits. And at least for me visualizing the rise and fall of one commodity is easier than visualizing aggregate demand. If we establish that people have the right to throw their money at tulip bulbs, and thus allow popular demand to determine worth, then I think the boom and bust cycle is a pattern that must be endured. It is not that the boom and bust cycle is beneficial to the total output of a society, but rather the effect of having millions of individuals making individual decisions and sometimes not good ones.
I think that the boom-bust cycle makes people happy overall. They suffer in the bust, but they are so elated in the boom. In order to take away boom and bust, the government would have to engage in significant economic planning.

I believe there is an alternative. Keynes offered this alternative. The boom and bust cycles can be mitigated by government policy. The extensive literature of Keynesianism would offer a better explanation than I would. Ultimately I conclude that laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable; regulated Capitalism is an economic system fit for actual use.

As for the accumulation of wealth in a few hands, there are concepts like Distributism, from where we get our anti-trust legislation.
Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have distributist influences in our modern laws.
Distributism does not prevent boom-bust cycles, but it does seek to maximize the spread of property ownership.

 

[Chris]

Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.

Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.

Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.

 

[georgephillip]

Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.

Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.

Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.

Any ideas on how we would go about catching up with Canada?

 

[Chris]

Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.

Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.

Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.

Any ideas on how we would go about catching up with Canada?

Elect Democrats so we can get more dems on the Supreme Court.

Or pass a Constitutional amendment that bans corporate campaign contributions.

 

[georgephillip]

Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.

Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.

Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.

Any ideas on how we would go about catching up with Canada?

Elect Democrats so we can get more dems on the Supreme Court.

Or pass a Constitutional amendment that bans corporate campaign contributions.

Ever since the Democrats lost three consecutive presidential elections, they seem to have gone over to the "dark side." If both parties depend on the same 1% of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements, how do progressives accomplish anything within the two party duopoly?

 

[Chris]

Any ideas on how we would go about catching up with Canada?

Elect Democrats so we can get more dems on the Supreme Court.

Or pass a Constitutional amendment that bans corporate campaign contributions.

Ever since the Democrats lost three consecutive presidential elections, they seem to have gone over to the "dark side." If both parties depend on the same 1% of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements, how do progressives accomplish anything within the two party duopoly?

False equivalency.

If we had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House, things would be different.

 

[bedowin62]

Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.

Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.

Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.

YAWN
why are libs such lying; distorting idiots?

"as a result....'/
you're saying Canada has universal healthcare, gayu marriage...etc BECAUSE they don't allow corporate campaign contributions? how can you ever back that up? and prove money from corporations doesn't find its way into Canadian politics in the first place

prove Republicans on the Supreme Court have allowed "unilimited secret campaing contributions".
prove they will all remain secret

or kindly shut up

 

[georgephillip]

Elect Democrats so we can get more dems on the Supreme Court.

Or pass a Constitutional amendment that bans corporate campaign contributions.

Ever since the Democrats lost three consecutive presidential elections, they seem to have gone over to the "dark side." If both parties depend on the same 1% of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements, how do progressives accomplish anything within the two party duopoly?

False equivalency.

If we had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House, things would be different.

Why don't we have single payer today?

"In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency."

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what?

Your silly source gave a bad definition for a derivative.

I corrected her.

Who are you?

The guy who knows more than your silly source.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

"Painting the war on drugs as mainly a backlash against the gains of the civil rights movement, Professor Forman writes, ignores the violent crime wave of the 1970s and minimizes the support among many African-Americans for get-tough measures.

"Furthermore, he argues, drug offenders make up less than 25 percent of the nation’s total prison population, while violent offenders — who receive little mention in 'The New Jim Crow' — make up a much larger share.

“'Even if every single one of these drug offenders were released tomorrow,' he writes, 'the United States would still have the world’s largest prison system.'

"To Professor Alexander, however, that argument neglects the full scope of the problem.

"Our criminal 'caste system,' as she calls it, affects not just the 2.3 million people behind bars, but also the 4.8 million others on probation or parole (predominately for nonviolent offenses), to say nothing of the millions more whose criminal records stigmatize them for life.

“'This system depends on the prison label, not just prison time,' she said."

If I understand her argument, all those convicted of felonies continue paying for their crimes long after they leave prison.

Personally, I don't think it was coincidence that the War on Drugs began about the same time capitalists began outsourcing millions of middle class jobs

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all

I meant to respond to this earlier. A non-violent offender, to my mind, should be square with society after he pays his dues. Unfortunately, a conviction on their record may disqualify a non-violent offender from a number of jobs. I'm not sure it is conducive to rehabilitation of non-violent offenders to put scarlet letters around them for life.

A violent offender, on the hand, I am not so apt to forgive.

If I understand Alexander's point, there's a prison "brand" that follows all ex-cons throughout their lives. This "brand" makes many of them ineligible for food stamps, housing assistance, employment, schooling, and non-emergency medical care. If I was given to conspiracy theories, I would suspect these policies were designed to encourage recidivism and the private profits which flow from having the largest prison population in the world.

If I were given to conspiracy theories, I might also notice the way the system is almost engineered such that once someone "gets in the system" they "stay in the system". I might notice the difference between the legal representation of someone with means as opposed to someone without means. But in the end, I'd prefer to elect representatives that will treat people justly. An act of larceny should not equate to a life sentence.

 

[georgephillip]

I meant to respond to this earlier. A non-violent offender, to my mind, should be square with society after he pays his dues. Unfortunately, a conviction on their record may disqualify a non-violent offender from a number of jobs. I'm not sure it is conducive to rehabilitation of non-violent offenders to put scarlet letters around them for life.

A violent offender, on the hand, I am not so apt to forgive.

If I understand Alexander's point, there's a prison "brand" that follows all ex-cons throughout their lives. This "brand" makes many of them ineligible for food stamps, housing assistance, employment, schooling, and non-emergency medical care. If I was given to conspiracy theories, I would suspect these policies were designed to encourage recidivism and the private profits which flow from having the largest prison population in the world.

If I were given to conspiracy theories, I might also notice the way the system is almost engineered such that once someone "gets in the system" they "stay in the system". I might notice the difference between the legal representation of someone with means as opposed to someone without means. But in the end, I'd prefer to elect representatives that will treat people justly. An act of larceny should not equate to a life sentence.

I agree.
I wonder if for profit prisons represent capitalism's inability to produce enough jobs.
If I understand Jeremy Rifkin correctly, the solution sounds somewhat socialistic:

"In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminated tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors.

"He predicted devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees.

"While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers would reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class would continue to shrink and the workplace become ever more stressful.

"As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a third sector—voluntary and community-based service organizations—that would create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services."

The End of Work - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia