Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

Capitalism isn't meant to be democratic. Democracy is a principle that applies to government, where consensus decisions are often necessary. Majority rule isn't necessary, nor, in my view, desirable, when it comes to our economic decisions.

Would you agree with this: your freedom of enterprise denies my freedom of a job?
If you believe in democracy, how can you justify not instituting it in the place where we spend most of our adult lives?

So you can dictate to others whether or not they hire you? So if I come to your place, and demand you pay me $50 every week to cut your lawn, whether you want that done, or not, my right to democracy requires that you do it?

See this is the kind of logic, that if the tables were reversed, you would instinctively understand that your right to your property, is not to be denied because someone wants it.

But employment is the same thing. You don't have a right to someone else's hard earned money as CEO of a company either. That money that the company has, was hard earned by the people who put their money, their homes, their blood sweat and tears into, in order to make it work.

I just got to hear the story of the CEO of my company. He spent four years working while going to school. He earned a degree in engineering. He worked for 20 years, as a level 1, and then level 2 engineer at a small company. Then he mortgaged his home, and his father mortgaged his home, and they both put both their homes on the line to buy out this small business. Now he's CEO of the business. He is there at 7 AM every morning. He leaves at 6 PM every night. He's flown around the world, traveled thousands of miles to go to trade shows.

He works his butt off. Now you tell me what you think you 'deserve democracy in his company'? Why do you have any right, what so ever, to tell him jack squat about how he runs his company? Bull. You have no right period. None!

And if you put in the hours that he did, and the money he did, and the risk he did, to run your own business, you wouldn't put up with me coming around demand democracy in your company either. And don't lie and say you would. You wouldn't. I know better.

Don't even try and tell me you would put your home on the line, and risk losing everything, and have some newly hired employee in the stock room, telling you he should have a say in how you run your business. Bull crap.

Even if your latest anecdote isn't more BS, how many total employees does your alleged employer have? How many total man hours per week does your owner pay for? What's the ratio of your owner's hours toil per week to total hours per week worked by all employees? Whats the ratio of your owner's pay to his latest stock room hire?

 

[P@triot]

**** you, stupid Commie.

94%?? Is he crazy, lol.

94%!!?

It wouldn't be the first time.

"The Roosevelt administration had been gearing up to support the war effort long before the actual attack.

"When bombers struck on December 7, 1941, taxes were already high by historical standards.

"There were a dizzying 32 different tax brackets, starting at 10% and topping out at 79% on incomes over $1 million, 80% on incomes over $2 million, and 81% on income over $5 million.

"In April 1942, just a few short months after the attack, President Roosevelt proposed a 100% top rate.

"At a time of 'grave national danger,' he argued, 'no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year." (That's roughly '$300,000 in today's dollars).

"Roosevelt never got his 100% rate.

"However, the Revenue Act of 1942 raised top rates to 88% on incomes over $200,000.

"By 1944, the bottom rate had more than doubled to 23%, and the top rate reached an all-time high of 94%."

How would you feel about a 94% tax rate? - CBS News

Actually, it would be the first time (basically). Welcome to what is known as facts (these are the exact opposite of the liberal propaganda you eagerly choke down):

“Democrats defend high tax rates on the basis of the rates in the mid-twentieth century.18 But that’s another distortion. It is true that FDR raised the top rate in 1935 to 79 percent. But what we never hear is that it only applied to incomes over $5 million—the equivalent of $76,000,000 per year today. In 1935 only one man in the entire U.S.A. paid a penny at that rate—John D. Rockefeller.19 The reality is that from 1935 through the 1970s the highest tax rates did pass 70 percent, 80 percent, and for a time even 90 percent, but those rates were aimed only at billionaire industrialists, not small business owners. Only a handful of taxpayers in America ever paid the top rates.”

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

The reality of the FDR Taxes

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com

 

[georgephillip]

In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.

And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....

How are you defining "successful?"
$100,000 per year?
$1,000,000 per year??
Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?

Oh man, I love that desperate argument. "But....but...but...you're 'exploiting' people, resources". The only thing being "exploited" is you - by your Dumbocrat masters who are treating you like the useful idiot that you are.

It is illegal to "exploit" in America. For instance, sex-slavery is actual "exploitation". Sex-slavery is illegal in America genius.

As far as "defining" success - do you really need me to post the definition for you? We are clearly speaking financially here. And if you make $1 million per year, you are clearly more successful than the guy making $100,000 per year. The guy making $100,000 per year is clearly more successful than the guy making $40,000 per year (again - strictly speaking financially of course).

The fact that you have to pretend that there is some ambiguity around the term "success" is evidence of how desperate you are to make an argument which isn't holding up under the facts.

"suc·cess (sək-sĕs&#8242
n.
1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.
2.
a. The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success.
b. The extent of such gain.
3. One that is successful: The plan was a success.
4. Obsolete A result or an outcome."

$50,000 is about average for US incomes.
$100,000 is successful enough for many if increased leisure is the compensation.
You've obviously ingested enough of the Koch-Aid to believe earning a million a year makes you ten times more $ucce$$ful than earning only $100,000.

BTW, when four percent of the world's population controls 25% of its resources, that's called exploitation.

The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/success

 

[P@triot]

How are you defining "successful?"
$100,000 per year?
$1,000,000 per year??
Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?

Oh man, I love that desperate argument. "But....but...but...you're 'exploiting' people, resources". The only thing being "exploited" is you - by your Dumbocrat masters who are treating you like the useful idiot that you are.

It is illegal to "exploit" in America. For instance, sex-slavery is actual "exploitation". Sex-slavery is illegal in America genius.

As far as "defining" success - do you really need me to post the definition for you? We are clearly speaking financially here. And if you make $1 million per year, you are clearly more successful than the guy making $100,000 per year. The guy making $100,000 per year is clearly more successful than the guy making $40,000 per year (again - strictly speaking financially of course).

The fact that you have to pretend that there is some ambiguity around the term "success" is evidence of how desperate you are to make an argument which isn't holding up under the facts.

"suc·cess (sək-sĕs&#8242
n.
1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.
2.
a. The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success.
b. The extent of such gain.
3. One that is successful: The plan was a success.
4. Obsolete A result or an outcome."

$50,000 is about average for US incomes.
$100,000 is successful enough for many if increased leisure is the compensation.
You've obviously ingested enough of the Koch-Aid to believe earning a million a year makes you ten times more $ucce$$ful than earning only $100,000.

Remind me again - who are you to make that decision for the United States? Are you under the impression that we care what you believe is "enough"? If it's enough for you - God Bless you. Good for you. For someone else, that is not enough. And guess what, the Constitution guarantees them that your opinion (and that's all it is) on "enough" doesn't mean shit.

BTW, when four percent of the world's population controls 25% of its resources, that's called exploitation.

No - that's called you being envious of their success. Your ineptitude is not their "exploitation".

The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.

success - definition of success by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Unless they have a gun to their head, they are not "exploited". They made an agreement - of their own free will - which they felt was mutually beneficial. Your envy does not make their agreement "exploitation".

 

[georgephillip]

What does Mitt Romney have to do with issue of whether monarchy is preferable to democracy?

Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.

If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........ I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.

Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding. But for sure, he's not a "parasite". You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.

What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?

Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.

If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........ I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.

Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding. But for sure, he's not a "parasite". You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.

What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?

Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.

Mitt's money is not going to fix our government waste problems. It's not going to fix our corporate collusion problems. And the minute you think that robbing individuals of their wealth is the solution is the minute you've lost all perspective.

 

[P@triot]

Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.

If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........ I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.

Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding. But for sure, he's not a "parasite". You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.

What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?

Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.

To say you are an immature naive idealist would be a major understatement. "Put to good use"? Really?

Government Waste 2010

Government Waste 2011

 

[P@triot]

If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........ I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.

Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding. But for sure, he's not a "parasite". You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.

What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?

Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.

Mitt's money is not going to fix our government waste problems. It's not going to fix our corporate collusion problems. And the minute you think that robbing individuals of their wealth is the solution is the minute you've lost all perspective.

He's mad that Mitt has been more successful than he has in life....

 

[Antares]

Do you find this a trying time to be rich, *****?
100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
Can you do that math?
Show your work.

In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.

And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....

How are you defining "successful?"
$100,000 per year?
$1,000,000 per year??
Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?

That must make me DOUBLY EVILLLLLLLL since I make a shitload selling "health Insurance".

 

[KNB]

Greed is the only thing that guarantees rising inequality. Just greed. If Fortune 500 corporations spent their record-breaking quarterly profits, wealth inequality would automatically decline.

Then Republicans could say, "Trickle-down economics really works."

 

[bripat9643]

If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........ I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.

Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding. But for sure, he's not a "parasite". You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.

What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?

Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.

Mitt's money is not going to fix our government waste problems. It's not going to fix our corporate collusion problems. And the minute you think that robbing individuals of their wealth is the solution is the minute you've lost all perspective.

It's actually the minute you unveil yourself as nothing more than a thug.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?

I have. And, call me paranoid, but I suspect it'll be the next thing they'll try to centralize control over. They've all but succeeded with health care, and I suspect the food supply is next.

FWIW, I don't think you engage in paranoid thinking on matters like these.
Gramm-Leach-Bililey seems a prime example of how "they", meaning government in service to private wealth, enact laws that work to the economic detriment of most citizens.

"...banks aren't just buying stuff, they're buying whole industrial processes. They're buying oil that's still in the ground, the tankers that move it across the sea, the refineries that turn it into fuel, and the pipelines that bring it to your home.

"Then, just for kicks, they're also betting on the timing and efficiency of these same industrial processes in the financial markets – buying and selling oil stocks on the stock exchange, oil futures on the futures market, swaps on the swaps market, etc.

"Allowing one company to control the supply of crucial physical commodities, and also trade in the financial products that might be related to those markets, is an open invitation to commit mass manipulation.

"It's something akin to letting casino owners who take book on NFL games during the week also coach all the teams on Sundays…"

?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi

Didn't Kissinger draw a comparison between controlling oil and controlling food?

Matt is funny when he gets sand in his vagina.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're right.
It should've been 94%.
Greedy ****, tsk tsk.

**** you, stupid Commie.

Do you find this a trying time to be rich, *****?
100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
Can you do that math?
Show your work.

Poor whiner says what?

 

[Chris]

Just four blocks from the White House is the headquarters of the Employment Policies Institute, a widely quoted economic research center whose academic reports have repeatedly warned that increasing the minimum wage could be harmful, increasing poverty and unemployment.
But something fundamental goes unsaid in the institute’s reports: The nonprofit group is run by a public relations firm that also represents the restaurant industry, as part of a tightly coordinated effort to defeat the minimum wage increase that the White House and Democrats in Congress have pushed for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/u...ge-illustrates-web-of-industry-ties.html?_r=0

 

[Chris]

The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek point out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).

Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How are you defining "successful?"
$100,000 per year?
$1,000,000 per year??
Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?

Oh man, I love that desperate argument. "But....but...but...you're 'exploiting' people, resources". The only thing being "exploited" is you - by your Dumbocrat masters who are treating you like the useful idiot that you are.

It is illegal to "exploit" in America. For instance, sex-slavery is actual "exploitation". Sex-slavery is illegal in America genius.

As far as "defining" success - do you really need me to post the definition for you? We are clearly speaking financially here. And if you make $1 million per year, you are clearly more successful than the guy making $100,000 per year. The guy making $100,000 per year is clearly more successful than the guy making $40,000 per year (again - strictly speaking financially of course).

The fact that you have to pretend that there is some ambiguity around the term "success" is evidence of how desperate you are to make an argument which isn't holding up under the facts.

"suc·cess (sək-sĕs&#8242
n.
1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.
2.
a. The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success.
b. The extent of such gain.
3. One that is successful: The plan was a success.
4. Obsolete A result or an outcome."

$50,000 is about average for US incomes.
$100,000 is successful enough for many if increased leisure is the compensation.
You've obviously ingested enough of the Koch-Aid to believe earning a million a year makes you ten times more $ucce$$ful than earning only $100,000.

BTW, when four percent of the world's population controls 25% of its resources, that's called exploitation.

The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.

success - definition of success by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.

An agreement reached freely between two consenting parties is not exploitation.
It's freedom and capitalism.

 

[Andylusion]

My point was that Stalin was fairly pure in his belief system, and not very corrupt at all. That didn't change his bad policies from killing thousands of people.

Then we have different ideas of what corruption is. I don't think any system or ideology that carries out the systematic oppression and murder of anyone let alone millions has any right to be considered pure or retain dignity. Of course as Stalin reigned over the masses, it doesn't take much to realize his policies are diametrically opposed to real socialism and real communism.

These systems are defined by their edification of humanity and the removing of alienating labor--making the human whole unlike our fragmented lifestyles that lead to less productivity and depression/anti-social behavior. Socialism aims to pave the road for communism by changing our attitudes from ego to altruistic. Socialism is thus an attempt to run a society without EXTREME inequality and vitriol. Socialism as such recognizes there will be inequality but aims to reduce it to healthy levels. Communism is quite utopian vision of of a highly advanced socialist society--and I'm not really talking about Denmark because those countries practice a heavy blend of capitalism. Of course communism is disputable and most utopian visions are illusory but to think Stalin practiced either is just sucking from the propaganda teat.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor...has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

The red quote, put differently, says when such human synergy takes place and abundance is flowing for all (or a high percentage) only then can we call a society truly communist. Communism being summed up in the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Don't take me the wrong way, I am not saying communism or even socialism is viable at the present time. However, we are in desperate need of a shift in power away from elite control and to a more democratic approach to power, wealth, and even the police (since they target those already in poverty when whites are more likely to use drugs).

I encourage sensible steps towards a society that treats profit secondary to human life.

Yes, you have accurately pinpointed the difference in our discussions. You are talking about policy, and I'm talking about corruption, as it is defined....

"In philosophical, theological, or moral discussions, corruption is spiritual or moral impurity or deviation from an ideal. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement. Government, or 'political', corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain."

Based on the definition, Stalin was not corrupt. Now you might say he deviated from the ideal, but that depends on whose ideal you are referring to. His ideal? The Lenin ideal? Or what you have determined the ideal to be? From everything I've read, what Stalin, and Lenin pushed, were their own ideals, and they held fast to them.

If your ideology supports the murder and oppression of people, and you accurately follow that ideology, you are not 'corrupt', by the definition.

Stalin did not advance himself, or use his authority for personal gain, or take bribes or embezzlement.

He lived a very modest life style, and held true to the beliefs of the Communist party very clearly.

Now if you want to debate whether or not the Lenin, Stalin communist party adhered correctly to the Socialist dogma or not, that's fine, but not the subject of my post.

For more on recently elected Socialist, see her site VoteSawant.org

This political ad, does not talk about economic policy, nor what real socialism is, nor how communism works, nor anything else. I know nothing about her policies, except that she has chosen to not take the $117K salary.

Yet this is held up as someone we should elect.

Which goes back to my point. Stalin also didn't use his political office for personal advancement, just like Sawant. Stalin didn't take bribes, or use his position to enrich himself.

Does that mean his policies were good? No, obviously not.

I'm not saying that Sawant is Stalin. I am saying that simply because she is not taking the $117K, doesn't mean her policies are good.

Now, if you want to argue about 'true socialism', that can be a fun debate, but that has nothing to do with my point.

 

[gnarlylove]

The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:

"…Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals.

So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?


First, banks have owned commodities for ages. Since the beginning of the country really. It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed. That's what the commodity market is all about. It's nothing new or important.

What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities. This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.

Banks in other countries never had this restriction. The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British. Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.

The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone

"The irony was incredible. After ******* up so badly that the government had to give them federal bank charters and bottomless wells of free cash to save their necks, the feds gave Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley hall passes to become cross-species monopolistic powers with almost limitless reach into any sectors of the economy."

Sounds pretty important. Also sounds like we are entering a new era of monopoly control. Not talking about your grandma's AT&T monopoly either!

 

[Andylusion]

The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:

"…Most observers on the Hill thought the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 – also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – was just the latest and boldest in a long line of deregulatory handouts to Wall Street that had begun in the Reagan years…"

"…it would take half a generation – till now, basically – to understand the most explosive part of the bill, which additionally legalized new forms of monopoly, allowing banks to merge with heavy industry.

"A tiny provision in the bill also permitted commercial banks to delve into any activity that is 'complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally.'

"Complementary to a financial activity. What the hell did that mean?..."

"…Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals.

"They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from food products to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum.

Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?
Capitalist squids know this world is theirs to strangle
Maybe it's long past time for a tentacle trim?

?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi

First off, nothing you say here has anything at all to do with sub-prime loans, the sub-prime melt down, the crash of sub-prime mortgage backed securities, or the crash on 2008, and resulting economic situation in the US.

So even if we pretend this article is true, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or the topic of the thread.

Even the topic of the link you cited, has nothing to do with Glass Steagall, but rather the Banking Holding Company Act of 1956.

Now let's begin a new topic, given that your post basically proves you can't make the argument that the GBLA, or the GSA, had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash, or the 2008 crisis.

So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?


First, banks have owned commodities for ages. Since the beginning of the country really. It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed. That's what the commodity market is all about. It's nothing new or important.

What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities. This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.

Banks in other countries never had this restriction. The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British. Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.

None of these banking companies, have ever had the restrictions on buying non-banking companies, that American banks have had. Just like none of the rest of the world had restrictions on Commercial, Investment, Retail, and Insurance being forcibly separate.

Which leads to the question, if all that is such a big deal, why hasn't the rest of the world had crashes because of those non-restrictions?

But the real point is, the US has the most regulated banking sector in the world. We have more regulations and controls on our banks than any private banking system in the world. The only place you can find a more controlled system, is in countries with state owned banks.

Yet, where did the crash originate? In the US. Point being, that regulations have not prevent crashes. Regulations likely caused more crashes than it ever prevented.

So given those facts, and they are facts, should we allow banks to own non-banking business?

I would lean toward, yes why not? Some people tend to act like this is crazy talk, that has never happened before. In reality, banks have been intertwined with non-banking, since the beginning. Some simple modern examples, is GMAC, or Ford Credit, GTE Visa, and hundreds of other examples.

So why is a company that owns a bank, perfectly fine and proper, but a bank that owns a company, is completely wrong and bad?

Further, banks always buy shares in companies. This is a normal common part of investment. So why is a banking owning 49% of shares in company X, good and fine, while a bank owning 51% is bad and horrible?

What reason do we have to assume that the end of the world will happen if a bank has majority stake in another company? Especially when banks have been doing this for decades around the world.

As near as I can tell, the only reason is so that fruit cakes on the internet, can proclaim "The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet!" chocked full of drama queen proclamations. Certainly banks in Europe haven't doomed Europe to 3rd world status by owning non-banking companies, and ironically is not it normally your side, the leftist side, that typically says we should emulate Europe?

Do you happen to know the name of this thread?
Possibly you neglected to read its OP link, which, if true, makes you lazy and ignorant.
Here it is:

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'”

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Which doesn't address, contradict, or answer anything I said.

Among the reasons why "the disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater that it has even been" include Wall Street's manipulation of the CRA to produce a sub-prime meltdown and global recession in 2008.

That's a lie.

Since no one on Wall Street went to prison for the poison they injected into the global economy five years ago, bankers today are manipulating key commodities markets which is further increasing global economic inequality WHICH IS WHAT MY THREAD IS ABOUT:

The people on Wall Street didn't go to prison, because they didn't violate any laws. Inequality is not a violation of law. Nor is it a violation of law to make loans the Federal Government was suing you in court, forcing you to make.

"And last summer, The New York Times described how Goldman Sachs was caught systematically delaying the delivery of metals out of a network of warehouses it owned in order to jack up rents and artificially boost prices.

It's interesting how innocent until proven guilty applies to leftists, but never the people they accuse. JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs are being investigated. It's possible it's true, in which case they will be fined or charged. If it's not true, and right now all they have is allegations, then you are blowing smoke, to support your preconceived judgement on others.

The fact is, Goldman owns such a tiny portion of the metals market, the idea that one warehouse on the entire planet, can sway the price level of the entire market, is absolutely ridiculous. Now that doesn't mean they were not doing something wrong, but only the economically illiterate would think that Goldman Sachs can corner the entire market with a tiny sliver of the market share.

"You might not have been surprised that Goldman got caught scamming the world again, but it was certainly news to a lot of people that an investment bank with no industrial expertise, just five years removed from a federal bailout, stores and controls enough of America's aluminum supply to affect world prices.

Lots of hearsay, very little fact.

Again, European banks have never had a restriction on buying up non-banking companies. If allowing that, allowed them to "CONTROL THE PLANET!", then why haven't the European banks taken over the world by now?

Lots of drama, and blustery proclamations, very little reality.

 

[Andylusion]

Do you find this a trying time to be rich, *****?
100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
Can you do that math?
Show your work.

In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.

And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....

How are you defining "successful?"
$100,000 per year?
$1,000,000 per year??
Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?

Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil, they'd be more poor and impoverished than they are now.

It's this level of stupidity, that results in wealthy upper class American leftists, ruining the lives of people in other countries.

Remember the Nike plant in Malaysia? Everyone had a cow, and threw a fit. Meanwhile, these Malaysians were happy to even have a job.

But the upper class liberal leftists that have never worked a day in their lives, had a fit. Nike agreed, and raised the pay of the employees..... AND LAID A TON OF THEM OFF.

Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.

What part of this, do you people not get? If you raise the cost of labor, people buy less labor. You raise the wages of people in Malaysia, and now fewer of them have jobs. Yes the few still employed get paid a bit more, but now hundreds are unemployed and starving, in a country very poor, and have few jobs.

BRILLIANT! Who cares about those people. Screw them. We're leftist, and we're going to "stick it to the company" even if we ruin people's lives in the process!