Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[Toddsterpatriot]

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Not even close, by definition.

ot even close, by definition.

Close enough to convince all rational people.
Not so sure about mindless Trump toadies.

How true is the statement that the stock market is essentially a Ponzi scheme? - Quora

"The fact is:

1. What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors. Profits from buying and selling stocks come from other investors who are buying and selling stocks. When one investor buys low and sells high, another investor is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher."

What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always

Are you sure you want to bring family into this discussion, Porky?

Sure. My parents were public school teachers. That's it.

They just bought a lake house on Lake Erie, using investment money from their careers as public school teachers.

That doesn't include their main house, that is worth $750K.

My parents taught me to save, and invest. That's why they are millionaires today.

What did your parents teach you? How to complain about the system that produces the most wealth for the most people, more than any other country on Earth?

My parents taught me to save, and invest. That's why they are millionaires today.

What did your parents teach you? How to complain about the system that produces the most wealthy for the most people, more than any other country on Earth?

You and your hard-working family, along with all other Americans, are about 5% of global population. Your lifestyles and mine are paid for in places like Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. Capitalism has murdered hundreds of millions of innocent human beings across the past five hundred years so that greedy, ignorant Americans can prosper. If that's something you celebrate, it's not hard to understand why you hold the political views you do.

Liar.

 

[georgephillip]

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Ponzi scheme - A Simple Explanation of the Concept

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Not even close, by definition.

ot even close, by definition.

Close enough to convince all rational people.
Not so sure about mindless Trump toadies.

How true is the statement that the stock market is essentially a Ponzi scheme? - Quora

"The fact is:

1. What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors. Profits from buying and selling stocks come from other investors who are buying and selling stocks. When one investor buys low and sells high, another investor is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher."

What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Self-cannibalizing Ponzi scheme characteristic of the greediest society ever to inhabit planet Earth.

"This is actually a negative-sum situation because the underlying company isn’t involved in the transaction.

"The investors are just cannibalizing each other for profits, and there are fees attached to every transaction.”

"Ah, cannibalizing each other for profits—now this is starting to sound like an American enterprise! It says it right there on our flag, 'America: Cannibalizing each other for profits since 1776!'"

Ponzi World (Over 3 Billion NOT Served): The Stock Market Ponzi Scheme. Occupy Deep Karma.

You still whining because your pals lost the Cold War? LOL!

Too much winning?

 

[SAYIT]

I don't blame corporations for not investing. I chose not to for reasons beyond the discussion here. If one does invest and improves their investments over time, I'm happy those folks are doing well.

I have what I want from life. My home tucked away in the Rocky Mountains, a wife I love dearly, a teenage daughter who always does her best to improve herself. I never wanted much. I'm a simple guy with simple needs.

All that said George, I do not believe workers have the right to be on the board to determine the directions the corporation makes. Plus, show me how you're going to do the same thing for public agencies. Wouldn't they be entitled to the same as those workers in private business sector?

Why should a corporation with over a billion in income have to get a federal charter for? What is the purpose for it?

I also must ask, what if these huge corporations tell the government "hell no" and move to a new country to base their operations from?

I'm not saying the current system is perfect, but let government force control of those companies to change is a recipe for disaster. Government has a proven track record of making things worse.

Well said Old Man and props for finding your happy place. Yeah, gov't does not make our lives better and our GPs are just bitter because nobody gives them that to which communism tells them the are entitled ... the fruit of other's labor. It's all so sad.

 

[SAYIT]

Do you understand that in the days of Feudalism....that is when organizations needed a "Royal" charter to exist...right?

I understand this Royal Turd will not be in the White House much longer...

Only a bit more than another 5 years, GP ... hang in there.

Only a bit more than another 5 years, GP ... hang in there.

It's more likely Republicans will throw Trump under the bus before November 2020.

CBS News poll: Majority of Americans and Democrats approve of Trump impeachment inquiry

Inquiry and impeachment are not the same thing.

And then, of course, there's the need to convince 67 Senators to convict.

Yeah ... the Dems are just gonna hafta beat Trump in 2020 and the chances of that shrink with every Hysterical House Dem word and action.

Our poor GPs are gonna have to get used to many more years of Repub federal gov't and federal courts. Boo hoo.

 

[SAYIT]

Yet only the richest ten percent of Americans "earn" enough money to join the US investor class. Are you arguing the US economy should work only for the richest ten percent of Americans while consigning the remaining 90% of workers to endure one round of austerity measures after another?

Being an investor isn't dependent on how much you earn. Again, a janitor ended up with $8 Million. So you don't have to earn big bucks to end up in the 'investor class'. In fact, I'm in the investor class, and yet I haven't earned more than $30k a year.

The poorest people can be part of the investor class. It's a matter of.... choosing to invest.

How to Become a Millionaire on Minimum Wage | The Motley Fool

If you put in just $50 a month, from age 18.... consistently, year over year... into good growth mutual funds, you'll end up a millionaire, even if you are making just minimum wage.

Anyone can be in the investor class... you just need to make the choice to invest. If you choose to not be an investor, that's not a problem of society, or the economy. That's a problem on you.

None of which changes the fact the richest ten percent own the vast majority of stocks in the US and virtually all of the voting shares.

The richest ten percent of households now control 70% of all US wealth, and you won't slow that rate of acquisition by putting $50 month into a mutual account.

The richest 10% of households now represent 70% of all U.S. wealth

This is like, there is a pizza on the table, and everyone says "Dig in", and I start eating it. You never grab a slice, and never eat anything. Eventually we get done, and the pizza is gone, and I've had most of the pizza.

Then you start screaming "You ate most of the pizza, and I didn't get any!".

That's on you. Stop making stupid choices.


The irony in this conversation is that half the posts by you in this thread, are about how the stock market is a terrible evil ponzi scheme......


But then you turn right around and complain the Rich own most of the wealth.... which is primarily in Stock assets.

So which is it?

Are stocks a ponzi scheme, and good thing the rich own them all, and not us?

Or is it bad the rich own most of the stocks, and we should go buy some for ourselves?

Dude it can't be both. It's one or the other. You can't complain that cake is terrible and no on should eat it, and then complain that rich people have all the cake, and it's terrible we don't get more.

You can't play this bonkers schizos game.

George is Orwell's Doublethink in action.

He really believes both those mutually-contradictory ideas.

I have to admit, this is the most bold and clear ideological self-mutilation I've ever seen from a left-winger. I literally watched a man hang himself with his own words. It was fascinating to watch.

Not a consideration for our GPs. Lefties only know they have failed, they are miserable, and it's your fault.

 

[SAYIT]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Socialism, not capitalism, resembles the feudal state...

Socialism, not capitalism, resembles the feudal state...

You're missing the principle of privilege:equality under law is a hallmark of democracy while privilege sanctioned by law is a hallmark of aristocracy. Feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs the same way rich parasites (like Trump) use corporations to amass private fortunes at public expense today.

Privilege, as a right of aristocracy, is a right to income detached from productivity, and that has more in common with capitalism than socialism where goods and service are distributed according to need not profit.

I appreciate your eagerness to find new ways to describe your misery and your lifetime of failure but not everyone nor even most Americans share your condition. As much as you hate this country one would think you'd do the right thing and GTF out. Or you can stay and live and die a miserable commie ... your choice.

 

[SAYIT]

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making, I would sell the business.

If you have to share decision making, arguably, you don't own the business. This shit is just socialism redux. I don't know who they think they're fooling.

Repackaging, rebranding, and/or redefining Marxism has been going on for decades but it never really changes its stripes ... life's bitter losers (pronounced "progressives") who would punish success and eat the rich. Our George Phillips.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Not even close, by definition.

ot even close, by definition.

Close enough to convince all rational people.
Not so sure about mindless Trump toadies.

How true is the statement that the stock market is essentially a Ponzi scheme? - Quora

"The fact is:

1. What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors. Profits from buying and selling stocks come from other investors who are buying and selling stocks. When one investor buys low and sells high, another investor is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher."

What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Self-cannibalizing Ponzi scheme characteristic of the greediest society ever to inhabit planet Earth.

"This is actually a negative-sum situation because the underlying company isn’t involved in the transaction.

"The investors are just cannibalizing each other for profits, and there are fees attached to every transaction.”

"Ah, cannibalizing each other for profits—now this is starting to sound like an American enterprise! It says it right there on our flag, 'America: Cannibalizing each other for profits since 1776!'"

Ponzi World (Over 3 Billion NOT Served): The Stock Market Ponzi Scheme. Occupy Deep Karma.

You still whining because your pals lost the Cold War? LOL!

Too much winning?

Yes, Reagan kicked major Commie ass.

 

[Andylusion]

Poor people have been getting things without paying for them for a long time, too.

Thing is, the policies Warren insists we need, and you blindly parrot, will only put people out of work and dependent on government.

Despite what you've been led to believe, that is not a good thing.

Poor people have been getting things without paying for them for a long time, too.

Thing is, the policies Warren insists we need, and you blindly parrot, will only put people out of work and dependent on government.

Despite what you've been led to believe, that is not a good thing.

How did FDR respond when the owners of capital could not or would not provide jobs during the Great Depression?

Green New Deal - Wikipedia

Bad example. FDR's policies dragged out the great depression. In fact, FDRs policies caused a recession inside the great depression.

Similarly, the Green New Deal would only screw us over.

Bad example. FDR's policies dragged out the great depression. In fact, FDRs policies caused a recession inside the great depression.

FDR's New Deal put millions of Americans back to work when capitalists CRASHED the global economy in 1929. A Green New Deal would have a similar effect; however, rich parasites among the US investor class would not be among those who benefit.

First, off FDR's new deal, was entirely policies that Hoover had in place, before FDR came to power. They didn't restart the economy under Hoover, and certainly didn't under FDR.

Second, as we have posted the research on this before, by most estimates, the policy by FDR not only did not put people back to work, but likely dragged out the recession for decades.

Third, FDR's second New Deal, which was implemented from 1935 to 36, caused a recession during the great depression. Clearly the policies had a negative effect, and only the most foolish and ingnorant can't see what doesn't conform to their partisan belief system.

Forth, you are the most stupid of all partisan bigots, if you really think that investors will not benefit from the green new deal.

First, off FDR's new deal, was entirely policies that Hoover had in place, before FDR came to power. They didn't restart the economy under Hoover, and certainly didn't under FDR.

Link?

So you are not educated on the great depression?

https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-herbert-hoover-new-deal

Hoover was a massive pro-government, big spender. He was not even close to what we consider Republican, or Conservative ideals, and was in fact a lot like FDR.

Hoover pledged, “We shall soon, with the help of God, be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this nation.”​

Even the biography of Hoover, states that "Hoover was never a proponent of laissez-faire economics".

Hoover quickly showed a willingness to tap the resources of the federal government to address the financial crisis. "introduced a counter-cyclical program of public works spending" "He bullied the nation’s largest employers into holding off on layoffs"

Hoover convinced Congress to accept a moratorium on the payment of international debt and enacted a series of federal policies to stimulate the economy that some historians have referred to as the “Hoover New Deal.” The new Reconstruction Finance Corporation, established in January 1932, lent tax dollars to bail out American banks and businesses. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act, enacted in July 1932, broadened the agency’s lending power to include financing state and local public works projects.​

Indeed, Hoover was basically FDR, before FDR.

Nearly all major programs created by FDR, were actually already in existence, before FDR became president. If you watch some of the documentaries on the public works programs, one of the things they'll say is that FDR started some of those projects, in the first year he was in office. That's true. But that begs the question, how do you start a massive public works project like Grand Coulee Dam in under a year?

Well it's because the project was already being designed and prepared for under Hoover. You don't really think that a project as challenging and technically difficult as the Lincoln Tunnel, could be started by the PWA in 1934, the exact same year the PWA came into existence, do you? Of course not. All the ground work, and preparation had been done under Hoovers public works projects. FDR just renamed it all PWA, put it in his New Deal, and gained credit for it.

Hoover's New Deal already existed for years. Why do you think Hoover Dam, is named Hoover Dam? It was created by public works programs in 1931, before FDR came to power.

All the programs FDR created, were just renamed Hoover programs.... the same programs that sink the US economy for years, were renamed, repackaged, and called the New Deal.

And if you doubt that those programs had a negative effect, I would give you two examples.

The first example, is FDR again. The New Deal programs, came in two packages. The first in 1933, and the second was in 1935. In 1935 to 1936, FDR created his second new deal.

Second New Deal - Wikipedia

Basically the same as the first New Deal, on steroids. What happened to the economy from this New Deal?

In 1936 to about 1938, there was a recession.

The Second New Deal, caused a recession inside the great depression.

You want the second example? I would point to 2009. Obama put in place lots of similar policies to what Hoover/FDR did in the 1930s, and the results were very similar. The longest drawn out recession in US history.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't blame corporations for not investing. I chose not to for reasons beyond the discussion here. If one does invest and improves their investments over time, I'm happy those folks are doing well.

I have what I want from life. My home tucked away in the Rocky Mountains, a wife I love dearly, a teenage daughter who always does her best to improve herself. I never wanted much. I'm a simple guy with simple needs.

All that said George, I do not believe workers have the right to be on the board to determine the directions the corporation makes. Plus, show me how you're going to do the same thing for public agencies. Wouldn't they be entitled to the same as those workers in private business sector?

Why should a corporation with over a billion in income have to get a federal charter for? What is the purpose for it?

I also must ask, what if these huge corporations tell the government "hell no" and move to a new country to base their operations from?

I'm not saying the current system is perfect, but let government force control of those companies to change is a recipe for disaster. Government has a proven track record of making things worse.

Why should a corporation with over a billion in income have to get a federal charter for? What is the purpose for it?

I also must ask, what if these huge corporations tell the government "hell no" and move to a new country to base their operations from?

As I understand it, a federal charter would give the federal government the ability to ensure large corporations function for the benefit of all stakeholders, i.e., employees, vendors, surrounding communities and not for the sole purpose of maximizing shareholder value; they would no longer be allowed to foul the local air or water and pass the clean-up costs off on government.

Should those corporations decided to move to another country, government could make it more expensive for them to market their goods and services in the US.

All corporations benefit the community. If they did not, we would not buy their product.

Name one company, that does not operate for the benefit of the community? Which one? Walmart? Funny, having bought good products at a lower price, benefited me. That's why I bought from there.

What company? Name it. Ford? Are you saying my Grand Marquis isn't a benefit to me? Sure seems to be useful to me when I'm trying to get to work in comfort.

Which one? Exxon? I like gasoline. My car doesn't run without it.

Should those corporations decided to move to another country, government could make it more expensive for them to market their goods and services in the US.

How would that stop them? Are you smoking....

Bouncer at a bar: "I'm beating the crap out of you!"

Beaten guy leaves the bar.

Bouncer "If you don't let me beat the crap out of you, I'll make it some you don't come back anymore!"

OoooooOOOOOoooooo.... man what an incentive!

Sir, with all due respect, you are not thinking this through very well.

Remember when Amazon was going to open an HQ in New York, and AOC started beating the crap out of them? Remember how Amazon pulled the plug, and canceled investing millions into New York, and AOC and all the Democrats were screaming that Amazon left?

Them screaming, and threatening, didn't get Amazon to reconsider. The just left.... and left. They didn't come back.

Remember how Hugo Chavez confiscated company property in Venezuela, and companies sold off everything and left the country? Remember how Chavez then claimed it was "Economic sabotage" for them leaving?

Them screaming and yelling in Venezuela didn't cause any companies to return. They left... and just left. Venezuela is a barren wasteland now.

George.... listen to me George.... The 1950s are over.

We are not the lone economic super power of the world. Not anymore. We just are not.

Are you listening to me?

Apple computer right now... makes more money outside the US... than inside the US.
General Motors right now... makes more money outside the US.... than inside the US.

If you put in place policies that force companies to choose between operating inside the US, or outside the US... they make more money outside the US.

It will be more profitable for a company to operate in the world market, than in the US market.

Don't think you can put company into an ultimatum, and that it will go well for the US. It will not.

Every country that has pushed companies into an ultimatum, has lost. Not a single country in this world, has pushed companies into a corner, and come out well.

 

[daveman]

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business.

If you have to share decision making, arguably, you don't own the business. This shit is just socialism redux. I don't know who they think they're fooling.

The Useful Idiots like George.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

As I understand it, a federal charter would give the federal government the ability to ensure large corporations function for the benefit of all stakeholders, i.e., employees, vendors, surrounding communities and not for the sole purpose of maximizing shareholder value; they would no longer be allowed to foul the local air or water and pass the clean-up costs off on government.

Should those corporations decided to move to another country, government could make it more expensive for them to market their goods and services in the US.

George, we have agencies that try to prevent further damage to the environment - the EPA.. They've done a poor job of forcing corporations not to pollute. Giving government more control over the private sector does not give me any assurances that it will be any less of a disaster than it has in the past when the government took a hand in "controlling" . Government is not equipped, and likely never will be, with a strong consensus of the bureaucracy to show continued improvement in anything they are involved in.

Look at one example:

Medicare Fraud:

Each year, roughly 10 cents of every dollar budgeted for the giant health insurance program is stolen or misdirected before it helps any enrollee. Looked at another way, about $1,000 is lost per Medicare member through theft or waste each year. That is according to the federal government’s reckoning. But it could be far worse. Malcolm Sparrow, a Harvard University professor and leading expert on health care fraud, says the true amount lost to fraud, abuse or improper payments could be 20 percent, or even as high as 30 percent.

Medicare Fraud, Medical Identity Theft And Scams

The different administrations have never been able to correct/stop/prevent this abuse, and likely never will. What makes you think they can do any better with corporations? Good intentions are insufficient reasons to take such actions. Government doesn't have a very good track record.

 

[georgephillip]

As I understand it, a federal charter would give the federal government the ability to ensure large corporations function for the benefit of all stakeholders, i.e., employees, vendors, surrounding communities and not for the sole purpose of maximizing shareholder value; they would no longer be allowed to foul the local air or water and pass the clean-up costs off on government.

Should those corporations decided to move to another country, government could make it more expensive for them to market their goods and services in the US.

George, we have agencies that try to prevent further damage to the environment - the EPA.. They've done a poor job of forcing corporations not to pollute. Giving government more control over the private sector does not give me any assurances that it will be any less of a disaster than it has in the past when the government took a hand in "controlling" . Government is not equipped, and likely never will be, with a strong consensus of the bureaucracy to show continued improvement in anything they are involved in.

Look at one example:

Medicare Fraud:

Each year, roughly 10 cents of every dollar budgeted for the giant health insurance program is stolen or misdirected before it helps any enrollee. Looked at another way, about $1,000 is lost per Medicare member through theft or waste each year. That is according to the federal government’s reckoning. But it could be far worse. Malcolm Sparrow, a Harvard University professor and leading expert on health care fraud, says the true amount lost to fraud, abuse or improper payments could be 20 percent, or even as high as 30 percent.

Medicare Fraud, Medical Identity Theft And Scams

The different administrations have never been able to correct/stop/prevent this abuse, and likely never will. What makes you think they can do any better with corporations? Good intentions are insufficient reasons to take such actions. Government doesn't have a very good track record.

The different administrations have never been able to correct/stop/prevent this abuse, and likely never will. What makes you think they can do any better with corporations? Good intentions are insufficient reasons to take such actions. Government doesn't have a very good track record.

From your link:

• "Charge for services never delivered
• Falsify records
• Inflate claims
• Steal your ID
• File duplicate claims
• Provide unneeded equipment
• Buy off doctors/patients"

These frauds are perpetrated by private interests (corporations) upon Medicare. It seems to me anyone concerned about correcting such criminality would be calling for greater enforcement efforts (and budgets) on the part of government. Imho, this is another example of private for-profit corporations corrupting a public service that provides high quality health care to millions of Americans at a fraction of the overhead of private insurance.

The efficiencies of publicly provided health care, revisited

 

[georgephillip]

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Ponzi scheme - A Simple Explanation of the Concept

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Not even close, by definition.

ot even close, by definition.

Close enough to convince all rational people.
Not so sure about mindless Trump toadies.

How true is the statement that the stock market is essentially a Ponzi scheme? - Quora

"The fact is:

1. What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors. Profits from buying and selling stocks come from other investors who are buying and selling stocks. When one investor buys low and sells high, another investor is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher."

What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Self-cannibalizing Ponzi scheme characteristic of the greediest society ever to inhabit planet Earth.

"This is actually a negative-sum situation because the underlying company isn’t involved in the transaction.

"The investors are just cannibalizing each other for profits, and there are fees attached to every transaction.”

"Ah, cannibalizing each other for profits—now this is starting to sound like an American enterprise! It says it right there on our flag, 'America: Cannibalizing each other for profits since 1776!'"

Ponzi World (Over 3 Billion NOT Served): The Stock Market Ponzi Scheme. Occupy Deep Karma.

You claim capitalists are greedy...but you and other socialists think you're entitled to what you didn't earn.

YOU'RE greedy, George. This is undeniable.

You claim capitalists are greedy...but you and other socialists think you're entitled to what you didn't earn.

YOU'RE greedy, George. This is undeniable

The greed of capitalism produces waste through externalities that require costly, public corrective measures and regulation. Capitalists get rich from clean, clean coal, for example, while externalizing health and air quality onto the greater society. Capitalism also concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society who don't use available technology and resources for their maximum potential in the interest of the public, but rather concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

 

[Third Party]

As I understand it, a federal charter would give the federal government the ability to ensure large corporations function for the benefit of all stakeholders, i.e., employees, vendors, surrounding communities and not for the sole purpose of maximizing shareholder value; they would no longer be allowed to foul the local air or water and pass the clean-up costs off on government.

Should those corporations decided to move to another country, government could make it more expensive for them to market their goods and services in the US.

George, we have agencies that try to prevent further damage to the environment - the EPA.. They've done a poor job of forcing corporations not to pollute. Giving government more control over the private sector does not give me any assurances that it will be any less of a disaster than it has in the past when the government took a hand in "controlling" . Government is not equipped, and likely never will be, with a strong consensus of the bureaucracy to show continued improvement in anything they are involved in.

Look at one example:

Medicare Fraud:

Each year, roughly 10 cents of every dollar budgeted for the giant health insurance program is stolen or misdirected before it helps any enrollee. Looked at another way, about $1,000 is lost per Medicare member through theft or waste each year. That is according to the federal government’s reckoning. But it could be far worse. Malcolm Sparrow, a Harvard University professor and leading expert on health care fraud, says the true amount lost to fraud, abuse or improper payments could be 20 percent, or even as high as 30 percent.

Medicare Fraud, Medical Identity Theft And Scams

The different administrations have never been able to correct/stop/prevent this abuse, and likely never will. What makes you think they can do any better with corporations? Good intentions are insufficient reasons to take such actions. Government doesn't have a very good track record.

The different administrations have never been able to correct/stop/prevent this abuse, and likely never will. What makes you think they can do any better with corporations? Good intentions are insufficient reasons to take such actions. Government doesn't have a very good track record.

From your link:

• "Charge for services never delivered
• Falsify records
• Inflate claims
• Steal your ID
• File duplicate claims
• Provide unneeded equipment
• Buy off doctors/patients"

These frauds are perpetrated by private interests (corporations) upon Medicare. It seems to me anyone concerned about correcting such criminality would be calling for greater enforcement efforts (and budgets) on the part of government. Imho, this is another example of private for-profit corporations corrupting a public service that provides high quality health care to millions of Americans at a fraction of the overhead of private insurance.

The efficiencies of publicly provided health care, revisited

To quote the X-Files, Trust No One.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Not even close, by definition.

ot even close, by definition.

Close enough to convince all rational people.
Not so sure about mindless Trump toadies.

How true is the statement that the stock market is essentially a Ponzi scheme? - Quora

"The fact is:

1. What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors. Profits from buying and selling stocks come from other investors who are buying and selling stocks. When one investor buys low and sells high, another investor is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher."

What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Self-cannibalizing Ponzi scheme characteristic of the greediest society ever to inhabit planet Earth.

"This is actually a negative-sum situation because the underlying company isn’t involved in the transaction.

"The investors are just cannibalizing each other for profits, and there are fees attached to every transaction.”

"Ah, cannibalizing each other for profits—now this is starting to sound like an American enterprise! It says it right there on our flag, 'America: Cannibalizing each other for profits since 1776!'"

Ponzi World (Over 3 Billion NOT Served): The Stock Market Ponzi Scheme. Occupy Deep Karma.

You claim capitalists are greedy...but you and other socialists think you're entitled to what you didn't earn.

YOU'RE greedy, George. This is undeniable.

You claim capitalists are greedy...but you and other socialists think you're entitled to what you didn't earn.

YOU'RE greedy, George. This is undeniable

The greed of capitalism produces waste through externalities that require costly, public corrective measures and regulation. Capitalists get rich from clean, clean coal, for example, while externalizing health and air quality onto the greater society. Capitalism also concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society who don't use available technology and resources for their maximum potential in the interest of the public, but rather concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

The greed of capitalism produces waste through externalities that require costly, public corrective measures and regulation.

No externalities under Communism, eh comrade?

Now off to the gulag!!

Capitalists get rich from clean, clean coal, for example,

Nomenklatura get rich from dirty coal, for example,

 

[daveman]

So...would we agree that many of today's perpetually dividend-less companies traded on public markets are operating as Ponzi schemes by definition?

Not even close, by definition.

ot even close, by definition.

Close enough to convince all rational people.
Not so sure about mindless Trump toadies.

How true is the statement that the stock market is essentially a Ponzi scheme? - Quora

"The fact is:

1. What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors. Profits from buying and selling stocks come from other investors who are buying and selling stocks. When one investor buys low and sells high, another investor is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher."

What makes a stock price move is not the earnings or growth of the underlying company, but the the exchange of money between investors.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Don't worry, you never ever have to invest. I'm sure Mom's coach will be there for you, always.

Money isn't moving back and forth thru the hands of an "organizer".
There is no guarantee, no promise of high returns. 100% of my purchase goes to the seller.
No need for increasing numbers of "investors" to continue to scheme. One buyer-one seller works.
No skimming. No Ponzi scheme.

Self-cannibalizing Ponzi scheme characteristic of the greediest society ever to inhabit planet Earth.

"This is actually a negative-sum situation because the underlying company isn’t involved in the transaction.

"The investors are just cannibalizing each other for profits, and there are fees attached to every transaction.”

"Ah, cannibalizing each other for profits—now this is starting to sound like an American enterprise! It says it right there on our flag, 'America: Cannibalizing each other for profits since 1776!'"

Ponzi World (Over 3 Billion NOT Served): The Stock Market Ponzi Scheme. Occupy Deep Karma.

You claim capitalists are greedy...but you and other socialists think you're entitled to what you didn't earn.

YOU'RE greedy, George. This is undeniable.

You claim capitalists are greedy...but you and other socialists think you're entitled to what you didn't earn.

YOU'RE greedy, George. This is undeniable

The greed of capitalism produces waste through externalities that require costly, public corrective measures and regulation. Capitalists get rich from clean, clean coal, for example, while externalizing health and air quality onto the greater society. Capitalism also concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society who don't use available technology and resources for their maximum potential in the interest of the public, but rather concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

George, when has government ever solved any of the problems you claim it can solve?

 

[daveman]

Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

George, there have been calls at different times throughout the decades for the government to get a handle on Medicare fraud. Find those responsible, try them, jail them and prevent it from happening. The government has failed and continues to fail. This is only one example, but it is enough to show how poorly things are run when the government sticks their fingers into anything.

Medicare isn't the shining program you seem to think it it is. My wife is a medical provider and she has many senior citizens on Medicare in her patient base. Many, many times when she contacts Medicare for prior authorization for some test or procedure one of her patient needs she hits a brick wall. Medicare will deny the care needed, calling it unnecessary. I think my wife would know better what is necessary for her patient than some bureaucrat at Medicare.

So more government is the absolute last thing America needs. Let government clean up all the problems facing Americans now, then AND ONLY THEN, we can discuss expanding government.

 

[georgephillip]

As I understand it, a federal charter would give the federal government the ability to ensure large corporations function for the benefit of all stakeholders, i.e., employees, vendors, surrounding communities and not for the sole purpose of maximizing shareholder value; they would no longer be allowed to foul the local air or water and pass the clean-up costs off on government.

Should those corporations decided to move to another country, government could make it more expensive for them to market their goods and services in the US.

George, we have agencies that try to prevent further damage to the environment - the EPA.. They've done a poor job of forcing corporations not to pollute. Giving government more control over the private sector does not give me any assurances that it will be any less of a disaster than it has in the past when the government took a hand in "controlling" . Government is not equipped, and likely never will be, with a strong consensus of the bureaucracy to show continued improvement in anything they are involved in.

Look at one example:

Medicare Fraud:

Each year, roughly 10 cents of every dollar budgeted for the giant health insurance program is stolen or misdirected before it helps any enrollee. Looked at another way, about $1,000 is lost per Medicare member through theft or waste each year. That is according to the federal government’s reckoning. But it could be far worse. Malcolm Sparrow, a Harvard University professor and leading expert on health care fraud, says the true amount lost to fraud, abuse or improper payments could be 20 percent, or even as high as 30 percent.

Medicare Fraud, Medical Identity Theft And Scams

The different administrations have never been able to correct/stop/prevent this abuse, and likely never will. What makes you think they can do any better with corporations? Good intentions are insufficient reasons to take such actions. Government doesn't have a very good track record.

The different administrations have never been able to correct/stop/prevent this abuse, and likely never will. What makes you think they can do any better with corporations? Good intentions are insufficient reasons to take such actions. Government doesn't have a very good track record.

From your link:

• "Charge for services never delivered
• Falsify records
• Inflate claims
• Steal your ID
• File duplicate claims
• Provide unneeded equipment
• Buy off doctors/patients"

These frauds are perpetrated by private interests (corporations) upon Medicare. It seems to me anyone concerned about correcting such criminality would be calling for greater enforcement efforts (and budgets) on the part of government. Imho, this is another example of private for-profit corporations corrupting a public service that provides high quality health care to millions of Americans at a fraction of the overhead of private insurance.

The efficiencies of publicly provided health care, revisited

To quote the X-Files, Trust No One.

o quote the X-Files, Trust No One.

Why I trust Donald Trump | Conservative News and Views