Cheers!
Zambo
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
zambocello
|
Speaking of fixing capitalism... |
Lead | ||
|
...here's an interesting case. Well, okay....maybe not that interesting.
But these sorts of cases catch my attention.
Cheers! Zambo |
||||
|
|
||||
cellorachel |
IMHO | #1 | ||
|
Most mutual fund owners don't mind paying high fees to the managers when the fund is doing well. If a fund earns a return of 25% in a given year, I'm
happy to pay a fund manager 1% for his/her services.
The high rate of return implies one of two things: 1. The manager is doing a great job 2. The performance of the stock market is so good, that no particular talent is required to pick a winning portfolio Either way, the results warrant the fees. What gets me, and most of America, I think is when Wall Street expects/demands exhorbitant compensation in down markets where most investors are losing money. IMO, this isn't capitalism but some bizarre, skewed and perverted sense of entitlement. Historically, capitalism has rewarded performance. Rachel |
||||
|
|
||||
DWThomas |
Capitalism is doing very well | #2 | ||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
celletto |
Doctor says take the Keynsian medicine. | #3 | ||
|
First, you need to be committed to reality. A true statement is verifiable. You might have some fun reading the General Theory. Hang out on Pual Krugman's blogs and his archived material.
Last Edited By: celletto 11/07/09 09:43:33.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
||||
dennisw4 |
Whither Meritocracy | #4 | ||
|
Every political/economic system since the dawn of civilization has had a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is a particular kind of expression of the sociological state of mankind at any one given point in time. Capitalism began with merchantilism around 600 years ago. It came to full fruition at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the industrial revolution. And it began to rot in the 20th century which featured 2 world wars, a number of insurgencies/counter-insurgencies, dozens of imperialist agressions, and equally dozens of wars of national liberation. There was one great depression which lasted about 15 years and a business recession around every 7-to-10 years. The chaos in capital markets and banking that we now face is merely the next step towards a completely irrational system of production, distribution, and trade which exacts its fury upon the most vulnerable members of humanity: the poor, the sick, the infirm, the young, and the elderly. If and when Capitalism finally pulls a world-wide recovery, it will be at a price: the "meritocracy" of which you speak will be weaker and less able to distribute the kinds of rewards most Americans have come to expect as the split between rich-and-poor, private property vs. individual liberty become increasingly pronounced. Interestingly, we learned of lessons like this about 100 years ago from a source equally reviled by every red-blooded American patriot: VI Lenin. Now, try reading his prophetic words in 2009. "Here we no longer have competition between small and large, technically developed and backward enterprises. We see here the monopolists throttling those which do not submit to them, to their yoke, to their dictation. This is how this process is reflected in the mind of a bourgeois economist: "Even in the purely economic sphere," writes Kestner, "a certain change is taking place from commercial activity in the old sense of the word towards organizational speculative activity. The greatest success no longer goes to the merchant whose technical and commercial experience enables him best of all to estimate the needs of the buyer and who is able to discover and, so to speak, 'awaken' a latent demand; it goes to the speculative genius" (?!) "who knows how to estimate, or even only to sense in advance the organizational development and the possibilities of certain connections between individual enterprises and the banks...." Translated into ordinary human language this means that the development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still "reigns" and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the "geniuses" of financial manipulation (eg "derviatives, credit-default swaps" - comment added). At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialized production; but the immense progress of mankind which achieved this socialization, goes to benefit . . . the speculators. We shall see later how "on these grounds" reactionary, petty-bourgeois critics of capitalist imperialism dream of going back to "free," "peaceful," and "honest" competition. "Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism" - VI Lenin (1916) |
||||
|
|
||||
zambocello |
#5 | |||
|
Those Big Boyz of Jurisprudence always cause me shock and awe both from the clarity of their thinking and the precision of their writing. Though I don't
particularly care which way the court rules, I'm rather looking forward to the decision in this case to read the justices' opinions on individual
responsibility and the government's role in protecting people from their own decision making.
Cheers! Zambo |
||||
|
|
||||
Tim Janof |
Keynsian | #6 | ||
|
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/65310867.html
I'd be curious about your response to this article. |
||||
|
|
||||
celletto |
#7 | |||
|
This guy is a columnist not an economist. The government doesn't only print money it backs the money by selling securities. The Keynesian
point of view is the most durable economic theory available. It works. What didn't work was the Reagan inspired greed which permeated the business world.
The second trend that screwed things up is TBTF (Too Bib To Fail) . The third things that screwed up our economy is the lobbyist system which gives
non-persons a bigger voice than most collected groups of voting persons.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Tim Janof |
#8 | |||
|
The columnist is talking about a book by a person who I assume is an economist. What about this sentence:
"Lewis feels Keynesianism, an intellectual bubble, is nearing a pop, if only because Washington is running out of willing lenders." I'd hate to think that our economy has a strong basis in a kind of voo-doo, though not of the trickle-down kind. |
||||
|
|
||||
zambocello |
how to fund stimulus | #9 | ||
|
>>>> is nearing a pop, if only because Washington is running out of willing lenders."
Yes, our "printing extra money" is backed by bonds or some such. But what is the basis for those bonds? Future taxes on presumed economic activity, with the presumption including growth of economic activity. And what if we do run low on buyers for our bonds? In particular, what if China's economy slows down such that they don't continue to fund our printing of stimulus money? And even if China does have reason to continue financing our profligate spending, do we really want to give that (or any) country that sort of influence on US politics and economic decisions? |
||||
|
|
||||
pwr44 |
#10 | |||
|
Re the McIlheran article, to slip my two bits in: yes indeed!
What these guys, all over Europe - and now in the US - don't ever seem to want to do is just let people get on with it. In France they even talk about "the levers" of the economy - and the levers of everything else. Everything is lever pulling! Real people, doing real things, and even cooperating nicely and being sensible, has nothing to do with it; its all about a bunch of wiseguys and their levers! And now that theyv'e got themselves convinced that human beings are destroying the planet, they have a keen new justification for this little game, to replace the ideologies which have gone stale. Ah well. Life goes on. And the best things in it are free! Paul (Vote with your mind: think of something interesting!!) |
||||
|
|
||||
dennisw4 |
McIlheran misstates Keynes | #11 | ||
|
In response to the McIlheran article:
Thus the minority report of the English Poor Law Commission of 1909 stated, "We think that the Government can do a great deal to regularize the aggregate demand for labour as between one year and another, by a deliberate arrangement of its work of a capital nature." In 1921 President Harding's Conference on Unemployment recommended expanded public works during the postwar downturn, a recommendation endorsed by such conservative organizations as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Moreover, in 1930 a bill was introduced into the U.S. Senate (No. 3059) calling for "advanced planning and regulated construction of
certain public works, for the stabilization of industry, and for the prevention of unemployment during periods of business depression." This principle was
incorporated into the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, a half decade before the popularization of Keynesian economics.
From these premises Keynes argued that government efforts to expand money and credit during a slump would be ineffective, producing simply money
hoards and/or excess bank reserves. Therefore, he argued that increased state expenditures would have to substitute for inadequate capital investment. This, in
a nutshell, was the "Keynesian Revolution."
|
||||
|
|
||||
| Speaking of fixing capitalism... | 11/07/09 00:42:07 | zambocello |
| IMHO | 11/07/09 06:40:41 | cellorachel |
| Whither Meritocracy | 11/08/09 01:10:26 | dennisw4 |
| Capitalism is doing very well | 11/07/09 08:36:25 | DWThomas |
| Doctor says take the Keynsian medicine. | 11/07/09 09:40:12 | celletto |
| Keynsian | 11/08/09 20:09:43 | Tim Janof |
| Re: Speaking of fixing capitalism... | 11/08/09 20:56:18 | celletto |
| Re: Speaking of fixing capitalism... | 11/09/09 21:22:55 | Tim Janof |
| how to fund stimulus | 11/10/09 00:20:11 | zambocello |
| Re: Speaking of fixing capitalism... | 11/11/09 16:58:46 | pwr44 |
| McIlheran misstates Keynes | 11/11/09 20:37:43 | dennisw4 |
| Re: Speaking of fixing capitalism... | 11/08/09 09:05:28 | zambocello |