- 17 Jun 2021 15:59
#15177229
How so? It includes returns of financial assets (and others too).
Even that doesn't show a permanent downward trend, but a leveling off at a given rate. This is in line with longer series such as the ones in this paper:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/d ... 1&type=pdf
Also, note how the starting point matters a lot to be able to claim there is a decreasing trend - if you start at a time where they were abnormally high, of course you will have a decreasing trend at the beginning of the series. And you can surely bet the postwar recovery was abnormal.
How do you explain then that capitalist economies have large variation in their income inequality?
As if that stopped political clientelism to surface in Latin American countries
Venezuela for instance has recall elections in its current Constitution (from 1999) but that didn't stop PDVSA from going down the drain.
And using price controls as an example of government customization is at least strange, and in any event they often cause more problems than they solve.
Keynesianism isn't trickle-down
In fact, counter-cyclical policy has little to do with trickle-down at all.
So you have no figures here. Okay.
And that only happened due to technological change, so where's the technological change that would make a violent overthrow of the system not end in bloodshed and dictatorship?
Also, the use of executions by the Ancien Regime does not excuse revolutionary terror.
And capital requirements allow for banks to have a cushion to deal with the effects of such risk taking.
Also, limits on risk taking itself are also often part of regulation. A regulator may demand that a financial company limits its risk exposure and provide proof of that.
Please show the recipients are "insolvent". We know that plenty of perfectly solvent companies were simply unable to operate as a result of the lockdowns, so the burden of proof falls on you.
Peanuts in comparison with the millions involved in the Red (5.7m), White (1.1m) and Polish/Finnish/German (1.6m) sides.
Even after all internal opposition had been effectively purged. Okay
Yes, it's part of the Marxist fanfic view of history.
ckaihatsu wrote:Well, it doesn't. This other paper you just introduced isn't the data that I was referring to, so it's apples-and-oranges.
How so? It includes returns of financial assets (and others too).
ckaihatsu wrote:I have to backtrack, since the stock market isn't *profits*, exactly -- here's research done on the *rate of profit* itself:
Even that doesn't show a permanent downward trend, but a leveling off at a given rate. This is in line with longer series such as the ones in this paper:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/d ... 1&type=pdf
Also, note how the starting point matters a lot to be able to claim there is a decreasing trend - if you start at a time where they were abnormally high, of course you will have a decreasing trend at the beginning of the series. And you can surely bet the postwar recovery was abnormal.
ckaihatsu wrote:Revolutionaries like myself point out that the entire capitalist *system* creates inequality, so there's no hope of "gradually" doing a redistribution under capitalism itself. Ditto for the ongoing *income inequality* -- the entire system needs to be overthrown so that the working class can best-determine how to produce for all of society.
How do you explain then that capitalist economies have large variation in their income inequality?
ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're forgetting that there can be a *democratic* process underneath, so that managers are directly accountable to the electorate, and can be instantly recallable at any moment.
Customization doesn't require the private sector -- case management can be done by a Universal Basic Services approach.
I'll remind that profits is a *cost* to funding, so it's more cost-effective for public funding to *not* have to pay the tacked-on cost of profits to private concerns -- such are often considered a 'bribe' of sorts, since the means of production happen to currently be under such private control.
As if that stopped political clientelism to surface in Latin American countries
Venezuela for instance has recall elections in its current Constitution (from 1999) but that didn't stop PDVSA from going down the drain.
And using price controls as an example of government customization is at least strange, and in any event they often cause more problems than they solve.
ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, you're incorrect, because government deficit spending (Keynesianism), for *supply-side* causes, is *unjustifiable* since such 'trickle-down' economic theory has long since been disproven as effective:
Keynesianism isn't trickle-down
In fact, counter-cyclical policy has little to do with trickle-down at all.
ckaihatsu wrote:They *vary*, and can be quite considerable depending on how little is paid to the actual *producers* of the commodity being sold -- the more *labor exploitation*, the larger the retail markup. Apple comes to mind, in particular.
So you have no figures here. Okay.
ckaihatsu wrote:This is being *presumptuous* and fatalistic -- many claimed that *slavery* would never end, and yet the norm is now the use of industrialized mechanization, over treating *people* as private property.
And that only happened due to technological change, so where's the technological change that would make a violent overthrow of the system not end in bloodshed and dictatorship?
Also, the use of executions by the Ancien Regime does not excuse revolutionary terror.
ckaihatsu wrote:This is apples-and-oranges -- what's at-stake here are the prevailing of high-risk, junk-bond-type financial vehicles, and the ongoing government funding of zombie companies, while what you're talking about is fractional reserve lending for banks which is a different thing altogether.
And capital requirements allow for banks to have a cushion to deal with the effects of such risk taking.
Also, limits on risk taking itself are also often part of regulation. A regulator may demand that a financial company limits its risk exposure and provide proof of that.
ckaihatsu wrote:My point is that public funding is *still* being used, at the rate of $120 billion a month, simply to keep insolvent companies afloat. This is pure *ideology*, and your blaming of *people* for the 2008-2009 subprime mortgage meltdown means that you're *covering* for market dynamics, and all of capitalism, making you a *market dogmatist*.
Please show the recipients are "insolvent". We know that plenty of perfectly solvent companies were simply unable to operate as a result of the lockdowns, so the burden of proof falls on you.
ckaihatsu wrote:The Allied imperialist militarist invasion was *considerable*:
Peanuts in comparison with the millions involved in the Red (5.7m), White (1.1m) and Polish/Finnish/German (1.6m) sides.
ckaihatsu wrote:The degeneration of soviet democracy, into Stalinist nationalist consolidation, wasn't about (cultural) *identity* -- it was about whether the Western capitalist class, or an internal royalist one, or an internal strongman one, or a worldwide *workers* revolution, would prevail.
Even after all internal opposition had been effectively purged. Okay
ckaihatsu wrote:And, relatedly, from before:
Yes, it's part of the Marxist fanfic view of history.