Opinion on billionaires.

Dyr

Good luck to em, neither were born into wealth and ammased all those billions themselves through innovation.

Burns some peoples holes I suppose.

Wanderer78

Bambi wrote: »

Good luck to em, neither were born into wealth and ammased all those billions themselves through innovation.

Burns some peoples holes I suppose.

only that they didnt

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

large corporations, not just financial institutions, are regularly bailed out, this has existed for a very long time now, and is currently happening again now, tesla has received large amounts of public funding

Yup, I'm aware that some companies need bailing out, but not all do. Same with billionaires themselves. Consider the manner of his post, and tell me that it was accurate?

In any case, I'd prefer if such companies were allowed to bottom out, and cease to exist. Short/medium term pain, but they'd be replaced by other companies moving in to fill the gap.

Galwayguy35

Wanderer78 wrote: »

the activities of both the general operators and management are critical to the existence of the business, but this is rarely recognized and acknowledged, particularly in terms of the general operatives

A general op in a warehouse is hard going at times because its so busy but at the end of the shift we clock out and forget about it.

The owners and their general managers have all the headaches associated with running a business and are always on call no matter what time it is when a problem needs attention, they get the big money because of the responsibility they have.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

only that they didnt

Except that many did. There are too much of this "all did/all didn't" going on in this thread. Many of the newer billionaires gained that status through innovative concepts which worked. There are, also, many other billionaires who gained their monies through generations of family accumulated wealth.

It's just a sign of modern economics (and technology) that it's "easier" for people to become billionaires now, than before, when there was a greater need for accumulation of wealth to happen over generations.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup, I'm aware that some companies need bailing out, but not all do. Same with billionaires themselves. Consider the manner of his post, and tell me that it was accurate?

In any case, I'd prefer if such companies were allowed to bottom out, and cease to exist. Short/medium term pain, but they'd be replaced by other companies moving in to fill the gap.

this is an extremely risky approach, and potentially extremely dangerous for our global economy as a whole, as you said, sometimes, bailouts are critical, ive no doubt, it was critical the banks were bailed out, if we didnt, we may not be having this conversation right now, we simply will never know for sure, and thankfully it wasnt tested, but bailouts should come with strict conditions, that tries to change the operations of these businesses towards more positive actions

4068ac1elhodqr

IAMAMORON wrote: »

It has already been proven that cigarettes sales have increased despite the health lobby on advertising. Cancer rates are down. Go figure.

Not sure where you getting such ideas. Cancer (combined) rates are ever increasing, despite better treatments and remedies that have reduced certain types, or extended/delayed the overall mortality dates. Obesity linked cancers (not to mention covid and diabities) are currently, and will be, going forward a major factor for life expectancies.

Cigarette sales are a fraction of what they were back in the 80's hardly anyone smokes tobacco now (in the West), US consumption has nearly halfed since the turn of the century. The only surge is over in F'East/China (new disposable income, and false concepts of dated Western trends).


Your concept of a 'free open market economy' steered by rampant billionaires, is far from perfect, and will always need some policy intervention, to steer in the right direction (from greed/profit alone), and this is for the greater good.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Except that many did. There are too much of this "all did/all didn't" going on in this thread. Many of the newer billionaires gained that status through innovative concepts which worked. There are, also, many other billionaires who gained their monies through generations of family accumulated wealth.

It's just a sign of modern economics (and technology) that it's "easier" for people to become billionaires now, than before, when there was a greater need for accumulation of wealth to happen over generations.

again, only that they didnt! for example a large proportion of the technologies used by companies such as apple, and possibly amazon, were originally created in public institutions with public money.

i beg to differ on the last point, and many respected commentators agree with me, you effectually must now be born into wealth in order to make it to great heights of wealth, of course theres exceptions to the rule, but the majority of people cannot now become wealthy

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

this is an extremely risky approach, and potentially extremely dangerous for our global economy as a whole, as you said, sometimes, bailouts are critical, ive no doubt, it was critical the banks were bailed out, if we didnt, we may not be having this conversation right now, we simply will never know for sure, and thankfully it wasnt tested, but bailouts should come with strict conditions, that tries to change the operations of these businesses towards more positive actions

Nah. I don't buy it, this idea that we wouldn't be here if the banks weren't bailed out or other larger companies. The world economy has become far too flimsy due to the attitude towards bailouts, and supporting broken companies. The Debt focus that companies have engaged in, has essentially pushed us all into the path of another crash, and that's only because they expect to be bailed out again in the future.

A natural healthy economy has companies that fail, and are replaced. That's how competition works, beyond the simple competition within a market. It forces companies to focus on being profitable and expanding only when they can actually afford to do so. Nowadays, there is far too much interest in debt financing on all levels. It's just going to make the crash all the worse, and there will be another crash (even without covid).

Wanderer78

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

A general op in a warehouse is hard going at times because its so busy but at the end of the shift we clock out and forget about it.

The owners and their general managers have all the headaches associated with running a business and are always on call no matter what time it is when a problem needs attention, they get the big money because of the responsibility they have.

you d be surprised of the amount of lower level employees bring their work home with them, this can sometimes lead to dysfunctional behaviors such as addiction problems etc. all employees take on some levels of risk, its possible the lower level employees sometimes take on enormous amounts of risk, because if that business fails, it could lead to significant issues in their own personal lives, including relationship breakdown and/or homelessness etc

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah. I don't buy it, this idea that we wouldn't be here if the banks weren't bailed out or other larger companies. The world economy has become far too flimsy due to the attitude towards bailouts, and supporting broken companies. The Debt focus that companies have engaged in, has essentially pushed us all into the path of another crash, and that's only because they expect to be bailed out again in the future.

A natural healthy economy has companies that fail, and are replaced. That's how competition works, beyond the simple competition within a market. It forces companies to focus on being profitable and expanding only when they can actually afford to do so. Nowadays, there is far too much interest in debt financing on all levels. It's just going to make the crash all the worse, and there will be another crash (even without covid).

... and again, we re back to neoclassical economics! again, this is not our reality, this is not how our real world works, we need to at some stage behave maturely in accepting our reality at some stage!

Brittany Large Bartender

Brittany Large Bartender wrote: »

Cigarette sales are a fraction of what they were back in the 80's hardly anyone smokes tobacco now (in the West),

http://publicpolicy.ie/papers/trends-in-smoking-prevalence-and-tobacco-consumption/

worth a look. Many who once smokes cigarettes are now on RYO tobacco pouches, although you're correct that overall consumption has dropped considerably.

Although, you'd be wrong in the statement that hardly anyone smokes in the West. There's still a sizable consumer group of smokers throughout the West.. all you have to do is look at countries like France or Spain, and you'll see that there's still a strong culture related to smoking.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

... and again, we re back to neoclassical economics! again, this is not our reality, this is not how our real world works, we need to at some stage behave maturely in accepting our reality at some stage!

I'm not getting into an economics debate. Each to their own on this.

Das Reich

Brittany Large Bartender wrote: »

- The 22 richest men in the world have more wealth than all the women in Africa (600m, set to double by 2050).

Big irresponsability and selfishness making so many children when you not work that hard for it.

blackwhite

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Amazon makes little or no money from its delivery service, so its a monopoly in that sector, preventing competitors from well, existing. It lives off the back of public policies that continually increase its value of its assets, particularly it's stock price, of which it shares very little, publicly.

You keep repeating this utter bolloxology - when it all it does is show you really don’t know what you’re spouting on about.

Amazon made over $7billion of profits from its US selling and delivery services, approx $9.2bn from Amazon Web Services - it’s cloud computing service - and made approx $1.7bn loss from its non-US selling and delivery services.

So net approx $5.3bn (approx 37%) of its profits come from selling & delivery services.

These are publicly available numbers taken from Amazon’s annual report. https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/NASDAQ_AMZN_2019.pdf

Stop believing every claim you hear in a YouTube video just because it suits your world view - do a tiny bit of critical research yourself first before repeating this nonsense as fact.

Strumms

Cyrus wrote: »

I can’t quite make it out but I presume they failed the means test because their pension was too high?

I never had a conversation in ‘that’ detail about it but I’ll try and find out.

I’d doubt it though. My Dad has a very good work pension, started it early, but he paid in a lot and as far as I know pensions are taxed. So taxed on earnings and pension.

My mother only went back to work from 55-65 after raising family and a little ill health and although a full time public service job it wouldn’t have been on brilliant wages.

Cyrus

Strumms wrote: »

I never had a conversation in ‘that’ detail about it but I’ll try and find out.

I’d doubt it though. My Dad has a very good work pension, started it early, but he paid in a lot and as far as I know pensions are taxed. So taxed on earnings and pension.

My mother only went back to work from 55-65 after raising family and a little ill health and although a full time public service job it wouldn’t have been on brilliant wages.

Well your contributions go in tax free and can grow tax free but get taxed as you take it as income .

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

Their bootlicking worshippers are even bigger scumbags.

They're weird, maybe suckers for propaganda, but 'scumbags' is too harsh.

y0ssar1an22

i'd be reasonable. hit 100bn, everything beyond is taxed at 100%. obviously you're not allowed to transfer that wealth in any shape or form. once you hit 100bn you win capitalism, job done, be happy, have a medal.

there's some notion in economics, dunno what its called. essentially its (say) 10bn in the economy is way more valuable than bezos having that same 10bn in stocks/savings/other investments. that circulation of money creates wealth or something.

Geuze

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i'd be reasonable. hit 100bn, everything beyond is taxed at 100%. obviously you're not allowed to transfer that wealth in any shape or form. once you hit 100bn you win capitalism, job done, be happy, have a medal.

there's some notion in economics, dunno what its called. essentially its (say) 10bn in the economy is way more valuable than bezos having that same 10bn in stocks/savings/other investments. that circulation of money creates wealth or something.

You are suggesting a 100% wealth tax above a wealth threshold.

Clearly, this creates an incentive to fritter away wealth as the total approaches the threshold.

Another issue is that share prices fluctuate all the time.

Wealth could be 101bn on Mon, 91bn on Thur.

auspicious

Well where should the tax cap be placed: one hundred billion, one billon or one hundred thousand?
Communism or capitalism. Should we cap capitalism?

y0ssar1an22

Geuze wrote: »

You are suggesting a 100% wealth tax above a wealth threshold.

Clearly, this creates an incentive to fritter away wealth as the total approaches the threshold.

Another issue is that share prices fluctuate all the time.

Wealth could be 101bn on Mon, 91bn on Thur.

thats the idea, fritter away to your hearts content once its gets back into the economy.

the tax point will be at a date in the year, say 31/12. below, you're good for previous 12 months and vice versa.

then the q is, would these people do something to try to manipulate the share price of their company once a year to ensure they fall under that threshold. say something stupid on social media, etc. the market would adapt to that in short order to prevent those shenanigans.

y0ssar1an22

auspicious wrote: »

Well where should the tax cap be placed: one hundred billion, one billon or one hundred thousand?
Communism or capitalism. Should we cap capitalism?

100 billion seems more than reasonable.

i think we should. that wont stifle innovation in the slightest.

Strumms

Cyrus wrote: »

I can’t quite make it out but I presume they failed the means test because their pension was too high?

Correct. My Dad says yes to this. He got a very good state and private pension. My mother’s isnt much... but both had cards stopped.

auspicious

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

100 billion seems more than reasonable.

i think we should. that wont stifle innovation in the slightest.

Ah but most people are not reasonable.
Is a 500k house appropriate to live in. Is a 600k house too much?
Should a reasonable tax be placed comparable to the minimum wage?
Should we limit the size of a yacht? No more than 150ft?

y0ssar1an22

auspicious wrote: »

Ah but most people are not reasonable.
Is a 500k house appropriate to live in. Is a 600k house too much?
Should a reasonable tax be placed comparable to the minimum wage?
Should we limit the size of a yacht? No more than 150ft?

most people are reasonable.

fukkit, let the yacht be a mile long, or 100 miles long. i don't much care (resource scarcity/ climate change aside).

i'm for capitalism, generate and accumulate as much as you can. i just think 100bn is a fair enough cut off.

as for the houses, again like the yacht, feel free to spend and build what you like, within the local constraints.

Wanderer78

blackwhite wrote:

Stop believing every claim you hear in a YouTube video just because it suits your world view - do a tiny bit of critical research yourself first before repeating this nonsense as fact.

That info comes from economist Richard wolff, he's contactable via the Internets, if you have issues with this information! Critical research, done!

The majority of amazon's wealth is in its assets, particularly it's share price, it's also a major player in the IT sector, particularly data centres. I'd imagine they're making a few quid from those activities, hence why it to has engaged in financial activities such as share buy backs etc

Wanderer78

Geuze wrote:

Another issue is that share prices fluctuate all the time.

Wealthy individuals generally diversify their portfolios, to reduce risk and exposure, the most common investments being stocks, shares, bonds, real estate, land, precious metals, fine art etc etc, but I'd imagine you already know this.

auspicious wrote:

Well where should the tax cap be placed: one hundred billion, one billon or one hundred thousand? Communism or capitalism. Should we cap capitalism?

I always find these debates simply weird, they simply cannot be simplified to just communism v's capatalism, I suspect majority of people have little or no interest in communism, and possibly little or no knowledge of it either, as I don't have a clue of it nor interest, I do believe the answer to capatalism problems is capatalism.

y0ssar1an22 wrote:

i'm for capitalism, generate and accumulate as much as you can. i just think 100bn is a fair enough cut off.

This isn't necessarily the overall meaning of capitalism, apparently what Adam Smith meant by free markets, was free from rent, this is not what we currently have, we currently have the opposite, particularly when you include the activities of the fire sectors (finance, insurance, and real estate), of which most major corporations are a part of, with financialised activities such as share buy backs etc

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I always find these debates simply weird, they simply cannot be simplified to just communism v's capatalism, I suspect majority of people have little or no interest in communism, and possibly little or no knowledge of it either, as I don't have a clue of it nor interest, I do believe the answer to capatalism problems is capatalism.

Agreed. Any system that is taken to an extreme becomes a problem. They're fine on paper but once applied to the real world, they invariably cause serious problems throughout an economy. Which is why capitalism needs boundaries to funnel it's growth and development, with elements of socialism to retain the more humanitarian aspects of economic progress. Capitalism when taken as an extreme tends to leave humanity behind with the accumulation of wealth being the primary focus.

I'd agree that there needs to be controls in place to prevent the creation of billionaires, because such a state brings little actual value to a society. Not really for the reasons noted in this thread, but mostly, because there's no need for them. It makes sense that there are millionaires out there, as they tend to be the business leaders but when they become billionaires, it simply shows that the system is broken somehow.

The focus should be on how society as a whole benefits from an efficient and robust economy.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed. Any system that is taken to an extreme becomes a problem. They're fine on paper but once applied to the real world, they invariably cause serious problems throughout an economy. Which is why capitalism needs boundaries to funnel it's growth and development, with elements of socialism to retain the more humanitarian aspects of economic progress. Capitalism when taken as an extreme tends to leave humanity behind with the accumulation of wealth being the primary focus.

I'd agree that there needs to be controls in place to prevent the creation of billionaires, because such a state brings little actual value to a society. Not really for the reasons noted in this thread, but mostly, because there's no need for them. It makes sense that there are millionaires out there, as they tend to be the business leaders but when they become billionaires, it simply shows that the system is broken somehow.

The focus should be on how society as a whole benefits from an efficient and robust economy.

largely agree with this, only im not sure how i feel about putting caps on wealth accumulation, i do realise some of the positives these individuals bring to society, i guess i may need more time to consider this one, im sure if i was that wealthy, id probably want to keep accumulating more, but i am also aware, id probably be still deeply concerned about issues such as wealth inequality etc, but who knows

Manach

To paraphrase the book "What every should know about taxes" - those calling for tax fairness usually do not know how the money gathered is spent.

Wanderer78

Manach wrote: »

To paraphrase the book "What every should know about taxes" - those calling for tax fairness usually do not know how the money gathered is spent.

...and do many truly understand the world of monetary systems, money and its creation?

blackwhite

Wanderer78 wrote: »

That info comes from economist Richard wolff, he's contactable via the Internets, if you have issues with this information! Critical research, done!

The majority of amazon's wealth is in its assets, particularly it's share price, it's also a major player in the IT sector, particularly data centres. I'd imagine they're making a few quid from those activities, hence why it to has engaged in financial activities such as share buy backs etc

You’re either completely misreprenting Wolff, or he’s talking sh1te. Either way, you resorting to an appeal to authority fallacy when confronted with actual facts speaks volumes to how little you understand what you are spouting off about (as usual :rolleyes:) and how incapable you are of defending your lies.

I’ve linked you to Amazons audited annual report for 2019 - the actual numbers that show how they generate their profits and how the value of their balance sheet is grown.
Amazons operating cash flow (generated by web services and sales & distribution activities) was over $38.5bn. That’s where they generate their wealth. Share buy-backs etc are how they pass some of that value back to their shareholders.

As for the utter nonsense statement that “ The majority of amazon's wealth is in its assets, particularly it's share price” - if ever you wanted to prove your ignorance of economics, finance and markets then you’ve done that spectacularly with that statement.

Amazons largest assets are approx. $36bn of cash $72bn of property and equipment (see p40 of their annual report for the balance sheet - although we know that actual facts seem like kryptonite to you).

Amazon’s share price is a representation of how investors value Amazon - it’s share price is so high because if Amazons ability to generate profits from its web services and from its sales and delivery business, and to consistently convert those profits into cash flow.
The share price is not an asset that the company can put on its balance sheet - its simply a representation of what the company is valued at.

Wanderer78

blackwhite wrote: »

You’re either completely misreprenting Wolff, or he’s talking sh1te. Either way, you resorting to an appeal to authority fallacy when confronted with actual facts speaks volumes to how little you understand what you are spouting off about (as usual :rolleyes:) and how incapable you are of defending your lies.

I’ve linked you to Amazons audited annual report for 2019 - the actual numbers that show how they generate their profits and how the value of their balance sheet is grown.
Amazons operating cash flow (generated by web services and sales & distribution activities) was over $38.5bn. That’s where they generate their wealth. Share buy-backs etc are how they pass some of that value back to their shareholders.

As for the utter nonsense statement that “ The majority of amazon's wealth is in its assets, particularly it's share price” - if ever you wanted to prove your ignorance of economics, finance and markets then you’ve done that spectacularly with that statement.

Amazons largest assets are approx. $36bn of cash $72bn of property and equipment (see p40 of their annual report for the balance sheet - although we know that actual facts seem like kryptonite to you).

Amazon’s share price is a representation of how investors value Amazon - it’s share price is so high because if Amazons ability to generate profits from its web services and from its sales and delivery business, and to consistently convert those profits into cash flow.
The share price is not an asset that the company can put on its balance sheet - its simply a representation of what the company is valued at.

you seem to have an issue with wolffs information, may i suggest you take it up with him, he maybe contactable via twitter, maybe he can explain to both of us how he came to this conclusion? thanks

by any chance have your figures included the implications of amazons financial activities such as share buy backs?

share prices dont necessarily reflect the true success of a company, share holder value is well known to be a pretty sh1t way of measuring 'success', particularly when the magicians such as accountants do their magic, use to work for a large corporation, the particular facility has never turned a profit, in its 40 years of existence, very interesting!

thanks very much for the info though, its very informative

blackwhite

Wanderer78 wrote: »

you seem to have an issue with wolffs information, may i suggest you take it up with him, he maybe contactable via twitter, maybe he can explain to both of us how he came to this conclusion? thanks

by any chance have your figures included the implications of amazons financial activities such as share buy backs?

share prices dont necessarily reflect the true success of a company, share holder value is well known to be a pretty sh1t way of measuring 'success', particularly when the magicians such as accountants do their magic, use to work for a large corporation, the particular facility has never turned a profit, in its 40 years of existence, very interesting!

thanks very much for the info though, its very informative

You’ve made the claims repeatedly - at the very least you can link to them to show you’ve actually represented them here accurately. You’ve shown that

You clearly don’t understand share buy-backs, despite trying to shoehorn mention of them into every second post.

A share buy-back is a method of a company transferring cash from its own balance sheet directly to its investors. It normally has the impact of reducing the overall market valuation of the business (by removing cash) because some of “value” of the business has been transferred to the investors who participate in the buyback.

A buy-back never impacts the profits, or the operating cash-flow of the business. It will impact the overall cash balances, and it will impact on the equity balances. Again - you clearly don’t understand how these sort of transactions actually impact on the financials of a business, and are either offering your misunderstanding of what you’ve read elsewhere, or else someone has been spinning you some mistruths to further whatever agenda they’re trying to push.

Wanderer78

blackwhite wrote:

You’ve made the claims repeatedly - at the very least you can link to them to show you’ve actually represented them here accurately. You’ve shown that

Wolff, twitter, sorry too busy, currently unable to link his economic update podcast, Google will fill in the blanks

Wanderer78

blackwhite wrote:

A buy-back never impacts the profits, or the operating cash-flow of the business. It will impact the overall cash balances, and it will impact on the equity balances. Again - you clearly don’t understand how these sort of transactions actually impact on the financials of a business, and are either offering your misunderstanding of what you’ve read elsewhere, or else someone has been spinning you some mistruths to further whatever agenda they’re trying to push.

Its clearly obvious my agenda is to become the ruler of the universe, might as well take the p1ss, with use of words such as 'agenda'!

ush

The biggest threat democracy has ever faced. Communism wasn't even close. If anything, it spurred western elites to accept universal suffrage and the welfare state. The threat was always unbridled capitalism. We're regressing into some kind of feodalism. We're beyond capitalism now. Actual capital isn't the currency anymore. Its data. And the direction, without regulation, is toward oligopol/cartels. Always has been. At least feudal lords had some sense of social responsibility.

The collisons seem a nice sort though they are strangely not all that talked about on an irish forum. At least on the threads I frequent. Is there skeletons in their closet I dont know about

Wanderer78

ush wrote:

The biggest threat democracy has ever faced. Communism wasn't even close. If anything, it spurred western elites to accept universal suffrage and the welfare state. The threat was always unbridled capitalism. We're regressing into some kind of feodalism. We're beyond capitalism now. Actual capital isn't the currency anymore. Its data. And the direction, without regulation, is toward oligopol/cartels. Always has been. At least feudal lords had some sense of social responsibility.

Completely agree, and it looks like the so called free market has little or nothing to do with what smith was describing it as, i.e. free from rent etc.

I think we re in desperate need of a new form of capitalism, and quickly, before we self destruct

Completely agree with the statement of data, and I think mark blyth and Eric lonergan are onto how to maybe resolving it, effectively charge companies for the access to it

blackwhite

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Its clearly obvious my agenda is to become the ruler of the universe, might as well take the p1ss, with use of words such as 'agenda'!

I’m not accusing you of pushing an agenda - but blindly trusting everything you read on twitter without doing any critical checking of easily probable or disprovable claims means you’re very likely to be taken in by someone who is peddling an agenda.

Wolff is a hardline proponent of Marxian theory - he’s not immune to twisting things to suit that worldview. Especially when using mediums such as twitter or YouTube, where he doesn’t have to worry about pesky things like fact-checks or peer-review

Wanderer78

blackwhite wrote:

I’m not accusing you of pushing an agenda - but blindly trusting everything you read on twitter without doing any critical checking of easily probable or disprovable claims means you’re very likely to be taken in by someone who is peddling an agenda.

I'm sorry to inform you, but all humans, including wolff, you and me, are predisposition to inherent and confirmation bias, there's virtually no facts here, folks such as wolff generally research data intensely before relating them, this is of course, what such professionals do, it's also important to realise data itself is exposed to these biases, so finding facts can be extremely difficult under such conditions, all schools of economic thought are therefore also exposed to these biases, including neoclassical

blackwhite

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I'm sorry to inform you, but all humans, including wolff, you and me, are predisposition to inherent and confirmation bias, there's virtually no facts here, folks such as wolff generally research data intensely before relating them, this is of course, what such professionals do, it's also important to realise data itself is exposed to these biases, so finding facts can be extremely difficult under such conditions, all schools of economic thought are therefore also exposed to these biases, including neoclassical

Fully agreed that all economic thought has bias - but peddling lies about how Amazon derives it’s profitability is easily disproven by actual facts (I.e. the actual numbers that have been reported and audited).
There’s a difference between opinions on the cause and consequence, and the basic facts of what the numbers are.

Wanderer78

blackwhite wrote:

Fully agreed that all economic thought has bias - but peddling lies about how Amazon derives it’s profitability is easily disproven by actual facts (I.e. the actual numbers that have been reported and audited). There’s a difference between opinions on the cause and consequence, and the basic facts of what the numbers are.

Again, professionals such as wolff generally don't peddle such lies, they realise the are being closely monitored, and theyre generally number geeks anyway, this is what they do, so there must be some reason why he has made such a statement, the unfortunate thing is, I ll probably never figure it out, so that leaves it answered for myself. unfortunately numbers themselves can be manipulated, unintentionally, due to these biases, I have experienced this myself while running data analysis, and the details of financial data from large corporations is murky to say the least, you d have to wonder, does anyone truly understand what's going on within these organisations, due to their complexities. I'm not anti corporation at all, I do realise some of the benefits they bring to society, but you can be damn sure, trickle down certainly isn't occuring within these organisations, as we believed it would.

ush

ush wrote: »

The biggest threat democracy has ever faced. Communism wasn't even close. If anything, it spurred western elites to accept universal suffrage and the welfare state. The threat was always unbridled capitalism. We're regressing into some kind of feodalism. We're beyond capitalism now. Actual capital isn't the currency anymore. Its data. And the direction, without regulation, is toward oligopol/cartels. Always has been. At least feudal lords had some sense of social responsibility.

Democracy.... I'm not sure democracy ever existed, the way that people nowadays tend to consider it to be. The people generally have very little actual power to influence the workings of government. Sure, they can vote in another government during the next election, but invariably, the choices are rather limited, and become more limited as time goes by. Government policies, and laws tend to be brought about by organs that the electorate have no direct influence over, and so, Democracy? Err.. nah. I became disillusioned with the idea of democracy decades ago, and nothing I've seen since has made me feel that it's anything more than marketing spin.

ush

Deleted User wrote: »

Democracy.... I'm not sure democracy ever existed, the way that people nowadays tend to consider it to be. The people generally have very little actual power to influence the workings of government. Sure, they can vote in another government during the next election, but invariably, the choices are rather limited, and become more limited as time goes by. Government policies, and laws tend to be brought about by organs that the electorate have no direct influence over, and so, Democracy? Err.. nah. I became disillusioned with the idea of democracy decades ago, and nothing I've seen since has made me feel that it's anything more than marketing spin.

So you're disillusioned with representative democracy. Fine. What we're lacking is economic democracy. Thats the real cause of your alienation.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote:

Democracy.... I'm not sure democracy ever existed, the way that people nowadays tend to consider it to be. The people generally have very little actual power to influence the workings of government. Sure, they can vote in another government during the next election, but invariably, the choices are rather limited, and become more limited as time goes by. Government policies, and laws tend to be brought about by organs that the electorate have no direct influence over, and so, Democracy? Err.. nah. I became disillusioned with the idea of democracy decades ago, and nothing I've seen since has made me feel that it's anything more than marketing spin.

I actually agree with this, and I believe we actually don't have democracy, and we re tending away from it over time, the only way I can currently describe what we may have is a highly erratic, complex and dysfunctional form of plutocracy, which is operating under the guise of democracy, I'm sure I ll alter that over time, its ultimately a creation of our own mistakes, failures and none acceptance of our reality. our political institutions have effectively become ineffectual in regards critical changes urgently needed, rendering voting almost useless.

Ush1

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Again, professionals such as wolff generally don't peddle such lies, they realise the are being closely monitored, and theyre generally number geeks anyway, this is what they do, so there must be some reason why he has made such a statement, the unfortunate thing is, I ll probably never figure it out, so that leaves it answered for myself. unfortunately numbers themselves can be manipulated, unintentionally, due to these biases, I have experienced this myself while running data analysis, and the details of financial data from large corporations is murky to say the least, you d have to wonder, does anyone truly understand what's going on within these organisations, due to their complexities. I'm not anti corporation at all, I do realise some of the benefits they bring to society, but you can be damn sure, trickle down certainly isn't occuring within these organisations, as we believed it would.

He linked to documents which show what he's saying is correct.

You're saying a bigger boy told me otherwise. See the difference?

Wanderer78

Ush1 wrote: »

He linked to documents which show what he's saying is correct.

You're saying a bigger boy told me otherwise. See the difference?

no, i dont, and yes, i do, its important to remember such events as the panama and Paradise papers, we potential could be at the point, theres no real facts, and we dont truly understand whats going on within these complex institutions and their workings, theres a possibility nobody truly knows the full facts, including the corporations themselves

the so called 'bigger boy' , is actually a respected commentator, but has his own inherent biases, such as ourselves, these errr emm 'bigger boys' tend to be numbers geeks, and generally tend not to make statements without some sort of data analysis, to support these statements

Ush1

Wanderer78 wrote: »

no, i dont, and yes, i do, its important to remember such events as the panama and Paradise papers, we potential could be at the point, theres no real facts, and we dont truly understand whats going on within these complex institutions and their workings, theres a possibility nobody truly knows the full facts, including the corporations themselves

the so called 'bigger boy' , is actually a respected commentator, but has his own inherent biases, such as ourselves, these errr emm 'bigger boys' tend to be numbers geeks, and generally tend not to make statements without some sort of data analysis, to support these statements

I've said it to you before and I'll say it again, go out for a walk mate.