My Brand of Socialism

[Mike T]

MikeT comment

What I post, I generally get on the news that I follow everyday.

 

The current 'new world order' (World Trade Org. or WTO) that can sue any demoracy in the world court that tries to restrict its trade is an example of the corrupting influences these capitalists have. I suppose all member nations of this WTO are acquired through this means.

 

It could have started with JK's elimination(?) of the capital gains tax during his presidency. I do not know the details.

Then there was a law passed by congress that gave businesses the right to sue anyone that damaged their business. Ophra Winfreywas sued under this law.

Further erosion of our democracy was the continued tax rebellion that Reagan pushed through as well as overthrowing a century old law that forbade a diplomatic exchange with the vatican.

This could be an example of the popes influences on JK, reagan and now bush with his religious dogma and tax rebates.

Clinton, of course, also contributed by passing the NAFTA trade poicy and other lesser ones.

These are examples of our politicians serving the wealthy and capitalism.

So now it is the 'new world order' with our country being reduced to a third world economy that will take place gradually. Obviously, these corporations prefer to by abroad instead of buying american.

What jobs are available locally now will no doubt be cheap service jobs with no fringe benefits like wallmart uses.

 

My Brand of Socialism, you will notice, includes 'free enterprise'.

But the most important thing it would do is to serve the peoples entitlements like healthcare and old age security. Jobs are easy to find. It is the dollars that are scarce becaise of this capitalistic GREED.

That is why I would put a cap on this selfserving evil.

 

Mike T

[Jim]

MikeT comment

What I post' date=' I generally get on the news that I follow everyday.

 

The current 'new world order' (World Trade Org. or WTO) that can sue any demoracy in the world court that tries to restrict its trade is an example of the corrupting influences these capitalists have. I suppose all member nations of this WTO are acquired through this means.

 

It could have started with JK's elimination(?) of the capital gains tax during his presidency. I do not know the details.

Then there was a law passed by congress that gave businesses the right to sue anyone that damaged their business. Ophra Winfreywas sued under this law.

Further erosion of our democracy was the continued tax rebellion that Reagan pushed through as well as overthrowing a century old law that forbade a diplomatic exchange with the vatican.

This could be an example of the popes influences on JK, reagan and now bush with his religious dogma and tax rebates.

Clinton, of course, also contributed by passing the NAFTA trade poicy and other lesser ones.

These are examples of our politicians serving the wealthy and capitalism.

So now it is the 'new world order' with our country being reduced to a third world economy that will take place gradually. Obviously, these corporations prefer to by abroad instead of buying american.

What jobs are available locally now will no doubt be cheap service jobs with no fringe benefits like wallmart uses.

 

My Brand of Socialism, you will notice, includes 'free enterprise'.

But the most important thing it would do is to serve the peoples entitlements like healthcare and old age security. Jobs are easy to find. It is the dollars that are scarce becaise of this capitalistic GREED.

That is why I would put a cap on this selfserving evil.

 

Mike T[/quote']

 

Here's a link to the bill you are talking about. As you can see, the problem was that Companies had to determine their defined benefits paid out based on the thirty year Treasure bond rate:

 

Because the Treasury Department no longer issues the bond, its interest rate has fallen precipitously. That in turn, under an inverse relationship, causes required pension contributions to increase.

 

Although the legislation would mean smaller corporate contributions to pension plans, it has the support of labor leaders who prefer it to the specter of more companies dissolving pension plans if no bill is passed.

 

I'm not a bankruptcy lawyer, but my belief was that companies could always seek to avoid pension plan commitments in bankruptcy. This bill was designed to reduce the frequency of companies resorting to that relief.

 

Are you referring to something else?

[Jim]

Then there was a law passed by congress that gave businesses the right to sue anyone that damaged their business. Ophra Winfreywas sued under this law.

 

Are you spoofing us? The more I read your post the more I wonder whether you are just having fun by adopting a persona. If so, I applaud you.

 

In case you are being serious, Oprah was sued for slander. Libel and slander laws originally descended from English defamation law which has ancient roots.

 

The tragedy of the cattlemen's lawsuit is that it brought Dr. Phil to Oprah's attention.

[Phi for All]

Quote

So now it is the 'new world order' with our country being reduced to a third world economy that will take place gradually. Obviously' date=' these corporations prefer to by abroad instead of buying american.

What jobs are available locally now will no doubt be cheap service jobs with no fringe benefits like wallmart uses.[/quote']This is the worst type of speculation. You piece together the worst aspects of issues which have many beneficial aspects as well and then preach doom and gloom. You assume a future which any decent economist relegates to absolute worst-case scenarios, then you offer up your version and blind yourself to it's own downside.

If our politicians appear to cater to the wealthy it's because the wealthy hire lobbyists to stay in the politician's faces every day. The voters could do the same thing more effectively if they showed the same interest. Politicians value votes that keep them in office doing their jobs more than the money the wealthy donate to their campaigns. Remember that the donations are to help sway the public vote.

I don't know who you're listening to, but you really need to broaden your sources of news. You are robbing yourself of good judgement by only gleaning that which supports your pet thesis. You have become a magnet for the dark side, and it's blinding you to what is really working in the world today.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Phi for All
fixed quote box

[Mike T]

Jim

 

I do not care to waste too much time researching the news reports. I only quote what was said. They did say that a lot of workers are losing their pensions as a result of this recent law.

 

It is bad enough that many workers lost their savings as a result of the Enron scandal but the corporations have a lot of influence with the politicians and mainly the republicans..

Republican get the most.

They get about twice as much as the democrats and about ten times as much as the unions can give.

So when it comes to influence money, the corporations and the wealthy get the most attention.

That is why the republicans opposed the McCain-Feingold bill while the democrats supported it.

McConnell ® of Kentucky, said the republicans would lose the elections if that influence money was banned.

The trouble with the democrats is that they expect the money 'up front' rather than after they support asny bills. The reason is that the democrats do not have a history of being 'yesman' when a lobbyiest approaches them.The republicans are certain they will get this influence money so they don't expect it 'up front'. Ha Ha.

 

New Science

[Mike T]

PfA

 

The only thing you see is the ballooning numbers of billionaires and profit margins of the corporations that are expanding their franchises abroad with these free trade laws and profit margins.

The tax rebellion that started in the sixties and the subsequent rising national debt ought to tell you who is getting all the welfare.

Our economy is slowly sliding into a 3rd world economy with the corporations shopping abroad for cheap labor or shipping their production facilies abroad.

The US has been closing local factories ever since Nixon opened the gates to China for using the market to sell their goods here.

This started the chain of closing factories like the textile industries in the eastern US. That was a beginning that has escalated to todays 'new world order' like the WTO that represents the world corporations the right to sell their goods in any member market without restriction. Otherwise, they can sue in the world court for damages. Bye Bye democracy. It is no wonder the billionaires are muliplyimg by the thoudsnds worldwide now.

Of course, the workers wages were being downsisized to compensate for the ballooning corporate wealth.

Healthcare is disappearing as are the pensions. Prosperity?

 

Corporations are committing suicide by shrinking the US mass purchasing power to lower levels. Who is going to buy the houses, automobiles and other manufactured US goods. That cheap labor abroad and the illegals sneaking into the country?

 

The best way to pep up the economy is to 'share the wealth' with the people who create this 'real tangible wealth' such as the workers.

One way now to start this is to 'raise the minimum wage' to a livable level.

This added wealth to these people would raise the mass purchasing power to buy more goods. These people spend all their dollars rather than hoarding them like the conservatives do.

 

Mike T

[Pangloss]

Ah yes, those evil conservatives, always trying to destroy society. Darn them!

 

The best way to pep up the economy is to 'share the wealth' with the people who create this 'real tangible wealth' such as the workers.

 

No, that's the worst way to "pep up the economy", because it would rob everyone of any motivation or incentive.

[Phi for All]

The only thing you see is the ballooning numbers of billionaires and profit margins of the corporations that are expanding their franchises abroad with these free trade laws and profit margins.

No, that's the only thing YOU see. My hard work seems to be paying off, and while I probably won't be a billionaire, I can appreciate the needs of businesses to cut costs without cutting corners. Expansion abroad is a good thing.

The tax rebellion that started in the sixties and the subsequent rising national debt ought to tell you who is getting all the welfare.

Sour grapes?

Our economy is slowly sliding into a 3rd world economy with the corporations shopping abroad for cheap labor or shipping their production facilies abroad.

Changing, our economy is changing. There's a big difference.

The US has been closing local factories ever since Nixon opened the gates to China for using the market to sell their goods here.

This started the chain of closing factories like the textile industries in the eastern US.

Again, more change. Foreign countries are also opening factories in the US looking for American expertise. It's just change, Mike T, a restructuring based on market pressures and fluctuations. Businesses do it all the time.

Corporations are committing suicide by shrinking the US mass purchasing power to lower levels. Who is going to buy the houses, automobiles and other manufactured US goods. That cheap labor abroad and the illegals sneaking into the country?

First you blame the corps for being greedy, now they're committing suicide?

 

The best way to pep up the economy is to 'share the wealth' with the people who create this 'real tangible wealth' such as the workers.

One way now to start this is to 'raise the minimum wage' to a livable level.

This added wealth to these people would raise the mass purchasing power to buy more goods. These people spend all their dollars rather than hoarding them like the conservatives do.

I think the minimum wage should be raised, but I don't see it as being the cure. Prices will go up where minimum wage affects them. And sharing the wealth just sounds like, "I don't make as much as you do, let's split the difference."

 

I've tried to explain in other posts how money that's "hoarded" gets used by banks as loans. The only money that's hoarded is in piggy banks and mattresses.

[Mike T]

Pan quote

No, that's the worst way to "pep up the economy", because it would rob everyone of any motivation or incentive.

 

reply

People work to suvive, not to accumulate wealth. There are only a few greedy that want to think they are super beings that deserve more than others.

 

Phi quote

Expansion abroad is a good thing.

 

reply

Yeh, for the ones that take advantage of cheap labor and maybe lower taxes?

 

quote

Again, more change. Foreign countries are also opening factories in the US looking for American expertise.

 

reply

They use the dollars they accumualte to take advantage of the lax laws for businesses and cheap or no taxes.

 

quote

First you blame the corps for being greedy, now they're committing suicide?

 

reply

Yes. Their greed in hoarding all the wealth denies the workers the dollars to buy the goods they produce. If they cannot buy those goods, who will? Reduced sales means bankruptcies.

 

quote

I've tried to explain in other posts how money that's "hoarded" gets used by banks as loans. The only money that's hoarded is in piggy banks and mattresses.

 

reply

Most invesrments do not create more jobs. The money lenders are loaded with dollars to lend. The peoples debt are at a new high, I believe, since there was a news article to that effect.

 

Mike T

[Pangloss]

Pan quote

No' date=' that's the worst way to "pep up the economy", because it would rob everyone of any motivation or incentive.

 

reply

People work to suvive, not to accumulate wealth. There are only a few greedy that want to think they are super beings that deserve more than others. [/quote']

 

Not in my country they don't. In my country they work to keep up with the Joneses. "Working to survive" is a distant memory of a forgotten past.

[Phi for All]

Yeh, for the ones that take advantage of cheap labor and maybe lower taxes?

Staying affordable and competitive in a world market means the difference between success and failure. Two examples: Apple computers and Betamax videorecording. Arguably much better products, yet neither claimed the market share they deserved because their competitors kept the prices low through cheap labor, economic arbitrage and taking advantage of lower taxes where available. What you're asking for comes at a very high price: very high prices.

They use the dollars they accumualte to take advantage of the lax laws for businesses and cheap or no taxes.

So if someone offers you a good deal you're supposed to turn it down? If I give you a 2-for-1 coupon for your favorite burger joint do you throw it away because you don't want to oppress the workers? I don't mean this example as a strawman, but why shouldn't businesses take advantage legally just as consumers do?

Yes. Their greed in hoarding all the wealth denies the workers the dollars to buy the goods they produce. If they cannot buy those goods, who will? Reduced sales means bankruptcies.

Check the consumer confidence index. The workers are buying the goods. You are just waving your hands and making generalities. You use buzzwords like "hoarding the wealth" to be misleadingly vivid.

Most invesrments do not create more jobs. The money lenders are loaded with dollars to lend.

False. Absolutely false. I work with architects whose clients borrow billions to build and renovate and their loans are responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs ranging from construction to retail to civil to education and more, just the kinds of "workers" you've been on about.

The peoples debt are at a new high, I believe, since there was a news article to that effect.

Mortgages are debt, purchases on credit cards are debt, car loans are debt. Consumer debt means people are buying things, so I guess you're wrong about the workers being denied the dollars to buy the goods they produce.

 

Mike T, again, I think your concern is valid but you're not being specific enough. To be effective in your quest for improvement you need to start pruning branches instead of trying to cut down the whole tree. There is much that is valid and effective about the way our economy works.

[Skye]

no wonder the billionaires are muliplyimg by the thoudsnds worldwide now

So if we extrapolate, one day everyone will be a billionaire? Huzzah!

And just to toss out one more side comment, there's a conundrum here for the far left is actually kind of sad and amusing. They hate corporations and want to convince us that they're evil and should be stopped, yet at the same time they want us to believe that the economy is bad because corporations are failing. The contradiction here is obvious: If they're failing, why do they need to be stopped?

Well you know the situation is fairly complicated, because the left isn't a singular entity. Some green groups now feel that it's easier to lobby corporations than governments. In most cases unions will try to find agreements that lead to the long term security of their company. But socialists are naturally going to want to move to more public ownership.

[Jim]

Pan quoteThey use the dollars they accumualte to take advantage of the lax laws for businesses and cheap or no taxes.

 

Let me give you a real world hypothetical:

 

Company A earns net income of $20MM annually. Company B has $100MM in net operating losses that it will never be able to offset against profits. Company B files bankruptcy with no net worth.

 

Company A purchases Company B out of bankruptcy for $5MM and merges Company B into Company A. The trustee in bankruptcy disburses the $5MM net of administration expenses to Company B's creditors.

 

Company A, after consulting a tax lawyer, does what is necessary so the merged entity can carry forward Company B's old $100MM in net operating losses.

 

The result? Company B's creditors get $5MM they never would have received had the company continued to operate. Company A doesn't pay corporate taxes for the next five years but is also liable for any Company B liabilities which might surface.

 

Is this "taking advantage" of the tax laws?

[Jim]

Let me give you a real world hypothetical:

 

Company A earns net income of $20MM annually. Company B has $100MM in net operating losses that it will never be able to offset against profits. Company B files bankruptcy with no net worth.

 

Company A purchases Company B out of bankruptcy for $5MM and merges Company B into Company A. The trustee in bankruptcy disburses the $5MM net of administration expenses to Company B's creditors.

 

Company A' date=' after consulting a tax lawyer, does what is necessary so the merged entity can carry forward Company B's old $100MM in net operating losses.

 

The result? Company B's creditors get $5MM they never would have received had the company continued to operate. Company A doesn't pay corporate taxes for the next five years but is also liable for any Company B liabilities which might surface.

 

Is this "taking advantage" of the tax laws?[/quote']

 

I posed this example because all too often people talk about the rich getting tax breaks without appreciating the complexities of the rules or how those complexities are usually not driven by "special interests" but by practical considerations. In this case, Company A paid just $5MM to avoid a much greater tax liability. OTOH, other companies could have bid for this right and it was all to the benefit of Company B's creditors who otherwise were going to receive nothing.

 

As I mentioned, to capture the losses of Company B, Company A had to assume the other Company B obligations. Company B was merged into Company A and literally became a part of Company A. As it turns out, a few years after this transaction a class action was filed against Company A based almost completley on the actions of Company B. The result was that Company A had to pay in excess of $50MM.

 

The numbers here aren't exact but they give the basic idea of the transactions.

[Mike T]

Pang quote

"Working to survive" is a distant memory of a forgotten past.

reply

I worked to survive. Also to stay out of jail. Stealing is not my idea of surviving.

 

Phi quote

What you're asking for comes at a very high price: very high prices.

 

reply

The businesses in our country bought by foreign investors is an example of the greedy US CEO's that overprice themselves and drive their own companies to low profits and bankruptcies. These foreign investors are not that greedy and are satisfied with the profit margins they have. Also, their salaries are much lower, no doubt.

Check the differences between the income levels of US management and its workers and compare to the Japanese companies.

quote

Check the consumer confidence index. The workers are buying the goods. You are just waving your hands and making generalities. You use buzzwords like "hoarding the wealth" to be misleadingly vivid.

reply

What consumer confidence index? Like all these manufactured goods from abroad? Or the sales of Japanese cars? Or the corporations buying cheaper labor abroad? This is not a US economy.

 

quote

Mortgages are debt, purchases on credit cards are debt, car loans are debt. Consumer debt means people are buying things, so I guess you're wrong about the workers being denied the dollars to buy the goods they produce.

reply

Increasing debts does not indicate a prosperous economy. The mortgage industry was nothing more than refinancing.

 

quote

Mike T, again, I think your concern is valid but you're not being specific enough. To be effective in your quest for improvement you need to start pruning branches instead of trying to cut down the whole tree. There is much that is valid and effective about the way our economy works.

 

reply

Our US economy is 'no more' It is now under the heel of the WTO or 'new world order' that capitalism has been granted by buying all the politicians worldwide. Probably the result of their obscene profits in the past..

 

Mike T

[Mike T]

Jim

 

I am not familiar with business practices but the creditors demanded their due. The 50MM was a even split beteen the two complaintants, so the creditors were satisfied.

 

I do know that 60% of the corporations pay no taxes. This has been mentioned on the web at times.

This could be a reason why foreign investors step into the US market.

 

Anyway, the US market has been submerged by the WTO.

 

Mike T

[Jim]

Jim

 

I am not familiar with business practices but the creditors demanded their due. The 50MM was a even split beteen the two complaintants' date=' so the creditors were satisfied.

 

I do know that 60% of the corporations pay no taxes. This has been mentioned on the web at times.

This could be a reason why foreign investors step into the US market.

 

Anyway, the US market has been submerged by the WTO.

 

Mike T[/quote']

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear at all: The class action was filed on a liabilities which were highly contingent when Company A purchased Company B. No one anticipated that this class action would get rolling, much less win. Company A paid the $5MM for the $100MM net operating loss (again the figures aren't right, just giving a rough idea of the transaction) accepting the risk that no other liabilities would arise.

 

Company A was criticized about this transaction in the press at the time (can't find it on google) but the "rest of the story" was that Company A ended up losing big time as a result of the class action that was filed after they acquired Company B.

 

This is a a real world example of a large transaction that was criticized as being a tax dodge but which had a legitimate basis if you knew some of the real facts. I'm no tax expert but I do believe that the IRS looks at this kind of transaction carefully with a view to maximizing revenue to the government.

[Pangloss]

Pang quote

"Working to survive" is a distant memory of a forgotten past.

reply

I worked to survive. Also to stay out of jail. Stealing is not my idea of surviving.

 

An example of one does not serve to tell us anything about society as a whole.

 

Mike, do you have anything to offer this debate other than an endless chain of pointless, distracting, face-saving, subject-changing straw men?

[Dak]

really quick question:

 

what does 'MM' mean, as in '$100MM'?

 

I'm assuming 'million', but does the other 'm' stand for anything?

[Jim]

really quick question:

 

what does 'MM' mean' date=' as in '$100MM'?

 

I'm assuming 'million', but does the other 'm' stand for anything?[/quote']

 

Here you go. At first I couldn't come up with an answer except that is what my mentor used to do. Now that I think about it, it must be a Roman Numeral thing.

[Phi for All]

I worked to survive. Also to stay out of jail. Stealing is not my idea of surviving.

Welfare is available as a survival option before stealing. Once again you resort to Misleading Vividness.

The businesses in our country bought by foreign investors is an example of the greedy US CEO's that overprice themselves and drive their own companies to low profits and bankruptcies. These foreign investors are not that greedy and are satisfied with the profit margins they have. Also, their salaries are much lower, no doubt.

Check the differences between the income levels of US management and its workers and compare to the Japanese companies.

This is a strawman that doesn't even address what we were talking about, which was lowering labor costs and tax strategies. This shows me you're not interested in a discussion. You are on a soapbox and want to shout down detractors with canned arguments.

 

What consumer confidence index?

The Consumer Confidence Index is put out by the Conference Board, a not-for-profit organization that assesses trends and conducts research on business and marketplaces worldwide.

Increasing debts does not indicate a prosperous economy. The mortgage industry was nothing more than refinancing.

We weren't talking about a prosperous economy just then, but it's interesting that you don't think the economy is prosperous just now. We were talking about consumer debt as opposed to workers not being able to afford to buy goods, and I was pointing out that buying goods and services is what builds consumer debt. People take advantage of credit for a variety of reasons and many of them are valid.

I do know that 60% of the corporations pay no taxes. This has been mentioned on the web at times.

This could be a reason why foreign investors step into the US market.

Where do you get your sources? Here is a report put out by The Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy. It is called Corporate Taxes in the Bush Years and is very slanted against the current administration. In a study of 275 companies they found less than 30% that had been able to use loopholes to pay no taxes. What witchhunt did you find to cite 60%?

 

I'm not a huge fan of mega-corporations, but it's not because of their strategies. I don't like the the fact that the bigger they grow the more they tend to stifle entrepreneurialism and I worry that prices will be affected adversely if only three or four monster mega-corps get to decide what's offered to me. That's an example of drilling down to a very specific concern. PLEASE put your shotgun away.

[Dak]

Here you go.

 

Oh, 'M' as in the latin for 1,000.

 

So MM = one thousand thousand = 1,000,000.

 

that makes sence, in a confusing kinda way

 

Cheers Jim

[Jim]

Oh' date=' 'M' as in the latin for 1,000.

 

So MM = one thousand thousand = 1,000,000.

 

that makes sence, in a confusing kinda way

 

Cheers Jim [/quote']

 

Heh, I was editing my post at just the same time you posted this.