Warren Buffet nails it on inequality

[Bomb#20]

Buffet is just an accident of the stock market, not some brilliant social planner.

And when a card counter wins over and over again at a game where the casino has a house advantage, that's just an accident of the shuffling.

 

[Bomb#20]

You can either value people or value money. You can't value both.

Why not?

"For the love of money is the root of all evil" - 1 Timothy 6:10

 

[DBT]

Buffet is just an accident of the stock market, not some brilliant social planner.

And when a card counter wins over and over again at a game where the casino has a house advantage, that's just an accident of the shuffling.

A brilliant 'card counter' may be a poor social planner, or a poor investor, or a poor...

 

[arkirk]

In my world the fruits of labor belong to the laborer.

Not a market wage, which is just the slimy capitalist way of saying the lowest possible wage.

If the fruits belong to the laborer, I guess the losses do to. So when a business goes under the workers should expect a big bill?

You seem only able to handle a certain kind of relationship and associate the idea of labor with something of less value than money. When a business goes under, it need not be because the labor one contributed was tainted. It could well be because the employer misjudged some important factor in marketing or in design. The laborer has already given of his labor. First thought and response to Untermensche focuses on failure of businesses and punishing some worker for the failure. If there was a fair relationship between the employer and the worker, the worker's sentiment would be to work with the employer to see that his business did not fail. Mistreating and demeaning the value of labor leads to failure. Failure is usually accompanied by unreasonable expectations and lack of owner attention to business fundamentals such as marketing, quality control, etc. The way it is, the owner OWNS THE DEBTS HE ACCRUES.

 

[arkirk]

Buffet is just an accident of the stock market, not some brilliant social planner.

And when a card counter wins over and over again at a game where the casino has a house advantage, that's just an accident of the shuffling.

How do you think what you are saying legitimizes card counters or for that matter gambling? Okay, so Buffet is a bit on the crooked side, using knowledge others are not privy to? Just what is your point? I think genius at cheating is not a virtue myself.

 

[Bomb#20]

What is somebody like Buffet anyway?

Just somebody who got rich by taking a lot of money that really belongs to workers.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

What is a profit?

It is theft from workers.

That is how people like Buffet get rich, finding the best thieves and taking a share of the theft.

Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The problem is not profits.

The problem is when profits are controlled by a tiny group within a large organization of workers.

The problem is when profits are more important than paying people a decent wage.

The problem is the ability of people who do absolutely no work within an organization to take profits from that organization.

You can either value people or value money. You can't value both.

For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That it is legal to steal from workers, under capitalism, is no argument in its favor.

You really do have a limited script that you just repeat ad nauseam, don't you?

Truth doesn't change.

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

It is an inherent feature of capitalism, which rose, in the US, directly from slavery and is just a baby step from slavery.

We still have masters and wage slaves.

We haven't progressed to anything fair or decent yet. That some think a system is laudable where wage slaves create wealth that is promptly stolen from them and replaced with a market wage is pathetic.

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

In my world the fruits of labor belong to the laborer.

Not a market wage, which is just the slimy capitalist way of saying the lowest possible wage.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

What you have against capitalists is exactly the same thing fundies have against homosexuals: both groups engage in an activity your respective religions condemn and neither religion offers any reasoned basis for condemning it. You, just like a homophobe, endlessly repeat your accusations against the minority groups you respectively intend to persecute, without ever producing an actual argument. And ultimately, when people who think like you are given power, the targets of your respective hate speech are slaughtered.

If you want your readers to believe there's an inch of difference between you and some tedious Christian zealot, you might for once try offering a reason for why a capital owner's profit is theft. But I don't suppose that's really what you're here for. You're just here to preach, aren't you?

 

[Bomb#20]

And when a card counter wins over and over again at a game where the casino has a house advantage, that's just an accident of the shuffling.

How do you think what you are saying legitimizes card counters or for that matter gambling? Okay, so Buffet is a bit on the crooked side, using knowledge others are not privy to? Just what is your point? I think genius at cheating is not a virtue myself.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. That wasn't a "Card counting and gambling are legitimate" post; that was an "It's ludicrous to claim that Buffett is an accident." post. Pay attention.

But, since you want to make an issue of it, why on earth would you imagine that either gambling or card counting is illegitimate? How on earth do you figure Buffett is a bit on the crooked side? What is this knowledge that card-counters and/or Buffett are supposed to have that others are not privy to? What the bejesus do you think card/counters and/or Buffett do that can rationally be regarded as cheating? Do you also think Magnus Carlsen is a cheater for looking more moves ahead than his opponents?

 

[untermensche]

If you want your readers to believe there's an inch of difference between you and some tedious Christian zealot, you might for once try offering a reason for why a capital owner's profit is theft. But I don't suppose that's really what you're here for. You're just here to preach, aren't you?

Is your claim that theft is a good thing to base a system on?

Because otherwise you wasted a lot of effort with your dull incoherence.

 

[4321lynx]

If you want your readers to believe there's an inch of difference between you and some tedious Christian zealot, you might for once try offering a reason for why a capital owner's profit is theft. But I don't suppose that's really what you're here for. You're just here to preach, aren't you?

Is your claim that theft is a good thing to base a system on?


Because otherwise you wasted a lot of effort with your dull incoherence.

What would you base it on?

Communism, which is an inefficient state capitalism, enforced by brutality?

Cooperatives?

Some other syndicalism?

Vague Fabianism of some sort?

 

[fast]

That is the reason there is so much economic inequality.

What's up with this insatiable desire for economic equality going around anyway? It's like there are a growing number of people wanting to be on an equal footing, economically speaking. Do we not want to have an advantage over others, even if by chance it's a little unfair? That's not to say we can't care about and even to an extent care for others. This isn't a game where whining is justified. This is life where battling in a sea of unfairness is a skill better taught than avoided.

Me, well, I figure it like this, if I'm not given a chance to get ahead, then I guess I'll have just have to change the circumstances and earn what I haven't been given, and if an opportunity has been laid out unfairly for another to take advantage of, then okay, it'll take me an extra two days to compensate. Life's not fair, and neither perhaps is economic inequality, but I'll take economic success over economic equality any day.

 

[NobleSavage]

Of course, Warren Buffet wants the government to subsidize wages. Higher wages means lower profits. The government subsidizing lower wages, resulting in more lower wage jobs and in higher profits. At the cost of whoever is taxed to provide the government aid. Is he proposing to tax corporate taxes to pay for the increased government aid.

I'm not so sure about this. I'd have to look at the financials of the main companies that Berkshire Hathaway is invested in. I'd want to know what fraction of their expenses are labor and how much would they benefit from subsidized wages. It might be #17 on their secret plan to unjustly enrich themselves. Buffett has advocate things that would not be in his best interest before like raising the capital gains tax. Can you think of a way this would benefit him and his investors? He is also at the age where people start wanting to give back and leave a good legacy. I'm willing to take him for his word until proven wrong.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

That is the reason there is so much economic inequality.

What's up with this insatiable desire for economic equality going around anyway? It's like there are a growing number of people wanting to be on an equal footing, economically speaking. Do we not want to have an advantage over others, even if by chance it's a little unfair? That's not to say we can't care about and even to an extent care for others. This isn't a game where whining is justified. This is life where battling in a sea of unfairness is a skill better taught than avoided.

Me, well, I figure it like this, if I'm not given a chance to get ahead, then I guess I'll have just have to change the circumstances and earn what I haven't been given, and if an opportunity has been laid out unfairly for another to take advantage of, then okay, it'll take me an extra two days to compensate. Life's not fair, and neither perhaps is economic inequality, but I'll take economic success over economic equality any day.

Unfortunately, this type of thinking has wrought all kinds of suffering. Don't get me wrong competition has its place, but if you're looking just to get ahead of your neighbor rather than to lead or inspire others and bring prosperity to the community then you are willing to do anything to keep your position as one that is better than another.This was very prevalent in the US South where poor white people "at least are better than a nigger" had used their load status position to justify all sorts of atrocities upon others.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with bettering yourself and your life.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If the fruits belong to the laborer, I guess the losses do to. So when a business goes under the workers should expect a big bill?

When a business goes under, most workers do lose a "big bill" relative to their earnings.

Sure, workers lose on future wages when their company goes under. But a better question is whether workers should have their wages reduced when profitability is down.

 

[NobleSavage]

When a business goes under, most workers do lose a "big bill" relative to their earnings.

Sure, workers lose on future wages when their company goes under. But a better question is whether workers should have their wages reduced when profitability is down.

I'm trying to point out that workers don't have to risk their capital. Owing a business isn't all it's cracked up to be. Most business owners I personally know work much, much, more than their employees. They are under more stress than there employees. They feel very guilty when they have to layoff someone. They stress over making payroll some months. And many times they fail and lose everything. About a month ago I hired a programer on elance.com to do a little work for me. Nothing complicated. I was talking with him on Skype. He lived in Silicon Valley. He came here from India and tried to make a successful company and lost it all so he was doing menial jobs to just get by.

 

[fast]

What's up with this insatiable desire for economic equality going around anyway? It's like there are a growing number of people wanting to be on an equal footing, economically speaking. Do we not want to have an advantage over others, even if by chance it's a little unfair? That's not to say we can't care about and even to an extent care for others. This isn't a game where whining is justified. This is life where battling in a sea of unfairness is a skill better taught than avoided.

Me, well, I figure it like this, if I'm not given a chance to get ahead, then I guess I'll have just have to change the circumstances and earn what I haven't been given, and if an opportunity has been laid out unfairly for another to take advantage of, then okay, it'll take me an extra two days to compensate. Life's not fair, and neither perhaps is economic inequality, but I'll take economic success over economic equality any day.

Unfortunately, this type of thinking has wrought all kinds of suffering. Don't get me wrong competition has its place, but if you're looking just to get ahead of your neighbor rather than to lead or inspire others and bring prosperity to the community then you are willing to do anything to keep your position as one that is better than another.This was very prevalent in the US South where poor white people "at least are better than a nigger" had used their load status position to justify all sorts of atrocities upon others.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with bettering yourself and your life.

That's old people talk--all mature and broad minded ... so community and big pictured. If one isn't particularly educated and possibly feeling some residual effects of oppression, then one needs to be more focused on individual short and medium term goals, not listening to, soaking up, and wallowing in the big idea, broad minded, civically centered speeches about what's keeping people down.

It's about focus. If you're educated, older, got some money, and genuinely care about the people in your community, then don't set people up for failure by swaying their attention from what they should be focused on. When the young pennyless minorities bask in the mindset that the barriers to success are insurmountable, they're gonna rob convenience stores--thank you community leaders. But, if you lift people up and show them how to overcome not starting out on top, they'll work, get ahead, climb, and surpass.

Just so much negative. Who needs to hear about suffering and atrocities? To remind them? I say give me the oldest wooden bat that is inferior to all the new-fangled ones on the market and let's play ball. Winning with the disadvantage makes it just that much more sweeter. Want to inspire? Dwell on what'll lift people up, not on what's keeping them down. Economic inequality, please! Drop me off naked without a dime and I can prove it won't matter. With the right frame of mind, people can overcome a little inequality.

 

[NobleSavage]

People thought the last great automation revolution would create tens of millions of unemployed without jobs and the hope of jobs. This was the mechanization of agriculture that saw the number of people employed on the farms reduced from 90% of the workers to less than 3% in about sixty years.

50% of the jobs that people do today didn't exist fifty years ago. It is estimated that it will only take twenty five years for us to reach the same point in the future where 50% of the jobs didn't exist today.

And we will work shorter workweeks and fewer days in the year. And in twenty five years we will be nearing the peak population in the world, the developed world will be riding the back of the curve, declining population,

There is no reason to not just raise the wages of the poor. It's only going to reduce the profits of the companies, if done slowly enough. (no dismal we can't just raise the minimum wage to a hundred dollars an hour.)

We have if anything too much profits being collected by the investor class, this is why we have so many asset bubbles being built why so much of our profits go overseas to boost those economies, usually so that they can compete with our industries and our workers. Profits are intended to be money that is available for investing back into the economy, to build new and better production facilities. For most of the recent past the profits from American businesses have averaged three to four times the amount of business investment. This is a ridiculous and unnecessary amount of profit.

Of course, the wealthy want us subsidize low wages with government aid. It seems to address the problem with the least impact on profits, the income of the wealthy. But as I said in the long run it will only guarantee us more lower wage jobs.

Can you link me to something about the automation of agricultural and people worried about mass unemployment? I'm not being flippant, I'd really like to read it. I've never read anything from a scholarly perspective, but I am fairly familiar with what happened on my extended family's farms going back 4-5 generations. I've never done a day of farming in my life, but as a kid I went to many family gatherings and listened to all the old timers. The big advancement for my Grandfather was the tractor. When he was a boy they used animals to plow the fields. He thought that life was so shitty that he wanted no part of it. Then he got a tractor and his own farm. Later almost anyone that could leave the area did for a combination of reasons. All the small towns in that county are now nothing but extreme poverty that would rival any big city ghetto.

What I have read about automation is that there have been 2 waves. The first was in England in the 18th century with the mechanization of the textile industry. Then a second the 20th century when Henry Ford mastered the moving assembly line and ushered in the age of mass production.

Both of those were very disruptive, but as you pointed out new jobs opened up. What will happen with the third? Well, we don't really know do we? I keep trying to think what new jobs will open up and I draw a blank. If robots carry out mundane tasks and jobs that involve thinking are carried out by computers what, in significant numbers, is left?

Anyhow, a sample size of 2 doesn't give us much to go on. Hypothetically, if you are wrong, how long will you stick to your belief/ideology before crying uncle and letting the government redistribute? Or would you just declare, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!", as people pile up in the streets starving to death?

We can both agree that it will be “disruptive”, correct? We can probably both agree that technological change is happening, if not at an exponential rate, then at least an accelerated rate.

I would argue that this next wave is goanna hit hard and fast. We should at least be prepared in some manner. You don’t want things to get so bad that a bunch of people are willing to listen to someone who says, “I’ll fix everything, just give me the power to do it. These democratic institutions are getting in the way of putting food in your belly.”

Maybe the market will handle it, but if you are wrong it’s goanna have some very bad consequences.

But automation is a false argument when you are talking about the lower paid jobs. Automation is going to impact these jobs last. The payoff is less.

Again, I'm not sure. I'd have to look at financial statements of various companies to get an idea of who is likely to be cut first. Companies like Walmart that compete on price have razor thin margins and lots of workers doing the same stupid task. Companies like Apple, Google, and Facbook have a lot of slack.

 

[Axulus]

EITC is not a "wage subsidy." It is an additional cash payment to low income households. The program is the single most effective program in lifting households with children out of poverty. If you are against stregthening it or even support removing it all together, your wrongheaded ideas are contributing to childhood poverty and suffering.

http://www.nber.org/digest/aug06/w11729.html

 

[NobleSavage]

EITC is not a "wage subsidy." It is an additional cash payment to low income households. The program is the single most effective program in lifting households with children out of poverty. If you are against stregthening it or even support removing it all together, your wrongheaded ideas are contributing to childhood poverty and suffering.

http://www.nber.org/digest/aug06/w11729.html

That is the best on-topic link and post yet.

 

[Bomb#20]

If you want your readers to believe there's an inch of difference between you and some tedious Christian zealot, you might for once try offering a reason for why a capital owner's profit is theft. But I don't suppose that's really what you're here for. You're just here to preach, aren't you?

Is your claim that theft is a good thing to base a system on?

Because otherwise you wasted a lot of effort with your dull incoherence.

Dude, I understand that it's normal for religious extremists to find it dull to have their dogma challenged; but nothing I wrote was incoherent. I was perfectly clear. Perhaps you didn't even read my post before you replied to it. That would be unsurprising. If you did read it then you simply ignored what it said and decided I was saying something different from the words you read. That's all on you.

My claim, obviously, is that you claimed over and over again that capital owners' profit is theft, but you haven't offered any reason for anyone to think your claim is true. I don't believe those profits are theft. I believe you are wrong, so I challenged you to justify the premise all your posts are based on. And you replied by taking your disputed premise for granted. Instead of trying to justify your assertion you speculate that I think theft is a good thing, which means you are pretending to yourself that I already agree with your premise, even though I just explicitly challenged it. You are acting exactly like a Christian who is asked for evidence that God exists and who replies "Why are you so angry at God?" You are thereby proven guilty as charged. You are preaching a religion.

 

[maxparrish]

Because he recognizes that a high minimum wage causes unemployment.

Once again, raising the minimum wage doesn't result in higher unemployment. No one has shown this in empirical studies.(emphasis added) Auxlus made a big deal about a study that tried to say that a higher minimum wage results in slower employment growth for the first year after the wage goes up. This is considerably different (emphasis added) than your claim that it results in higher unemployment.

Different to whom? Last time I checked, unemployment due to a lack of new jobs feels a heck of a lot like unemployment caused by being laid off, for whatever reason. Moreover, raising the minimum wage DOES cause disemployment (unemployment) in specific parts of the workforce (among other deleterious effects), and that has been shown repeatedly.

And among the "no ones" you ignore that show in their empirical studies the negative effects on employment from increased minimum wage:

Baker, Benjamin, Stranger 1999

Neumark, Schweitzer, and Wascher 2004

Neumark and Washer 2002a

Cross Country Evidence Neumark and Washer 2004

Neumark 2001

Singell and Terborg 2007

Currie and Fallick 1996

Powers, Bauman, Persky 2007

Zavodny 2000

Couch and Wittenburg 2001

Wellington 1991

Williams and Mills 2001

Razen and Marimoutou

Keil, Robertson, and Symons 2001

Neumark and Wascher 1994

Keil, Robertson, Symons 2001

Deere, Muphy, and Welch 1995

Burkhauser, Counch, and Wittenburg 2000a

Sabia 2006a

(and others)...

If it were true that an increase in the minimum wage results in higher unemployment among minimum wage workers then the converse would have to be true, lowering the minimum wage would have to result in more minimum wage workers. We have a thirty year experiment in effectively lowering the minimum wages. In current dollars the minimum wage is $3.50 lower than it was at it highest, when LB Johnson was president. How many more minimum wage workers do we now than in 1965? Your Nobel prize awaits, but be prepared for a disappointment.

That is one of the more poorly constructed 'ad hoc' rationalizations on minimum wage. IF minimum wage is lowered then by definition a smaller percentage of the workforce is defined as working at minimum wage, which makes fewer minimum wage workers. OF COURSE the number of workers covered by minimum wage drops. I suspect you are trying to say something different - but till then be aware that the percentage of the workforce covered has dropped accordingly: (an older capture I made)

There is no economic theory that holds up to say that higher wages result in more unemployment. The people who argue that a higher minimum wage results in higher unemployment depend on marginal productivity to provide theoretical support for the assertion. But MP tells us that any increase in wages should result in higher unemployment. It is one reason among many that marginal productivity is considered to be bogus. Besides, the people who developed the theory said that it is only valid at general equilibrium, full employment.

You mean the law of supply and demand does not "hold up"? Before you alert the press you might cease (errantly) focusing on denouncing marginal productivity (which illuminates the individual firms evaluation of an extra employee's marginal worth) and deal with the basic 'law' that does not hold up:

The law of s/d is based on a very simple proposition - if the price of something rises a buyer buys less of it. Minimum wages in a competitive labor market has an upward-sloping labor supply curve (S) and a downward-sloping labor demand curve (D). With no minimum wage, there is the equilibrium wage and labor employed (w and L). A minimum wage (mw) that is higher than w, will cause fewer workers to be employed. First, employers will substitute away from the more expensive labor to other inputs (such as capital) and second, because costs are higher with this new input mix, product prices rise, which further reduces labor demand in the affected group.

These two effects lead to lower employment (Lmw).Of course, there are other effects beyond this simplified model, but the effects start here. Employers also move towards substituting away from less-skilled workers toward more-skilled workers after a minimum wage increase, discourage future job growth in the affected sectors, and reduce worker income growth and mobility. Ifhe minimum wage is intended to help the least-skilled workers, the policy is self-defeating.

All that we are talking about doing is increasing the wages of minimum wage workers and those near minimum wage workers by 19 billion dollars a year for a minimum wage increase to $10.50 an hour. The CBO says that this will result in profits being reduced by about 17 billion dollars a year. Corporate profits, not including profits from small businesses, are running about 1.7 to 1.9 trillion dollars a year. The decrease in profits won't even threaten the rounding error.

Perhaps this is the most illuminating comment on this subject you have made. Apparently you think the issue is NOT helping a specific subset of the labor market (the young, unskilled, teens, etc.) or concern over a specific subset of businesses that employ min wage employees, BUT that of all those big profit "corporations".

I guess it helps to pretend that Exxon, McDonalds, and Lena's Soul Food Cafe and their employees are jointly impacted in those "trillion plus" in corporate profits - I mean, why clutter the discussion with that subset of employees, businesses, and consumers actually impacted with new costs and actual effects?

If we have learned anything from the supply side economics of the last thirty five years it is that the income distribution in the country is capable of being modified by national economic policies.

We have, just have we should have learned that certain kinds of economic policies are more concerned with punitive harm to some, more than they are of helping those they claim they wish to help.