Right wing of the Democrat party makes itself heard

[ksen]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/even-corporate-democrats-are-moving-left.html

“Modern American capitalism is focused on short-termism,” [Senator Mark] Warner said, during a panel hosted by the centrist think tank Third Way. “Twenty-five years ago, businesses would invest over 50 percent of their profits. We invested in our work force — built new plants. Today … 95 percent of the profits were spent on dividends and shareholder profits.”

“I believe in free enterprise, but we’ve got to make it work for all Americans,” Warner continued. “If a company offers stock options to its senior executives, it ought to offer stock options and profit-sharing for all its employees.”

Expanded social insurance, profit-sharing, and government intervention to push corporate America into more socially useful investment: This is now the agenda of the Democratic Party's right wing.

Maybe the times really are a changing?

 

[dismal]

Today … 95 percent of the profits were spent on dividends and shareholder profits.”

I bet if we work we can get spending of profits on profits up to 100%.

 

[SimpleDon]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/even-corporate-democrats-are-moving-left.html

“Modern American capitalism is focused on short-termism,” [Senator Mark] Warner said, during a panel hosted by the centrist think tank Third Way. “Twenty-five years ago, businesses would invest over 50 percent of their profits. We invested in our work force — built new plants. Today … 95 percent of the profits were spent on dividends and shareholder profits.”

“I believe in free enterprise, but we’ve got to make it work for all Americans,” Warner continued. “If a company offers stock options to its senior executives, it ought to offer stock options and profit-sharing for all its employees.”

Expanded social insurance, profit-sharing, and government intervention to push corporate America into more socially useful investment: This is now the agenda of the Democratic Party's right wing.

Maybe the times really are a changing?

This is at the very core of the problems that we are having now. No matter how much babbling the neoliberals put out about free markets, deregulation and reducing government intervention in the market, the net result of their policies has been to use the considerable power of the government to increase profits at the cost of wages.

The basic assumption of supply side economics, that businesses will invest in new production facilities to make products that there is no demand for, is so blatantly false that it shouldn't have been seriously considered. Every businessman knows that the modern economy is driven by demand and that new investments will only be made if there is demand for the additional production.

Supply side economics policies reduce aggregate demand and reduce the growth in the economy and the growth in the number of jobs. This isn't a side effect of the policies, it is how the policies work, by suppressing wages to increase profits, by increasing income inequality.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Shareholders are also attracted by investment, the construction of a new plant or addition of new machinery. This means they will be waiting for future profits. plant. (The millions of dollars were changed from write off to investment. The same person who messed up bragged about this in a meeting where I was present He bragged how he could fire some temporary staff and replace them with others at almost half the cost.

However the waste in the new development for that year far exceeded the pennies saved on staff wages.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/even-corporate-democrats-are-moving-left.html

“Modern American capitalism is focused on short-termism,” [Senator Mark] Warner said, during a panel hosted by the centrist think tank Third Way. “Twenty-five years ago, businesses would invest over 50 percent of their profits. We invested in our work force — built new plants. Today … 95 percent of the profits were spent on dividends and shareholder profits.”

“I believe in free enterprise, but we’ve got to make it work for all Americans,” Warner continued. “If a company offers stock options to its senior executives, it ought to offer stock options and profit-sharing for all its employees.”

Expanded social insurance, profit-sharing, and government intervention to push corporate America into more socially useful investment: This is now the agenda of the Democratic Party's right wing.

Maybe the times really are a changing?

The more things change, the more they stay the same (I guess).

 

[EricK]

Why should any low-level worker want part of their remuneration deferred and only paid if the company they work for does well - something they, as an individual, have almost no control over? They seem much better off to have it all paid in cash. Then, if they want to bet on their company doing well, they can by shares in it. Although they might be wiser to buy shares in other companies so as not to have their whole livelihood reliant on one particular company staying in business.

 

[zorq]

Why should any low-level worker want part of their remuneration deferred and only paid if the company they work for does well - something they, as an individual, have almost no control over? They seem much better off to have it all paid in cash. Then, if they want to bet on their company doing well, they can by shares in it. Although they might be wiser to buy shares in other companies so as not to have their whole livelihood reliant on one particular company staying in business.

Stock options a benefit in the form of an option given by a company to an employee to buy stock in the company at a discount or at a stated fixed price. It can turn into a huge boon to an investor of stock options even if they sell their options as soon as they acquire them. And as the name implies, it's optional.

Choosing to defer some salary in exchange for stock options is a bit of a risk for an employee, but it's a risk for the company too, but of course, it's only a loss to the company if the company turns out successful, It's a loss to the employee if the company fails. Either turn of the dice the company sort of wins after offering a stock option. Employees only win in one scenario.

 

[untermensche]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/even-corporate-democrats-are-moving-left.html

“Modern American capitalism is focused on short-termism,” [Senator Mark] Warner said, during a panel hosted by the centrist think tank Third Way. “Twenty-five years ago, businesses would invest over 50 percent of their profits. We invested in our work force — built new plants. Today … 95 percent of the profits were spent on dividends and shareholder profits.”

“I believe in free enterprise, but we’ve got to make it work for all Americans,” Warner continued. “If a company offers stock options to its senior executives, it ought to offer stock options and profit-sharing for all its employees.”

Expanded social insurance, profit-sharing, and government intervention to push corporate America into more socially useful investment: This is now the agenda of the Democratic Party's right wing.

Maybe the times really are a changing?

They are watching the Titanic slowly sinking.

And marveling about the efficiency of it's engines.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's interesting how in the 80s there was a big hub bub about how Japan's companies think 3 million years in advance and how that philosophy will beat out American companies. But now is anybody actually worried about the competition from the Japanese?

And the 90s hurt workers because it was a time for increased employee morale. The new companies offered lots of options, a worker friendly atmosphere (gyms, food, games), etc and the thought at the time was just make workers happy and everything will be great. But only a few companies like Google did well under it so I think it will be a while before that philosophy becomes vogue again.

 

[ksen]

Can someone translate this^^ to understandable english please?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Can someone translate this^^ to understandable english please?

Sorry. I did write it a little quick. But the argument about US companies thinking short term and Japan's companies thinking long term has not shown that Japan has performed better than the US. Their economy has been in a tailspin and is barely surviving. So the criticism about thinking short term is a wrong belief.

And for the second part, companies tried to do what was suggested and offer options, worker flexibility, worker happiness but they didn't do much better and they even did worse than the traditional beliefs, so except for a few cases it really isn't being tried any more.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'd like to point that deferred investment often affects productivity. So when you hear scary stories about falling productivity, it doesn't necessarily mean that workers are somehow doing less work. Doing the same work with obsolete equipment is a productivity drag.

 

[Jarhyn]

Can someone translate this^^ to understandable english please?

Sorry. I did write it a little quick. But the argument about US companies thinking short term and Japan's companies thinking long term has not shown that Japan has performed better than the US. Their economy has been in a tailspin and is barely surviving. So the criticism about thinking short term is a wrong belief.

And for the second part, companies tried to do what was suggested and offer options, worker flexibility, worker happiness but they didn't do much better and they even did worse than the traditional beliefs, so except for a few cases it really isn't being tried any more.

And I would counter by saying that the terms we are talking about are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what kind of vision a company has about its future. The companies that people can stand behind, Tesla and Google and the like, they don't form their future around profits. Sure, they make disgustingly huge piles of money, but largely because they aren't in it to make money. They are in it to make something great, they are in it to figure out what greatness IS, and other people happen to share their idea of what greatness is as a result. They stopped being strictly predatory, and started playing the game for the fun of it. That's the secret.

The problem is looking after profits rather than looking after people.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why should any low-level worker want part of their remuneration deferred and only paid if the company they work for does well - something they, as an individual, have almost no control over? They seem much better off to have it all paid in cash. Then, if they want to bet on their company doing well, they can by shares in it. Although they might be wiser to buy shares in other companies so as not to have their whole livelihood reliant on one particular company staying in business.

Stock options a benefit in the form of an option given by a company to an employee to buy stock in the company at a discount or at a stated fixed price. It can turn into a huge boon to an investor of stock options even if they sell their options as soon as they acquire them. And as the name implies, it's optional.

Choosing to defer some salary in exchange for stock options is a bit of a risk for an employee, but it's a risk for the company too, but of course, it's only a loss to the company if the company turns out successful, It's a loss to the employee if the company fails. Either turn of the dice the company sort of wins after offering a stock option. Employees only win in one scenario.

I have found from personal experience that most workers would prefer a steady wage at the highest amount rather than taking a risk for future stock options.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Stock options a benefit in the form of an option given by a company to an employee to buy stock in the company at a discount or at a stated fixed price. It can turn into a huge boon to an investor of stock options even if they sell their options as soon as they acquire them. And as the name implies, it's optional.

Choosing to defer some salary in exchange for stock options is a bit of a risk for an employee, but it's a risk for the company too, but of course, it's only a loss to the company if the company turns out successful, It's a loss to the employee if the company fails. Either turn of the dice the company sort of wins after offering a stock option. Employees only win in one scenario.

I have found from personal experience that most workers would prefer a steady wage at the highest amount rather than taking a risk for future stock options.

The question is how much of the tradeoff, because most people like bonuses whether it's stock options or a bonus at a point of time in the year.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry. I did write it a little quick. But the argument about US companies thinking short term and Japan's companies thinking long term has not shown that Japan has performed better than the US. Their economy has been in a tailspin and is barely surviving. So the criticism about thinking short term is a wrong belief.

And for the second part, companies tried to do what was suggested and offer options, worker flexibility, worker happiness but they didn't do much better and they even did worse than the traditional beliefs, so except for a few cases it really isn't being tried any more.

And I would counter by saying that the terms we are talking about are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what kind of vision a company has about its future. The companies that people can stand behind, Tesla and Google and the like, they don't form their future around profits. Sure, they make disgustingly huge piles of money, but largely because they aren't in it to make money. They are in it to make something great, they are in it to figure out what greatness IS, and other people happen to share their idea of what greatness is as a result. They stopped being strictly predatory, and started playing the game for the fun of it. That's the secret.

The problem is looking after profits rather than looking after people.

Most businesses don't have that luxury and they do have to focus on the bottom line. Even Google has to worry about it. If businesses found they could advertise a different way and that Google's model doesn't work, then Google could be gone within a few years.

 

[Horatio Parker]

BTW

We estimate that the financial system will impose an excess cost of as much as $22.7 trillion between 1990 and 2023, making finance in its current form a net drag on the American economy.

The banks are too big to fail, too big to manage, too big to jail. Our results suggest that they use subsidized government funds in the form of bailouts to do risky, destructive speculative activities. That’s the number one priority. Number two is to bring the shadow banking system, which includes like hedge funds and private equity funds, under strict regulation, which they aren’t now. Number three is to make the regime of regulation of derivatives much stronger.

http://ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/blog/how-much-do-shady-financial-practices-cost-you-exactly

 

[Horatio Parker]

And

In 2015 Ohio’s five public pensions paid outside fund managers a staggering $734.8 million. These management fees are extraordinarily high because Ohio relies on secretive alternative investments more than any state in America. Census data shows Ohio reduced holdings in hedge funds and private equity funds by more than $10 billion dollars last year but still own more of these high-cost investments than any other state.

The results are embarrassing. In 2015 the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, the state’s largest pension fund, spent $428.2 million in external management fees for investment results that fell 99.8 percent from 2014, a year when PERS also failed to match what a low-cost index fund would have returned.

http://www.thenews-messenger.com/st...aking-reckless-gamble-pension-funds/87605478/

 

[coloradoatheist]

BTW

The banks are too big to fail, too big to manage, too big to jail. Our results suggest that they use subsidized government funds in the form of bailouts to do risky, destructive speculative activities. That’s the number one priority. Number two is to bring the shadow banking system, which includes like hedge funds and private equity funds, under strict regulation, which they aren’t now. Number three is to make the regime of regulation of derivatives much stronger.

http://ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/blog/how-much-do-shady-financial-practices-cost-you-exactly

We can also return to the middle ages where they tried to get rid of evil banksters. Banksters have been the root of evil since the beginning of time and one of the reasons why Germans had no problems sending them to the death camps. But that's an aside. So the solution they provided at the bottom was to have the Post Office run your banking needs. Yeah, that would do it.

 

[Horatio Parker]

BTW



http://ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/blog/how-much-do-shady-financial-practices-cost-you-exactly

We can also return to the middle ages where they tried to get rid of evil banksters. Banksters have been the root of evil since the beginning of time and one of the reasons why Germans had no problems sending them to the death camps. But that's an aside. So the solution they provided at the bottom was to have the Post Office run your banking needs. Yeah, that would do it.

One solution. Did you read the entire article? Because you appear to have missed:

The banks are too big to fail, too big to manage, too big to jail. Our results suggest that they use subsidized government funds in the form of bailouts to do risky, destructive speculative activities. That’s the number one priority. Number two is to bring the shadow banking system, which includes like hedge funds and private equity funds, under strict regulation, which they aren’t now. Number three is to make the regime of regulation of derivatives much stronger.

 

[coloradoatheist]

We can also return to the middle ages where they tried to get rid of evil banksters. Banksters have been the root of evil since the beginning of time and one of the reasons why Germans had no problems sending them to the death camps. But that's an aside. So the solution they provided at the bottom was to have the Post Office run your banking needs. Yeah, that would do it.

One solution. Did you read the entire article? Because you appear to have missed:

The banks are too big to fail, too big to manage, too big to jail. Our results suggest that they use subsidized government funds in the form of bailouts to do risky, destructive speculative activities. That’s the number one priority. Number two is to bring the shadow banking system, which includes like hedge funds and private equity funds, under strict regulation, which they aren’t now. Number three is to make the regime of regulation of derivatives much stronger.

I did, and those were just general solutions and no specifics. Too big too fail wasn't the problem, it was too interconnected to fail and finding a way to measure that is much harder than too big to fail. And the complaint about the banks and merging their services, the ones who did merge handled the financial crisis better than the ones who didn't.