Great post, Neil. I'm with you all the way! The only problem I have is ... how do we get from here to there? Preferably without breaking everything in the process ...
On 18 September 2012 19:08, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Suppose that a company earns $1 million dollars of profit in a year. > About $400,000 must be paid in income tax. A corporate raider will buy > the company’s stockholders (equity owners), for $10 million in junk > bonds. The entire $1 million dollars of profit will now be paid to the > banker or the bondholder in the form of interest. The company won’t > report a profit, so there is no tax payment. The financial manager > will hope to increase the company’s price (to re-sell it on the stock > exchange) by cutting costs or selling off its pieces to make a capital > gain. This is how Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Bain > Capital made money. It is “balance sheet” engineering, not aimed at > raising production or living standards. > Read more at > > http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/michael-hudson-on-how-finance-capital-leads-to-debt-servitude.html#KJSbTH6uiL7EHqKz.99 > > I worked for an asset-stripper in the 80s. The rationalisation back > then was that what we did was good for the economy because our > activities sharpened-up competitive practices and cleaned-up weak > companies with dud management. We knew this argument was a dud back > then. The essential way we worked was to use private detectives and > to bribe insiders to learn about likely targets. We did spend time > looking a company accounts and what Moody's records might have to > say. Key issues were to identify large cash drains to LOMBARDS (loads- > a-money but are right dicks), undervalued properties and 'dirt on > senior management leverage'. > > I'd vote for Don or rigsy for President or PM well ahead of clowns > like Romney, Obama, Cameron and Blair (seriously - me and Al are mad > enough to be fit only for foreign policy jobs). The article the quote > above comes from says most of what is wrong - but I can remember the > time when Labour politicians in Britain sounded the same - talk was of > the 'Gnomes of Zurich', selective employment tax (to encourage > manufacturing) and investing North Sea Oil. > > I take the criminality of financial services as read these days. The > metaphor in my head comes from the westerns in which the bad guys sold > whiskey and guns to the Injuns. The financial sector villains have > armed China and probably armed Hitler's Germany (see 'Conjuring > Hitler'). > > Germany is probably the most efficient manufacturing nation these > days, but the ultimate contradiction on all th urging towards > efficiency leads to super-manufacturing countries like Germany and > China (Britain and the US once) that have to sell products to > inefficient countries like Britain, the US, Greece, Spain and so on. > As a model this is an obvious non-starter. > > You can get some idea where manufacturing now is by looking at steel > production here - > http://www.worldsteel.org/statistics/statistics-archive/2011-steel-production.html > > It's pretty obvious we have the rules of competition and money wrong > and that political discussion about this is either ignorant or just > plain lying. Backs have been broken for all kinds of pathological > leadership whim throughout history. Easter Island statues, > Stonehenge, Pyramids and all variety of ape wars we call history. > > Economics lacks questions like 'how much work should rigsy have to do > to be able to live in peace and make blueberry pie'? I suspect the > answer in the broader case of what percentage of our effort goes to > providing water, food, shelter, proper protection from a hostile > environment (earthquakes, historical global warming etc.), the > advancement of science and technology and freedom from bandits, > religious and otherwise is less than a quarter of what we generally > think it is. > > The issue is about producing a leisure society for all that works and > can make work happen given slacking potential and free-riding. I am > totally demotivated at the thought of both earning more per hour than > the next ten people around me in the pub and of contributing anything > to rich donkeys like Romney or some soccer star (which happens without > doing anything as direct as watching a soccer match). I also prefer > to holiday where the lager louts don't, where the attraction is a > brilliant German bakery with a couple of tables for coffee and > excellent cakes and a Bavarian lady who won't serve me more than two > and shares a chateaubriand with me in the evening. Sorry Don, it's > rigsy for President - I'm sure you follow the argument! > > -- > > > > -- Francis Hunt http://francishunt.blogspot.de/ --
