I'm free for Secretary of War. Ahem, I mean Defense. Secretary of Defense. 
I want my own plane and Secret Service protection. All females dressed like 
Bond girls. Hells yeah!

Barring that I think it would be really cool if I got to carry the football 
for a few weeks. 

dj


On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:08:09 PM UTC-5, archytas 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! 
>

-- 



Reply via email to