Freedom is the ability to act without considering the future results of the action.
And the central tyranny of capitalism is that it subjects _all_ action to the tyranny of the future. This definition is conpatible with my other ffavorite definition of freedom: Freedom is free time. Carrol On 8/6/2011 10:10 AM, Jim Devine wrote: > [Speaking of which, yesterday I presented a paper at the Society for > Chaos Theory in Psychology& Life Sciences conference, held at Chapman > University. Fitting the image of a college based in Orange County, CA, > it had a "walk of right-wing thinkers" with busts of various > reactionary luminaries: Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan (with the > bust missing for some reason), George P. Schultz, Milton Friedman, and > that great intellectual (NOT) Ayn Rand. Almost all of the quotes were > vacuous and could have been said by almost anyone. But the one from MF > was demonstrably wrong when compared to economic data: "... a society > that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both > greater freedom and greater equality." Of course, it might be true if > we employed a non-Friedmaniac definition of "freedom," one that goes > beyond the freedom to use one's money as one chooses.] > > August 5, 2011 / New York TIMES > As Corporate Profits Rise, Workers’ Income Declines > By FLOYD NORRIS > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/business/workers-wages-chasing-corporate-profits-off-the-charts.html > > THESE are the worst of times for workers, and the best of times for > companies. At least that is one way to read the newly revised national > economic statistics. > > The Commerce Department last week reduced its estimates of economic > growth in 2010 and early 2011. At the same time, it said corporate > income was much better than it had thought. Using newly available data > from 2009 corporate tax returns, the department raised its estimates > of corporate profits by 8.3 percent for 2009 and 10.8 percent for > 2010. > > The new figures indicate that corporate profits accounted for 14 > percent of the total national income in 2010, the highest proportion > ever recorded. The previous peak, of 13.6 percent, was set in 1942 > when the need for war materials filled the order books of companies at > the same time as the government imposed wage and price controls, > holding down the costs companies had to pay. > > In the first quarter of 2011, the latest figures available, the new > estimates indicate corporate profits accounted for 14.2 percent of > national income, well above the 13.1 percent that had previously been > estimated. > > [eye-balling Norris' graph, there's been an upward trend in the share > of corporate profits since about 1980, with wiggles of course.] > > The news is not so good for smaller enterprises. The government > category for many such businesses, known as proprietors and > partnerships, is based on the type of tax returns filed, and is not > completely accurate because some large enterprises file partnership > tax returns while some smaller ones file as corporations. But it is > generally used as a proxy for small business. > > The latest figures indicate the smaller businesses’ share of national > income fell to a 17-year low of 7.7 percent in 2009, but recovered to > 8.3 percent in 2010 and in the first quarter of this year. > > [proprietors' income has been sliding as a percentage of the total > since 1950 or so, but there was a temporary recovery from 1980 or so > to about 2004.] > > Employees have always received more than half the total national > income, until now. In 2010, the percentage of national income devoted > to wages and salaries fell to 49.9 percent, and it slipped a little > more to 49.6 percent in the first quarter of this year. That continued > decline may help explain the economic worries of many Americans who > have jobs but still fear they are falling behind. > > [wage and salary income has been sliding as a fraction of the total > since 1980 or so.] > > The figure for wages and salaries reflects only what employees are > directly paid, and does not include the cost paid by employers for > benefits, which has been steadily rising over the years. It is thus > not an accurate gauge from the point of view of employers, for whom a > dollar spent on health insurance premiums is no less real than one > spent on wages. > > [benefits as a percent of the total rose up until the later 1990s and > and the trend has leveled off -- despite the hypertrophy of > health-care costs. Employers pay these costs (and pass them on the > employees) but they do not correspond to the benefits that the > employees receive.] > > Adding the two categories together may provide a better view of the > share of national income going to workers or being spent for their > benefit. > > The 2010 total, of 62.1 percent, is not close to the record low share > of 54.5 percent, set in 1929, the first year for which numbers are > available. But it is the lowest for any full year since 1965. In the > first quarter of 2011, it slipped further, to 61.7 percent. > > [with a flat trend in benefits since the late 1990s and a decline in > wage and salary incomes, the trend during this period is clearly > downward.] > National income, as calculated by the Commerce Department, is similar > to gross domestic product but excludes some items, most notably an > estimate of depreciation. Besides the ones shown in the charts, there > are other categories included in national income, including rental > income and net interest income, so the figures shown do not add up to > 100 percent. > > One way to look at recent trends is to compare the total income > figures for 2010 with those of 2006, before the economy began to slide > into recession. In nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation, > national income was 6.7 percent higher in 2010 — a gain that did not > come close to matching the 8.2 percent rise in the consumer price > index. > > Total employee compensation, including benefits, rose 6.6 percent, > although wages and salaries gained only 5.6 percent. Corporate profits > were 11.9 percent higher, while proprietors’ income was down 8.5 > percent. Corporate profits more than kept up with inflation. Other > categories of income did not. > > It can be misleading to look at shares of income without examining > their magnitude. A small share of a big pie may be larger than a big > share of a small pie. The record high share for wages and salaries, of > 59.7 percent, came in 1932. Worker pay was plunging in those days, but > not as fast as corporate profits. Companies as a group lost money that > year. > > Nonetheless, President John F. Kennedy’s observation that a rising > tide lifts all boats is no longer as true as it once was. > > There have been 10 years when corporate profits as a share of national > income exceeded 13 percent — 1941, ’42, ’43, ’50, ’51, ’55, ’65, ’66, > 2006 and 2010. In eight of those years, the economy, as measured by > real gross national product, grew at a rate of greater than 6 percent. > > The exceptions were 2006, when real growth was just 2.7 percent, and > 2010, when it was 3 percent. > > Similarly, in the past, unemployment was generally low when corporate > profits were high. In 2006, the unemployment rate ended the year at > 4.4 percent — and that was higher than it had been in other postwar > years when the corporate share of national income was high. At the end > of 2010, the jobless rate was 9.4 percent. On Friday, the government > reported that the rate was 9.1 percent in July. > > Floyd Norris comments on finance and economics in his blog at > norris.blogs.nytimes.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
