This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Attention Marxists: Labor's Share Of National Income Drops To Lowest In History

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Probably the most imprtant secular trend in recent employment data, one that has a far greater impact on the macroeconomic themes than Birth/Death and seasonal adjustment manipulated month to month shifts in the employment pool per either the household or establishment surveys, is the labor share of national income. In a 2004 paper from the St. Louis Fed, the authors make the following statement: "The allocation of national income between workers and the owners of capital is considered one of the more remarkably stable relationships in the  U.S. economy. As a general rule of thumb, economists often cite labor’s share of income to be about two-thirds of national income—although the exact figure is sensitive to the specific data used to calculate the ratio. Over time, this ratio has shown no clear tendency to rise or fall." It would be wonderful if this was true, and thus if the US population really had a stable distribution of income between laborers and capital owners. Alas it is dead wrong. In fact, as the latest note from David Rosenberg points out, the "labor share of national income has fallen to its lower level in modern history - down to 57.5% in the first quarter from 57.6% in the fourth quarter of last year, 57.8% a year ago, and 59.8% when the recovery began." And here is where the Marxist-Leninist party of the US should pay particular attention: "some recovery it has been - a recovery in which labor's share of the spoils has declined to unprecedented levels."

Like Rosie, Zero Hedge is not a marxist blog: quite the opposite, but like him we come to the same troubling conclusion: "extremes like this, unfortunately, never seem to lead us to a very stable place." We would go further: not only does the US already have the core elements, should one be so inclined, to provoke a (rather active) anti-fascist movement based on some interpretations of pro-corporatists policies adopted by the administration, but should another be so inclined, the country also has the groundwork in place for another neo-Marxist revolution: just take this chart, add some slogans, mix, and simmer. And who will be the natural enemy? Why only look at the great October revolution in Russia for ideas. History always rhymes.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 06/05/2011 - 16:21 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"and he wants stuff for free, by you working and paying for him, argueing that you owe it to him."

ROTFL!!!...fucking crackhead...explain to me how, me being taxed (extorted really) to pay for all the shit you use, is somehow different for you than for me.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:19 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty once said to Parliament that the greatest contribution to England of His Royal Majesty's Navy is "rum, the lash and sodomy."
I like the Navy.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:21 | Link to Comment Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

"Capitalism is inherently collective, whereby a fictional entity known as a "corporation" exists to return money to shareholders."

What makes a corporation a corporation is not part of capitalism or the free market. A corporation is a fictional entity, but what distinguishes a corporation from any other business is not that it "exists to return money to shareholders.", but that it shields its members from personal liability.

Imagine if Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, were personally liable for his actions? Of course for that to work, we would also have to have property rights in America again for anything to come of it. Property Rights Solve Oil Leaks Better than Regulation

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:00 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

A corporation is a fictional entity, but what distinguishes a corporation from any other business is not that it "exists to return money to shareholders.", but that it shields its members from personal liability.

Well that's how they operate, yes, but that's not how they came about, and the history is significant here.  This is a HUGE part of why the existing structures have become so corrupt and essentially irreparable if you want a healthy society.

"Early" corporations shielded investors from liability because investors didn't participate in any of the operations.  I bought a share of a ship's haul--I wasn't going to be shot by a pirate, right?  I sat around at home waiting for the ship to come in and return my share and pay my dividend. 

If there were a conflict between the ship I invested in and another, it made no sense to haul ME to jail--I wasn't involved.  Thus the theoretical significance of the corporation is: all you can take from me is my investment!

That's what started capitalism, and that's where it came from.  That bit matters a lot.

So now, a single individual can start a corporation and be the sole shareholder, but STILL retain similar protection against liability because of a few hundred years of case-law in which the original design principle of the corporation was lost. (Obviously, there's gonna state-law differences from here to there, LLCs vs. Sub-S's vs. who-the-fuck knows anymore.)

If a corporation were software, we'd say it's MUNG now.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:04 | Link to Comment Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

So ... It sounds like you agree that a systemic improvement would be to hold the officers of a corporation liable for their actions - not those who are only shareholders, but those who serve as officers.

How big of a solution do you think this would be?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:18 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Nah, it's all or nothing.  If a company is committing *any* crime, it's a criminal conspiracy, no different than the Mafia or a drug cartel.  Everyone working there shares a burden of culpability, which might be sufficient incentive for the "little people" who do nothing but punch a clock to work to keep management honest.

If we can't police ourselves as a species, for sure no one else is gonna do it.

On the flipside of that: the shareholders may not have any legit claim to choosing officers.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:21 | Link to Comment Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

I assume one's liability would be proportional to one's shares in your plan, and that through some formula one's role as an officer would add to one's liability.

I don't think I would ever expose myself to such liability as a shareholder or an officer of a big corporation under such a plan, even though I am incorruptible.

It sounds like politicians should also be liable for their decisions  too.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:48 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I don't plan--I improvise.  But I have a sense for what I'd prefer.

I'd just as soon do without the politicians.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 01:56 | Link to Comment Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

So if one gives a loan to a company, which is much like buying shares in a company, would that also make one liable for the actions of that company?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 02:15 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Well, loans are an interesting thing these days.  It seems the loan in which someone actually possesses something they let another person use are the tiny minority.

You're responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions.  If you loan Eddie the Roach a few grand to go buy a kilo and he ends up shooting and killing some folks because the deal goes bad, you're guilty of conspiring to traffic narcotics--you're NOT guilty of conspiring to murder.

Does that help you any?

If you want absolutes, stick to mathematics.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:33 | Link to Comment downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

A corporation is an invention of White Capital, by White Capital, for White Capital because it facilitated the expropriation most efficiently during one specific historical time period.

Before them, Joint Stock Companies, Trusts, Trading Companies, etc. - it's all the same principle using different propaganda.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:08 | Link to Comment downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Capitalism is inherently collective

Indeed it is.  The ME ME ME ME of White Capital demands that you fuck everyone else to make money for ME ME ME ME.  That's actually CAPITALISM is a nutshell:  socialize genocide & concentrate wealth!

 

 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:53 | Link to Comment scratch_and_sniff
scratch_and_sniff's picture

Subscribing to one or the other in they're purist form is like throwing the baby out with the bath water, i agree, so does China. But from a progressive point of view, when you consider that Americans have been socially engineered to recoil at even the word “communist“(think communist, think Satan), i dont think your efforts here will be as appreciated as they should be.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:07 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

Frog's cum in your pond scum ! We sure have elected enough of the slimy creeps ! The lust for the unearned is universal ! The distribution of stupidity is spread around the world in the most admirable, egalitarian manner ! Monedas 2011 Socialist Moron/Milton Friedman ratio worldwide is about 1,000,000 to 1 !!!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:16 | Link to Comment scratch_and_sniff
scratch_and_sniff's picture

Yeah that evil socialism shit, it just about caused every major depression and started every war there ever was. I say its totally flawed. I mean what kind of sick fuck would go out of their way to try and help everyone...dont they know, you can only ever save a few?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:36 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

Well, i don't care much about "official" definitions.... i just look at what they are used to mean in practice.

Here, the common pattern in communism that i notice, is an economy planned on the collective level, and typically - at least conceptually - the collective owning the means and control to this.

Regarding socialism, the common pattern to me seems to be altruism.... making entity A pay for entity B, where the enties don't even need to be persons, but may be economic sectors. So: Throwing money from well-doing sectors, at badly doing sectors. And all this is typically done in a planned way on a collective level.

Hypothetically assuming those definitions, socialism would be a special variant of communism. A non-selfustainable variant. Thus logically socialism is indeed undesirable if it can instead be done in a desirable selfsustainable way.

According to those definitions, i indeed consider socialism something that is to be avoided unless there is no other desirable way. I however refuse to put the same blame in a generalized way, on all collective-based economic approaches. In fact, as i did show, one of the rootlevel defects in current economic model, is that no efficient collective-level method is used address sectors like infrastructure and existencial needs.

Bottom line: Current economic models are incapable of even letting people "help themselves" when it comes to basic existancial needs. A civilization close to nanotech, still fighting to satisfy things like hunger in a selfsustainable way..... but hey, if THAT were addressed, people may become picky about how employers treat them. They may get insane ideas like "WTF? The deal you're offering me is worse than me just satisfying my own basic survival myself... piss off!"

Selfsustainability and autonomy..... and preventing it...... thats what it's all about.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:17 | Link to Comment scratch_and_sniff
scratch_and_sniff's picture

Im finding it hard to follow your train of thought, no offence, its late, i've had a few beers, but essentially i think you're spot-on when you say socialism is all about altruism. Atleast thats how it starts, any who kids themselves into thinking that socialism is the workings of evil minds needs a lobotomy. Lets take the british NHS as an example. The concept is inherently socialist, yet the poor performing parts of it are run like a business and farmed out on a contract basis such that even EU competition laws apply in some instances.

The hybrid works well, it has been more and more successful year on year for the last 2 decades. The problem comes when you apply the same "competition laws" and capitalist ideals to critical aspects of the service, such as when you have private companies supplying surgeons and doctors, deciding rates of pay, capital allocations for patient drugs, who gets what organ donation and when etc...because when personal greed or competition gets in the way, people suffer, and lets face it, we all know the consequences.

The trick is knowing where to apply socialism, and what parts to apply capitalism, where to cut where to spend, where to set up committies and when to farm out to competition. Thats where it gets kind of tricky, but i know what side i fall on...other than that, i dont want to fuck up my sleeping routine, its 2am here, i have stuff to do tomorrow, so dont think i am being a prick if i dont reply. But i really need to get to bed.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:39 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

Okay, time for some practical examples, to explain in an obvious way why i do not equal communism with socialism.

Variant A: People who work, pay for people who do not work. (socialism)

Variant B: People not employed on the free market, if necessary work to produce the goods they need to survive, themselves. So, people in an organized way working to produce what they need for survival, if they find no free market job. (planned communistic economic sector).... thus, outside of the free market being a way for people to sustain their survival themselves (and as an added bonus, when they apply for a free market job, plain basic survival is no longer enough of an offer (in the big picture, this puts a "lower limit" to the free market.... people can no longer go below "i'll survive".... enslavement becomes an impossible requirement for free market employment. Or shoter: Employers can no longer threaten employees with death).

I refuse to equal A with B.... obvious why?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:40 | Link to Comment cxl9
cxl9's picture

i think you're spot-on when you say socialism is all about altruism.

Altruism is not spending other people's money.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:17 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

No.

Egoism by popular definition: Only considering own aspects, while ignoring aspects of others and how they in turn affect onself.

Altruism by polular defintion: Only considering aspects of others, while ignoring own aspects and how they affect others.

Egoism by polular definition has nothing to do with own advantages in the big picture.

Altruism by popular definition has nothing to do with others' advantages in the big picture.

Both is only a matter of what you're looking at, not what actually matters!

Egoism and altruism as it is popularily understood, is only concerned with selective perception, and not concerned with consequences at all.

Same by the way is true for most - if not all - other dichotomies: It's all about what you're selectively looking at, not what actually happens.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:31 | Link to Comment equity_momo
equity_momo's picture

How do you help everyone when everyone seems to want everything and in the process of wanting everything start spawning dumber and dumber and greedier and greedier kids?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:24 | Link to Comment scratch_and_sniff
scratch_and_sniff's picture

I think you are starting off on the wrong footing for a sensible argument, but i know what you are saying; why should you feed someone’s kids etc, that’s something you would need to answer yourself, there is no universal truth.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 06:23 | Link to Comment swissbene
swissbene's picture

the sensible must procreate -- a biological and ethical imperative.  over time this works.  honestly everyone just fuck more.

liquidity crisis of reason: need to grow our way out :)

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:53 | Link to Comment Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

Help me, help you.  Now get off the couch...

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 09:50 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Socially engineered: nice characterization!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:22 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>And finally, all private accounts i have so far heard of planned economies, did not even make use of the major killer-advantages of communism

What is the advantage? I see only disadvantages, the greatest being that identified by von Mises in the 1920's: the inability to perform economic calculation, i.e. the inability to rationally allocate scarce resources without a functioning price system created by market participants performing voluntary exchanges.

>As we currently see more and more clearly, pure capitalism is ALSO failing.

I'm not sure we're at "pure capitalism"; the market is severely hampered by coercion. For example, people may end up shooting you if you don't hand over 30% of your paycheck to the government. These aren't the kind of voluntary exchanges that the market depends on.

>The employment problem...is plain and simply a symptom of free market capitalism's disadvantages.

It's clear you don't know much about economics. In an unhampered market there cannot be persistent mass unemployment. The reason is that there is always a desire for more labor - for example, people to clean your house, mow your lawns, prepare food, mend clothes, etc. Unfortunately, it's government interventions like minimum wage laws and a monopoly on issuing licenses that destroy jobs by making them illegal.

>taxes actually work very similiar to socialism: The entire collective (though perhaps with varying percentages) pays for something, and that something is then made available to the entire collective. This is not free market capitalism!

Yes, so you agree with me.

>It is a patch, to make something work, that cannot efficiently work in free market capitalism style.

You say it cannot work. But you have no proof, just your uneducated assumption.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:48 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

And finally, all private accounts i have so far heard of planned economies, did not even make use of the major killer-advantages of communism

One specific case i was thinking off, is that in east-germany during soviet rule, they actually made people work for the sake of everyone working - even if there was no need for this! They built factories for this stupid exercise in keeping people selfoccupied..... when precisely this.... that in a planned economy, not everyone needs to work if there is no need to.... or work only the amount of hours that are necessary.... is one of THE differences to free market capitalism! Those fucking morons wasted their biggest advantage! And i hear, similiar things are happening in china right now. What use is a planned economy, if you don't even benefit from its defining advantages? If you do stupid stuff like this, you can as well use free market capitalism!

It's clear you don't know much about economics. In an unhampered market there cannot be persistent mass unemployment. The reason is that there is always a desire for more labor - for example, people to clean your house, mow your lawns, prepare food, mend clothes, etc.

I don't believe that there is such a thing as unlimited consumption, unlimited supply, and unlimited ressources. I also do not believe that efficiency does not exist (which is the same as saying: If i need less input to create the desired output, then this is not the same as requiring the same input to create the desired output. Logical equivalence and contravalence, and such stuff, you know? And in general, i was talking about basic existencial needs. Historically and logically, it always is a bad idea to base your own survival, on refinancing yourself on something else. Phrased another way: If you argue for basic existencial needs, being financed by production of non existencial services and goods, then you ARE promoting socialism..... refinancing a non-selfsustainable sector, by gains from elsewhere.

You say it cannot work. But you have no proof, just your uneducated assumption.

Actually, i already provided the logical proof. You just did choose to ignore it. The proof is: Free market economy is based on someone trading something for something. Ergo: If at least one of both does not offer something, there is no trade. Simple enough for you?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:09 | Link to Comment linrom
linrom's picture

>The employment problem...is plain and simply a symptom of free market capitalism's disadvantages.

It's clear you don't know much about economics. In an unhampered market there cannot be persistent mass unemployment. The reason is that there is always a desire for more labor - for example, people to clean your house, mow your lawns, prepare food, mend clothes, etc. Unfortunately, it's government interventions like minimum wage and a monopoly on issuing licenses that destroy jobs by making them illegal.

 

So you do not think that importation of cheap and illegal labor or job outsourcing affects employment rate in US? What US Federal agency does not have a "borrowed" corporate employee running it to serve corporate interests.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:55 | Link to Comment cxl9
cxl9's picture

So you do not think that importation of cheap and illegal labor or job outsourcing affects employment rate in US?

Only as a result of perverse incentives which cause some people to avoid jobs they would otherwise take. Government assistance now provides the means to live without working, and in many cases provides better income than an unskilled or semi-skilled worker would earn in an undistorted marketplace. Remove all of the incentives to not work and people will work, for a wage largely commensurate with the value of their skills in the labor marketplace. If that happens, the entire issue of "illegal labor" becomes irrelevant, because the opportunity for immigrants to replace idle local workers no longer exists.

 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:41 | Link to Comment downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

"Pure communism has failed."

Funny stuff.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:46 | Link to Comment aerojet
aerojet's picture

I suggest you go back and do more studying.  There is no such thing as free market capitalism, not at the macro level.  Everything is manipulated by those with the means to bend and shape reality to meet their goals.  The rest of us are just along for the ride. The rest is just bs that academics like to toss around.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:20 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

Blahblah "the real" version of my ideology hasn't been implemented. There, i just defended my preferend sports team! And i elegantly avoided all arguments, and the root argument that is:

Individual based economics does not efficiently solve collective based aspects.
Collective based economiccs does not efficiently solve individual based aspects.

Thanks for not listening :)

(Disclaimer: This reply is not specifically targeted at you, but all ideological fanboys, who don't give a fuck about fixing anything regarding reality, and who only are concerned about "their team winning".... whatever that "winning" is supposed to mean.... probably some imaginary points that are about as valueable as fiat in the longterm)

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:11 | Link to Comment downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

With 600 years of White Capital committing genocide all over the world, I can see why you prefer to defend your Tooth Fairy anti-strawman.

It's a lot easier.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:13 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

I believe that's properly spelled #winning!  And, you're right, arguing against the sacred cows, however malignantly diseased and dying they might be, doesn't get you anywhere. 

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:31 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Lol! I hope you had fun writing this. Yours is the difference between theory and reality. It is short term in it's outlook. Stand back and look carefully. Do "freer" countries prosper and adapt? Yes, they do. All centrally planned economies eventually crash. The idea that communism can do anything well is so completely ridiculous as to deny history (not rewritten by the statists) completely. Look up the case of moleskin  gloves as one of a million examples. Communism performs well in theory only. That's the only place. Communism requires gods who are onmiscient. It is not coincidence that communist countries virtually worship their leaders like Stalin and Mao and Castro and Mentally Il Jong, etc. There is where you will find the enslaved populations.

People who engage in free trade or as I like to call it, voluntary exchange will over time solve problems, limit problems and adapt. Over time we get more production and better lifestyles with less work. Virtually all other state centered systems require the "genius" or a committee of geniuses who are anything but that. True genius comes through the ingenuity of men free to invent solutions to life's problems and then prosper from it.

No system eliminates the flaws of men although some claim to, but voluntary exchange harnesses some of human nature's biases, such as the predilection to work harder for one's self and family than a nebulous collective...and makes it work for the good of all. It limits the baser nature of men. Without coercion it works exceptionally well. All of government is coercion and all governments ultimately serve themselves.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:47 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

If your system is not based on history, then what is it based on?

Logics? I already refuted that: Individual aspects are not the same as collective-wide aspects (i'm simply talking about scale, nohing else).

So, if your argument is neither based on history, nor on logics, what is it based on - belief?

You've got nothing - just as all the other ideological "campers".

Logically sound solutions are based on just that: If something can probably work. It doesn't give a fuck about symbols, doesn't give a fuck about ideology... it only cased about what logically could work and makes sense.

Solving individual aspects individually, and solving collective aspects collectively, makes sense. And yes, it historiclly has never been implemented - it is purely based on something absent from human history: Reason. Does that make it probable to happen? No. But it offers somethig which no other approach so far can offer: something that CAN work at all!

Again, all i'm implying is this: Offer people not employed on the free market a way to sustain their own needs themselves. There is ZERO reason why this couldn't work. The tech is available, the workforce by definition is available. There is zero logical explanation, why people having a need, and the desire to work to sustain it, shouldn't achieve it. It purely is a choice of current ideologies and policies to prevent freemarket-unemployed from sustaining themselves.  A choice in which fanboys like you are complicit. I'm not talking about abolishment of the free market - i'mnot talking about planning dynamic luxury goods via a planned economy. All i'm arguing for is: Let people who want to survive, work to *if neccessary* create the means to survive. You're against that?

REALLY? Well, then FUCK YOU AND DIE SADIST!

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 01:41 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Lol! Sadist, eh? What I like about libertarians is that they/we actually propose to inflict nothing on anyone against their will. There is no central planning by self appointed geniuses. You refuted nothing logically. You have a list of assertions. Workforces are available but you actually don't know who's in them and what they should produce. Shall we make more iPAD's, knee pads or Maxipads? How many are needed? You don't know. No one knows. When government does stupid things like redirect a workforce it lowers the wages of everyone in that workforce. Let's double the amount of people in plumbing, eh?  When it tries to prop up the wages the products get more expensive and then fewer can afford them. It is riddled with consequences that the geniuses cannot forsee.

Yes, many desire to work. Many actually do not if they can get others to support them. Some want to work hard, some less hard and virtually no one wants to do what someone else tells them to do. Those are some of the problems of directing workforces. All of us have the ability to survive. We did it at a basic level as hunter-gathereres and then through voluntary exchange and the building of wealth we improved our lot. Because of the necessity of survival and the desire to improve our lot we cooperate and exchange our labor, ideas and skills and embark upon a process of discovery.

By definition in a free market with voluntary exchange we are all able to sustain ourselves. It is not "offered" to us. That implies that someone else owns all the ways to sustain us. No one does. Those who try to control it (an economy) wreck it. Always. That is history. There is nothing in my postings which says I am against people surviving or being productive. What I DO say is that there is no person or committee of people who knows how to do that for the 6 billion people and millions of different sciences, trades and occupations that exist. It is like trying to design and control a rain forest or even the weather. You cannot do it. It is too big, too complex and interventions only make trade offs that hurt more than help...even with the best of nonsadistic intentions. You're against that?

Really? Well, then...ahhh, that's not my style really. Keep watching, listening and reasoning.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 08:45 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

You refuted nothing logically. You have a list of assertions. Workforces are available but you actually don't know who's in them and what they should produce. Shall we make more iPAD's, knee pads or Maxipads?

The reason why in your head i refuted nothing, is because you're not listening. iPads? WHAT THE FUCK? What do iPads have to do with survival? What does a fullblown planned economy have to do with my proposal? Nothing at all - you have no clue at all what i was talking about. All you were seeing was "oh, someone was talking about communism, so he *probably* means replacing the market with a planned economy, even though he explicitely stated that he does NOT mean that.... but i didn't bother to read that"

Yes, many desire to work. Many actually do not if they can get others to support them. Some want to work hard, some less hard and virtually no one wants to do what someone else tells them to do. Those are some of the problems of directing workforces.

Again, you understood nothing. Motivation? Fucking motivation? "Find a free market job, or produce what you need to survive yourself, or die".... how's that for "movitation"? You again totally miss the point, because you think i'm talking about planning the entire market, when instead i was talking about something totally different.

Hey, i think i figured out a way to get it your closed mind: Forget everything i said. I wasn't talking about communism at all. I was talking about something entirely different.... it just by pure coincidence shares a handful of concepts that also exist in communism. Got it now?

There is nothing in my postings which says I am against people surviving or being productive. What I DO say is that there is no person or committee of people who knows how to do that for the 6 billion people and millions of different sciences, trades and occupations that exist.

What.... you need millions of sciences, trades and occupations just to SURVIVE? What kind of fucking bloated concept do you have of "survival"? Do you also need your previously mentioned iPads to "survive"? Will you stop smoking that weird stuff already?

I was talking about replacing socialism in the form of taxes, regarding infrastructure and unemployment benefits, with communism. Instead of throwing cash at such things, i was proposing to just make the users of those services work for just those services. Got it now?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:52 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Look, I read lots of your posts. My favorite thread/discussion was how a corporation was a collective. I believe I understand what you are trying to assert and do. Making iPADS is precisely what people (in China) do to survive. They trade their labor and time for a check. With that check they buy the necessities of life...and maybe even a few fun things. It is because of the specialization of labor that we have the much improved lifestyles enjoyed around the world today. It is directly related to survival and surely you see that.

 

 Here is a part of the fundamental problem:

"I was talking about replacing socialism in the form of taxes, regarding infrastructure and unemployment benefits, with communism. Instead of throwing cash at such things, i was proposing to just make the users of those services work for just those services.

There is a lot of "making" people do stuff. I don't want to make them do anything. Let necessity force them to do something...something for their fellow man or themselves. What you create even though you seem to mean to improve it is an all powerful government that directs things to ostensibly good ends. I submit that is exactly how we got where we are today. I also submit YOU or even I don't know what to "make" people do to "make" everything work.

What I do hope people with open minds agree to is that none of us should be forced to support the purposes of other people against our will. To abrogate that principle is to start down the road toward servitude or even slavery. surely you agree with that?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 22:01 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

Making iPADS is precisely what people (in China) do to survive. They trade their labor and time for a check. With that check they buy the necessities of life...and maybe even a few fun things. It is because of the specialization of labor that we have the much improved lifestyles enjoyed around the world today. It is directly related to survival and surely you see that.

head @ wall

- I am not talking about planning the entire economy. Free market capitalism continues to do what it does already.

- I am not talking about planning the entire economy. Free market capitalism continues to do what it does already.

- I am proposing a SECOND economy in addition to the free market: A small planned economy, designed to satisfy collective-wide infrastructure and basic existencial needs (nothing fancy at all. I.e. who needs more than 6 foodstuffs to survive?). You decide yourself which aspects of this small planned economy, you want to use. I.e., perhaps you already own a house, but need food? If you do this, you need to either work inside this minieconomy (amount of hours depends on how much stuff you need), or you pay for it in cash (which is then used to pay others to work). Since this way, demand is known ahead of time, it can also be known ahead of time how much workforce is needed to produce those needs.... this work is then distributed across everyone who uses those goods/services. So, in the big picture, people producing what they need for survival, as well as basic infrastructure.

So, it would be as selfcontained and selfsustainable as possible. Not "i produce ipads to get bread".... but instead "i need "this" and "that", so i work to produce "this", while someone else works to produce "that"".

The two major features of that approach are:

1. Making decisions about such collective needs, on the collective level: Polling the need, and then distributing the required workhours on users. This avoids the dreaded unemployment anomaly.

2. To make this work as selfcontained and selfautonomous as possible. Thus, individual survival no longer being dependent on the state of the free market. When people can selfsustain themselves outside of the free market, if necessary.... then survival no longer is an aspect of free market employment. For employers, it means they no longer need to be regulated regarding wages and firing people. For employees, it means they can no longer be extorted by their survival depending on a job - they take a job if it offers them more than survival and they are treated well - else they just reject or quit.

For govs, it means total policy change.... all kinds of premises change. No longer is there a need to artificially create consumption, production and work, just to keep people employed on the free market. No longer they need to sacrifice all kinds of things, just to appeal to corporations creating jobs. Infrastructure and freemarket-unemployment stop being deficit programs. Etc. etc.

In short, people no longer fight to survive. The threat of death is taken out of the equation, in politics, economics and culture. Yep, it's big.

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 04:25 | Link to Comment Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

#1 thing- people *always* fight to survive, so let's discard that.  Even if every person agrees to get along, you will still fight nature.

That being said, what you propose has existed, is now forming again, and recurs in it's time.  You may have some tweaks in mind, but ultimately what you propose is nothing new.  Here's a taste of what I am talking about:  http://red-coral.net/UXA_Article.html

You're not inherantly wrong, but you misjudge human nature.  In times of extreme duress, not unlike the times we are now living in, people do exactly what you are proposing.  I propose, perhaps somewhat radically, that no one does anything that they actually know is evil.  No social animal can survive the actual knowledge that they are fundimentally opposed to the survival of their peers.  There are all kinds of justifications and evasions that allow humans to do unspeakably horrible things to one another, but the people who are doing those things always believe that they are doing the right thing in their own minds.

So, when the shit actually *does* begin to hit the fan, many people *do* band together to provide the means of survival for as many people as they can.  The ones that do not use a proximity principle, valuing the people in their own families and circles over those who they have never met.  Aside from the description of the UXA linked to above, there are many community garden projects that provide food for those who are willing to work in them.  There are also community food banks, medical and dental "free clinics" and any other number of privately run social programs that attempt to provide exactly what you are suggesting.  

And people use them, when they have to.  What you seem to be bemoaning is that these services and goods are not on par with the ones provided by the private capitalist sector.  That too, is human nature.  If I am creating something to produce a personal profit, I will cater to your whims to gain you as a customer.  If I am producing a necessity that you cannot pay for, you will get what I give you- and you should be greatful for that.  It will keep you alive, but will not ensure that you have the same lifestyle as myself.

When I (or anyone) produce more than I can consume, and return a portion of that excess to help others who are less fortunate than myself, I do so for a selfish reason, and that is why it happens.  Selfish reasons vary by individual, but are not infinite in nature- they can be known.  Perhaps I am a believer in Karma, and am creating a structure that I would like to have in place should I fall on hard times myself.  Perhaps I am looking for a tax dodge.  Perhaps I just like the way it makes me feel about myself.  Perhaps it is some personal attonement for a wrong I believe I committed in the past.

I have a feeling you will repute this, but any structure that exists as you describe it must, of necessity, begin with charity.  Even if you work land to produce crops, someone must donate the use of it for you to do so.  You must be given use of the infrastructure paid for my my taxes so that you can go to your fields.  I'm ok with that, so long as you are exterting personal effort for your necessities- it is only fair, as I am exterting effort to pay for my relative "luxuries."

At any rate, these things you are describing do exist- if you are not using them, and only moaning about it, it is because, like most people, you do not wish to exist on six foodstuffs painfully extracted from the earth through the labor of your own back.  You don't want to have a tooth pulled without novocaine, or have an infection treated with a liver flavored dog antibiotic.  You want to wear Nike shoes on your feet, and not sandals made from rabbit skins and scraps of old tires.  You have a soul-sucking evil corporate job because they pay you at least enough to buy what you need by pushing papers while sitting in a chair rather than by chopping up sod with a hoe.

In extremis, you will turn to the hoe, but when things improve, you will gladly return to your desk.  We have what we have because people are what they are- namely, greedy, aggressive and self-inflated monkeys who can use tools and tell lies.  

Hedge accordingly.

What is it you are waiting for, permission?  Go ahead and fall on the safety net, then.  It's there if you are willing to accept it.

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 14:34 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

You may have some tweaks in mind, but ultimately what you propose is nothing new.

Correct, i do have some tweaks in mind. One of the more important one, is to do this not "from scratch", and to do it much better coordinated and with much better technology. You are correct that if one starts out with nothing, does not have easy networking, like the internet, does not already have infrastructure and optimized factories available.... it is nintendo-hard. But that's not what i'm proposing. I'm thinking of a technologically advanced implementation of this.

A second difference is that in the link you posted, the system basically was meant to replace the free market, because it didn't exist anymore... the normal economy was disfunctional. I'm not thinking about replacing the free market.... and not locking people into a mandatory "either planned minieconomy  XOR free market capitalism". In fact, i think that such a planned base could provide a great platform from which to become a freelancer, by engaging in both economies as an intermediate option. 

Your hint at the problem of even the most basic forms of healthcare, is a good counterargument, because it is the key shortcoming for which i indeed know no efficient solution yet. I guess for things like this, such a planned minieconomy cannot be totally selfcontained, and needs to trade with the free market (i.e. by producing an oversupply of some things, that are also useful to the free market, and which thus can be used to barter with it).

As for what i am waiting for..... what i'm waiting for is for the above "tweaks", precisely because i do NOT want to start from scratch, and do not want to do it with 19th century tech.

What you seem to be bemoaning is that these services and goods are not on par with the ones provided by the private capitalist sector.  That too, is human nature.  If I am creating something to produce a personal profit, I will cater to your whims to gain you as a customer.  If I am producing a necessity that you cannot pay for, you will get what I give you- and you should be greatful for that.

Actually, no - i never bemoaned that. However, i didn't explain anything about how QA was supposed to work. Well, when one produces to create a profit, and the consumer does his part right, one tries to provide good quality, so as to ensure profit. Why does profit matter? Because you can either buy more stuff yourself, or need to work less hours to buy the same. If one does not work for profit, then one still invests something.... one's own work. As i previously mentioned, the amount of work one would do, would depend on how much one needs onself. The amount of work one needs to provide, could be further modified, based on feedback of the quality of one's own work. This feedback would of course need to be "double-blind", to avoid abuse.

Anyways.... the result of this would be, that the total amount of work would not change, unless the amount of demand changes. HOWEVER, how this work is distributed, would depend on the quality of work which each one provided.... thus creating competition in a planned economy. Basically, the currency of exchange, shifts from money to work.... a desire for monetary profit, changes into a desire to work less by providing above average quality.

P.S.: I just noticed, that modern "cooperatives" are actually close to what i'm describing, though they tend to put less emphasis on selfcontainment, and distribution of the workload than i would like. Also, one quite ironic thing is, that in the area where i live, cooperatives in some economic sectors provide better quality than both state-services and the free market.... reason being that in those cases, the state-run alternatives are overbloated and inefficient, while the free market players have become consumer-hostile megacorps.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 07:12 | Link to Comment Ricky Bobby
Ricky Bobby's picture

+1 Well said.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:26 | Link to Comment NOTaREALmerican
NOTaREALmerican's picture

Potential Heroes of the next glorious revolution UNITE in the next slaughter of the unpatriotic peasants, now that we've turned the country into a police-state.   ("Country First") 

 

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 06:35 | Link to Comment swissbene
swissbene's picture

ah yes the race is on.  will the next 'great war' in europe or sub-us-'war of agression' be first on the draw?

was thinking (a) but this thread more supportive of (b).  maybe both in parallel.  

also remain alert for another fascinating subplot in asia.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:27 | Link to Comment Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

The old school capitalism has been displaced by taxpayer financing (the stock market has dried up for new shareholder monies). The illusion of capitalism still exists by means of special interest groups funding corporations to disguise their hidden agenda. To name a few, just ask Apple, GM, AIG & GE.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:39 | Link to Comment IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

The old school capitalism ... you mean like when the rich were taxed at 70% and the nation 'invested' in all the infrastuctures and programs that made us better than the competition?

http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_tax...

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:43 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Does DailyKos really pay you for posting this crap?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:52 | Link to Comment IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

No crap, dude ... just facts .... don't worry though .... with time you'll get  it ... keep working at it.

If possible though engage in a constructive exchange, I am always open to learn.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:56 | Link to Comment Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

When someone calls me dude I want to put a .45 in their mouth.  I guess that makes me a Libertarian.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:32 | Link to Comment IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

Nope ... just stupid!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:36 | Link to Comment Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

Irony is wasted on the stupid.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:51 | Link to Comment IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

I stand correct!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:08 | Link to Comment Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

Keep thinking, but don't hurt yourself...

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 09:53 | Link to Comment ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

70% taxation on anyone is rape and not compatible with freedom. 25% is seriously pushing it and only justifiable in exchange for damn good VALUABLE government, not the racket we have today. What sort of twisted moron would seriously advocate for the sort of ludicrous/non representative/oppressive/tyrannical/FARCIST bullshit government such as we have today the 'right' to collect 70 fucking % of what an individual produces? Don't give me any crap about how the fucking 'rich' are ripping us all off. The Goddamn government is assisting them shithead! At this point the bankers are the thieves and the government drives the get away car.

I apologize for offending anyone with my language, but fucking seriously, APOLOGIST for the REGIME, such as this asshat obvious troll piss me off.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 09:51 | Link to Comment ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

I was initially suckered by that one as well. TD blew it up. Non story.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:40 | Link to Comment kito
kito's picture

marxists in america are too busy to revolt--they are working on their new reality tv show, "who wants to be a millionaire marxist"...

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:44 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

No, they really do have time between bong hits.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:53 | Link to Comment Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 You're doing a fine job today! I'm Impressed Mynhair.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:58 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Well, thank you!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:22 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

"Arbeit macht frei !", Mein Herr !

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:32 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

'Work' is a four letter word.  I dislike swearing.

Hmmm, Libs also has 4 letters - never mind.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:45 | Link to Comment Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Take it out on me! I'm a worthless American.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:58 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

That and flouridation (bong water too) keeps em away from Pitchfork Depot.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:27 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

I'm a bong water drinkin', roach eatin' Mudder Fudder !......Shouldn't there be a warning on toothpaste : "Drinking flouridated water, bathing in it and douching with it in conjunction with the use of flouride toothpaste has been known to cause cancer in rats in Kalifornia !"....FDA !

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 03:25 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Actually toothpaste is made in Jersey. Don't you forgetabout it neither. The occaionsal Rat gets into the vat once in a while. No more worries.

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 04:30 | Link to Comment Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

Frank Turner fan?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:09 | Link to Comment Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

You sir, I hope are paid for this shilling.

The long term repayment plan is, of course, blood.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:47 | Link to Comment Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

1962

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a stateless and classless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.

In Marxist theory, communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely-associated individuals

The War We Are In: Communism vs. Capitalism (2/2) (1962)

All the same rhetoric, today they call it terrorism for non-conformist to the Change & Hopey administration.

Edit: In 1962, I wasn't even born.

 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:40 | Link to Comment gwar5
gwar5's picture

It's their explicit intention to hide who/what they are by avoiding labels and to not allow themselves to be called:  Marxist/communist/progressive/liberal/socialist.  All dirty cousins of the same obsession for central planning and a firm grip on all activity. 

 

 

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:42 | Link to Comment ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

As I first glanced at your post, I took "Communism is a sociopolitical movement" in as Communism is a sociopathological movement. I believe I got it right on first take.

It's not that I hate individual Leftist. I really don't. Hell, I've raised/am raising three son's and I am blessed with a three year old Granddaughter. All of them exhibit Leftist characteristics to greater or lesser degrees. Granddaughter most so. I adore watching her attempt to manipulate/change reality. My inner Leftist does sometimes humor her. I hope to play a role in affirming for her that dreams/fantasies are a healthy and natural aspect of being sentinent.

And then I ponder the importance of teaching her that we have boundaries. Our spirits are bound. We exist in a construct that must be recognized and respected if we hope to experience anything other than chaos.

Leftist have a tough time with this one. (hint, it's about growing up). Who really wants to accept reality? Never seen a three year old embrace it without significant protest.

So before you jump on the obvious flaw with my rambling so far, let me state that I'm absolutely not advocating for acceptance of the present status quo, I am advocating for an acceptance of the reality in which you physically exist, or more accurately, an acceptance of the need to return to respect for natural law. Conservatism at it purest is (in my view) respect for the greatest truth I have yet to discover: and that is LIFE IS DIFFICULT.

I've read thousands of books. I've gone quite far down the rabbithole and been brave enough to really test life. All to be most convinced by the most simple truth: that life is difficult. Got it from M.SCOTT PECK 'the road less traveled'.

Leftist (of the useful IDIOT variety) Refuse to accept this simple truth.

Like teenagers, or three year olds, they seek to escape from a reality that is in accordance to natural law. That has not ever been sustainably succsesful. The hard truth is that life is .........

DIFFICULT.

 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:50 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Conservatives have been unfair to Oblahma.  His campaign statement, "We've been to 57 states" is always misquoted.

He followed that with :  "we have 1 one more to go".

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:29 | Link to Comment Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

Reposted from above.

This is complete non-news. First of all, as we pointed out a long time ago, China's T-Bill holdings fluctuate based on
prevailing short term rates. Second, Bills account for less than 1% of
total China bill/bond/note holdings and thus their notional is
completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Third: TIC data is
consistently wrong, and the bulk of China's marginal purchases (of both
bonds and bills) occurs via the UK, and are only captured once a year
with a 2 year lookback. In other words, only the June 2010 number is
valid. Lastly, the linked article did the same error Bloomberg did by
comparing apples and oranges, i.e., the post June 2010 and pre June 2010
time series. 

Should we continue?

And yes, here is the chart we posted on this extremely irrelevant topic in February:

This is the only chart that is even modestly relevant (reported two weeks ago), and even it is probably completely wrong when UK holdings are accounted for.

 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:03 | Link to Comment OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

*ulp!*

Consider me properly chastised <slinking into obscurity>

How do you remember this shit?  I can't remember what I had for lunch.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:23 | Link to Comment slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

don't ask me!

the very top get more & more;   this (labor) is from whence it cometh.  besides, they're rich and they need the money to fight inflation. i can't decide whether that is /sarc/ or not. 

BiChFlation

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:08 | Link to Comment Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

All we can do is laugh. Not sure if you saw the FDA cunt on CNBC begging for money today. She needs more funding to investigate a new witch hunt.

Then you have Joe, in charge of Amtrak. It won't be long until a train has an accident. Joe will tell us we need new funding for safety, the monies will actually fund new TSA expansion.

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/324012-train_accident-500x465.jpg

As Ras always says, just start thinking like a pigman and you can predict the future.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:10 | Link to Comment IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

A sense of humor is a sign of intelligence ....

Now, I know that it's difficult for you ... but try to imagine (look at the pause when he delivers the line ... listen to the laughter of the audience), just imagine it was a joke....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

I think you can do it!!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:33 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

Baitn'.

The talking point had a purpose, good job killing it though.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:28 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

The genetic roulette wheel of life has been unfair to Obama !

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:59 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

Meet your Bankster owners:

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25080

They run this cage match.  Labor is just about loaded for bear.  The Good News is, so is the entrepreneurial class.  They've been hobbled too by the Banksters jealous greed and selfish control of capital formation.

 

 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:35 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

Where is Obama's family album ? I wan't to see his baby pictures ! He must have been a beautiful baby in his Kenyan habitat !

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:56 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

The baby photos are probably available from some server in Belgium.

Pederast.

But, to indulge the bait: the family album is in a shallow grave with the remains of a jackal.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:04 | Link to Comment gwar5
gwar5's picture

The Marxist and Atheist come upon a blind man in a fashionable suit holding a beggars cup on the road.  The Atheist deftly, and silenty, took the money from the cup.

Down the road the marxist said:  "I believe that's my money you have there."

Atheist: "How do you figure that?"

Marxist: "If it wasn't for me there wouldn't be money or opportunity like that in this economy. Until I poked his eyes out he was unemployed with no prospects." 

 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:12 | Link to Comment Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

Ugh, this is like "walking with dinosaurs".

 

Actual current [4 months ago] market joke:

A unionized public employee, a member of the Tea Party, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies looks at the Tea Partier and says,"look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie. The loop - you're not in it.
Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:19 | Link to Comment IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

Will you marry me?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:03 | Link to Comment Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

You two dip-shits should write an ecomonics textbook together.  Economics By Dummies.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:33 | Link to Comment IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

Sorry ... you're sister keeps us too busy for that.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:44 | Link to Comment Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

Very weak.  If you want to go that direction cut right to: I'm going to skull fuck your mother...

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:53 | Link to Comment IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

Enjoy the maggots!

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 02:06 | Link to Comment toxic8
toxic8's picture

lulz.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:10 | Link to Comment Segestan
Segestan's picture

62 million person were murdered by Marxist , as you entered the death camp, gulag, over 400 0f them, was written these words..... "Labor in the USSR is a matter of honor glory pride and heroism"

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:12 | Link to Comment IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

Oligarchs do not give a fuck about everybody else ...

I am not equating here ... at all, but it still leaves me puzzled ...

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUST...

 

Now, that happened in a poor country ... and this has been happening in a wealthy one ...

Go fucking figure!!!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:31 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

Simple: that "wealth" was and is debt.

Held by fucking morlocks and vampire squid nonetheless.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:38 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care

>Go fucking figure!!!

Of course our Soviet-style health care system causes enormous numbers of deaths. Just try getting a bottle of antibiotic pills or something and see how many hoops of red tape you need to jump through and how many state-licensed people you need to see and pay hundreds of dollars to. In Mexico you just buy it over the counter at far lower prices and it takes like 2 minutes. It's nice to have actual freedom.

 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:21 | Link to Comment linrom
linrom's picture

Yes, you do have freedom in Mexico, that's you're free to be ruled by drug gangsters.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:25 | Link to Comment downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

... run by the CIA.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:05 | Link to Comment Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

It is fun watching you destroy any potential credibility all by yourself.  Your like those commie monks who light themselves on fire.  Now that's entertainment...

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:28 | Link to Comment Segestan
Segestan's picture

Russia was an industrial giant... not poor. Murdering is not the same. The Marxist murdered the population of two californias in forced labor, starvation and hangings.

 Dont trivialize the west problems , without understanding a Marxist agenda.

Death camps... http://www.abc.com.pl/serwis/du/2001/1154.htm

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:04 | Link to Comment cxl9
cxl9's picture

Nothing stops you from getting together with your like-minded friends and paying for the medical coverage of as many of these unfortunates as you choose. The best part is that it doesn't involve voting or changing the system or government participation or waiting around for the selfish masses to come round to your altruisic way of thinking. It's something you can do right now with your own money. Adopt a poor person and pay his medical coverage. But somehow I suspect you don't want to spend your own money on your worthy causes. You want to spend other people's money.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:57 | Link to Comment ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

And I wonder what percentage of those consume foodstamp purchased cheetos while watching Jerry Springer to American Idol all fucking day (with an occasional visit to MSNBC for the 'news' of course) I'm sure they drink the government supplied floride with their water as well and dream of joining a union while watching the teleprompter spin 'em some shit to fantasize over (while smoking of course).

Asshat.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:09 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUST...

That was a deeply flawed study if its the Harvard Medical "students study" I'm thinking about.

It polled people one year then waited ten years (if I recall the time frame correctly) and any who had died without health insurance were deemed to have died because they lacked it.

It did not matter if they overdosed, murdered, died in car wrecks, had insurance and then dropped it the day before they crashed in a plane or even if they commited suicide...only that they had died without it.

It meant less than nothing.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:20 | Link to Comment Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

Um, wrong.

35 mil for Stalin - however, 60% (roughly) of those were from starvation from 5 year plan failures

40 mil for the great leap forward - however, 50% (roughly) of those were from starvation from bad agriculture

For the record - the USA has racked up about 14 mil of its own, just through wars. No outsourcing to famine either. Pure 'shock n awe'.

The difference you're looking for is that the USA never killed it's own people, unless they were non-white, or it didn't send them into conflicts that were about nothing more than national interest. Oh wait, that'd be wrong.

So, please - when playing the drama game, know your facts. This is like discussing God with fundies - their brains are broken [literally - and proven now] and we're supposed to be polite and respect their genetics. When they don't believe in genetics. You might see some of the complex moral choices that are made over the heads of segments of society now.

 

And yes, I can source all of this - are you ready to actually engage with the history of the 20th Century, or do you want to play "I hatez the communazislamofascists cuz I was taut it"?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:21 | Link to Comment downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

So let's put these numbers, which are based upon the confected data of the John Birch Society, against the 600 record of Capitalism:

 

  • The CAPITALISM-induced genocide of the Western Hemisphere - perhaps 100 million exterminated
  • The Slave Trade & the CAPITALIST economic system rooted in Sugar and Cotton Plantations
  • The CAPITALISM-induced famines of India and China in the 19th century
  • 30 years of CAPITALISM-induced European Civil War
  • The CAPITALISM-induced genocide of Korea
  • The CAPITALISM-induced genocide of Vietnam
  • The (ongoing) CAPITALISM-induced genocide of Iraq 

One could easily continue ... 

 

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:57 | Link to Comment ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

Let us not forget the dream.

North Korea

Cuba

China

I could go on. Capitalism is not the problem genius. Evil is the problem and evil doesn't give a fuck about ideology.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:30 | Link to Comment downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

"Evil" is a good way of exonerating the actions of Banker-Gangsters running an economic system.

Do you have a historical memory of more than a couple days?

Are you aware of the number of centuries Cuba served White Capital?

Do you know about the Opium War?

Have you any clue about the destruction of the Korean Peninsula done by Uncle Sam in His little genocide there?

Do you think the world changes because people will it to be so?  Are you so removed from reality?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:22 | Link to Comment linrom
linrom's picture

Why not make it 2 billion?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:53 | Link to Comment Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

A poster, never spotted before, harkening after a figure I have hedged on.

I suspect that kudos should be given - personal experience is that I got a lot of flak for presenting that number, interesting to see it mooted.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:00 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

Lets make it:

.8 x 6,922,613,058  (http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html) = 5,538,090,446.

5,538,090,446 is my final solution, um, answer.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:08 | Link to Comment JustACitizen
JustACitizen's picture

Y'know - the truth is that "socialism" as it has been practiced in the world to date was really just exchanging one type of master (economic) for another type of master (political) - with a lot less for the masses.

I just keep coming back to the idea that the only guardian of personal liberty/freedom is yourself. When the rules and the society are not equitable in your mind - you have some choices to make... One of which is to not play by the rules. I believe that you should do business with your friends and people that you respect first and foremost. You create the relationships and choose the communities you belong to. People of good will need to support each other.

There will be others out there that eventually will turn to violence because they can see no other way though. Nothing succeeds like excess and conspicuous consumption in making folks targets. The funny thing is that most of the truly rich are hard to identify - its called social camouflage. This has happened before and it will probably not be happy for some - it really is too bad that the greedy folks can't restrain themselves in attempting to remodel America into a feudo-mercantile state.

I certainly do not believe in violence - but an awful lot of issues have been settled in this manner.

 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:37 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Nice DHS save in that last sentence.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:51 | Link to Comment JustACitizen
JustACitizen's picture

What's the difference - if you have even a smattering of self-awareness and intelligence - you are probably on "the list".

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:48 | Link to Comment Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 I have a very deep respect for understanding of finance and humanity. (SP) Do not let me down.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:37 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

the truth is that "socialism" as it has been practiced in the world to date was really just exchanging one type of master (economic) for another type of master (political) - with a lot less for the masses

Well, this may be right in a very narrow sense: no matter how you structure societal control systems, you're likely to run into "less for the masses."

But socialism is a recent development, and "the masses" are certainly doing better today in every even remotely socialized country than they were doing in 1500.

A bit of perspective, eh?  There are plenty of folks who probably really believe that it was better to be a feudal serf than a communist, but that just shows how effective the American indoctrination systems are.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:52 | Link to Comment JustACitizen
JustACitizen's picture

And the Roman Catholic Church was there indoctrinating the serfs in the past - methinks they have/had a better track record than the johnny-come-lately practioners of today.

I think that the folks at the top had a pretty sweet deal 20-30 years ago even. Certainly the serfs were passive enough - thinking that burning flags/abortions/gay marriage were the most troubling issues - but some folks had to get really really greedy...

Or perhaps it was the NWO gang - I don't know - but I can skip the labels and judge by the results.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:17 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

the folks at the top had a pretty sweet deal 20-30 years ago

Maybe, but rich folks don't like payin' taxes, and unlike the poor, they can buy the government to work on makin' it stop.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:49 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

Rich folks buy luxury and comfort.

Their bosses own the government.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:04 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

If you're not buying government, you're probably not rich.  Affluent, bourgeous, well-to-do, upper middle class, whatever.  But not rich.

There aren't many rich folks, same as it ever was.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:50 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:05 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Totally.  Pretty much been my experience, except for that "beautiful wife" part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh2wN3-Ok50&feature=related

Feeling nostalgic?  It's all so damned inspiring.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:10 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

Lucky me, Mrs. Questions is not nostagia.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:51 | Link to Comment downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

White Capital, by raping, robbing and pillaging for 5 centuries, has most certainly improved its position.

As for everyone else on the planet - they've been bent over and fucked.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:50 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

I just keep coming back to the idea that the only guardian of personal liberty/freedom is yourself.

Grok this: I for one would fight for your personal liberty/freedom!

Unless you believe in canine sacrifice, then you're on your own.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 06:57 | Link to Comment swissbene
swissbene's picture

fully agree on role of individual.  develop conscious values and act accordingly.  quite scalable.  we have collectively become confused with abstraction -- though it is possible/necessary to get up and leave plato's cave at any time.

violence is fascinating and constant in history.  i view record as somewhat mixed concerning the vindication of the righteous during periods of violence.  though history is written by the victors so this is merely personal intuition.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:14 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

We need to breed and support more takers.

DailyKos needs the traffic to support their IPO.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:27 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

Litters of Lefties?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:35 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Roflmao!  Have a cold one, on me.

Only 1 bank closed so far tonite.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:55 | Link to Comment OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

Make that two cold ones...and two banks.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:59 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

What 2?

As of March 31, 2011, Atlantic Bank and Trust had approximately $208.2 million in total assets and $191.6 million in total deposits. First Citizens Bank and Trust Company, Inc. will pay the FDIC a premium of 0.75 percent to assume all of the deposits of Atlantic Bank and Trust. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of the failed bank, First Citizens Bank and Trust Company, Inc. agreed to purchase essentially all of the assets.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:12 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

$208n'change?

Pfff.  Good thing Sheila's successor(s) got half a Tril to deal with this carp..

 

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 03:23 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Oh TRIL as in trillions. For a sec there I thought you refer to Tribbles.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 01:23 | Link to Comment Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

Litters of Lefties? You my friend have spent ( far) too much time in the FAR EAST.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:31 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

What a fucking cheap provocateur tool you are, cunthair.  Not to imply you don't get paid for it, of course.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:36 | Link to Comment Johnny Lawrence
Johnny Lawrence's picture

How is Labour defined in this chart? What constitutes labour?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:44 | Link to Comment Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:21 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

The chart on page 8 is a little fuzzy, but I think I see a salary man holding his ankles.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:19 | Link to Comment topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Thanks. This answers my above question.

Most of capital's share is going to non stock exchange traded investments.

In fact as a small business owner who has found a way to run with less employees, then my 5000 investment in technology saves me the cost of a secretary. That is apparently not income to me even though i am a sole owner. That extra income would be imputed to be a capital return even though to me it appears to be just increased income from services i provide.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:49 | Link to Comment Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Hello long time no talk?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:40 | Link to Comment topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Hey yen

Give us a eur/usd and yen/usd update sunday evening will you?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 01:33 | Link to Comment Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Not much to tell. Watch the gap on the open and trade smalls into tuesday. 10k contracts.  I'm looking for a larger dip in Silver. Intra day buy the dips. Don't touch the dollar, Unless you are shorting it against the yen , or chf.

    If you know how to read charts you can play some gbp/usd and gpb/jpy. Or some aud/jpy.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 03:29 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Waiting for the little Silver to drop is like enduring a Colostomy.

 

That way when it finally takes off it would not take so many coins to achieve my target.

The small business owner does not have employees only family members to tide the business over while the Owner carefully ponders locking up, retiring and taking up fishing to feed same family.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:38 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

A Mexican/American co-worker joked me years ago when he said, " Mexicans are living proof that the native American Indians did, in fact, fuck Buffaloes !"

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:44 | Link to Comment cocoablini
cocoablini's picture

Notice our fine President does very little as the capitalists put him in there. China is losing both europe and the US as customers via recession amd inflation in the country. Margin compression will cause higher chinese prices, unless their economy deflates and crashes due to lower demand.
They wouldn't dump US treasuries- they would have to cash out in dollars- and it kills US buying power even more to send the US into a hyperinflationary crash

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:43 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

Never say wouldn't.

We are in interesting times.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:50 | Link to Comment Parth
Parth's picture

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_pulled_scoop_shows_us_booste.php

 

Read the article for Haitian textile workers wage increases.I think the jobs in AMerica are 1000% not coming back and more are going. Labor arbitrage.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:54 | Link to Comment gwar5
gwar5's picture

I think Obama would love to lead a neo-marxist revolution (I think he's started already). He's a marxist (old-school), a central planner, and likes to divide and conquer people using scapegoats and thinly veiled violent rhetoric.  And he loves poor people so much he's made millions more of them.

His street troops are waiting for the word in case he loses the election, or the his banker friends are at risk of losing control of the economy. Obama will be their man.

 

 

 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:53 | Link to Comment Parth
Parth's picture

gwar5,

 

Are you delusional? Neither party has control on the banksters... and oh read thyis...

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_pulled_scoop_shows_us_booste.php

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:41 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

Soapbox'em..

They'll see the antfarm soon enough.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:11 | Link to Comment Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiUogrQn034

 

 

Apparently I post stupid links that mean nothing but sound n fury. Then again, I probably don't.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!