Of course you realize, this means class war!

In the example i specifically stated the probabilities of capital gains, in the case of US Treasuries I stated there is no possibility of a capital gain or loss. As in the case with most debt type instruments, they are structured to pay interest and then return the principle. Capital gains come into play when people buy and sell in secondary markets prior to maturity. But, I think we know a discussion about US Treasuries is outside the scope of the post. But if that is what you get out of it, it still answers my question.
--- merged: Sep 28, 2011 3:53 PM ---

If I invest money, I can generate current income and/or I can generate capital gains (or losses). If I invest in anything, I expect to calculate both in order to make an informed decision. It is very possible to incur a capital loss that is off-set by current income in a business and have it be very attractive on a risk adjusted basis. In my calculations I use US Treasuries as a basis for a risk free return, what do you use?
--- merged: Sep 28, 2011 3:56 PM ---

There is a reason for that.
--- merged: Sep 28, 2011 3:58 PM ---

I disagree. I would say it is more like the difference between eat food with nutrients or something like sugar water. People like me trading commodity futures is adding no value to the economy.

 

You introduced bodily functions in the context of comparing that to the benefits of eating.

I believe, Obama, you and others here, think like employees. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but there is a difference. The problem is when people with an "employee" mentality think they know what is best for business , have the power to influence policy and do so without taking the time to understand the other side of the issue.

I doubt I would be able to get you to understand what I agree or disagree with.
--- merged: Sep 28, 2011 4:22 PM ---

How does investing in US Treasures contribute to net job creation?
And certainly some investment in private enterprise may be wasted, inefficient, or lead to a net drain to society - but if you are suggesting that investing in US Treasuries on a net basis is better than investing in private enterprises in our economy, I think you are wrong.

 

once upon a time, this thread was about the recurrence of the usual conservative projection game that treats the rest of us to the right media apparatus blaming class warfare on those who mention class warfare. once upon a time, this could have been a discussion about the relation of neo-liberal policies to increased class stratification. but that would have required two or three basic conditions: some consensus about what class means as a sociological and historical category; some basic understanding about the actually existing material history of capitalism; some understanding of the basic, historically obvious linkage between capitalism and the formation of modern class structures and between the shift away from---to keep this simple---fordism (post-1945 capitalist organization) to what neo-liberals like to call "globalization" or whatever---and a quite radical **increase** of class stratification, one index of which is the massive, unprecedented transfer of wealth that's happened since the 1980s away from society as a whole and to the top 1% in terms of wealth. that's a Problem. the right "deals with it" by projecting the problem onto people who point the problem out, which is a variant of their other projection, which is to blame class stratification on the state.

but instead, we've wandered down the rabbit hole of ace's schizoid metaphysical machinery. out of a politeness i do not see the need to share, people have allow ace to swap out the terms of the discussion. now we're not talking about material reality at all---we're talking about the arbitrary assumptions that underpin ace's rickety-to-stupid make-believe substitute for capitalism in which the capitalist system itself is not really at all like its historical record, but is instead some magickal machine dropped from the sky, and all the socio-economic consequences of capitalism follow from the actions of the Bad State which, in this rickety-to-stupid counter-factual world, is as it is because it is Bad.

there's no common ground for rational discussion. we collectively either humor ace, in which case we get sucked down the rabbit hole again and again, always heading back to arbitrary claims and stupid analogies, logic problems and factual arbitrariness, or we don't.

this trainwreck of a thread is just another example of where humoring ace gets us.

 

It was not lost on me, I disagree. I illustrated why.

Have you read this thread? Do you want me to go through this and other threads and show instances over and over of what I mean? I am a capitalist. In my view that means that I engage in the activity of actively managing and allocating capital. I know how to do it, I know how it is done, and I know when it is not being done well. I have no clue what "evidence" you seek.

Communication is bidirectional, when there is failure I generally make the assumption it is a problem on my end - but that is not always true.
--- merged: Sep 28, 2011 4:39 PM ---

I don't "wander". I have purpose. If you let me control, isn't that a "you" problem?

Roach, what is the definition of "capitalist"?

 

ace, it's really a matter of people being polite. you abuse it.

as i said, i don't see that there's a basis for any rational discussion with you. so stop asking me inane questions.

 

Commodity futures trading for people who are not involved in the production, transport or industrial type use, are trading purely to make a profit on price changes. They add no value to the cycle, they add no real value to society, but they can generate personal wealth - it is like non-nutritional sugar water. As a society what we need are real people engaged in real businesses, making and providing real goods and services, employing real people - in other words creating real wealth.

I recall you saying you are in the publishing business. The entirety of that business is to create demand. Creating demand is what you do. Creating demand is how you make a living, yet you have a problem with understanding how demand is created. You are locked into the train of thought that demand has to come first. That is an employee state of mind.
--- merged: Sep 28, 2011 5:51 PM ---

As soon as you stop with the personal attacks, I will. When I go into the gutter with people, I do so knowingly and willingly - it is a personal flaw - I know I have it, do you?

 

people who think they're jesus have a purpose, ace.
that you believe something doesn't make it other than irrational.
it's just an irrational thing that you happen to believe.

the only shred of interest i have found across these interactions with you is a little demonstration of what happens when people try to compromise with someone who thinks as you do...as a function of the intellectual and ideological rigidity that comes from not really knowing what you're talking about or why you're talking about it in one way as over against another (it's just what you believe, man) to "compromise" means accepting as legitimate your frame of reference. well, i don't accept it as legitimate.

once you do, however, the discussion gets derailed onto the fake problems and stupid arguments that follow in a straight line from adopting this trickle-down/supply-side/neo-liberal framework.

so conversation is rarely about the world. it's about neo-liberal fantasies about the world.

and because you, ace, are the intellectually and ideologically rigid character, behind which i assume is a less intellectually and ideologically rigid human being (but who knows?), and because of your degree of uncontrolled identification with that frame, to get hoovered down it's byways is to talk about you.

and i'm not interested in talking about you. you are not what political debate is about.

but each trainwreck of a thread that you and your obtuseness show creates is a little demonstration of why it's almost impossible to get anything accomplished when ideological conservatives are in a position to take over conversations.

and that is, i suspect, the point.

 

In your post, I believe it was, #31 you wrote this in response to a hypothetical choice I presented:

The hypothetical was based on real choices being made by real capitalists every minute of everyday. You post suggested that you have absolutely no understanding of these things - yet you make continued claims about me being irrational, this or that, etc., etc. You persist in your belief that I have a problem. I got it. I got it a long time ago. You are wrong. You won't support our views with specifics. You won't answer questions. You won't even present a coherent opposing point of view other than you vague mockery of what you apparently don't understand.

You remind me of my little sister when we were kids - mom, Ace is making my brain hurt again...make his stop asking me questions...make him stop making me use my brain...To which, my mom (a very wise woman) would say...stop talking to him!

 

nice try, ace. i've already stated my case. i do not see any basis for a discussion with you. and you continue to demonstrate the accuracy of that assessment.

 

My point was much simpler than that. Interest from investment in bonds is taxed as normal income. Just like dividends from stocks. Money made from the sale of bonds is taxed at the capital gains rate, same thing for the sale of stock. As such, the choice of one over the other has nothing to do with tax policy, which clearly indicates that you don't know what you are talking about.

If people are willing to buy treasuries that pay less than inflation, therefore leading to a loss of money, the problem isn't that taxes make that more advantageous. The problem is that the private sector is too risky. In other words, we are talking actual evidence that your worldview is simply wrong. Investments in us treasuries cannot make itself any less attractive right now as they cannot pay actual negative interest. So if there are any problems in the economy, any reasons why people are investing in bonds, that is because the private sector is just that fucked up. Nothing to do with taxes. Of course, now you've turned to the usual obfuscation, but the example you gave of taxes and investment is 100% absolutely, objectively wrong.

 

You are note understanding the point. There are different types of economic activity, they are not all equal in terms of benefit to society. Legitimate investment in real business activity, producing real good and services...is better than A)investing in US Trasuries B) People engaging in commodity speculation.

Why does an author need your services? How do you add value for the author? Why do you get paid? Do you engage in any activity to create demand for the authors you serve? These are rhetorical questions - I know how the guy who owns the business you work for would answer them.
--- merged: Sep 29, 2011 12:23 AM ---

I understand your point of view. In your mind what I do and the way I think is wrong. I don't know why it has worked for me, but as they say even a broken clock can get the time right once or twice a day.

 

What does the government spend money on?

Who said anything about net basis? Either way, you lack data.

 

I agree that I should not have made specific comment about your business, I apologize for being presumptuous.

Generally, mature businesses typically address existing demand. Business responsible for economic growth in an economy, needs to create demand. In the growth phase of a business or industry demand has to be created. For example companies making traditional plug in the wall home phones can simply respond to consumer demand for those phones. It is a mature market.

Again, from a general point of view considering a comment you made about Canadian book stores being filled with a majority US books in the business section. The basic principle in play is that US publishers went into the Canadian market and created demand for books by US authors. Canadian publishers could do the same in their home market or in the US for Canadian authors or past Canadian publications. My point is that there are different mind sets in play. If one group believes in responding to demand and another group believes in creating demand - the results will reflect that - over time.