Elizabeth Warren wants to rob shareholders, reward plebs.

I mean wages aren't rising, and really haven't in like 3 or 4 decades tbh...

That's......a problem, that is just going relatively unnoticed by the masses due to technological advances and QOL improvements

Even moreso when you consider our excellent GDP per capita, which essentially means one thing. The elites are taking the revenues.....

They, however, almost exclusively fund campaigns, so i'm not seeing how this is realistically going to change w/ government intervention which it does not appear anyone but the ultra Far Left is attempting to do

See, this is where the campaign funding rhetoric is harmful.

I'd also note that it's not literally true that wages haven't been rising, but it is true that a disproportionate share of GDP gains have gone to the rich, and the primary reason for that (by far) is a growing share of the economy going to capital owners, as opposed to labor. So the solution should be focused on capital (rather than, say, higher MWs or increased progressivity in income taxes, though there are other reasons for both of those things). So something like Warren's proposal (don't know enough to comment on the specific proposal she's made) is probably a good idea. Though I think a truly ideal solution would be a combination of an SWF and a land-value tax.
 
See, this is where the campaign funding rhetoric is harmful.

I'd also note that it's not literally true that wages haven't been rising, but it is true that a disproportionate share of GDP gains have gone to the rich, and the primary reason for that (by far) is a growing share of the economy going to capital owners, as opposed to labor. So the solution should be focused on capital (rather than, say, higher MWs or increased progressivity in income taxes, though there are other reasons for both of those things). So something like Warren's proposal (don't know enough to comment on the specific proposal she's made) is probably a good idea. Though I think a truly ideal solution would be a combination of an SWF and a land-value tax.
well they've risen at a lower rate than inflation, correct?

my bad for not explicitly stating that, or rather comparing the 'rising wages' to rising profits

I wonder if they propose some Capitol Gains tax increase (which would go against Trump's obviously), if there would be some threshold at which it kicks in. Taxing the relatively smaller gains from a personal retirement account has much greater effect than saying raising Buffett's capitol gains or Bezos's or whatever. I mean the rich have to invest somewhere, unless it's made absurdly high that money would still likely be kept in our markets (as people are already stashing things overseas and in shells/tax havens etc..), especially given the volatility in emerging markets w/ the Turkish Lira and Chinese Yuan taking hits
 
So workers (who work for their money) are plebs, but persons who earn their money by investment and money manipulation are the salt of the earth, eh?

As far as your appraisal of corporations - that they exist to pay shareholders and not employees - it's completely normative and conclusory. There's nothing natural or sovereign about the American corporate form: it's a legal creation.

Anyways, I don't always see eye to eye with Warren, but I like her position here. All corporate boards should have a worker representative, even if it would make jack shit difference to its decisions.
you are making the mistake of taking TS opinions seriously.............................dont do that.........
 
I think @JonesBones is playing a Kevin O'Leary-type character not so much because he believes it but because he wants to see the refutations. But he's not saying anything concrete enough to require it so the thread is spiraling into idiocy.
nah..................he really is a cunt
 
Yeah, I liked how he rolled that all together. That was right before he joined Vox. One of the weird things about leftists who don't identify with the mainstream left is the misconception that they (the MSL) supports tax cuts and deregulation and isn't open to pro-labor moves like Warren's. It doesn't come from the actions of elected officials, party platforms, and certainly not from comments from pundits who somehow get identified with the MSL (Yglesias has always been super independent--Sullivan even used to have an independence in blogging award named after him, but I see him get roped into that classification, too).

There's a very contentious and storied relationship between the "mainstream" press and the far-left that many fail to appreciate. People forget that far leftists were at one point most overrepresented in places like major newspapers, just as much as they were in academia and entertainment. That was until they were purged from the industry and jailed during the Red Scare. And for decades following their expulsion from the industry, major newspapers like NYT and WasPo cosigned the nationalist narrative that communists and socialists were traitorous and representing dangerous and dangerously ineffective policies.

I'd say that, since the press's woeful mishandling of the Iraq War, leftist confidence in the mainstream press had been rising to its highest point in many years. But that was until the pretty inexplicable and reprehensible smear campaign ran against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. That was actually really galvanizing for American communists and anarchists who had, up until that point, mostly written off Sanders as a tepid, hapless social democrat hardly worth supporting. I'd say the major newspapers, with their aggressive and shameless coverage of the race, are what brought the far left off the sidelines. I remember Salvage, which is a left-communist European publication, having a call to arms-type issue based on their collective (hehe) outrage over the American media institutions' reaction to the primary.

EDIT: Also, for all the bellyaching over Sanders, probably the single most despicable (and far worse) example of centrist/anti-leftist/neoliberal bias in media was the British media's smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn.

And seeing that type of response to a mere New Deal social democrat? I think it's understandable that persons like Viva might be inclined to assume that these papers' directors are anti-leftist neoliberals.
 
you are making the mistake of taking TS opinions seriously.............................dont do that.........

I mean, securities are kind of his thing, so he has some credibility in the conversation
 
In soviet Russia, income inequality brings down YOU! Wait, I'm not sure I'm getting that joke right.

I don't really mind income inequality if everyone is still doing better. I know there's a big problem of envy, but shit like uber, amazon prime, smart phones have all come about under the current system. Actual poverty is more of a concern than someone who still lives better than royalty 80 years ago but are pissed because someone they don't know is really rich.
In Soviet Russia, income equalizes you!
 
I don't know all the facts but from personal experience, I didn't start doing well for myself until I learned a marketable skil
This is very true. But I wonder how much is self inflicted? People in this country live way to much on credit/debt. The average car payment in this country $371. The average credit card balance is $6375. Looking at at minimum payment of $128.
That's $499 going out the door every month.
I agree with this statement. I don't think all the blame rests on the corporations. There are plenty of companies that offer stock options and other perks. At the same time, look how many people can't or don't know how to manage their finances.
 
well they've risen at a lower rate than inflation, correct?

my bad for not explicitly stating that, or rather comparing the 'rising wages' to rising profits

I wonder if they propose some Capitol Gains tax increase (which would go against Trump's obviously), if there would be some threshold at which it kicks in. Taxing the relatively smaller gains from a personal retirement account has much greater effect than saying raising Buffett's capitol gains or Bezos's or whatever. I mean the rich have to invest somewhere, unless it's made absurdly high that money would still likely be kept in our markets (as people are already stashing things overseas and in shells/tax havens etc..), especially given the volatility in emerging markets w/ the Turkish Lira and Chinese Yuan taking hits

This is inflation adjusted:

fredgraph.png


A capital-gains increase would be OK, but I'd be worried about the impact if it got too high, and I don't think a small one would make a big difference. I'd be on board with some level of increase, but it wouldn't be the centerpiece of my approach. Similarly, I think we should be taxing large estates much more (a reversal of the recent change) and move to prevent people from getting around it. But I don't think it would do a ton to fix anything.
 
So workers (who work for their money) are plebs, but persons who earn their money by investment and money manipulation are the salt of the earth, eh?

As far as your appraisal of corporations - that they exist to pay shareholders and not employees - it's completely normative and conclusory. There's nothing natural or sovereign about the American corporate form: it's a legal creation.

Anyways, I don't always see eye to eye with Warren, but I like her position here. All corporate boards should have a worker representative, even if it would make jack shit difference to its decisions.

If you want to be the boss open your own business stop living in fairy land.
 
lol at the supply side cucks advising people to buy stocks from the companies that are already denying them a living wage.
 
I mean, securities are kind of his thing, so he has some credibility in the conversation
he spends his welfare checks on stocks, worships wall street and is a cunt, so forgive me if i dont take him seriously
 
Well I certainly like the idea of wealth redistribution.
Nobody's perfect.

Not sure if this would be the best way.
But income inequality is probably the biggest issue facing western countries today not just the US.
If it brought down the Romans it can bring down you.

Inflation and government dependence were the true reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire:


The Fall of Rome and modern parallels, by Lawrence W. Reed.

Read by Stefan Molyneux.

I partly agree, those factors brought down Rome, they can bring us down as well.
 
There's a very contentious and storied relationship between the "mainstream" press and the far-left that many fail to appreciate. People forget that far leftists were at one point most overrepresented in places like major newspapers, just as much as they were in academia and entertainment. That was until they were purged from the industry and jailed during the Red Scare. And for decades following their expulsion from the industry, major newspapers like NYT and WasPo cosigned the nationalist narrative that communists and socialists were traitorous and representing dangerous and dangerously ineffective policies.

I'd say that, since the press's woeful mishandling of the Iraq War, leftist confidence in the mainstream press had been rising to its highest point in many years. But that was until the pretty inexplicable and reprehensible smear campaign ran against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. That was actually really galvanizing for American communists and anarchists who had, up until that point, mostly written off Sanders as a tepid, hapless social democrat hardly worth supporting. I'd say the major newspapers, with their aggressive and shameless coverage of the race, are what brought the far left off the sidelines. I remember Salvage, which is a left-communist European publication, having a call to arms-type issue based on their collective (hehe) outrage over the American media institutions' reaction to the primary.

EDIT: Also, for all the bellyaching over Sanders, probably the single most despicable (and far worse) example of centrist/anti-leftist/neoliberal bias in media was the British media's smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn.

And seeing that type of response to a mere New Deal social democrat? I think it's understandable that persons like Viva might be inclined to assume that these papers' directors are anti-leftist neoliberals.

I think that's fine (I certainly don't agree that Sanders was smeared by the MSM, but the rest of it). But I'm thinking specifically of the mainstream *left*. Vox, for example, wouldn't be part of the MSM but they're a major voice on the left. Viva just assumed that they'd be against this proposal and in favor of tax cuts deregulation (!). That's way off, and I think a lot of leftists who don't pay attention have the same wrong impression.
 
I think that's fine (I certainly don't agree that Sanders was smeared by the MSM, but the rest of it). But I'm thinking specifically of the mainstream *left*. Vox, for example, wouldn't be part of the MSM but they're a major voice on the left. Viva just assumed that they'd be against this proposal and in favor of tax cuts deregulation (!). That's way off, and I think a lot of leftists who don't pay attention have the same wrong impression.
if we count YT, then i'd argue Vox is the MSM now (certainly for younger people)

It's easily the most supported and highlighted left leaning channel on YT (with the Young Turks being second), they also generally get more views than CNN and MSNBC (although they don't have that cable alternative to draw views away)

edit: then again, this same argument could be used to argue Alex Jones was MSM for the right, and that's clearly not the case, so ya. I'm wrong, my bad haha
 
if we count YT, then i'd argue Vox is the MSM now (certainly for younger people)

It's easily the most supported and highlighted left leaning channel on YT (with the Young Turks being second), they also generally get more views than CNN and MSNBC (although they don't have that cable alternative to draw views away)

edit: then again, this same argument could be used to argue Alex Jones was MSM for the right, and that's clearly not the case, so ya. I'm wrong, my bad haha

I think mainstream means mainstream. The MSM is the major newspapers and TV stations that appeal to a mass audience (CNN yes, but not MSNBC). Vox is more of a specialty media that is mainstream on the left specifically (like MSNBC). And I'd consider TYT or Jones to be fringe media.
 
I think mainstream means mainstream. The MSM is the major newspapers and TV stations that appeal to a mass audience (CNN yes, but not MSNBC). Vox is more of a specialty media that is mainstream on the left specifically (like MSNBC). And I'd consider TYT or Jones to be fringe media.
fair enough, I agree
 
Back
Top