Wealth Inequality

luutzu · 24 December 2014

Bill M said:
Your comment is spot on and then luutzu posted that video which mentions exactly what you did.

The is a very interesting documentary. I think about that working lady's comment, her salary was being cut and her medical insurance downgraded and she said something like "why is it that when someone makes $10 Million or a company makes $20 billion in profits do they want to take away the very little I receive." Pretty sad but true and it is one of the reasons I believe in having unions to help you get that fair pay. Respect your workers, value them, reward them fairly and build a strong middle class. I might add that at least here in Australia we are doing it a bit better than the Americans.

I wish more people like the Robert Reich's of the world were actually in charge and changing the world for the better. Thanks for the video, I watched it all.

It's be great if our leadership are made up of people like Reiche. Though it seems that people like him rarely get to the very top - those jobs tend to go to the politicians who are good looking, friendly and speaks well. And when they're genuinely good, the political side of them tend to compromise the means to get to a prefered end, and as Reich said in one of his other interviews... too often the means then become an end or the end fades and be forgotten.

Yea, I think Australians are better of than Americans... but I think we're heading their way.
Social Security, Medicare, affordable education... it's going to be cut and privatised and we'll be told that there's just too many lazy bums or we have to live within our means.

Not sure if it's in that doco but Reiche said that with the onset of the Great Depression, every American advisors told FDR to turn Communist because Capitalism was finished and the only other option was Fascism. People were starving and lining the streets, there are riots in their MidWest; in Europe the Nazi was rising and the old capitalists were crumbling...

This was predicted by Marx where he said that the nature of capitalists is they're only after money and so will exploit people and gov't for more money, and with more money they will influence politics and so become richer and richer while the masses get poorer and poorer until they won't take it anymore and rises up etc.

The Czars were gone, Hitler planning to rule most of Europe and the British Empire was on the brink.

What saved Democracy wasn't Capitalism... it was the New Deal: Social Security, minimum wages, regulations, gov't policies and investments (Socialism?). These were the things that kept the last great Democracy in place and build those "arsenal of democracy" and all that.

Then after WW2, capitalism didn't finance free or affordable higher education, or invest in roads and bridges...

But these things, apparently since Reagan and Thatcher came to power in the late 70s... are forgotten and we're at it again... with a poorer middle class, less opportunities, and the rich are getting richer and big corporations' profits are privatised while risks and losses are paid for by the public.

Let's hope we don't have to have another world war to learn what we've learnt.

luutzu · 24 December 2014

DeepState said:
A worthwhile perspective from Montier (GMO):

https://www.gmo.com/America/CMSAtta...v67VQg/NVUMWsYvi3A2/L+S28A7Pthjp7LmOfLYQfHMJc

View attachment 60870

The world's dumbest idea is shareholder value maximisation....rampant capitalism. The type that causes huge inequality via many channels and was a source of scorn from Reich in his last book, Supercapitalism.

View attachment 60871

Everyone's lesson +1. Easy to say.

The way it is measured, yea, that make it a dumb idea: measuring quarter by quarter, expecting ever rising sales and earnings every 12 months without missing a beat... yea that led to managerial short sightedness and bad policies. But I don't think his suggested solution works either.

True that good businesses create values for all its stakeholders and not just shareholders, but aside from owners/investors taking a slightly longer view than a year or a quarter... how else do we measure the benefits of social/employee policies?

I think we ought to trust that businesses would create value for their customers, and this is done by treating employees well etc.... but ultimately, if a business can continue to be profitable without these niceties (which I don't think they can for long) then it's not shareholders' job to really push for it. It's the job of gov't.

Regulate so that at the minimum workers and standards are so and so, tax fairly so the community as well as investors benefits...

anyway, easier said than done.

DeepState · 24 December 2014

luutzu said:
... But I don't think his suggested solution works either.

True that good businesses create values for all its stakeholders and not just shareholders, but aside from owners/investors taking a slightly longer view than a year or a quarter... how else do we measure the benefits of social/employee policies?

I think we ought to trust that businesses would create value for their customers, and this is done by treating employees well etc.... but ultimately, if a business can continue to be profitable without these niceties (which I don't think they can for long) then it's not shareholders' job to really push for it. It's the job of gov't.

Regulate so that at the minimum workers and standards are so and so, tax fairly so the community as well as investors benefits...

anyway, easier said than done.

His solution called for advocates for customers (think Consumer Affairs, product standards, ACCC), employees (think unions, labour standards, social security), tax payers (think budgets, tax policy) as well as for shareholders. He could have mentioned climate and other public goods as well. In combination they produce a balancing set of forces to what would transpire in the event of pure capitalism. That's what he was on about and it would not happen if the shareholder was an absolute monarch. If it were, it would be a social disaster of greater proportion than currently discussed. In the event, these forces do exist but their power is too weak relative to the cult of capitalism to produce good societal outcomes in the longer term - at least as he perceives it whilst benefiting from and adding to burgeoning inequality each year whilst pumping this stuff out. That's his point and achieving a balance of forces is his 'solution'. I find it hard to understand why such a prescription could not work in some form. Further, it's a job that requires more than government. There is more to life than government although it does set the boundaries if these are respected and enforceable. What happens within that is very important. We aren't in a totalitarian state, last I looked. We have choices and our choices count.

He did not, however, offer any direct advice on how this would be achieved. I'm quite sure he has a well thought out view, but we'll have to await another entertaining and insightful book to arise after his retirement.

Measurement is interesting. You can measure SV in some ways. You seem to imply that lack of ability to measure this stuff adequately then subverts the balance of forces argument and shackles the responsibility back on the corporate and the government. This dyad is what is causing the misery detailed all over this thread. If there is truth to the inequality argument, then this set-up doesn't work. Reich's argument was all about how this set-up fails and has failed. In the long term, so the argument goes, employees will be so heavily marginalised that those who are employed will be earning cents in the dollar and the world economy will collapse in social upheaval at some stage as the workers won't be able to buy anything and government budgets implode under the weight of lower personal and corporate taxation and higher social benefits. Probably true...but that does not seem to be restraining the capitalist steam train back at HQ. The incentives point in the opposite direction. Your assumption of some self-correcting system at the level of the corporate requires serious reconsideration and is at odds with much of what you have espoused previously. This is why SVM is the dumbest idea going. Left unconstrained, it kills the society that feeds it.

There are heaps of measures of social welfare. Tonnes more than appear as items in a three-way account with 100 pages of notes. In combination, we can observe the health of a society and a nation. It's up to the joint effort and each element individually to decide what is relevant and what is desirable for each setting. Poverty, for example, would probably be a variable you'd like to keep lower - all things equal. You can measure it. Social fabric via health, job security, unemployment, children born, dispersion of household composition, dependence on social security, form received....and on and on it goes. It's not that you cannot measure it accurately enough to understand what is going on (and you can always get more stuff), it is a matter of deciding what want and getting to it efficiently, taking into account competing requirements.

Not easy. Worthwhile nonetheless. The question, for me, is why is it that many of the balancing forces are so weak today when there is so much inequality? It is surprising unless the special interest groups argument is alive and well. If so, the democratic process is supposed to ultimately constrain this. Why isn't it? Is it because the populace which is suffering most can't get its act together enough to even realise that it has a vote, realise and understand the choices available and that it actually means something?

Lesser inequality existed when education levels were much lower than today....and much less egalitarian than they are now... By the way, universities and other educational institutions are not high fixed cost low variable cost entities as you assume them to be. Quite the opposite, actually. Check the data. I have. How does that change your calculus? How will you measure the benefit to society of having 10k more PhD qualified burger flippers specialising in astronomy and medieval history? A hundred thousand students essentially trained to become philosphers and renaissance men and women without actual apparent demand for these skills in a direct sense. We do not lack for these skills in the workforce broadly. However, there is a certain dead weight cost to providing this education. It is nowhere near as small as has been stated....not that I disagree with the concept. The economics in the train of argument is missing some vital elements. Still, it's a question of extent and the detail of how the cost is determined, spread and applied. We do have liberal arts degrees, for example. Society must be very rich indeed to suggest that everyone is entitled to a tertiary education for the sake of more informed political debate. It would also lead to a heavy burden on current society unless it is fully debt funded (!!!) for gains that will not really become apparent for a generation or two..and which would be worth less to them in that event (if this whole thing is even correct - which is not even close to proven). Isn't that inequality?

luutzu · 24 December 2014

DeepState said:
His solution called for advocates for customers (think Consumer Affairs, product standards, ACCC), employees (think unions, labour standards, social security), tax payers (think budgets, tax policy) as well as for shareholders. He could have mentioned climate and other public goods as well. In combination they produce a balancing set of forces to what would transpire in the event of pure capitalism. That's what he was on about and it would not happen if the shareholder was an absolute monarch. If it were, it would be a social disaster of greater proportion than currently discussed. In the event, these forces do exist but their power is too weak relative to the cult of capitalism to produce good societal outcomes in the longer term - at least as he perceives it whilst benefiting from and adding to burgeoning inequality each year whilst pumping this stuff out. That's his point and achieving a balance of forces is his 'solution'. I find it hard to understand why such a prescription could not work in some form. Further, it's a job that requires more than government. There is more to life than government although it does set the boundaries if these are respected and enforceable. What happens within that is very important. We aren't in a totalitarian state, last I looked. We have choices and our choices count.

From the image you posted, the guy's solution seem to have already been adopted by all major corporations - at least it appear so in their annual reports.

There's always a couple of paragraphs and a few charts and pages on safety and how it's important; there's some community donations or programmes they're involved in or donated to etc. Then there might be some talk about the value and cost savings the company brings to its customers.

What I'm saying is that companies recognise that these might bring value to all stakeholders, might benefit themselves and their own shareholders... but how balanced are these? Do they care as much for the community and the environment as much as to their shareholders (if they care that much to their shareholders all that much), do they make sure they pay their employees fairly, help the retrenched or help fund further trainings? Not really. And that's not their job.

I agree that a good long term business brings value to their customers, bring value to the community it operates in, pay benefits and rewards their employees fairly to motivate them better etc.... But profit can be, and often are, attained by simple lip service to caring for employees and the environment and other stakeholders.

So maybe a more thoughtful solution is, one, to assume that in general most corporations think long term and make decisions that would generally benefit all stakeholders; but more importantly, to also assume that that is not their job, that is the job of gov't - to make sure that employees are taken care of, taxes are paid, and corporations and its shareholders does not profit at the expense of other stakeholders.

In other words, while we would hope that what's good for GM or BHP or RIO is also good for their country; we ought to not leave it at that. Wishing it doesn't make it true.

DeepState said:
He did not, however, offer any direct advice on how this would be achieved. I'm quite sure he has a well thought out view, but we'll have to await another entertaining and insightful book to arise after his retirement.

Measurement is interesting. You can measure SV in some ways. You seem to imply that lack of ability to measure this stuff adequately then subverts the balance of forces argument and shackles the responsibility back on the corporate and the government. This dyad is what is causing the misery detailed all over this thread. If there is truth to the inequality argument, then this set-up doesn't work. Reich's argument was all about how this set-up fails and has failed. In the long term, so the argument goes, employees will be so heavily marginalised that those who are employed will be earning cents in the dollar and the world economy will collapse in social upheaval at some stage as the workers won't be able to buy anything and government budgets implode under the weight of lower personal and corporate taxation and higher social benefits. Probably true...but that does not seem to be restraining the capitalist steam train back at HQ. The incentives point in the opposite direction. Your assumption of some self-correcting system at the level of the corporate requires serious reconsideration and is at odds with much of what you have espoused previously. This is why SVM is the dumbest idea going. Left unconstrained, it kills the society that feeds it.

Maybe it was late but I thought I agreed with you. That yes, SVM is a dumb idea and if left unconstrained will harm society... BUT, how do we or the gov't/regulators tell corporations to be nice and benefit all stakeholders? Unless we want to try Communist's style and centralised/command the economy (which will lead to a bigger disaster), we would have to see that corporations are greedy, self-interested "people" who only care for themselves and will do anything they can get away with to make a buck... then seeing that, make certain regulations so that the benefits, if not done voluntarily or directly, will at least benefit all stakeholders through gov't wealth re-distribution/taxation etc.

We really don't want to be like Alan Greenspan and assume that corporations and people are intelligent and self-interested and so will always do what's best for them, and what's best for them also mean what's best for society and employees etc. and so no regulations are needed as the market is its own regulators... and then the GFC happen and oopppsss.

DeepState said:
There are heaps of measures of social welfare. Tonnes more than appear as items in a three-way account with 100 pages of notes. In combination, we can observe the health of a society and a nation. It's up to the joint effort and each element individually to decide what is relevant and what is desirable for each setting. Poverty, for example, would probably be a variable you'd like to keep lower - all things equal. You can measure it. Social fabric via health, job security, unemployment, children born, dispersion of household composition, dependence on social security, form received....and on and on it goes. It's not that you cannot measure it accurately enough to understand what is going on (and you can always get more stuff), it is a matter of deciding what want and getting to it efficiently, taking into account competing requirements.

Not easy. Worthwhile nonetheless. The question, for me, is why is it that many of the balancing forces are so weak today when there is so much inequality? It is surprising unless the special interest groups argument is alive and well. If so, the democratic process is supposed to ultimately constrain this. Why isn't it? Is it because the populace which is suffering most can't get its act together enough to even realise that it has a vote, realise and understand the choices available and that it actually means something?

Easy, the poor can't afford lobbyists.

The only lobbyists they can afford are the free ones - their representatives in Parliament. But those representatives got their own job to worry about, got their own masters.

As Chomsky said, we're not living in a democracy... we're living in a farce of a democracy. A real democracy, Chomsky goes on, would be one where the people would draft up policies and their representatives would implement it. Here we have policies being written for us, and they get debated in parliament and deals are made behind closed doors between MPs and Senators etc... and they're passed.

So it's not that the people doesn't know or vote against their interests, it's just they know too much and understand that politics and policies are for the masters and they will just have to get a job or two to hopefully put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

So what's the difference between Labor and the ALP Coalition? Or Democrat and Republicans in the US? Not that much. So what choices?

When did Tony or Johnny Howard visit my place? Or yours? I've seen Howard dropping by Kerry Packer's and I'm pretty sure Tony is only a phone call away for the Murdochs.

For the rest of us, we might get to meet them if it's election season and we're at Westfields and have a cute baby they could kiss.

DeepState said:
Lesser inequality existed when education levels were much lower than today....and much less egalitarian than they are now... By the way, universities and other educational institutions are not high fixed cost low variable cost entities as you assume them to be. Quite the opposite, actually. Check the data. I have. How does that change your calculus? How will you measure the benefit to society of having 10k more PhD qualified burger flippers specialising in astronomy and medieval history? A hundred thousand students essentially trained to become philosphers and renaissance men and women without actual apparent demand for these skills in a direct sense. We do not lack for these skills in the workforce broadly. However, there is a certain dead weight cost to providing this education. It is nowhere near as small as has been stated....not that I disagree with the concept. The economics in the train of argument is missing some vital elements. Still, it's a question of extent and the detail of how the cost is determined, spread and applied. We do have liberal arts degrees, for example. Society must be very rich indeed to suggest that everyone is entitled to a tertiary education for the sake of more informed political debate. It would also lead to a heavy burden on current society unless it is fully debt funded (!!!) for gains that will not really become apparent for a generation or two..and which would be worth less to them in that event (if this whole thing is even correct - which is not even close to proven). Isn't that inequality?

Inequality to a lot of people, myself included, does not mean that if I earn $100k and the CEO earns $10M I'm still not happy. Does not mean that CEO or rich people must not be too much richer than me.

Inequality is when people work hard but can't afford a house, work two jobs, barely see their kids and at the end of the week have $20 in their bank account; work hard and earns $50K a year but pays 30% in taxes while a guy that, also work hard, earns $10M and pays 15% in taxes.

Why not show us the data on university cost structure.

If I have a class, how much does it cost me extra to have another seat for an extra student? The same or nearly as much? So I'm not saying how much the university charges the gov't... But if we're going to privatise higher education that's what we'll get.

Sine when does uni education means a liberal arts degree? Train more engineers, more researchers, train more liberal art students and let them enlighten the masses with something other than reality tv and gossip newspapers.

Mate, I'm sure you'd spend anything to put your kids through school and university... Why can't the gov't do that if that's what people want? Not cost effective?

Education is an investment.

It's not made so we have interesting burger flippers or know-it all cab drivers or shoe shine boys debating politics. Education should be invested in so that graduates/citizens are better trained, more competitive and adaptive to future challenges; and in that training they might read a few books and learn a few other things and start to think and question gov't policies...

Having an educated populace is not for trivial matters - it help lift and redefine your workforce, and it enlightened and inform the masses to know their rights and to demand policies that favour them and their community more than big end of town.

But these are just dreams anyway... An educated and informed populace, as Chomsky quoted some Think Tank in the US, would be considered a "crisis of democracy".

Smurf1976 · 24 December 2014

luutzu said:
Having an educated populace is not for trivial matters - it help lift and redefine your workforce, and it enlightened and inform the masses to know their rights and to demand policies that favour them and their community more than big end of town.

Agreed in principle, though I'm not sure it's really working in practice.

Go back 20 or 30 years and there was a lot more real public debate surrounding "hard" issues than there is today.

When the GST was first proposed (1993 from memory) there was a huge amount of public debate surrounding it. It's hard to imagine that occurring today over practically anything. Sure, we get the odd protest about this, that or something else but they are largely ignored by most these days and nothing like they once were. The masses have, it seems, largely switched off and "outsourced" their thinking to others.

The recent fuss about the federal budget is a case in point. Plenty of opposition and a lot of words spoken, but not much in terms of serious public debate about the nation's finances, what the options are, and what ought to be done. It pretty much degenerated right from the start into an anti-Coalition stance devoid of any real thought. That's not to defend the government, they handled it incredibly poorly in my view, but the opposition, media and general public haven't done too well either. At best, we have calls for government to come up with something better but few if any willing to do so themselves.

Whilst I haven't always agreed with their views, I've always admired the Greens / environmentalists in general for their ability to get things done with limited resources and the odds very firmly stacked against them. I'm certainly not the only one to have have that view, there's plenty of people who didn't like their ideas but who were in awe of their abilities to turn their ideas into reality. It really was the mouse versus the lion with a lot of the early environmental debates, and within a few years the mouse was winning pretty consistently whilst the lion wondered what the hell had just happened. But in 2014, even the environmental movement has largely lost that enthusiasm and is little more than another noise in the background.

I agree that education ought to lift the standard of debate as a general principle. But the decline in the standard of media reporting, and of politics itself, has undone the increase in education levels so far as public debate over serious issues is concerned.

luutzu · 26 December 2014

Smurf1976 said:
Agreed in principle, though I'm not sure it's really working in practice.

Go back 20 or 30 years and there was a lot more real public debate surrounding "hard" issues than there is today.

When the GST was first proposed (1993 from memory) there was a huge amount of public debate surrounding it. It's hard to imagine that occurring today over practically anything. Sure, we get the odd protest about this, that or something else but they are largely ignored by most these days and nothing like they once were. The masses have, it seems, largely switched off and "outsourced" their thinking to others.

The recent fuss about the federal budget is a case in point. Plenty of opposition and a lot of words spoken, but not much in terms of serious public debate about the nation's finances, what the options are, and what ought to be done. It pretty much degenerated right from the start into an anti-Coalition stance devoid of any real thought. That's not to defend the government, they handled it incredibly poorly in my view, but the opposition, media and general public haven't done too well either. At best, we have calls for government to come up with something better but few if any willing to do so themselves.

Whilst I haven't always agreed with their views, I've always admired the Greens / environmentalists in general for their ability to get things done with limited resources and the odds very firmly stacked against them. I'm certainly not the only one to have have that view, there's plenty of people who didn't like their ideas but who were in awe of their abilities to turn their ideas into reality. It really was the mouse versus the lion with a lot of the early environmental debates, and within a few years the mouse was winning pretty consistently whilst the lion wondered what the hell had just happened. But in 2014, even the environmental movement has largely lost that enthusiasm and is little more than another noise in the background.

I agree that education ought to lift the standard of debate as a general principle. But the decline in the standard of media reporting, and of politics itself, has undone the increase in education levels so far as public debate over serious issues is concerned.

Yea I guess that's what we get when you put too much emphasis on specialisation and technical, practicality in education.

So we have "educated" professionals and "less educated" tradespeople who know and have little interest to know anything else outside their specialty, and then you have the masters of men who work politics and gov't and move the world like it's their own chess board. And then you have the Murdochs feeding sponsored "news" to inform the population whenever they thought they might like to check things out a little.

I think most of us do not read history or philosophy or learn critical thinking until we're near or already are in retirement... we're too busy putting food on the table and all that so fair enough... But I think High School would be the best place for these subjects as it would familiarise students on the subject and they might get to learning it as they enter the wider world.

More useful to have some insight into how the world works when you're about to enter it, when you're at an age where you could affect the most change than when you're in retirement, I think.

But then that would cause a crisis in democracy. It's very tough to scaremongering people who votes into things when they know that that's one of your tools in trade.

Smurf1976 · 26 December 2014

luutzu said:
Yea I guess that's what we get when you put too much emphasis on specialisation and technical, practicality in education.

Primary school - broad based but nothing too serious by its' very nature. That said, I'm sure there's something more worthwhile to teach about than doing dinosaurs year after year.

High school - starts to become a bit more focused on "technical" things and there's a lot of wasted opportunities there in my opinion. I recall a lot of time spent analysing fiction books and learning and re-learning once again about the First Fleet but not too much on real-world politics etc.

Anything post-high school - for most people it's about getting a job at that point. If someone studies medicine or engineering then in most cases that's with the intent of working in a related field. They're not doing it just to broaden their knowledge.

Born, early years, school, uni / TAFE, work, personal relationships, children, retire, die. That's pretty much the mainstream life cycle for which the education system seems to be largely set up for. It doesn't teach anyone to start a revolution or otherwise challenge the system.

Finance is a case in point that's relevant to this forum. People finish school with no idea how to manage money in many cases, and yet it's a real world, practical skill far more important than anything to do with dinosaurs. But then, if you teach everyone how to manage money, well that doesn't really suit the current economic system too well as it relies on people ending up in debt. Cynical perhaps, but I think that's fairly true.

burglar · 26 December 2014

Smurf1976 said:
... Cynical perhaps, but I think that's fairly true.

In Europe they have Railway school !!
You grow up learning Schedules and Resource Management.

luutzu · 27 December 2014

Smurf1976 said:
Primary school - broad based but nothing too serious by its' very nature. That said, I'm sure there's something more worthwhile to teach about than doing dinosaurs year after year.

High school - starts to become a bit more focused on "technical" things and there's a lot of wasted opportunities there in my opinion. I recall a lot of time spent analysing fiction books and learning and re-learning once again about the First Fleet but not too much on real-world politics etc.

Anything post-high school - for most people it's about getting a job at that point. If someone studies medicine or engineering then in most cases that's with the intent of working in a related field. They're not doing it just to broaden their knowledge.

Born, early years, school, uni / TAFE, work, personal relationships, children, retire, die. That's pretty much the mainstream life cycle for which the education system seems to be largely set up for. It doesn't teach anyone to start a revolution or otherwise challenge the system.

Finance is a case in point that's relevant to this forum. People finish school with no idea how to manage money in many cases, and yet it's a real world, practical skill far more important than anything to do with dinosaurs. But then, if you teach everyone how to manage money, well that doesn't really suit the current economic system too well as it relies on people ending up in debt. Cynical perhaps, but I think that's fairly true.

I think that when we really look at politics and gov't policies, sounding cynical and coming out of it a bit sick to our stomach is heading in the right direction.

I mean, who is the worst most evil, most deceitful, most conniving person in history (before Hitler)? Nicolo Machiavelli. Why? Because he wrote The Prince (and most probably don't read his Discourses). But the Prince is merely a (summarised) study of statecraft and the lessons that can be drawn from the deeds of princes and statesmen as described in the first ten books of Livy's the History of Rome.

Imagine writing a great and honest book, telling things as they are and have you name becoming an adjective for all that is bad and evil.

A good summary on purpose of education by Chomsky below. Just don't show it to your grade school kids else they might end up too smart and be unemployed and unmarried.

DeepState · 27 December 2014

luutzu said:
From the image you posted, the guy's solution seem to have already been adopted by all major corporations - at least it appear so in their annual reports.

Are hoping to be taken seriously with that extrapolation?

luutzu said:
I agree that a good long term business brings value to their customers, bring value to the community it operates in, pay benefits and rewards their employees fairly to motivate them better etc.... But profit can be, and often are, attained by simple lip service to caring for employees and the environment and other stakeholders.

So maybe a more thoughtful solution is, one, to assume that in general most corporations think long term and make decisions that would generally benefit all stakeholders; but more importantly, to also assume that that is not their job, that is the job of gov't - to make sure that employees are taken care of, taxes are paid, and corporations and its shareholders does not profit at the expense of other stakeholders.

In other words, while we would hope that what's good for GM or BHP or RIO is also good for their country; we ought to not leave it at that. Wishing it doesn't make it true.

You might be interested in the concept of Universal Ownership which is catching hold. It takes corporate governance to the next level. It is heavily backed and, I think, something very hopeful in that direction. I genuinely would be interested in your critique of it. Future Fund and other monster funds are active in this area.

luutzu said:
Maybe it was late but I thought I agreed with you. That yes, SVM is a dumb idea and if left unconstrained will harm society... BUT, how do we or the gov't/regulators tell corporations to be nice and benefit all stakeholders? Unless we want to try Communist's style and centralised/command the economy (which will lead to a bigger disaster), we would have to see that corporations are greedy, self-interested "people" who only care for themselves and will do anything they can get away with to make a buck... then seeing that, make certain regulations so that the benefits, if not done voluntarily or directly, will at least benefit all stakeholders through gov't wealth re-distribution/taxation etc.

We really don't want to be like Alan Greenspan and assume that corporations and people are intelligent and self-interested and so will always do what's best for them, and what's best for them also mean what's best for society and employees etc. and so no regulations are needed as the market is its own regulators... and then the GFC happen and oopppsss.

The article was all about how to contain what you have mentioned above. We obviously did not agree.

luutzu said:
Easy, the poor can't afford lobbyists.

The only lobbyists they can afford are the free ones - their representatives in Parliament. But those representatives got their own job to worry about, got their own masters.

As Chomsky said, we're not living in a democracy... we're living in a farce of a democracy. A real democracy, Chomsky goes on, would be one where the people would draft up policies and their representatives would implement it. Here we have policies being written for us, and they get debated in parliament and deals are made behind closed doors between MPs and Senators etc... and they're passed.

We are moving more to a plutocracy. That doesn't make it a plutocracy. You can draft your own law and pass it to your member for further action. Give it a go. Show me the law against it if you think it exists.
You can present yourself to election and serve the people who elected you as well, if you like. Choosing them instead of the dollars as your masters. The superannuation plan is truly outstanding and your service would be well rewarded. Independents do get elected. Minor parties do as well. It’s not all about connections to those who do not have you on auto-dial or would hang up on you if you called.

Your parents brought you to Australia. In between rubbishing stuff and flagellating some notion of a system stacked against you, you seem to think it is a good place to be. Here you have a chance. Make the difference if you think the system is broken. A female, gay, foreign born Chinese Asian descendent is Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Got it? Whinging is in excess supply, that's why the price is zero. The value approximates the price. Is this just entertainment style outrage? Fine if so – it’s good stuff. But if you really really want to make a difference, you can.

luutzu said:
So it's not that the people doesn't know or vote against their interests, it's just they know too much and understand that politics and policies are for the masters and they will just have to get a job or two to hopefully put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

So now the people know how to vote and about their interests. Too much, as a matter of fact. No need for additional education then. You do shift even strident and central arguments on a dime. No additional facts are even required.

luutzu said:
So what choices?

If the domestic situation doesn’t provide you with enough examples of what choice does to the Senate, then look to Europe to see what choice brings.

luutzu said:
When did Tony or Johnny Howard visit my place? Or yours? I've seen Howard dropping by Kerry Packer's and I'm pretty sure Tony is only a phone call away for the Murdochs.

For the rest of us, we might get to meet them if it's election season and we're at Westfields and have a cute baby they could kiss.

Are you actually serious about making change or just venting your lack of contacts, unacceptable life circumstances and severe lack of influence at the current time?
How old was the girl that just won the Nobel Freaking Peace Prize? Did she have the phone numbers to any of those people? Do something special….they will call you. There was a time when no one took their calls either. It’s a very lame and transparent excuse for mediocrity and you know it. Before you write it, “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know”. Yes. Make yourself worth knowing. Penny Wong.

luutzu said:
Inequality to a lot of people, myself included, does not mean that if I earn $100k and the CEO earns $10M I'm still not happy. Does not mean that CEO or rich people must not be too much richer than me.

Inequality is when people work hard but can't afford a house, work two jobs, barely see their kids and at the end of the week have $20 in their bank account; work hard and earns $50K a year but pays 30% in taxes while a guy that, also work hard, earns $10M and pays 15% in taxes.

Then you are not even talking about inequality. By the way, much of what has been written up to this point was about tyranny against the rich with talk of plutocracy and not having access to the rich and powerful (who are just slaves to the rich, anyway, apparently).

You are now referring to absolute poverty. That is very different to inequality in and of itself. You would do well not to mix one with the other. You might also do well to limit vicarious association with others with your viewpoints without their permission on matters of outright definition.
----
To this point we have now established that our populace is aware of their vote, can discern the argument and actually knows too well about the matter. This contrasts to prior arguments about needing to be educated up to make smarter political calls. Further, we are now made aware that it is not inequality you are concerned about because the rich can get richer and that would be fine. It is about absolute poverty. All the tirade against lack of power and influence only matters to the extent that it relates to absolute poverty. That is a substantively different position to what has been proposed previously.
----

luutzu said:
Why not show us the data on university cost structure.

If I have a class, how much does it cost me extra to have another seat for an extra student? The same or nearly as much? So I'm not saying how much the university charges the gov't... But if we're going to privatise higher education that's what we'll get.

Why not obtain it for yourself? You know I have the data and have done the work. Apparently you were formally educated to conduct similar, critical, analysis? Before flaying many billions around fixing an apparent educational deficit, please confirm that what we have is even worth it.

luutzu said:
Sine when does uni education means a liberal arts degree? Train more engineers, more researchers, train more liberal art students and let them enlighten the masses with something other than reality tv and gossip newspapers.

Mate, I'm sure you'd spend anything to put your kids through school and university... Why can't the gov't do that if that's what people want? Not cost effective?

You are arguing for additional critical thinking skills via formal education. You do not need to be an orthodontist to think critically. You are arguing for preparedness for adaptability for an unknown future. There is no point training to be an orthodontist if you want to prepare for industries and situations yet unknown. Liberal arts degrees are an effort to these ends.

Last I looked a liberal arts degree from a university was a uni education. Did I somehow imply that liberal arts degrees were all that unis pump out? Are you so callous with tax-payer assets - ie. mine - that you would spray it all over the place irrespective of actual vocational demand whilst preparing for an unknown future (now that we have moved past the point of requiring it for political debate)? No thanks. Give me someone who understands economics. If they screw up as much as they have in history (which has brought us from the Dark Ages to an apparent cesspit of a social system today), it will be at a slower pace than this proposal.
It’s not cost effective. Your economics is way off plantation. I do agree that there needs to be some education, a minimum. The proposal is well into the ultra-luxury range. You don’t need a Piaget watch to tell the time.
I also want to live a cancer free life and live to see my great-grand children get married to the loves of their lives. Why doesn’t the government do whatever it takes to do that given people might want it too? Not cost effective?
Wanting is not a sufficient argument. We want lots of things. It’s nice to dream…and I agree with this element. It’s just not grounded in reality.

luutzu said:
Education is an investment.

It's not made so we have interesting burger flippers or know-it all cab drivers or shoe shine boys debating politics. Education should be invested in so that graduates/citizens are better trained, more competitive and adaptive to future challenges; and in that training they might read a few books and learn a few other things and start to think and question gov't policies...

Having an educated populace is not for trivial matters - it help lift and redefine your workforce, and it enlightened and inform the masses to know their rights and to demand policies that favour them and their community more than big end of town.

But these are just dreams anyway... An educated and informed populace, as Chomsky quoted some Think Tank in the US, would be considered a "crisis of democracy".

In posts all over this site, you have admonished every thought about 'paying for the future'. No sensible valuation could allow for any concept of upside because the future could not be divined definitively. We are to assume zero growth for earnings. And now, we are being told to throw a stack of cash and productive resources well above what could possibly be supported in the absence of major intervention to transform our society from democracy/plutocracy/capitalism and more towards educationalism.

So it's fine to spend my money (probably in somewhat greater portion than yours) on an investment in the future which may or may not grow the flexibility of a nation in a way which can definitely respond to a future that cannot be known.... but it's stupid to the bone to do that for a simple company for your own money? The rationale: “Education is an investment”. For what return on investment? Both are investments. I am not comfortable with the proposal to deploy my capital under those premises in either situation. Overinvestment leads to an inevitable correction which is possibly systemic in nature….I am referring to the proposal, not China. GFC style credit risk costs are actually small compared to this.

Democracy has a problem. Democracy is only a system of trade-offs. Farce is one of them.

burglar · 27 December 2014

luutzu said:
... then you have the masters of men who work politics and gov't and move the world like it's their own chess board ...

In Russia, they have the Botvinnik School of Chess!

luutzu · 27 December 2014

DeepState said:
Are hoping to be taken seriously with that extrapolation?

You might be interested in the concept of Universal Ownership which is catching hold. It takes corporate governance to the next level. It is heavily backed and, I think, something very hopeful in that direction. I genuinely would be interested in your critique of it. Future Fund and other monster funds are active in this area.

The article was all about how to contain what you have mentioned above. We obviously did not agree.

Yea, universal ownership... awesome. Just leave corporations alone, they'd do the right thing because they figured pure capitalism isn't good for them after all. Christmas is over, back to the real world now.

DeepState said:
We are moving more to a plutocracy. That doesn't make it a plutocracy. You can draft your own law and pass it to your member for further action. Give it a go. Show me the law against it if you think it exists.
You can present yourself to election and serve the people who elected you as well, if you like. Choosing them instead of the dollars as your masters. The superannuation plan is truly outstanding and your service would be well rewarded. Independents do get elected. Minor parties do as well. It’s not all about connections to those who do not have you on auto-dial or would hang up on you if you called.

Actually, I did propose a law - well, some amendment or some possible solutions. I went to Chris Bowen's office in Fairfield when Labor was in power some 6 or 7 years ago. Bowen was deputy Finance Minister then. I never get to see him though, so I wrote a long letter of issues regarding financial fraud and ask if there's a way we can fix it, left it with his staff, I even follow it up with an email.

Never heard from him or his staff.

So yea, while you might think that politicians are all ears whenever you or your friends drop by... for most of us it might be quite different.

And no, I wasn't surprised or upset that my member of parliament doesn't have time for me. I was naive but not that silly.

DeepState said:
Your parents brought you to Australia. In between rubbishing stuff and flagellating some notion of a system stacked against you, you seem to think it is a good place to be. Here you have a chance. Make the difference if you think the system is broken. A female, gay, foreign born Chinese Asian descendent is Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Got it? Whinging is in excess supply, that's why the price is zero. The value approximates the price. Is this just entertainment style outrage? Fine if so – it’s good stuff. But if you really really want to make a difference, you can.

What made you think the system is stacked against me? I might be doing very very well for all you know. Not as well as you obviously, but probably much better than most Australians.

To think, as you obviously do, that anyone who can see how tough it is for most working people are just whining whingers... you must either be born with a silver spoon up your behind or delusional you think all have the same opportunity and those who made it are obviously hardworking and those who failed are just lazy and those who think the system is unfair and not everyone have an equal opportunity... well they're just mediocre whingers, whingers like Rhode Scholar Reich.

I've met quite a few people like you, they're quite sad. They're also a bit of an a hole, you know, thinking that they got where they are because they're just brilliant and the labourer... well, they labour in the ditches instead of sipping latte in offices because they're not as smart.

DeepState said:
So now the people know how to vote and about their interests. Too much, as a matter of fact. No need for additional education then. You do shift even strident and central arguments on a dime. No additional facts are even required.

If the domestic situation doesn’t provide you with enough examples of what choice does to the Senate, then look to Europe to see what choice brings.

You think voters don't know? They know who the politicians and the law favours, they know their place in the world... and most accept it as a fact of life. They're all thinking, as you do, that ey... even though we're poor and the politicians only pay lip service to our needs, at least they're paying lip service and not send in the police. Why, we're living in practically a paradise compare to conditions some hundred or two hundred years ago.

Didn't you post some news or database clipping earlier in the year where it said Abbott's latest budget favours the rich more? Big surprise. How do poor people know that since they can't access databases and analysis of impact on them... they might not know by living it I guess.

DeepState said:
Are you actually serious about making change or just venting your lack of contacts, unacceptable life circumstances and severe lack of influence at the current time?
How old was the girl that just won the Nobel Freaking Peace Prize? Did she have the phone numbers to any of those people? Do something special….they will call you. There was a time when no one took their calls either. It’s a very lame and transparent excuse for mediocrity and you know it. Before you write it, “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know”. Yes. Make yourself worth knowing. Penny Wong.

Why do you think I care for contacts? I know it'd be easier, as you surely do know... but contacts are a dime a dozen... why I could just google people I want to sell something to, and unlike well connected people I might have to wait a bit while their secretary confirms, but that's about it if what I sell is worthwhile. So yea, they might even call me.

I might change your industry one day and make your comeback unnecessary.

Not to belittle Malala's Nobel Peace Prize, but didn't Obama got one for just getting elected? Or Henry Kissinger another for, ohhh for bringing peace to Vietnam?

There's a lot of people, and I know some of them, who volunteer and donate and do canned food drives during winters, who goes to Laos and Cambodia during their annual leave to set up schools and help fund and dig water wells... you think a Nobel prize would make them more admirable?

Maybe they need to so you and your friends would call them up and invite them to dinners... oh, fundraisers.

DeepState said:
Then you are not even talking about inequality. By the way, much of what has been written up to this point was about tyranny against the rich with talk of plutocracy and not having access to the rich and powerful (who are just slaves to the rich, anyway, apparently).

You are now referring to absolute poverty. That is very different to inequality in and of itself. You would do well not to mix one with the other. You might also do well to limit vicarious association with others with your viewpoints without their permission on matters of outright definition.

WOW, working two jobs, maybe even three, but barely being able to feed or house your family... that, while the lucky few work 7.5 hours but literally don't know what to do with all that money.. .that to you is not about inequality, it's just poverty.

Mate, no poor person cares how much the rich make. They don't look up their database or even google up how much the Packers or the Murdoch or the Youngs earn or have relative to them... they don't get envious that for Christmas they share a couple of beers with friends and family in their little yard while the rich must be drinking whatever it is that's expensive on a yacht or some fancy place.

No worker sit their and calculate the average ratio or CEOs to workers and say that's unfair and unequal and wish it'd be 7 times instead of 300 times.

Most poor, and most sane people, would be happy to earn $100K and does not mind either way how much others earn - unlike half the Harvard professors and students in the survey you cited.

People would see it as unfair, unequal, only when they work just as hard and can't get ahead of the bills. They'd see it as unfair when they contribute more at work, are more productive, and yet get less and less pay and their job are less and less secure. Any sensible person would agree that that's unfair... only an idiot would look at the ratios and think it's unfair because it's high and the only solution is class warfare and bringing the rich down.

DeepState said:
----
To this point we have now established that our populace is aware of their vote, can discern the argument and actually knows too well about the matter. This contrasts to prior arguments about needing to be educated up to make smarter political calls. Further, we are now made aware that it is not inequality you are concerned about because the rich can get richer and that would be fine. It is about absolute poverty. All the tirade against lack of power and influence only matters to the extent that it relates to absolute poverty. That is a substantively different position to what has been proposed previously.
----

You just have no clue.

Why am I on this forum? I have an interests in stocks right? I want to be a capitalist right? I want to be rich right?

Nobody, not the poor I can assure you (even though your uncle Murdoch's papers might not) want the rich to be poor. As Reich said in that doco, the rich can get richer, and we're all talking about inequality and wanting a more equal society NOT so that the rich can be poorer, but so that the rich can ALSO get richer.

How? If the poor and the middle class are paid more, have more opportunities, more education where their skills are valued more... they could earn more, and in earning more they'd spend more, and in spending more they'd create demand and create jobs.... and so the rich capitalists can (then create jobs) and sell stuff and so make more money and yes, get richer.

How's your stock portfolio when employment or retail sales figure are low? It must be bad but that's because the companies create jobs even though there's weak or no demand right? Out of their patriotic and universal love and ownership.

---
Don't know about you but it doesn't take much (education or brainpower) to know when policies are not for you and your kind. You think poor voters turned up because they believe Labor or the Coalition will make their lives better? That the laws on the table is for them? What if they turn up because they can't afford a fine, and turning up knowing full well these laws are for the masters and hoping that maybe if the masters are richer better crumbs may trickle down?

Learn a bit of history will you. How many revolutions throughout human history were led by the poor? Or even started by the poor? Just about all, or all that I know of, were led by a few educated opportunists who saw and seizes the voice of the masses. I think Reich call them demi-gods, in history they're the likes of Mao, Napoleon, Julius Caesar... in the US in the 60s they're the Civil Rights leaders and peace protesters. Some leaders led the people to peace and the mountain top, others use it and made themselves emperors.

So the uneducated poor, while knowing too much, knowing full well the reality of politics... does not know enough its mechanisms, not enough to formulate their conditions or enough to organised effectively. And so, in knowing which way the game is tilted to, don't know what to do about it until it's too broken.

Add to that rubbish like it's a fair go country where sick or poor people are lazy, where those who think the world could be fairer are whingers or communists... Hell, Warren Buffett is pointed out as a communist.

DeepState said:
Why not obtain it for yourself? You know I have the data and have done the work. Apparently you were formally educated to conduct similar, critical, analysis? Before flaying many billions around fixing an apparent educational deficit, please confirm that what we have is even worth it.

That's rich from a man who thought spending $500 millions (estimated for 1 year) against ISIS is peanuts.

But why fix what is broken right?

DeepState said:
You are arguing for additional critical thinking skills via formal education. You do not need to be an orthodontist to think critically. You are arguing for preparedness for adaptability for an unknown future. There is no point training to be an orthodontist if you want to prepare for industries and situations yet unknown. Liberal arts degrees are an effort to these ends.

Last I looked a liberal arts degree from a university was a uni education. Did I somehow imply that liberal arts degrees were all that unis pump out? Are you so callous with tax-payer assets - ie. mine - that you would spray it all over the place irrespective of actual vocational demand whilst preparing for an unknown future (now that we have moved past the point of requiring it for political debate)? No thanks. Give me someone who understands economics. If they screw up as much as they have in history (which has brought us from the Dark Ages to an apparent cesspit of a social system today), it will be at a slower pace than this proposal.
It’s not cost effective. Your economics is way off plantation. I do agree that there needs to be some education, a minimum. The proposal is well into the ultra-luxury range. You don’t need a Piaget watch to tell the time.
I also want to live a cancer free life and live to see my great-grand children get married to the loves of their lives. Why doesn’t the government do whatever it takes to do that given people might want it too? Not cost effective?
Wanting is not a sufficient argument. We want lots of things. It’s nice to dream…and I agree with this element. It’s just not grounded in reality.

So education is a luxury and we have to live within our means right?

For those who doesn't have friends or uncles in high places, getting a start in a field different from their parents needs formal qualifications with exceptionally good grades. That's how most who came from the working poor does it. Not all, most.

So yea, while they could go to the library or the internet and learn and maybe even know more thoroughly any subject than most trained professionals, they can't get a job putting YouTube on the resume' can they?

You did imply that sending too much people to uni and we'd end up with liberal arts, overqualified burger flippers. So might as well let them be just qualified burger flippers... more cost effective, the world cannot afford to send them to tertiary education where the skills they'd learn may lead them to life-long learning and so better prepare them for the future.

Who's saying our society is like the Dark Ages? Or like it was during the Great Depression?
By your definition, progress is fine as long as we're better than the Middle Ages.

You can use economic modelling and statistics in your thinking if you want, I'd prefer to use history and common sense as a guide to general strategic planning.

How did the West got out of the Dark Ages? How did the Renaissance got started?
By some idiot sitting in some castle or monastery and thought ey, let's only train skills we need - good, practical skills like recognising witches, hanging and burning witches, torturers and of course grave diggers.

Didn't it start with the translations of classical Greek philosophies (back from Arabic translations), then the Guttenberg printing press with people learning to read through just reading the King James Bible, then move on to (now) more affordable printed books. From these small first steps, from sharing of knowledge, from a better education... the West got out of its dark ages?

How does Australian or American farmers became engineers and scientists?

But yea, wanting it is not enough people, what do you think this is? A democracy?

DeepState said:
In posts all over this site, you have admonished every thought about 'paying for the future'. No sensible valuation could allow for any concept of upside because the future could not be divined definitively. We are to assume zero growth for earnings. And now, we are being told to throw a stack of cash and productive resources well above what could possibly be supported in the absence of major intervention to transform our society from democracy/plutocracy/capitalism and more towards educationalism.

So it's fine to spend my money (probably in somewhat greater portion than yours) on an investment in the future which may or may not grow the flexibility of a nation in a way which can definitely respond to a future that cannot be known.... but it's stupid to the bone to do that for a simple company for your own money? The rationale: “Education is an investment”. For what return on investment? Both are investments. I am not comfortable with the proposal to deploy my capital under those premises in either situation. Overinvestment leads to an inevitable correction which is possibly systemic in nature….I am referring to the proposal, not China. GFC style credit risk costs are actually small compared to this.

Democracy has a problem. Democracy is only a system of trade-offs. Farce is one of them.

Yea, I'd invest in a company when I see it has no future. And when I see that once I own it and it then makes more money, I should definitely pay a higher price right now for that future prosperity when and if it happen.

I might be wrong but I'd definitely be a smarter investor in not paying for future possibilities.

Oh wait, you define investment in education and society as a capitalist investor would.

Do you do a discounted cash flow model for your kids education or weekly allowances too? I truly hope all will be well for your kids, but as parents we don't do that kind of calculations do we? We send them to the best schools we can afford, buy them the safest cars and set them up as best we could without much thinking about costs and profits, don't we?

Can't do that for the general population because... because education has proven to only make idiots out of workers and citizens? Who in the world earns more money and contributed more in technical innovations and in taxation simply through higher training. I mean, look at Germany's or Japan's skilled engineers, why they each only get about 30% cut from every iPhone while China's about 3.6%.

But then when it comes to your kids education, or when it comes to tax incentives and tax cuts for the rich and corporations.. .that's investments for the future. When it's funding public education... too much, can't afford it. Let's not overinvest because who's going to sweep my streets and clean my toilet and guard my borders and police my wealth if they're better paid and educated.

You seriously should stop making guesses at people's income or employment. It's a bit rude, and you are way off base.

Remember your own words that it's a democracy and people do rise up from nothing but their own bootstrap. So money can take you so far, but faith in yourself, hard work and respect for the common masses may take a person further. Especially one with access to Google and YouTube.

Mrmagoo · 27 December 2014

Education is ruined because of the leftist feminist assault on men. They were doing it when I was at school and it was maddening. A complete lack of technical subjects but endless droning about how all men are evil, Australians are all racists and how people without a degree in basket weaving are destined to die in the gutter.

burglar · 27 December 2014

Mrmagoo said:
... the leftist feminist assault on men ...

sydboy007 · 27 December 2014

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...oach-to-breaking-the-cycle-of-poverty/384029/

That’s why a foundation is sponsoring a new approach to breaking the cycle of poverty just a few blocks from where Davis and I spoke. It tries to give children access to high-quality, early-childhood education while helping parents get better jobs and build stronger families. It’s called the two-generation approach, and has been found to be one of the best bets in helping families escape poverty.

"This two-generation approach aims to create opportunities for families by simultaneously equipping parents and kids with the tools they need to thrive while removing the obstacles in their way," the foundation wrote, in a report about its work released this fall.

Mrmagoo · 1 January 2015

luutzu said:
Let's hope we don't have to have another world war to learn what we've learnt.

haha if someone tried to start a world war china would simply say " we do not allow this " and would pull funding.

luutzu · 1 January 2015

Mrmagoo said:
haha if someone tried to start a world war china would simply say " we do not allow this " and would pull funding.

Na, they're not that nice.

If it's against them, say the Asian Tigers Alliance backed by the US, China would "benefit" by really putting their people and manufacturing to work; reduce their own population and maybe pick up a couple new colonies.

If it's between the other major powers, they'd fund both, sit back and watch for a while then come in and mop up.

They even have a name for this in their 36 Strategies: "Stealing from a burning house". It did the US pretty well during and after WW2 and the US had only about 100 years experience before that compare to theirs 3000 years of annexing all other states to become the central kingdom.

DeepState · 3 January 2015

luutzu said:
Yea, universal ownership... awesome. Just leave corporations alone, they'd do the right thing because they figured pure capitalism isn't good for them after all.

It is interesting how this concept is dismissed before any understanding of what is being dismissed was obtained. Here is a snippet of what universal ownership is:
“Universal owners are asset owners who recognize that their portfolios, well diversified across multiple industries and asset classes, are a slice of the whole economy. The long-term interests of the universal owner, therefore, are linked more to the overall economic performance than to the individual performance of a given asset or industry within the portfolio. Universal owners are adapting their investment strategy to these circumstances”
“In most cases, the work in the area of universal ownership emphasizes on active ownership and engagement strategies”
- universalowner.com
Not quite leaving the corporations alone.

luutzu said:
Actually, I did propose a law …
Never heard from him or his staff.

So, despite the above, you were happy to use the cloak of Chomsky to declare democracy a farce despite being expressly able to do what he said could not be done. Perhaps you were witnessing a functional democracy in action which knows a bit about optimal resource deployment. To know this and put up an argument pretending that democracy does not exist because such rights are not available is disingenuous, misleading and clearly… farcical.
---

luutzu said:
What made you think the system is stacked against me?

Stuff like

luutzu said:
... then you have the masters of men who work politics and gov't and move the world like it's their own chess board ...

And, then, when you can’t get hold of these masters of men whether they are government or the puppets of the plutarchs:

luutzu said:
When did Tony or Johnny Howard visit my place? Or yours? I've seen Howard dropping by Kerry Packer's and I'm pretty sure Tony is only a phone call away for the Murdochs.

For the rest of us, we might get to meet them if it's election season and we're at Westfields and have a cute baby they could kiss.

Maybe the above is meant to convey that the system is stacked in your favour?
---

luutzu said:
I might be doing very very well for all you know. Not as well as you obviously, but probably much better than most Australians.

Did I say anything about you not doing well in terms of economic welfare? Have I suggested that you might not be doing better than the average member of the population? Anywhere?

luutzu said:
To think, as you obviously do, that anyone who can see how tough it is for most working people are just whining whingers... you must either be born with a silver spoon up your behind or delusional you think all have the same opportunity and those who made it are obviously hardworking and those who failed are just lazy and those who think the system is unfair and not everyone have an equal opportunity... well they're just mediocre whingers, whingers like Rhode Scholar Reich.

If I have stated that everyone who can see difficulty for a portion of the populace is a whining whinger, post it. If not, admit fabrication. I do not think that.
If I have stated that the all outcomes are deterministic based on talent alone, post it or admit barefaced fabrication.
Further, if I have stated that all who are doing it tough are lazy, mediocre, whingers, post it.
Is there a war going on here or something? Truth is the first casualty of war and its total absence here has me wondering for its welfare.

luutzu said:
I've met quite a few people like you, they're quite sad. They're also a bit of an a hole, you know, thinking that they got where they are because they're just brilliant and the labourer... well, they labour in the ditches instead of sipping latte in offices because they're not as smart.

You’ve met people like me? Quite a few? I very seriously doubt it. You know how people like me think even though people like me would never think what you seem to think we think?
Quite sad? It might have been because you were looking at my/our smile/s whilst upside down. Actually, I am in the Northern Hemisphere right now, so you might actually have a valid excuse for this oversight.
These incredible leaps of logic (big picture strategic thinking?) should be ditched. They are not smart.

---

luutzu said:
You think voters don't know?

What are you talking about now? It was your original position that voters needed to be better educated to make better decisions:

luutzu said:
And if we have highly qualified burger flippers... they will start asking serious questions regarding gov't policies and incentives

…then you changed it to they already know. And now it is they already know and don’t do anything about it. Are you arguing against yourself? You aren’t arguing my viewpoints, that’s for sure.
---

luutzu said:
Didn't you post some news or database clipping earlier in the year where it said Abbott's latest budget favours the rich more? Big surprise. How do poor people know that since they can't access databases and analysis of impact on them... they might not know by living it I guess.

Anyone with access to a freely available internet terminal at a local public library which has Google/Firefox/Explorer on it could access it down to very minute detail. I know this because that’s how I got it for that example. Was this a big surprise?

luutzu said:
Why do you think I care for contacts? I know it'd be easier, as you surely do know... but contacts are a dime a dozen... why I could just google people I want to sell something to, and unlike well connected people I might have to wait a bit while their secretary confirms, but that's about it if what I sell is worthwhile. So yea, they might even call me.

Contacts, like names in Yellow Pages, are dime a dozen for a specific purpose. Actually, I wouldn’t even pay a dime for a dozen. Good contacts aren’t common. One day, you might come to be able to contrast that. It is absolutely obvious you cannot distinguish this at this time. You didn’t even get past Bowen. Actually, you might not have even gotten past the people who work for Bowen – and they are theoretically working for you at a local level.

luutzu said:
I might change your industry one day and make your comeback unnecessary.

Actually, the opposite. If you do get the opportunity to change the fabric of finance on a grand scale, I might actually have to return to work - like everyone else. Firstly by reskilling at a tertiary level in geology. Then, when I graduate, I will be licensed to bang flint rocks together to create fire. At least unemployment will be zero and the participation rate 100%. Maximum utilisation of the societal resources. Mission accomplished.

luutzu said:
Not to belittle Malala's Nobel Peace Prize, but didn't Obama got one for just getting elected? Or Henry Kissinger another for, ohhh for bringing peace to Vietnam?

So why are you belittling her recognition for her contribution to humanity with this nonsense? In any case, the point was that she did incredible things without access to powerful people. You have twisted this simple point into an abomination about the award process of the Nobel Committee. What a tangent.

luutzu said:
There's a lot of people, and I know some of them, who volunteer and donate and do canned food drives during winters, who goes to Laos and Cambodia during their annual leave to set up schools and help fund and dig water wells... you think a Nobel prize would make them more admirable?
Maybe they need to so you and your friends would call them up and invite them to dinners... oh, fundraisers.

How low does this odious cesspit of non-sequitors, tangents, obfuscations and ridiculousness go?

luutzu said:
WOW, working two jobs, maybe even three, but barely being able to feed or house your family... that, while the lucky few work 7.5 hours but literally don't know what to do with all that money.. .that to you is not about inequality, it's just poverty.

Inequality (Cambridge): unfair situation in society when some people have more opportunities, money, etc. than other people
Absolute poverty (Wikipedia): a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.
I didn’t make these definitions up any more than I made up the definition for cat. I describe a cat as a cat when I see one. Obviously, nothing compels you to do likewise and you are demonstrating your freedom to partake in adding to complexity of the genetic pool of the English language. Still I’d like to point out that what you called a rhino was actually a cat.

luutzu said:
Mate, no poor person cares how much the rich make.
…
People would see it as unfair, unequal, only when they work just as hard and can't get ahead of the bills. They'd see it as unfair when they contribute more at work, are more productive, and yet get less and less pay and their job are less and less secure. Any sensible person would agree that that's unfair... only an idiot would look at the ratios and think it's unfair because it's high and the only solution is class warfare and bringing the rich down.

So, now, what are we talking about? Are we now moving to ‘unfair’ without having concluded on ‘inequality’, let alone ‘absolute poverty’ and suggesting that those experiencing ‘poverty’ don’t care what the rich make even just a little? Class warfare? I hope you’ll acknowledge that I haven’t even raised those issues in this exchange. Your mind reading should tell you that I would not have those ‘idiotic’ views.
Referring to your comments, apparently all revolutions that you can recall may not have been started by the poor. However, as you say, they involved the poor for who else are the demi-gods stirring up as fodder? Revolutions tend to take down at least some of the elite. Perhaps, the poor did get just a little upset making it easier for the revisionists to stir up a little fervour? Maybe one was a little upset that King Louis de Vuitton was making out like a bandit when the rest were working harder and doing it tougher…wanting to change the order of things a little, get some payback?
Maybe no-one who was poor turned up to protest at the Occupy Movements around various parts of the world post GFC. “We are the 99%” slogans actually meant that part of the bottom 99% who are not poor. So something like “We are the middle 80%”, or something like it, would have been more correct and reflect the truth as you see it. I have my doubts. Someone out there must know stats and would have posted a placard along those lines if that’s what they actually meant. Being outside of the 1% doesn’t make you unable to understand or use stats, or even decide for themselves whether they are poor or not, at all. No more so than saying they are all stupid or sheeple. So unless they are all stupid and/or liars operating in a cartel, the observations are apart from your assertions. Alternatively, the “99%” concept was unrelated to wealth of income.

luutzu said:
You just have no clue.

Were you inspired by the reflection in the screen as you wrote that? Can you define clue for me? Did you mean cue? Have you changed your mind to favour glue instead of clue since writing this? Are all people with glue that you have met, like me, drivers of Ferraris who splash puddles on the destitute because we think they might be thirsty and deserve to be wet even if not thirsty? That people who are wet or thirsty are therefore stupid?

luutzu said:
Why am I on this forum? I have an interests in stocks right? I want to be a capitalist right? I want to be rich right?

Don't know about you but it doesn't take much (education or brainpower) to know when policies are not for you and your kind.

…hence no particular pressing need for education levels to be raised for political debate. Learn a little bit of history on this thread for the last couple of days by reviewing just what you authored alone. What the heck are you disagreeing with? You are disagreeing with yourself again.

luutzu said:
Who's saying our society is like the Dark Ages? Or like it was during the Great Depression?

Don’t know. Who said it? Anyone? Put your hand up!

luutzu said:
By your definition, progress is fine as long as we're better than the Middle Ages.

Definitions in dictionaries are not exactly a strong point. When you add mind reading, you get sparks. We have made progress to get from the Middle Ages to present circumstances. Because I have now made this statement, you might choose to disagree. In any case, the direction of progress at any given time may not be optimal. Were it for different choices, for example, our progress might have been much greater – depending on whatever is important to society. Most certainly, progress will not always be fine despite historical gains made.

luutzu said:
You can use economic modelling and statistics in your thinking if you want, I'd prefer to use history and common sense as a guide to general strategic planning.

With history as your guide but not even basic statistics and an understanding of economic relationships with that when operating within the field of economics and finance? Driving by looking backwards with the foggy rear view mirror in a car not suited for terrain with only and common sense to guide you with what will happen next? Common sense dictates that you don’t even turn the ignition. That sentiment should really be reflected in the first sentence of the strategic plan.

luutzu said:
Oh wait, you define investment in education and society as a capitalist investor would.

Do you do a discounted cash flow model for your kids education or weekly allowances too? I truly hope all will be well for your kids, but as parents we don't do that kind of calculations do we? We send them to the best schools we can afford, buy them the safest cars and set them up as best we could without much thinking about costs and profits, don't we?

So, what are you saying about a family earning $100kpa but chooses to send their kid to the local public school? Less caring, less worthy, parents,…than another family in an otherwise identical situation who sends their kid to a high performance private school? Did you talk to these parents to get their view on this? They might have something else in mind.
Or, at some price, education costs exceed benefits? I baulked at doing an E/MBA. I had the means, it just wasn’t worth it. I wouldn’t pay $10m to send my kid to the Institute of Herbal Tea Appreciation for a Masters qualification either. I get the sense that paying more than something is worth is stupid. I’d rather just give them the cash.
As a society, if you proceed along these lines universal tertiary education irrespective of immediate vocational demand, you are asking me/others to pay for ‘your’ kid to be educated and taking money out of my pocket to do so. Whilst you may be super-generous to your kids and myself too, the moment transfers occur, the idea of giving anything you can weakens even further and economics of a more terrestrial form re-asserts itself over the Draghi-like whatever-it-takes viewpoint. You are asking me to pay for some burger flipper to become an orthodontist to make society more flexible for an unknown future. No way.

luutzu said:
Can't do that for the general population because... because education has proven to only make idiots out of workers and citizens? Who in the world earns more money and contributed more in technical innovations and in taxation simply through higher training. I mean, look at Germany's or Japan's skilled engineers, why they each only get about 30% cut from every iPhone while China's about 3.6%.

Other than you, did someone say that education only made idiots out of workers and citizenry?

luutzu said:
But then when it comes to your kids education, or when it comes to tax incentives and tax cuts for the rich and corporations.. .that's investments for the future. When it's funding public education... too much, can't afford it. Let's not overinvest because who's going to sweep my streets and clean my toilet and guard my borders and police my wealth if they're better paid and educated.

So, the money that goes into a freeway or building homes is somehow different to the money that is used to fund the educational renaissance which defies economic rationale? Have you found a new form of QE? I could not find a balance sheet item in any monetary program that segregated educational development money from other types of money. Apparently, even the money printers think they are the same thing – and they are creating money from nothing. Hence the use of money needs to be considered in the context of prices and perceived value for goods and services…kind of like capitalism.

luutzu said:
You seriously should stop making guesses at people's income or employment. It's a bit rude, and you are way off base.

Seriously? I was guessing as to anyone specific when I said something about astronomers, orthodontists or medieval historians? Who was I assigning these guesses to, exactly? Name them. Perhaps I was guessing that Know-the-Past is a medieval history lecturer? Nope, don’t think so.
If you could tell me where I made estimates of your income or that of others in specific terms, other than for the purposes of an example in the absence of concrete alternative fact, that would be good. Same thing with the state or nature of employment.
It’s tedious and rude to have words and implications made up and argued against over and over again in your name. This observation, of wanton fabrication, is not specific to me either. Not by a long shot.
If I am way off base, it is because I made no attempt to be on base, deliberately, on this matter. Thanks for getting that bit right, at least.

luutzu said:
Remember your own words that it's a democracy and people do rise up from nothing but their own bootstrap. So money can take you so far, but faith in yourself, hard work and respect for the common masses may take a person further. Especially one with access to Google and YouTube.

The first sentence is an accurate reflection of what I have said and believe. As for the rest, go for gold.

So_Cynical · 3 January 2015

luutzu said:
A good documentary below: Inequality for All

\

Thanks, Great Doco - sums it all up perfectly...no further discussion needed.

DeepState · 3 January 2015

So_Cynical said:
...no further discussion needed.

If you say so.

Wealth Inequality

luutzu

luutzu

DeepState

Multi-Strategy, Quant and Fundamental

luutzu

Smurf1976

luutzu

Smurf1976

burglar

luutzu

DeepState

Multi-Strategy, Quant and Fundamental

burglar

luutzu

Mrmagoo

burglar

sydboy007

Mrmagoo

luutzu

DeepState

Multi-Strategy, Quant and Fundamental

So_Cynical

The Contrarian Averager

DeepState

Multi-Strategy, Quant and Fundamental

Similar threads

Wealth Inequality

Multi-Strategy, Quant and Fundamental

Multi-Strategy, Quant and Fundamental

Multi-Strategy, Quant and Fundamental

The Contrarian Averager

Multi-Strategy, Quant and Fundamental

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency