• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

American Capitalism Isn’t Working.

phattonez said:
Yes, diverting capital from investment to cash giveaways absolutely retards production.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

I asked:

1. Would it help the economy to grow if the shares were not bought back?

2. Does it retard production?

3. Does it harm workers, some of whom are probably shareholders too?

4. Isn't that a common goal of all the shareholders?

and now must add

5. What cash "giveaways" are you talking about?

6. How is production being retarded?
 
phattonez said:
How does buying back stock help to grow an economy? Does it expand production? Help the workers? How is it anything other than enriching of shareholders?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...
It gives shareholders capital to invest in other businesses.
 
Individual said:
I asked:

1. Would it help the economy to grow if the shares were not bought back?

2. Does it retard production?

3. Does it harm workers, some of whom are probably shareholders too?

4. Isn't that a common goal of all the shareholders?

and now must add

5. What cash "giveaways" are you talking about?

6. How is production being retarded?
Click to expand...
Buying back stock instead of investing in capital absolutely retards production. How much do I need to spell this out?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
Bullseye said:
It gives shareholders capital to invest in other businesses.
Click to expand...
How does it help the company to expand production?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
phattonez said:
How does it help the company to expand production?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...
I just covered that. The money investors get from buy backs is invested in other companies to expand THEIR business.
 
phattonez said:
Buying back stock instead of investing in capital absolutely retards production. How much do I need to spell this out?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

What 'capital' are you claiming the company is in need of investing in?

And yes, please DO spell it out.
 
phattonez said:
Buying back stock instead of investing in capital absolutely retards production. How much do I need to spell this out?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...
Capital expenditures are at a near par with stock buybacks.
 
Individual said:
What 'capital' are you claiming the company is in need of investing in?

And yes, please DO spell it out.
Click to expand...

Companies could be investing in new machines to expand production, or hiring more workers, or raising wages to encourage better work. How do stock buybacks accomplish any of this?

Wages used to keep pace with productivity. For about 50 years now they have not. Who do you think is collecting all of those gains? It's not workers.
 
phattonez said:
Why should stock buybacks occur at all?
Click to expand...
Because it's a free country and businesses should be free to manage their equity as they choose.
 
Bullseye said:
Because it's a free country and businesses should be free to manage their equity as they choose.
Click to expand...

And should we have no concern if this leaves American workers destitute? Is our highest loyalty as citizens to vague principles, or to each other?
 
phattonez said:
And should we have no concern if this leaves American workers destitute? Is our highest loyalty as citizens to vague principles, or to each other?
Click to expand...
Buybacks don't do anything of the kind. Poverty level of families with one full time worker is half the national average.
 
Bullseye said:
Buybacks don't do anything of the kind. Poverty level of families with one full time worker is half the national average.
Click to expand...

Why are we okay with ANY amount of poverty among families with one full time worker?

And what do you think is responsible for real wages being lower than they were in the 70s?
 
phattonez said:
Companies could be investing in new machines to expand production, or hiring more workers, or raising wages to encourage better work. How do stock buybacks accomplish any of this?

Wages used to keep pace with productivity. For about 50 years now they have not. Who do you think is collecting all of those gains? It's not workers.
Click to expand...

But that presumes they NEED new machines and/or need to increase production, need more workers, or need to raise wages to encourage better work. I'm sure each of those things have been taken into account, perhaps not to the satisfaction of those who are not privileged to all the facts though. Stock buybacks have no intent to accomplish any of the things fore mentioned.

Wages are paid primarily based on time and difficulty/skills and are, to a degree, governed by the supply of prospective employees available.
It is the investors who own the business, solely or proportionately, who should be collecting the gains which exceed the costs of running the business.
 
phattonez said:
Why are we okay with ANY amount of poverty among families with one full time worker?

And what do you think is responsible for real wages being lower than they were in the 70s?
Click to expand...

1. Subsidizing those living in poverty does nothing to eliminate or even reduce it, and if anything at all acts to increase it by maintaining a rise in inflation.

2. Inflation/Jimmy Carter?
1940-1949 170.0%
1950-1959 20.7%
1960-1969 24.0%
1970-1979 87.1%
1980-1989 50.5%
1990-1999 27.5%
2000-2009 24.6%
2010-2018 16.0%
 
Individual said:
But that presumes they NEED new machines and/or need to increase production, need more workers, or need to raise wages to encourage better work. I'm sure each of those things have been taken into account, perhaps not to the satisfaction of those who are not privileged to all the facts though. Stock buybacks have no intent to accomplish any of the things fore mentioned.

Wages are paid primarily based on time and difficulty/skills and are, to a degree, governed by the supply of prospective employees available.
It is the investors who own the business, solely or proportionately, who should be collecting the gains which exceed the costs of running the business.
Click to expand...
Look at your last paragraph. So to you it's okay that workers today are paid less and face a higher cost of living than workers in the 70s while all of the gains go to investors? Why is that a good thing?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
Individual said:
1. Subsidizing those living in poverty does nothing to eliminate or even reduce it, and if anything at all acts to increase it by maintaining a rise in inflation.

2. Inflation/Jimmy Carter?
1940-1949 170.0%
1950-1959 20.7%
1960-1969 24.0%
1970-1979 87.1%
1980-1989 50.5%
1990-1999 27.5%
2000-2009 24.6%
2010-2018 16.0%
Click to expand...
Jimmy Carter was 40 years ago. Do you have a better explanation? How do you propose to raise wages?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
phattonez said:
Look at your last paragraph. So to you it's okay that workers today are paid less and face a higher cost of living than workers in the 70s while all of the gains go to investors? Why is that a good thing?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

Workers aren't paid less today, and would you really like to return to the rising inflation rates occurring under the Carter administration?

Workers are paid relative to the value of their labour, and likely more than, NOT the value of the product they may perform a minor function in the creation of.

The effects of inflation varies greatly. Between 1968 and 2009, the price of existing homes increased an average of 5.4% each year, and the average house price in 1968 was $23,400 rising to about $202,000 in 2009. But, if house prices increased relative to governments reported inflation rates the average price would have on increased to about $144,000.

We are NOT going to create a utopian world/nation/society using inflation as the means of accomplishing it.

phattonez said:
Jimmy Carter was 40 years ago. Do you have a better explanation? How do you propose to raise wages?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

Yes, but like Wilson, Roosevelt, and LBJ, the consequences of the changes they brought about are very difficult to undo or correct.

Wages are always rising.
 
Individual said:
Workers aren't paid less today, and would you really like to return to the rising inflation rates occurring under the Carter administration?

Workers are paid relative to the value of their labour, and likely more than, NOT the value of the product they may perform a minor function in the creation of.

The effects of inflation varies greatly. Between 1968 and 2009, the price of existing homes increased an average of 5.4% each year, and the average house price in 1968 was $23,400 rising to about $202,000 in 2009. But, if house prices increased relative to governments reported inflation rates the average price would have on increased to about $144,000.

We are NOT going to create a utopian world/nation/society using inflation as the means of accomplishing it.



Yes, but like Wilson, Roosevelt, and LBJ, the consequences of the changes they brought about are very difficult to undo or correct.

Wages are always rising.
Click to expand...
Your entire argument is based on the idea that wages have risen. They have not. They are substantially lower than they were in the 70s, even before taking into account the rising real cost of living.

blog_median_male_wages.jpg


Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
phattonez said:
Your entire argument is based on the idea that wages have risen. They have not. They are substantially lower than they were in the 70s, even before taking into account the rising real cost of living.

blog_median_male_wages.jpg


Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

Could you show some actual numbers to clarify what you're implying?
 
Last edited:
Individual said:
Could you show some actual numbers to clarify what you're implying?
Click to expand...
Did you not see the image I attached to that post?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
Capitalism isn't working for most working class Americans in wages and benefits. American workers lose substantial wages and benefits to the owner and executive class who receive obscene amounts of what is produced in the way of reward from the fruits of production. The only reason there has not already been serious rioting in America is that Americans pay very little for a gallon of gas than does Europe. Americans also pay less in tax burden. Income inequality is higher in the US than it is in France. If the US were paying $10 for a gallon of gas and America's tax burden especially among the working class were to dramatically increase Americans would either riot or vote out its leaders. General rioting causing property damage and fires in the US would bring a lethal response from police and possibly military. American law enforcement is not as restrained as law enforcement in Europe.
 
phattonez said:
Did you not see the image I attached to that post?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

I can't compare lines to my spreadsheet data.

But as government does not allow deflation to last, Carter set in motion a period of rapid inflation with 4 minimum wage increases in 4 years which cannot be easily undone.
And you'd like to repeat that?
 
Individual said:
I can't compare lines to my spreadsheet data.

But as government does not allow deflation to last, Carter set in motion a period of rapid inflation with 4 minimum wage increases in 4 years which cannot be easily undone.
And you'd like to repeat that?
Click to expand...
Does your spreadsheet data take into account that we have more people not working today? Does it take into account that the real cost of living is far higher today?

And what makes you think that simply raising the minimum wage is my solution? My solution involves fixing this.

fire-economy.jpg


Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
phattonez said:
Does your spreadsheet data take into account that we have more people not working today? Does it take into account that the real cost of living is far higher today?

And what makes you think that simply raising the minimum wage is my solution? My solution involves fixing this.

fire-economy.jpg


Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

I create spreadsheets on most everything government makes historic data available.
Cost of living doesn't apply equally to everyone.

I have no idea what your solution might be, express it.

If you have a solution fixing that, why not share it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom