| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 09:30 - Nov 12 with 1969 views | StochesStotasBlewe |
Thought provoking article Bankster. Thannkyou. |  |
| We have no village green, or a shop.
It's very, very quiet.
I can walk to the pub. |
|  |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:13 - Nov 12 with 1956 views | Guthrum |
To attack the finance and advertising sectors because they do not 'produce' is to rather miss the point. Like shipping (which also does not 'produce', merely shifts stuff from A to B) they are important facilitators.
Without finance, 'producers' do not have the capital to set up, cover initial running costs until sales start flowing, grow their businesses or cover major outlay. Advertising allows 'producers' to reach the customers who will be buying their goods.
Sure, those sectors should be strongly regulated, to keep their eyes on the task in hand (instead of, say, becoming share price gamblers). But to suggest we don't need them at all - in anything short of a top-down, fully planned economy coupled with centralised handouts - is incorrect.
It's also evidence of an attitude very much anchored in the 1950s (and before), where First- and Second World economics worshipped heavy industry and mineral extraction ('producers'), with little other than agriculture (also 'producers') left for the rest. Forgetting that it was trade and retail which drove and consumed the output of those sectors - essentially non-'producing' service industries (merely shifting stuff from A to B and gathering it together for your convenience and desires).
Their methods may be unpalatable, but to declare social media companies to be fundamentally wrong in principle is far fetched. They've merely monetised social interaction using new technologies, in the same way bakers monetised our need for bread or, more relevant, telephone companies did exactly the same thing through the early decades of the 20th century.
I dislike the concept of punitive taxation. It achieves nothing. Little revenue is added (companies go bust or move), plus it discourages entrepreneurial development of new businesses and technologies.
On a side-note, Varoufakis does talk the most incredible guff sometimes. All businesses have their capital contributed to (and reap the returns thereof) when customers buy or use their products/services. That's how selling stuff works, always has done. |  |
| |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:16 - Nov 12 with 1946 views | StokieBlue |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:13 - Nov 12 by Guthrum |
To attack the finance and advertising sectors because they do not 'produce' is to rather miss the point. Like shipping (which also does not 'produce', merely shifts stuff from A to B) they are important facilitators.
Without finance, 'producers' do not have the capital to set up, cover initial running costs until sales start flowing, grow their businesses or cover major outlay. Advertising allows 'producers' to reach the customers who will be buying their goods.
Sure, those sectors should be strongly regulated, to keep their eyes on the task in hand (instead of, say, becoming share price gamblers). But to suggest we don't need them at all - in anything short of a top-down, fully planned economy coupled with centralised handouts - is incorrect.
It's also evidence of an attitude very much anchored in the 1950s (and before), where First- and Second World economics worshipped heavy industry and mineral extraction ('producers'), with little other than agriculture (also 'producers') left for the rest. Forgetting that it was trade and retail which drove and consumed the output of those sectors - essentially non-'producing' service industries (merely shifting stuff from A to B and gathering it together for your convenience and desires).
Their methods may be unpalatable, but to declare social media companies to be fundamentally wrong in principle is far fetched. They've merely monetised social interaction using new technologies, in the same way bakers monetised our need for bread or, more relevant, telephone companies did exactly the same thing through the early decades of the 20th century.
I dislike the concept of punitive taxation. It achieves nothing. Little revenue is added (companies go bust or move), plus it discourages entrepreneurial development of new businesses and technologies.
On a side-note, Varoufakis does talk the most incredible guff sometimes. All businesses have their capital contributed to (and reap the returns thereof) when customers buy or use their products/services. That's how selling stuff works, always has done. |
Have you read much of that website? Mr Slave posts from there all the time but it's basically an anarchist economics website which provides little evidences and blames all their own woes on any boogeyman that's popular at the time.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:25 - Nov 12 with 1933 views | Dyland |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:13 - Nov 12 by Guthrum |
To attack the finance and advertising sectors because they do not 'produce' is to rather miss the point. Like shipping (which also does not 'produce', merely shifts stuff from A to B) they are important facilitators.
Without finance, 'producers' do not have the capital to set up, cover initial running costs until sales start flowing, grow their businesses or cover major outlay. Advertising allows 'producers' to reach the customers who will be buying their goods.
Sure, those sectors should be strongly regulated, to keep their eyes on the task in hand (instead of, say, becoming share price gamblers). But to suggest we don't need them at all - in anything short of a top-down, fully planned economy coupled with centralised handouts - is incorrect.
It's also evidence of an attitude very much anchored in the 1950s (and before), where First- and Second World economics worshipped heavy industry and mineral extraction ('producers'), with little other than agriculture (also 'producers') left for the rest. Forgetting that it was trade and retail which drove and consumed the output of those sectors - essentially non-'producing' service industries (merely shifting stuff from A to B and gathering it together for your convenience and desires).
Their methods may be unpalatable, but to declare social media companies to be fundamentally wrong in principle is far fetched. They've merely monetised social interaction using new technologies, in the same way bakers monetised our need for bread or, more relevant, telephone companies did exactly the same thing through the early decades of the 20th century.
I dislike the concept of punitive taxation. It achieves nothing. Little revenue is added (companies go bust or move), plus it discourages entrepreneurial development of new businesses and technologies.
On a side-note, Varoufakis does talk the most incredible guff sometimes. All businesses have their capital contributed to (and reap the returns thereof) when customers buy or use their products/services. That's how selling stuff works, always has done. |
Well balanced points Guthers. Key here is " those sectors should be strongly regulated."
It's no exaggeration that Alphabet/Google are a threat to democracy though, and people should take this more seriously imo. I agree with you though that taxation isn't a simple answer.
Regarding social media... don't use it if you don't like it! No one needs Facebook. I think it's a sh1tty thing and business model, always has been, always will be. So don't use it yeh?
Google on the other hand kind of owns the internet (because they have excellent tech, products and services) and if you want to live in the modern world it's hard NOT to use them. Alphabet controls "reality" in this regard and they need much tighter regulating. |  |
| |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:30 - Nov 12 with 1930 views | lowhouseblue |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:13 - Nov 12 by Guthrum |
To attack the finance and advertising sectors because they do not 'produce' is to rather miss the point. Like shipping (which also does not 'produce', merely shifts stuff from A to B) they are important facilitators.
Without finance, 'producers' do not have the capital to set up, cover initial running costs until sales start flowing, grow their businesses or cover major outlay. Advertising allows 'producers' to reach the customers who will be buying their goods.
Sure, those sectors should be strongly regulated, to keep their eyes on the task in hand (instead of, say, becoming share price gamblers). But to suggest we don't need them at all - in anything short of a top-down, fully planned economy coupled with centralised handouts - is incorrect.
It's also evidence of an attitude very much anchored in the 1950s (and before), where First- and Second World economics worshipped heavy industry and mineral extraction ('producers'), with little other than agriculture (also 'producers') left for the rest. Forgetting that it was trade and retail which drove and consumed the output of those sectors - essentially non-'producing' service industries (merely shifting stuff from A to B and gathering it together for your convenience and desires).
Their methods may be unpalatable, but to declare social media companies to be fundamentally wrong in principle is far fetched. They've merely monetised social interaction using new technologies, in the same way bakers monetised our need for bread or, more relevant, telephone companies did exactly the same thing through the early decades of the 20th century.
I dislike the concept of punitive taxation. It achieves nothing. Little revenue is added (companies go bust or move), plus it discourages entrepreneurial development of new businesses and technologies.
On a side-note, Varoufakis does talk the most incredible guff sometimes. All businesses have their capital contributed to (and reap the returns thereof) when customers buy or use their products/services. That's how selling stuff works, always has done. |
got as far as the first para after the first quote in the article - which was a jumble of unsupported assertions unconnected to the quote.
i agree with your points - but you can't have functioning capital markets without 'share price gamblers'. it is that gambling which uncovers information in an uncertain world and incorporates it into price. if you accept that capital needs to be allocated through efficient markets, then you also have to accept that 'speculators' are an important part of that process. so tax their profits properly and limit them to manage systematic risk, but we need 'speculators' to exist. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:34 - Nov 12 with 1916 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:16 - Nov 12 by StokieBlue |
Have you read much of that website? Mr Slave posts from there all the time but it's basically an anarchist economics website which provides little evidences and blames all their own woes on any boogeyman that's popular at the time.
SB |
"it's basically an anarchist economics website"
....are you sure about that Stokie ?
His background is with this lot.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oil_Drum
......not an anarchist in sight. I find his analysis thought provoking which is not the same as agreement. |  |
| |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:41 - Nov 12 with 1898 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:30 - Nov 12 by lowhouseblue |
got as far as the first para after the first quote in the article - which was a jumble of unsupported assertions unconnected to the quote.
i agree with your points - but you can't have functioning capital markets without 'share price gamblers'. it is that gambling which uncovers information in an uncertain world and incorporates it into price. if you accept that capital needs to be allocated through efficient markets, then you also have to accept that 'speculators' are an important part of that process. so tax their profits properly and limit them to manage systematic risk, but we need 'speculators' to exist. |
You should stick with it as it improves, there is another piece on the sh1tstorm that is the Middle East at the moment from a few days ago which is very good too. In fact here it is.....
https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2017/11/how-broke-is-the-house-of-saud/
(He doesn't even mention the glorious YPG Stokie !) | |
| |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:44 - Nov 12 with 1893 views | Guthrum |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:30 - Nov 12 by lowhouseblue |
got as far as the first para after the first quote in the article - which was a jumble of unsupported assertions unconnected to the quote.
i agree with your points - but you can't have functioning capital markets without 'share price gamblers'. it is that gambling which uncovers information in an uncertain world and incorporates it into price. if you accept that capital needs to be allocated through efficient markets, then you also have to accept that 'speculators' are an important part of that process. so tax their profits properly and limit them to manage systematic risk, but we need 'speculators' to exist. |
Speculation is one thing (investing in business is that, after all), but when share price - instead of business health, profitability and prospects - becomes the be-all and end-all of the system, it's broken down.
Investment capital is drawn into trendy sectors that will never create profits (e.g. the dot-com bubble) and healthy companies are broken up because they are no longer fashionable enough (e.g. the attempt on Marks and Spencer about 10 years ago).
Share price is too much of a floating point, self-referential and capable of being influenced by the same forces which are putting money on their movement. It doesn't represent any real, tangible value anchored to anything outside the stock exchange.
That's why I would like stronger regulation and a tax regime which favours dividends over returns from short-term share dealing and debt reselling (was particularly glad to see a clamp-down on short selling, which encourages the damaging of businesses for gain). Encourage people to put money into healthy businesses, keep it there and seek a return from profitability, not uncertain movements of the market. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:44 - Nov 12 with 1890 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:30 - Nov 12 by lowhouseblue |
got as far as the first para after the first quote in the article - which was a jumble of unsupported assertions unconnected to the quote.
i agree with your points - but you can't have functioning capital markets without 'share price gamblers'. it is that gambling which uncovers information in an uncertain world and incorporates it into price. if you accept that capital needs to be allocated through efficient markets, then you also have to accept that 'speculators' are an important part of that process. so tax their profits properly and limit them to manage systematic risk, but we need 'speculators' to exist. |
Should there be a requirement to "mark to market" for them to function efficiently ? | |
| |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:54 - Nov 12 with 1877 views | lowhouseblue |
| Alphabet, Google, Goldman Sachs...Tax them til they bleed ! on 10:44 - Nov 12 by Guthrum |
Speculation is one thing (investing in business is that, after all), but when share price - instead of business health, profitability and prospects - becomes the be-all and end-all of the system, it's broken down.
Investment capital is drawn into trendy sectors that will never create profits (e.g. the dot-com bubble) and healthy companies are broken up because they are no longer fashionable enough (e.g. the attempt on Marks and Spencer about 10 years ago).
Share price is too much of a floating point, self-referential and capable of being influenced by the same forces which are putting money on their movement. It doesn't represent any real, tangible value anchored to anything outside the stock exchange.
That's why I would like stronger regulation and a tax regime which favours dividends over returns from short-term share dealing and debt reselling (was particularly glad to see a clamp-down on short selling, which encourages the damaging of businesses for gain). Encourage people to put money into healthy businesses, keep it there and seek a return from profitability, not uncertain movements of the market. |
the problem is that 'business health, profitability and prospects' all relate to the future, which is of course unknowable. we have to price assets and make investment decisions in a world of radical uncertainty. bubbles occur when lots of people have the same expectations about the future - they burst when lots of people change their minds. speculation involves various projections about he future competing - and for a consensus about something that is fundamentally unknowable to emerge. short-selling is a way of managing risk in the face of such uncertainty.
so tax capital gains, tax trading, limit leverage etc, but we need financial 'gamblers'. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
