Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
While I champion Citizen's rights to the nth degree, for big business I don't even pretend that corporations have, or should have rights. To keep things right, they must play by the rules and pay taxes and all that, which is fair because they use the system to make money. This means entities which profit because of moneychanging, enforcement of intellectual property rights and so forth. In fact I guess any corporation. Corprorations are formed to protect the owners' private property from liability claims that may be suffered by the business. When you want that protection you pay for it and play by the rules.
The problem is that such entities have either become large enough and/or gained enough solidarity to shape the law into their own mold, into what they think is their best interest. Being shortsighted as they are, they have repeatedly stabbed the golden goose and seem to be trying to kill it for short term profits. People in the know are aware that this has been going on for a long time.
Now my opinion is that we probably would've been better off if the stock market had never been created. If the idea of selling debt was unheard of, and retirement was funded some other way. The creation of this whole system was like the opening of Pandora's box, or the biggest can of worms in the world, there is no going back. To do so we would have to go to Grampa and explain to him why he doesn't get a retirement check anymore. Of course that has happened to some already as part of the system seemingly abolished itself.
While we whittle away the years talking about all the "finer" points of how to make the system work better and whatever else about it, we fail to realize that the whole thing is simply wrong. The undeniable fact of the matter is this - anytime anyone makes money without producing something, it is a bad thing. It is like a tax. People pay into SS, a nice Ponzi scheme to say the least, but others have investments. Those investments are the equivalent to a tax. Those dividends eventually come from the customer as all revenue can be traced back to customers. It raises the bottom line, of that there is no question.
In my view, a corporation, especially one that is publicly traded should not be treated by the law as an individual, but more like a tool. You shall be kept clean, you shall be kept in good operating condition, you shall be properly maintained. To keep your private assets safe if you make a big mistake in the running of your corporation, you shall pay for that protection, partly by some of that money in the form of taxes, and partially by being required to comply with certain regulations, that is because once you became something on which many depend, you become public. Yes I know the term going public, but in my world it would mean a hell of alot more than it does now.
I am not sure of this particular history, consider it supposition. If there was no stock market, maybe Henry Ford would not have gotten his first factory built. Maybe other things would not have happened. At best the stock market was to generate capital for expansion and the investors would share in the profits from such expansion. But it is still the same thing. I am fully aware also of the term make your money work for you. Lovely prospect but events have caused me to think about whether it is really right or not, and I am leaning toward the negative conclusion of late. If the expansion had not happened, we would not miss it. But we would miss it now.
If, by regulation it was not so desirable to incorporate, for the big fish to use credit to buy little fish, the seemingly free money from investors, things would've gone quite differently wouldn't they ?
I don't think we would have the amount of conglomeration, and thus the purchasing power of corporations. That purchasing power is of course what funds lobbyists, and what burns me up is that the money came from the customers. Like the government which grants them their corporate shell, they have used our own money against us. Nice work if you can get it huh ?
Different forms of regulation exist. For example the ISO9002 standards. People think that companies that comply must conform to some moral or ethical standard and a few other things, but in reality it is just a watchdog. It is actually not mandatory, but because the standard defines assets and counts them a certain way, it enhances their stock value. It is quite strict also. If I work for an ISO9002 compliant firm, if I modify a piece of test equipment it is no longer considered an asset, or is diminished in reported value. Never mind that I made something that costs $1,000 do something that the equipment for should cost $10,000, it simply doesn't matter. What's worse is that it is considered as a hack, no matter what the benefit. If I remember history with any correct detail, almost all inventors were hacks in some way or another. So it boils down that ISO9002 compliance might be good for the bottom line, but it stifles creativity. My guess would be that the people who wrote those regulations were retired from the government.
But then the core regulations, the ones that need to be in place, the ones the violation of which can land you in jail, do not exist. It's like telling a kid not to smoke, but to go steal me a packet of cigarettes.
I have already decided that if I ever had a great windfall, I would not even consider dabbling in the stock market, or securities or whatever. At best this is analogous to walking into a poker game and seeing that the pot equals many times my net worth. I would be a fool to sit down. And on top of that, they are playing a game in which they make up new rules at will, and I have no say in the matter. I'd have to be a blathering idiot to sit at that game.
The cost of rewarding investors is built into the price of almost everything sold. It is like a tax, which varies according to the whim of ........ and is imposed on everything and everyone. This causes inflation. Inflation makes it futile to try to save enough money for retirement so the only way is to invest and make money for nothing. Live on the simple strategy of having money makes money. The relationship is now symbiotic, so like I said there is no going back.
People who take will continue to take. Strict regulation of the financial industry will no doubt cut up the bottom line. But the suits will not suffer the loss. Grampa will get a notice in the mail that he is no longer getting $1,800 a month, he now will get $600 a month. Fixed income my ass. And that's right where they want to stick it.
That's how real money is made. Not earned, made. If I could collect one dollar each from 300 million people add that up. But then later there are 300 million people doing it, where does that leave us ? For there to be winners in the game there must of course be losers. Guess who that is.
Like SS, the system cannot afford to support non-producers. At least not indefinitely. Nothing can nor ever could. It is simple logic.
<sarcasm>
I am going to start a business and make money.
What you going to make, hammers, toilet seats, cars, guitars what ?
No just money.
</sarcasm>
Put that way, it doesn't sound all that logical does it ? My conclusion is that the system itself is flawed beyond any possible repair, the basic design of it. And the whole thing feeds itself. It eats out our substance, our wealth. I, for one, am feeling light enough in that regard.
T
|
RE: Banks Bundled Bad Debt, Bet Against It and Won - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread