Capital Strike?!? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Owner59 -> Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 3:03:10 PM)

Robert S. McElvaine: Boehner Admits to ‘Capital Strike’


In 1937, when the economy went into a renewed nosedive during the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt claimed that the cause was a “capital strike” by businessmen intent on destroying him and the New Deal. Roosevelt had the FBI launch an investigation of a possible criminal conspiracy by the putative corporate “strikers.” The general reaction from Republicans at the time was to ridicule FDR for attempting to cast the blame away from himself and onto businessmen.

It was surprising in mid-2010 when “conservative” writer Amity Shlaes endorsed Roosevelt’s view of what happened in 1937-38. She said there had been a “capital strike” in those years because of the “anti-business whimsy” of the Roosevelt administration. Shlaes went on to say last year that there was again a capital strike aimed at forcing the Obama Administration to cut spending and taxes. She succinctly described this business conspiracy against the American economy and the American people: “Companies making money and banking it. No spending. No hiring.”

It was one thing for the unreconstructed antisocial Darwinist Ms. Shlaes, the darling of the right for her completely wrong-headed view of the Great Depression presented in her 2007 book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, to say that corporate America was on strike in the midst of a national emergency.

Now, though, leading Republicans themselves are saying that what FDR fancied was happening three-quarters of a century ago is actually happening today.

“Job creators in America basically are on strike,” House Speaker John Boehner said on Thursday. The Republican leader was openly admitting that one of the main problems with the economy and unemployment is that corporate “job creators” will continue to sit on the $2.5 trillion they have available to invest, improve the economy and provide jobs, until they are given even lower tax rates and eased government regulation.

The veil has finally been removed and the political representatives of corporate interests are letting everyone see where they are coming from and who they are serving.

Will this admission be enough to lead President Obama, the Democrats, and the American people finally to recognize the corporate interests for what their defenders Ms. Shlaes and Mr. Boehner say they are: greedy, unpatriotic forces willing to hold the nation and its people hostage until they get everything they want?"


First the 1%ers killed the economy and now they want to set the terms for before releasing their death-grip.

And republicans are helping them.




tazzygirl -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 3:13:32 PM)

http://www.speaker.gov/Blog/?postid=260303

The comments there are interesting.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 4:01:20 PM)

FR

So?




Owner59 -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 4:34:55 PM)

What do cons suggest when labor strikes?

Something along those lines.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 4:39:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

What do cons suggest when labor strikes?

Something along those lines.



There is a fundamental difference. When labor strikes they are JEOPARDIZING OTHER peoples investments. When capital sits on the sidelines its to PROTECT OTHERS (and their own) investments and profits.




Owner59 -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 5:07:10 PM)

Right,....after "capital" stole/lost/disappeared $17 trillion in American investments,they are going to hold our prosperity,happiness and national security hostage, till they get their way?

One big difference between the parties is democrats think that commerce and enterprise serves society and republicans think it`s the other way around.




DarkSteven -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 5:08:26 PM)

First off, the fact that there is excess capital is a problem.  In an ideal economy, consumer demand will create need for capital expenditures, and the capital will be present to allow it.  If capital is low or demand is low, we have a mismatch.  We have one now.

Unfortunately, there's not much the feds can do about it except to spend money they don't have.

In a free market economy, the capital spending will resume once demand does.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 5:12:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven


Unfortunately, there's not much the feds can do about it except to spend money they don't have.




But there is plenty Congress and Obama could do about it. Unfortunately they want to play the blame Republicans game instead of actually doing things to improve the economy, like the 20+ jobs enabling bills that Dirty Harry is blocking from a vote.




Owner59 -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 5:15:23 PM)

Make a bill that`ll pass otherwise congress` numbers go DOWN.....from 9% to...............................................




DomKen -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 5:37:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

What do cons suggest when labor strikes?

Something along those lines.



There is a fundamental difference. When labor strikes they are JEOPARDIZING OTHER peoples investments. When capital sits on the sidelines its to PROTECT OTHERS (and their own) investments and profits.

Bullshit.

The rentier class has enrched itself at the rest of society's expense since the early 80's and now is refusing to spend their ill gotten gains as a way of further increasing their power. It's long since past time that the wealth they stole be returned to those who earned it in the first place. Those people, the actual productive members of society, will revitalize the economy once they no longer are dependent on "bankers," "financiers," and "corporate CEO's."




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 5:43:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

What do cons suggest when labor strikes?

Something along those lines.



There is a fundamental difference. When labor strikes they are JEOPARDIZING OTHER peoples investments. When capital sits on the sidelines its to PROTECT OTHERS (and their own) investments and profits.

Bullshit.

The rentier class has enrched itself at the rest of society's expense since the early 80's and now is refusing to spend their ill gotten gains as a way of further increasing their power. It's long since past time that the wealth they stole be returned to those who earned it in the first place. Those people, the actual productive members of society, will revitalize the economy once they no longer are dependent on "bankers," "financiers," and "corporate CEO's."



The "rentier" class didnt steal anything, except perhaps your ability to be honest. Somebody did, may as well be them.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 6:02:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Robert S. McElvaine: Boehner Admits to ‘Capital Strike’


In 1937, when the economy went into a renewed nosedive during the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt claimed that the cause was a “capital strike” by businessmen intent on destroying him and the New Deal. Roosevelt had the FBI launch an investigation of a possible criminal conspiracy by the putative corporate “strikers.” The general reaction from Republicans at the time was to ridicule FDR for attempting to cast the blame away from himself and onto businessmen.

It was surprising in mid-2010 when “conservative” writer Amity Shlaes endorsed Roosevelt’s view of what happened in 1937-38. She said there had been a “capital strike” in those years because of the “anti-business whimsy” of the Roosevelt administration. Shlaes went on to say last year that there was again a capital strike aimed at forcing the Obama Administration to cut spending and taxes. She succinctly described this business conspiracy against the American economy and the American people: “Companies making money and banking it. No spending. No hiring.”

It was one thing for the unreconstructed antisocial Darwinist Ms. Shlaes, the darling of the right for her completely wrong-headed view of the Great Depression presented in her 2007 book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, to say that corporate America was on strike in the midst of a national emergency.

Now, though, leading Republicans themselves are saying that what FDR fancied was happening three-quarters of a century ago is actually happening today.

“Job creators in America basically are on strike,” House Speaker John Boehner said on Thursday. The Republican leader was openly admitting that one of the main problems with the economy and unemployment is that corporate job creators” will continue to sit on the $2.5 trillion they have available to invest, improve the economy and provide jobs, until they are given even lower tax rates and eased government regulation.

The veil has finally been removed and the political representatives of corporate interests are letting everyone see where they are coming from and who they are serving.

Will this admission be enough to lead President Obama, the Democrats, and the American people finally to recognize the corporate interests for what their defenders Ms. Shlaes and Mr. Boehner say they are: greedy, unpatriotic forces willing to hold the nation and its people hostage until they get everything they want?"

First the 1%ers killed the economy and now they want to set the terms for before releasing their death-grip.

And republicans are helping them.



No offense meant but, seriously, that's the silliest croc of shit I've heard in decades.

Businesses will let loose of their cash when they see a reason to do so.  That reason is beyond simple:  Profits.

First of all one of the things that very few articles cover (when they mention this huge mountain of cash....2+ trillion dollars sitting in bank vaults) is that close to half of it is borrowed money.

Corporations can borrow now at rates few have seen in their personal OR corporate lifetimes.  Amazon was brilliant in this same act as, 7 or 8 years ago when their stock was worth 9 katrillion dollars, they went out and borrowed 6 billion dollars using their stock as collateral.  They made the loans uncallable, even if their stock went down (meaning, the lenders couldn't "call in the loan" even if the basis for the loan {their stock value} went down).  It was a brilliant move.  Who'da thunk that it would (and it did...in fact, at one point for nearly 6 months, their total stock outstanding wasn't worth as much as they'd borrowed, and they had only collateralized about 10% of it.  You can be certain those banks were shitting more than gold nickles for a loooong time wondering if they'd ever see a single thin dime of repayment ever again).

FORD did the same thing back in 2005....they mortgaged everything they had, to borrow (at very favorable rates) multiple billions.  If you recall, they were the only major car manufacturer at the feds table not asking for a handout.  Indeed, they very politely said "no thank you, we'll be just fine".

Businesses can't make money hiring people and manufacturing goods today.  People aren't buying.  Someday certainly again, they will, but today...not so.

There isn't a businessman or woman (on the planet) that isn't (if they're smart) thrilled to pay taxes.

You can't pay taxes if you're losing money.

Paying taxes is a strong indication your firm is profitable.

As a small business owner, I can assure you, I LOOOOOOVE paying my taxes because when I do....it means there were profits.

Corporations, big and small really couldn't care less about whether or not their taxes go up some, or down a lot....it makes absolutely no difference what the rate is if you can't sell any widgets...and you're a widget maker.

It's been said (I have no proof of this) that 60 - 70% of business in America is small business.  They're not some 3 letter faceless entity like IBM, they're the guy down the street that makes donuts, the woman that put your daughters wedding together, the guy that owns two 7-11's, all of which are hoping you're going to come in and buy a large coffee and a dozen donuts today instead of a small one and simply a maple bar to go, they're hoping you'll hire their brother in law for the photography work, or in the case of the 7-11, pick up a carton of smokes instead of just 2 packs.

Trust me, they'll buy a new donut fryer (that uses 33% less electricity and makes 50% more donuts per hour...which will need to be built by someone), they'll buy a new mini van and hire an assistant because now there's 3 weddings this week to do instead of this month and they'll open a new 7-11 near that isolated housing development....if......if....if....they believe there will be customers.

Until then, they're going to do what smart business people worldwide are doing, and should do if they want to remain in business:

Hold on to their cash.  Build up cash.  Pay down debt....for one very simple reason:

The same reason you eat.

To stay alive.

To live to be back in the fight again tomorrow.




outhere69 -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 6:50:59 PM)

Problem is that there are smaller companies and banks that would lend cash but can't get at it - credit is still tight down at the local level.




DarkSteven -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 7:01:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Unfortunately, there's not much the feds can do about it except to spend money they don't have.



But there is plenty Congress and Obama could do about it. Unfortunately they want to play the blame Republicans game instead of actually doing things to improve the economy, like the 20+ jobs enabling bills that Dirty Harry is blocking from a vote.


Okay, let me amend my post.

The Dems want to spend money we cannot afford to spend, and the GOP wants to cut taxes when we need the money.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 7:03:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Problem is that there are smaller companies and banks that would lend cash but can't get at it - credit is still tight down at the local level.


That is an absolute fact.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 7:04:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Unfortunately, there's not much the feds can do about it except to spend money they don't have.



But there is plenty Congress and Obama could do about it. Unfortunately they want to play the blame Republicans game instead of actually doing things to improve the economy, like the 20+ jobs enabling bills that Dirty Harry is blocking from a vote.


Okay, let me amend my post.

The Dems want to spend money we cannot afford to spend, and the GOP wants to cut taxes when we need the money.



Couldn't have said it better.




Owner59 -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 8:05:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Problem is that there are smaller companies and banks that would lend cash but can't get at it - credit is still tight down at the local level.


That is an absolute fact.


Why did we give 80 gazillion dollars to banks in '08' if it wasn`t to lend?




DomKen -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 8:06:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

What do cons suggest when labor strikes?

Something along those lines.



There is a fundamental difference. When labor strikes they are JEOPARDIZING OTHER peoples investments. When capital sits on the sidelines its to PROTECT OTHERS (and their own) investments and profits.

Bullshit.

The rentier class has enrched itself at the rest of society's expense since the early 80's and now is refusing to spend their ill gotten gains as a way of further increasing their power. It's long since past time that the wealth they stole be returned to those who earned it in the first place. Those people, the actual productive members of society, will revitalize the economy once they no longer are dependent on "bankers," "financiers," and "corporate CEO's."



The "rentier" class didnt steal anything, except perhaps your ability to be honest. Somebody did, may as well be them.

They most certainly did. They used lobbyists and bribes disguised as campaign contributions to rewrite the tax code to favor themselves at the expense of those who actually produce value in this society. If that isn't theft I don't know what is.




Owner59 -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 8:08:22 PM)

Let`s do some "strike busting" only this time it`s CEOs who get billy-clubed.[:D]




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Capital Strike?!? (12/8/2011 11:17:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Problem is that there are smaller companies and banks that would lend cash but can't get at it - credit is still tight down at the local level.


That is an absolute fact.


Why did we give 80 gazillion dollars to banks in '08' if it wasn`t to lend?


It was never meant to lend.

I'm 53 years old and the one thing I've learned in life is...the second they tell you "everything's fixed" or "we have no intention of bombing so and so" or "there never was a such and such....you were just imaging things"........nothing's fixed.....they're gonna bomb (whoever) in a month or less and....you weren't imagining anything.

It was never meant to lend.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875