The 5 Scary New Rules Of Upside-Down Capitalism

[Guest]

Roughly 23,000 years ago in modern-day Israel, a small tribe of ex-cave dwellers built a tiny village near the Sea of Galilee that may have been one of the earliest agrarian societies in human history. Archaeologists discovered the site more than thirty years ago. And they found tens of thousands of well-preserved seeds and agricultural tools, suggesting that the people who lived there planted a great deal of food in the fertile lands nearby. 

As historian Will Durant once wrote, “the first culture is agriculture.” And he was right. Civilization as we know it has its foundations in agriculture. When human beings came out of caves, stopped roaming the wild, and began planting seeds to feed their families and tribes, they were able to produce more food than they consumed for the first time in the history of our species. And because it only took a handful of people to feed an entire village, everyone else was able pursue other vocations like architecture, science, mathematics, medicine, etc. Freed from the daily toil of survival, our ancestors invented trade, commerce, writing, and everything else that fueled progress over the next 10,000 years. And this simple concept of producing more than you consume has been the foundation of human prosperity for millennia. It’s also one of the basic principles of capitalism. People who produce and save are supposed to be rewarded. People who irresponsibly go in to debt to consume are supposed to be punished. But not anymore ...

Back in 2014, the European Central Bank made history when they pushed interest rates into negative territory. Literally never before in the history of the world had interest rates been negative. And little by little, those negative rates have been spreading. A recent report published by the Financial Times showed that 60% of German banks are now passing on that negative interest to their customers. In other words, if you save money, you have to pay the bank interest. And many banks are now starting to pay customers to borrow money. This is totally upside down.  Saving is penalized, and debt is rewarded. But the breakdown in the system doesn’t stop there. I’ve written extensively about how some of the most popular investments in the world are companies that lose enormous amounts of money and have no plan to consistently turn a profit… ever.

Uber, for example, lost a whopping $5.2 billion just in the second quarter of this year. WeWork has been a never-ending saga of burning through billions of dollars of investors’ capital. Lyft loses money. Snapchat loses money. Slack loses money. Even Tesla and Netflix both continue to post multi-billion dollar cash flow losses.

Yet according to a recent Bloomberg survey, these are some of the most popular investments in the world. It’s almost as if the more money these companies lose, the more desirable they are to Wall Street. Again– totally upside down. A business is supposed to make money for its shareholders, or at least present a credible plan to eventually do so. Curiously, though, there are now at least 181 CEOs of some of the largest companies in the United States– from Apple to JP Morgan– who say that driving shareholder value should no longer be the priority of business. They have re-imagined the “purpose of a corporation” as “not the sole pursuit of profits, but the animating force for achieving them,” whatever the hell that means. Even the Financial Times– formerly one of Britain’s only sane newspapers– has launched a new project with a tagline, “Capitalism: Time for a Reset”. You can’t simply go into business to provide value to customers, employees, and shareholders anymore. Now there has to be some woke purpose that involves diversity, the environment, and whatever else happens to be on the Bolshevik progressive agenda. Shareholders are not even allowed to decide who should/should not run their own companies anymore.

Multiple countries (Belgium, India, Germany, Norway, Spain, France) and US states (California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey) have already passed some sort of legislation mandating diversity requirements on company boards. So company director positions must now go to people based on the government’s pre-determined racial and gender criteria, and not to the people who shareholders think will do the best job (the criteria themselves are also absurd– women, African Americans, and Latinos are included, but Native Americans, trans people, and anyone who identifies as a seedless watermelon are excluded.)

This is all a total breakdown in the system. And on top of everything else, of course, we have dozens of Bolshevik US Presidential candidates who are foaming at the mouth with hatred for capitalism and wealthy citizens. The Bolsheviks want to confiscate wealth, nationalize entire industries, and engage in countless other social/economic programs that are ripped from the pages of the Communist Manifesto. They despise billionaires in particular– 607 Americans who have generated trillions of dollars of economic activity, created millions of jobs, and donated hundreds of billions of dollars to charity. Bill Gates uses his wealth to eradicate disease and save lives around the world. Yet Elizabeth Warren thinks that the US government– the same institution that spent $2 billion to build a website– can deploy his capital more effectively.

These are the new rules of upside-down capitalism:

1. Debt is wealth

2. Loss is the new profit

3. ‘Wokeness’ above all else

4. Rich people are evil

5. Socialism makes sense

It’s amazing how quickly this new reality took over… and I shudder to think how much more absurd it will become over the next few years. 

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Trump wants negative rates, therefore so do you! #trumpSupporterLogic

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Not so much debt is wealth, but credit is a form of wealth despite growing debts. 

"We are the richest nation in the world because our GDP to deficit and debt ratios are sort of okay!  Ignore the fact we always spend much more than we make."

Edited November 21, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

I'll just get another credit card to pay the minimum payment on the last card I maxed out, repeat until I die.

<Insert Eddie Murphy meme here>

[Guest]

Bad day was it LOL?

46 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Trump wants negative rates, therefore so do you! #trumpSupporterLogic

Yes, I agree 100% with everything Trump has ever said or done. You got me. Give it a rest ffs. It's about European interest rates. Your response involves Trump. What a surprise. Jeez. Grow up. 

I could say #AntiTrumpLogic by definition. WHATEVER the topic is about, you bring up Trump. You're obsessed. He won, get over it, you've had 3 years, and don't even live there LOL. 

And newsflash, capitalism is not just about the USA, believe it or not, hence all the article's references to Europe and the EUROPEAN Central Bank. Do try and keep up, would be a bonus.

53 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Back in 2014, the European Central Bank made history when they pushed interest rates into negative territory. Literally never before in the history of the world had interest rates been negative. And little by little, those negative rates have been spreading. A recent report published by the Financial Times showed that 60% of German banks are now passing on that negative interest to their customers.

Germany is in Europe just so you know. 

Cheers.   

#DT2020 #TDS

Edited November 21, 2019 by Guest

[frankfurter + 562]

isn't it interesting?  the evil Chinese, state, monopoly, communist banks give positive interest rates.  the hands and head chopping Saudis, monopoly banks give zero rates.  the illustrious, good guys, European banks give take negative rates. 

[Guest]

Oh, it's China v Rest of the World time? 

Must have been a whole 20 minutes since China was mentioned   - it's like Trump. Whatever the topic it'll turn into Trump and / or China. 

#eubad (my opinion) - I may have mentioned it ...?

Edited November 22, 2019 by Guest

[frankfurter + 562]

comparisons are no longer valid?  a basic comparison offends you?  the facts or the words chosen?  if words, shall we say... Communist finance has positive rates,  Islamic finance has zero rates,  Capitalist finance has negative rates ?  

[Guest]

If Germany = the entire capitalist world and China = the entire communist world then yes you have a point? If this is what you mean by ''facts'' then case closed. Doesn't even make any sense.

What ''offends'' or more accurately ''bores'' me is that people are incapable of discussing topics without bringing up things that have nothing to do with it, or they simply wish to go on about how brilliant their country is. Do you see me doing that? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We changed the entire planet. You're welcome. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Guest

[canadas canadas + 136]

https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/11/neoliberalisms-dirty-little-secrets-backfire/

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

1 hour ago, frankfurter said:

isn't it interesting?  the evil Chinese, state, monopoly, communist banks give positive interest rates.  the hands and head chopping Saudis, monopoly banks give zero rates.  the illustrious, good guys, European banks give take negative rates. 

Ah yes, the CHinese who have inflated their currency by 10X.... sure their banks can give positive interest rates, if you print so much money it turns into toilet paper.  Zimbabwe has positive interest rates and so does Venezuela and Argentina... Only reason CHina has not cratered is because the international greedy bastards are letting them hold the exchange ratio constant while China's monetary pool has increased over 10X.....  I know, many say it is 30X.  Sorry, I took the lower number. 

[Meredith Poor + 894]

The entire original post is economically, historically, and politically illiterate. Working backwards from 'diversity', corporations with boards that include women tend to outperform corporations that have only men. States that have pensions invested in these companies want to maximize their opportunity. One other actor that is particularly material here is the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. This group of 'Bolsheviks' has been mandating (not merely recommending) diverse boards for companies they invest in. They have skin in the game, often they own significant stakes in the companies.

A lot of these 'Bolshevik' presidential candidates have recently served in the US military, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. Others have been district attorneys or government prosecutors.

The population of Europe is around 500 million. The combined population of India and China is about 2.5 billion. If 20% of India and China are middle class or above, then the middle class in these two countries is equivalent to the entire population of Europe. If the middle class and/or wealthy populations of India and China need to get their money out of their respective countries, then they need to go into securities such as sovereign debt. It doesn't take much debt purchase on the part of the Chinese to completely overrun the debt offerings of Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, etc. At that point Chinese are willing to pay more for bonds than the bonds yield in interest. The value proposition for someone in China or India is wealth preservation, not income generation.

"they were able to produce more food than they consumed for the first time in the history of our species" This is an utterly meaningless statement, since hunter gatherers collected what they needed and nothing more. In any case, roughly 1% of the US workforce produces all the food the US eats.

Productivity doubles ever 24 years if it grows at 3% per year and 36 years if it grows at 2% per year. The US began industrializing in the 1820's. By 1860 product would have been twice that of 1824. By 1896 it would have doubled again. Locomotives in the 1820s were made of iron. Locomotives in the 1890s were made of steel. Another 36 years means that productivity doubles again by 1932. By 1932 the US urban areas are electrified, have a significant population of automobiles, air travel is just beginning (DC3), and a significant share of the population has telephones. Growth from that point forward was more at 3% per year, particularly during World War II, so it doubles from 1932 to 1956, then doubles again from 1956 to 1980, and doubles from 1980 to 2004. One can use various 'realty tests' such as asking the question 'what does it cost to fly nonstop from New York to London in 1920, 1940, 1960, and 1980? Obviously the first date is meaningless since the number is infinite.

Human appetites, in the meantime, are relatively fixed. Having twice as much food doesn't mean we eat twice as much. We can buy fancier toys, but mostly these just sit. How many people do much with their yachts, aircraft, and vacation homes?

Someone living in a coal mining town in West Virginia is perfectly willing to work hard, but if the coal mine shuts down their options are pretty limited. We decide that anyone that would ask for help in such a circumstance is a 'Bolshevik'. There are a lot of these people living in tents in LA, SF, Seattle, and elsewhere. Some of them have $100K jobs. We need to get past name calling and start thinking about how things actually work, and what is (or should be) reasonable and fair.

[Guest]

LOL. Speechless. Apart from the word ' speechless'.

Cheers.

#bolshevik

Edited November 22, 2019 by Guest

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Bad day was it LOL?

Yes, I agree 100% with everything Trump has ever said or done.

Great day

At least we have that comment for posterity; if you would like to refute do you have any recent examples where you posted a thread or even a post against trump?

It's just internet fun bud :Beer:

 

[Guest]

Tax returns thread. 

WOMP WOMP. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

15 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Tax returns thread. 

WOMP WOMP. 

You think he should reveal his taxes?

[Guest]

Sure, when he has to, and he will. It obviously isn't that big a deal or Pelosi and Co would be harping on about it instead of this impeachment shite. Last I knew they were still audited. Not quite sure how long that can possibly take lol but they should have a word with his accountants and not him if they want them that bad. If it was vaguely illegal to withhold them he wouldn't hear the end of it.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Actually, religion came before agriculture.  A lot of studies have shown that hunter gatherers get better nutrition then early farmers for less work.  Farming back then was literally backbreaking.  The reason people picked up farming was because the new religions -> congregations/living in a fixed location -> higher population density -> impracticality of hunter gathering, which is primarily a nomadic lifestyle.  

People picked up farming because they had to, not because they wanted to.  

Edited November 22, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

20 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Actually, religion came before agriculture.  A lot of studies have shown that hunter gatherers get better nutrition then early farmers for less work.  Farming back then was literally backbreaking.  The reason people picked up farming was because the new religions -> congregations/living in a fixed location -> higher population density -> impracticality of hunter gathering, which is primarily a nomadic lifestyle.  

People picked up farming because they had to, not because they wanted to.  

This doesn't pass the smell test. I've hunted and I've farmed. Farming is "back breaking" exactly twice, while planting and when harvesting. In the middle there's waiting and leisure time, which can be spent pursuing other activities. Meanwhile hunting is "relaxing" to the extent that you are not burning calories while you're waiting for game to come by but if you're starving you're starving. Every study I've seen indicates that farming is the only way to feed a larger population, period. Hunter gatherers require 10 acres per person, farming less than half an acre. 

I suspect the "study" about nutrition was done by the Paleo diet quacks.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Ward Smith
Added link

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Anthropologists have assumed that organized religion began as a way of salving the tensions that inevitably arose when hunter-gatherers settled down, became farmers, and developed large societies. Compared to a nomadic band, the society of a village had longer term, more complex aims—storing grain and maintaining permanent homes. Villages would be more likely to accomplish those aims if their members were committed to the collective enterprise. Though primitive religious practices—burying the dead, creating cave art and figurines—had emerged tens of thousands of years earlier, organized religion arose, in this view, only when a common vision of a celestial order was needed to bind together these big, new, fragile groups of humankind. It could also have helped justify the social hierarchy that emerged in a more complex society: Those who rose to power were seen as having a special connection with the gods. Communities of the faithful, united in a common view of the world and their place in it, were more cohesive than ordinary clumps of quarreling people.

Göbekli Tepe, to Schmidt's way of thinking, suggests a reversal of that scenario: The construction of a massive temple by a group of foragers is evidence that organized religion could have come before the rise of agriculture and other aspects of civilization. It suggests that the human impulse to gather for sacred rituals arose as humans shifted from seeing themselves as part of the natural world to seeking mastery over it. When foragers began settling down in villages, they unavoidably created a divide between the human realm—a fixed huddle of homes with hundreds of inhabitants—and the dangerous land beyond the campfire, populated by lethal beasts.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2011/06/gobeki-tepe/#close

Also:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190520115646.htm

Hunter-gatherers in the Philippines who adopt farming work around ten hours a week longer than their forager neighbours, a new study suggests, complicating the idea that agriculture represents progress. The research also shows that a shift to agriculture impacts most on the lives of women.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Anthropologists have assumed that organized religion began as a way of salving the tensions that inevitably arose when hunter-gatherers settled down, became farmers, and developed large societies. Compared to a nomadic band, the society of a village had longer term, more complex aims—storing grain and maintaining permanent homes. Villages would be more likely to accomplish those aims if their members were committed to the collective enterprise. Though primitive religious practices—burying the dead, creating cave art and figurines—had emerged tens of thousands of years earlier, organized religion arose, in this view, only when a common vision of a celestial order was needed to bind together these big, new, fragile groups of humankind. It could also have helped justify the social hierarchy that emerged in a more complex society: Those who rose to power were seen as having a special connection with the gods. Communities of the faithful, united in a common view of the world and their place in it, were more cohesive than ordinary clumps of quarreling people.

Göbekli Tepe, to Schmidt's way of thinking, suggests a reversal of that scenario: The construction of a massive temple by a group of foragers is evidence that organized religion could have come before the rise of agriculture and other aspects of civilization. It suggests that the human impulse to gather for sacred rituals arose as humans shifted from seeing themselves as part of the natural world to seeking mastery over it. When foragers began settling down in villages, they unavoidably created a divide between the human realm—a fixed huddle of homes with hundreds of inhabitants—and the dangerous land beyond the campfire, populated by lethal beasts.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2011/06/gobeki-tepe/#close

Not sure where you're going with the whole spiritual discussion. Clearly there were shamans going back forever, don't know if they count as "organized religion". After farming began, it started to become critical to pay attention to the seasons. Those who knew (gnosis) when to plant and when to harvest got to gain status, and they were elevated to priesthood and got to eat without working. Knowledge became power. 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

William Durant's view of "human progress" is outdated.  Also, the Western view that history is some sort of "linear progression" is again, very Western.  

Another point related to this discussion: read Transaction Man by Nicholas Lemann.  The concept  that the purpose of the corporation is for shareholder profit is actually a relatively recent invasion (only in the last 30 years or so did it gain traction) and most people didn't see corporations in that light back in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.  

Edited November 22, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Boat + 1,323]

I know I would be attracted to a candidate who would go after that 400 billion+ in unpaid taxes every year. The IRS should be the one dept that has state of the art tech tech to bring those billions back. Let’s give incentives to the investigator who catches to many deductions. Let’s give them the tools to track their cyber trail. Why not spend 100 billion per year to get the other 300 billion. 
Turn them loose on the US military. They can’t even perform an audit. 750 billion rat hole. Every single contract overrun should attract 50 seasoned accountants.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Sure, when he has to, and he will. It obviously isn't that big a deal or Pelosi and Co would be harping on about it instead of this impeachment shite. Last I knew they were still audited. Not quite sure how long that can possibly take lol but they should have a word with his accountants and not him if they want them that bad. If it was vaguely illegal to withhold them he wouldn't hear the end of it.

I doubt he did much - if anything - illegal in his taxes; it's just really hard to campaign as rich-man-who-loves-America when he contributes less than a regular John Doe trying to get ahead.

He also doesn't want those loopholes exposed and shut...

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Boat said:

I know I would be attracted to a candidate who would go after that 400 billion+ in unpaid taxes every year

LOL who are you voting for Boat just out of interest? 

PS ...

Economics? Nah.

Anthropology? Nah.

Europe? Nah.

Agriculture? Nah.

Capitalism? Nah.

Communism? Nah.

Trump? Yep.

TDS is a myth.

 

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

when he contributes less than a regular John Doe trying to get ahead.

What's that based on?