2 ms·

So I guess you woudldn't agree with any of these: 1) Increase in stock prices by getting good growth and profits (irrespective of where those come from) is gen

So I guess you woudldn't agree with any of these: 1) Increase in stock prices by getting good growth and profits (irrespective of where those come from) is generally a better wealth creator than distribution of those profits 2) companies desperately need to hold on to profits, as it is ammunition in a war of survival, whether its by parking in tax havens or some other way, so that they can deploy it when and where required to continue their survival 3) its more important for companies to have the ability to survive and provide employment to people in the long run than to distribute profits for making people happy in the short term

kls 16y ago
No I don't agree with any of them, it was not money hording massive organizations that built the engine of ingenuity that made America what it was. It was the upstarts, the scrappy guys in their garage, The Wright brother on a hill, United did not build the airline industry the guys that dared to dream did. Those are the people that create true wealth. The carpetbaggers come later and try to convince you that their money hoarding (off another persons idea) is good for you. It is not, I don't understand why people allow their mind to be contorted by the "studied" on this subject. Those at the top have a vested interest in perpetuating these theories in economics. I am a die hard capitalist so long as it advances the human race, but what we have is insane. It does nothing to reward human progress. This is slash and burn capitalism. #1 is a fiat. #2 is horrible as the capital is not being used. #3 is a fallacy, companies do not have to survive for individual survival. This thinking is what props up dead companies for years after their usefulness has waned. It is also what corporate leaders use as scare tactics to extort bail out funds. Capital will always divert to successful companies who then ramp up production. What we have now is the elimination of the butcher, baker and candlestick maker due to walking dead monolithic companies. If those where allowed to rightfully die you would see the return of the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker (metaphorically), as people stopped looking to corporations to be their new Mamas.

kls 16y ago

No I don't agree with any of them, it was not money hording massive organizations that built the engine of ingenuity that made America what it was. It was the upstarts, the scrappy guys in their garage, The Wright brother on a hill, United did not build the airline industry the guys that dared to dream did. Those are the people that create true wealth. The carpetbaggers come later and try to convince you that their money hoarding (off another persons idea) is good for you. It is not, I don't understand why people allow their mind to be contorted by the "studied" on this subject. Those at the top have a vested interest in perpetuating these theories in economics. I am a die hard capitalist so long as it advances the human race, but what we have is insane. It does nothing to reward human progress. This is slash and burn capitalism. #1 is a fiat. #2 is horrible as the capital is not being used. #3 is a fallacy, companies do not have to survive for individual survival. This thinking is what props up dead companies for years after their usefulness has waned. It is also what corporate leaders use as scare tactics to extort bail out funds. Capital will always divert to successful companies who then ramp up production. What we have now is the elimination of the butcher, baker and candlestick maker due to walking dead monolithic companies. If those where allowed to rightfully die you would see the return of the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker (metaphorically), as people stopped looking to corporations to be their new Mamas.