3 ms·

You can’t buy “cash flow” as some kind of abstract quantity. You can only purchase a claim on someone else’s work, sometime in the future. There is no such th

You can’t buy “cash flow” as some kind of abstract quantity. You can only purchase a claim on someone else’s work, sometime in the future. There is no such thing as cash flow in the abstract, apart from a real person doing work. In the words of Dr. John Hussman: “Understand that securities are not economic wealth. They are a claim of one party in the economy – by virtue of past saving – on the future output produced by others.” Of course, the great irony there is that the past saving that Dr Hussman is referring to may have itself derived from output produced by others, unless the investor obtained that money by wage labor done by themselves personally.

chii 5y ago
> the great irony... why is that ironic? This is the premis of capitalism. > unless the investor obtained that money by wage labor done by themselves personally. at some point in the past, or in their ancestry, this is true. Unless their initial wealth was usurped by robbing off someone else without recompense, there's absolutely nothing wrong that wealth begets wealth.
- fallingfrog 5y ago
  Well, much of it was stolen. The entirety of north and South America was in some sense stolen. In fact the first thing thing that happened when capitalism superseded feudalism in England was that the village common areas were stolen and privatized, leading to the rhyme: “ The law locks up the man or woman Who steals the goose from off the common But leaves the greater jvillain loose Who steals the common from off the goose. The law demands that we atone When we take things we do not own But leaves the lords and ladies fine Who take things that are yours and mine.” But the greater point is: if the money you have now was taken from work someone else did, and the money you will have in the future will also be taken from work someone else did, and a tiny number of people hold most of the rights to that cash flow in a country, at what point does that simply become another system of oppression? The property owner/worker relationship is just an updated form of the lord/serf relationship that came before it. It’s not the same, but it shares common features. It probably feels like there’s nothing wrong with that- if you’re the one holding all the wealth. But it’s not “cash flow” that you own. It’s people. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thewildpeak.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/who-stole-the-goose-from-of-the-common/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/thewildpeak.wordpress.com/2012/...
  - chii 5y ago
    > at what point does that simply become another system of oppression? it is less oppressive than before. The feudal times were way more oppressive than now - only nobility were allowed to own assets (like land). Today, it's not a serfdom, because it is possible for someone to strike it rich by inventing a new idea, or conduct a business well, or utilize skills they trained to make wealth. The idea that "it’s not “cash flow” that you own. It’s people." is patently false - slavery was abolished. When you own a cashflow, you are owning the promises that other people have made, in exchange for upfront cash. This promise is as old as time - and to equate it to slavery is just ridiculous.
    - fallingfrog 5y ago
      It’s not slavery. But, I didn’t say “slavery” so don’t use straw man tactics. It is better than before. But it’s still oppressive. There are shades of grey. In medieval times the relationship between serf and lord was also couched in the fancy language of promises and debts. That doesn’t change anything. And bear in mind that those stocks represent permanent ownership of the work output of people who may not have even been born yet. When the slaves in the American south were freed, in many cases they continued to work at the same plantations under the same masters as sharecroppers instead of slaves, with the ownership of property and land used as a lever to get them to work instead of owning the people themselves. A positive step? Yes. At least it wasn’t actual slavery anymore. And modern day workers have considerably better conditions than sharecroppers did. But there remains room for improvement. You probably can’t get rid of all forms of unfair leverage and exploitation. There is no such thing as utopia. But I do believe that every worker ought to own the products of their own labor.

chii 5y ago

> the great irony... why is that ironic? This is the premis of capitalism. > unless the investor obtained that money by wage labor done by themselves personally. at some point in the past, or in their ancestry, this is true. Unless their initial wealth was usurped by robbing off someone else without recompense, there's absolutely nothing wrong that wealth begets wealth.

fallingfrog 5y ago
Well, much of it was stolen. The entirety of north and South America was in some sense stolen. In fact the first thing thing that happened when capitalism superseded feudalism in England was that the village common areas were stolen and privatized, leading to the rhyme: “ The law locks up the man or woman Who steals the goose from off the common But leaves the greater jvillain loose Who steals the common from off the goose. The law demands that we atone When we take things we do not own But leaves the lords and ladies fine Who take things that are yours and mine.” But the greater point is: if the money you have now was taken from work someone else did, and the money you will have in the future will also be taken from work someone else did, and a tiny number of people hold most of the rights to that cash flow in a country, at what point does that simply become another system of oppression? The property owner/worker relationship is just an updated form of the lord/serf relationship that came before it. It’s not the same, but it shares common features. It probably feels like there’s nothing wrong with that- if you’re the one holding all the wealth. But it’s not “cash flow” that you own. It’s people. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thewildpeak.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/who-stole-the-goose-from-of-the-common/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/thewildpeak.wordpress.com/2012/...
- chii 5y ago
  > at what point does that simply become another system of oppression? it is less oppressive than before. The feudal times were way more oppressive than now - only nobility were allowed to own assets (like land). Today, it's not a serfdom, because it is possible for someone to strike it rich by inventing a new idea, or conduct a business well, or utilize skills they trained to make wealth. The idea that "it’s not “cash flow” that you own. It’s people." is patently false - slavery was abolished. When you own a cashflow, you are owning the promises that other people have made, in exchange for upfront cash. This promise is as old as time - and to equate it to slavery is just ridiculous.
  - fallingfrog 5y ago
    It’s not slavery. But, I didn’t say “slavery” so don’t use straw man tactics. It is better than before. But it’s still oppressive. There are shades of grey. In medieval times the relationship between serf and lord was also couched in the fancy language of promises and debts. That doesn’t change anything. And bear in mind that those stocks represent permanent ownership of the work output of people who may not have even been born yet. When the slaves in the American south were freed, in many cases they continued to work at the same plantations under the same masters as sharecroppers instead of slaves, with the ownership of property and land used as a lever to get them to work instead of owning the people themselves. A positive step? Yes. At least it wasn’t actual slavery anymore. And modern day workers have considerably better conditions than sharecroppers did. But there remains room for improvement. You probably can’t get rid of all forms of unfair leverage and exploitation. There is no such thing as utopia. But I do believe that every worker ought to own the products of their own labor.