4 ms·

And much of the reason for those low profits is the high levels of debt that non-financial corporations take on. Or in another way of analyzing the corporate w

And much of the reason for those low profits is the high levels of debt that non-financial corporations take on. Or in another way of analyzing the corporate world, if you track who owns the shares, you will find that almost everything is owned by a few large banks [1]. So in a sense, banking is the only activity that is profitable. This follows naturally from the structure of the economy -- capitalism [2]. [1] "The network of global corporate control" Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf [2] Every Economics 101 textbook ever written.

FD3SA 15y ago
Unfortunately, as you've alluded to in your post, capitalism is a winner take all game of poker that never ends. This means that those with capital have disproportionate leverage over other players, to such a degree that skill and chance become almost negligible. To have any chance of becoming a force in the game, you have to accrue massive capital by going all in with every hand you are dealt and every chip you have; i.e. the startup philosophy. However, this does not stop the trend of capital consolidation in the hands of fewer and fewer players. Conversely, the rapid advancement of technology allows even more leverage for skilled and/or lucky and/or wealthy players to exert their influence over the market. Capitalism will not be logical once a trillionaire emerges with enough purchasing power to decide the fate of the entire economic market. By definition, the current capitalistic model of economics is transient, and will not reach steady state. Once the system has crashed beyond repair, I pray that intelligent engineers can construct a new system which better allocates the world's resources to its many needs.
- eligottlieb 15y ago
  One of the few things that actually stands to make a difference in this zone is the possible implementation of crowdfunding laws. If small, new businesses like start-ups could actually raise investment through crowdfunding (ie: through people who don't have the 1%-er status to qualify as accredited investors), it would be possible to use capital sources not already controlled by the existing players.
gaius 15y ago
That is disingenuous - what looks like shares owned by Bank X is really the mutual funds of a million ordinary citizens, administered on their behalf by Bank X.

FD3SA 15y ago

Unfortunately, as you've alluded to in your post, capitalism is a winner take all game of poker that never ends. This means that those with capital have disproportionate leverage over other players, to such a degree that skill and chance become almost negligible. To have any chance of becoming a force in the game, you have to accrue massive capital by going all in with every hand you are dealt and every chip you have; i.e. the startup philosophy. However, this does not stop the trend of capital consolidation in the hands of fewer and fewer players. Conversely, the rapid advancement of technology allows even more leverage for skilled and/or lucky and/or wealthy players to exert their influence over the market. Capitalism will not be logical once a trillionaire emerges with enough purchasing power to decide the fate of the entire economic market. By definition, the current capitalistic model of economics is transient, and will not reach steady state. Once the system has crashed beyond repair, I pray that intelligent engineers can construct a new system which better allocates the world's resources to its many needs.

eligottlieb 15y ago
One of the few things that actually stands to make a difference in this zone is the possible implementation of crowdfunding laws. If small, new businesses like start-ups could actually raise investment through crowdfunding (ie: through people who don't have the 1%-er status to qualify as accredited investors), it would be possible to use capital sources not already controlled by the existing players.

gaius 15y ago

That is disingenuous - what looks like shares owned by Bank X is really the mutual funds of a million ordinary citizens, administered on their behalf by Bank X.