Interesting piece on BP history

[RGacky3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T1q2G4aiUw

Watch from 20:30 about how BP was origional the anglo-iranian oil company, this is AWESOME.

I think its great that this is being pointed out by a mainstream progressive, the History of Iran and BP, and the coup, overthrowing the Democraticly elected government, that rightly wanted HALF of his countries oil (how modest third world "communists" are), and putting in the shaw, that essencially gave it to the corporations and himself, whats very important is that Cenk rightly points out "This is why the world hates us, its not our freedoms, its not this or that." This is the way a corporatist country acts, and its gonna happen in Afghanistan. I also love how he says "if someone overthrew our democracy, we might be a little skepticle."

What I also find interesting about this above all is that Cenk, the TYT guy, although KNOWING the history of the UNited states, and the united states corporate power, and KNOWING all of that still has the belief that America is different now, he makes the comparison to afghanistan now and the minerals, but he still believes in the american Corporate/state system, for a progressive to have that just shows how good the US is at propeganda, for those in the US, think if RUssian people in 1989, KNOWING all that their government has done, would say "No our governments gonna be good now" I guarantee you all AMericans would say "oh those poor brainwashed people," yet, Americans look at their government (run by corporations, the same way the soviet union was run by the communist party) and say "No our government's nice now."

I also like that after he fixes himself, not the US took 40%, US corporations, thats a very important point, its the corporations that win, not the US people.


BTW, this is an awesome show, watch the whole thing, in the beggining he talks about the HUGE disparity between the super super rich and everyone else, and how the trickle down theory is idiotic. THe top 1% of the country have 33.8% of the wealth, from 90-99% have 37.7% of the wealth, from 50-90% have 20%, and HALF the country only have 2.5%. That top 10% of the US I guess are super super smart and work really really hard, also the capital gains and compensation statistics are interesting, because it shows how the system is essencially rigged for the rich. BTW owning wealth is one thing, when it comes to controling wealth my guess is the statistics would be much much more shocking.

[Dean]

Cenk is a centrist hack. He makes some decent points at times, but Obama made a lot of great points, as this (great!) video from The Daily Show With Jon Stewart 06-15-10 shows: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[Skooma Addict]

What's wrong with corporations?


BTW, this is an awesome showTYT has got to be one of the most boring shows around, and I am not just saying that because I disagree with the commentators on it. The show really is horribly boring.

[Dean]

What's wrong with corporations?

They are interested in accruing wealth which, coupled with inflation and a stagnant (often decreasing) wage, consistently strangle working class buying power while expanding the buying power of for-profit economic entities.

Since corporations necessarily take on a platform of privilege (even from your libertarian hippie edifice), they consistently seize more buying power, capital, assets and the like.

This has been described at length and in different contexts.

The bottom line is that the salable capital asset of the individual human is his or her labor, which has devalued every year. That is to say that the equilibrium value of human labor has not yet been met, since it continues to decrease every year.

The market always pays you less, in other words. That's progress!

Of course, this example alone serves as a critical example as to how disassociated traditional economics is from the real world, and real phenomena. Apparently, the actual manipulation of the market via empowered economic forms doesn't even deserve significant mention unless legislation is involved (aka the issue can be framed as "pro-market, anti-government" without seriously assessing whether the compulsion and ability to manipulate the market are borne from market or state forces).

[Skooma Addict]

They are interested in accruing wealth which, coupled with inflation and a stagnant (often decreasing) wage, consistently strangle working class buying power while expanding the buying power of for-profit economic entities.

Sole proprietorships and partnerships are interested in making money too. What exactly happens to a workers specific wage will vary depending on the situation. Wages can, and do, increase all the time.


Since corporations necessarily take on a platform of privilege (even from your libertarian hippie edifice), they consistently seize more buying power, capital, assets and the like.


Corporations lose assets and capital too. The acquisition of capital is nothing unique to corporations. You also need to explain what exactly is wrong with this.


The bottom line is that the salable capital asset of the individual human is his or her labor, which has devalued every year. That is to say that the equilibrium value of human labor has not yet been met, since it continues to decrease every year.

The value of a persons labor is not devalued every year.

[RGacky3]

For Gods sake Skooma don't hijack my thread.

[Dean]

Sole proprietorships and partnerships are interested in making money too. What exactly happens to a workers specific wage will vary depending on the situation. Wages can, and do, increase all the time.
Real wages do not, at least not in the United States. In fact, my ECO 201 book reflect this. In two quotes, it says, in reference to inflation:

(paraphrased) "controlling one's income can allow people to avoid a decrease in real wages." It goes on to provide examples of controlling one's income; the only wage-laborer example is Unions.

Earlier in the chapter, it states that "come unions provide for an increase in wages to compensate for inflation, but this almost never amounts to the whole interest rate."

Further reading:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.html - Real wages go down, besides a bump in the 90s. The only reason compensation is going up is because the health care industry is using the working class as a means to extract more wealth out of the market.


Corporations lose assets and capital too. The acquisition of capital is nothing unique to corporations. You also need to explain what exactly is wrong with this.
Actually, corporations are not unique in their ability to acquire and manage the economy to their own end. They happen to allow a much more streamlined system, especially with economies of scale, which further allow for the most efficient (i.e. lowest viable) labor compensation.

But sure, if corporations didn't have capital, and states didn't have force, I guess they'd be fine.


The value of a persons labor is not devalued every year.
Every year that it doesn't match or exceed inflation, it is.

[Skooma Addict]

For Gods sake Skooma don't hijack my thread.

Your thread was dead anyways. It is not like there was a conversation going on which I hijacked.


Real wages do not, at least not in the United States. In fact, my ECO 201 book reflect this. In two quotes, it says, in reference to inflation:

Real wages do increase very frequently in the U.S. When I got a pay raise, my real wages increased. Inflation can also help increase some workers real wages in the short term since money is not neutral.


(paraphrased) "controlling one's income can allow people to avoid a decrease in real wages." It goes on to provide examples of controlling one's income; the only wage-laborer example is Unions.

Earlier in the chapter, it states that "come unions provide for an increase in wages to compensate for inflation, but this almost never amounts to the whole interest rate."

Further reading:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/...ning_real.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.html) - Real wages go down, besides a bump in the 90s. The only reason compensation is going up is because the health care industry is using the working class as a means to extract more wealth out of the market.

This is more of a case against excessive inflation than anything else, and a persons real wage can increase even if they are not fully compensated for inflation. The fact that people are not fully compensated for inflation does not prevent their real wages from increasing. It just means their wages are not as high as they could have been.



Actually, corporations are not unique in their ability to acquire and manage the economy to their own end. They happen to allow a much more streamlined system, especially with economies of scale, which further allow for the most efficient (i.e. lowest viable) labor compensation.

But sure, if corporations didn't have capital, and states didn't have force, I guess they'd be fine.

I wanted to know what was wrong with the acquisition of capital. Corporations are not the only entities which acquire capital.


Every year that it doesn't match or exceed inflation, it is.

Inflation results in the real wages of some people increasing, with the real wages of others decreasing. People also receive pay increases which more than compensate for inflation. Your criticisms are more of inflation and the FED than of corporations.

[Dean]

Real wages do increase very frequently in the U.S. When I got a pay raise, my real wages increased. Inflation can also help increase some workers real wages in the short term since money is not neutral.
I was discussing aggregate real wages. As was my article. Why are you reframing the question?




This is more of a case against excessive inflation than anything else, and a persons real wage can increase even if they are not fully compensated for inflation. The fact that people are not fully compensated for inflation does not prevent their real wages from increasing. It just means their wages are not as high as they could have been.
(my emphasis)

This is false, by definition. Real wages are nominal wages adjusted for inflation.

If your nominal wage increase surpasses inflation, you have been compensated for inflation and experience increasing real wages.

If your wage increase falls short of inflation, that is you aren't compensated for inflation, you are experience falling real wages.




I wanted to know what was wrong with the acquisition of capital. Corporations are not the only entities which acquire capital.
Capital grants power over economic activity. If it is unequally shared, economic power is unequal, which translates into political power and all sorts of powerful social systems.


Inflation results in the real wages of some people increasing, with the real wages of others decreasing. People also receive pay increases which more than compensate for inflation. Your criticisms are more of inflation and the FED than of corporations.
:laugh: I feel like I'm arguing with a child here.


Please, tell me you have your ECO 201 book still. Just go back and read the definitions of real wages, nominal wages and the effect of inflation. Or try this site: http://www.investopedia.com/

[Skooma Addict]

I was discussing aggregate real wages. As was my article. Why are you reframing the question? I didn't read your article, and if you meant aggregate real wages, then you should have said aggregate real wages. I have no idea what any of this has to do with corporations, so it is you who reframed the question. This is not even a critique of capitalism, as real wages historically have increased thanks to capitalism.


(my emphasis)

This is false, by definition. Real wages are nominal wages adjusted for inflation.

If your nominal wage increase surpasses inflation, you have been compensated for inflation and experience increasing real wages.

If your wage increase falls short of inflation, that is you aren't compensated for inflation, you are experience falling real wages.A persons real wage can increase even if they do not contract for their wage to be compensated for inflation. This is what I meant, and it was my response to the initial point you made.

But this is a red herring which has absolutely nothing to do with corporations.


Capital grants power over economic activity. If it is unequally shared, economic power is unequal, which translates into political power and all sorts of powerful social systems.Can you point to me a single time in history where political power has been equal on anything besides a very small scale?

So then I assume that this implies that you want everyone to have equal economic power, correct?


:laugh: I feel like I'm arguing with a child here.


Please, tell me you have your ECO 201 book still. Just go back and read the definitions of real wages, nominal wages and the effect of inflation. Or try this site: http://www.investopedia.com/I am sorry if you do not understand the fact that money is not neutral, and that the insertion of new money into the economy alters demand and hence the production structure, which will lead to the real wages of some people increasing for the simple fact that the demand for their labor has increased.

It is so typical for a person who just took econ 201 to start telling everyone else to take/go back to econ 201, even though the book always presents the case for capitalism.

[Havet]

Your criticisms are more of inflation and the FED than of corporations.

But the Federal Reserve is a corporation, is it not?

[RGacky3]

Your thread was dead anyways. It is not like there was a conversation going on which I hijacked.

Everythread you do the same "whats wrong with corporations" bullshit instead of actually discussing the issue, start your own damn thread.

[Dean]

I didn't read your article, and if you meant aggregate real wages, then you should have said aggregate real wages. I have no idea what any of this has to do with corporations, so it is you who reframed the question. This is not even a critique of capitalism, as real wages historically have increased thanks to capitalism.
The reverse is true in the US at least:
Real Wages http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.html
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/real_earnings.gif
Top US Marginal income tax rates: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates-graph.php

When top tier income tax rates go up (that is the market is less free), real wages decline.


A persons real wage can increase even if they do not contract for their wage to be compensated for inflation. This is what I meant, and it was my response to the initial point you made.
It was not your response, and if it was, you should have framed it that way. In any case, its a piss-poor argument that simply indicates that while the average person gets poorer, these people were enriched, so capitalism must be good!


But this is a red herring which has absolutely nothing to do with corporations.
Yeah, right. The actual material manifestation of the corporate entity has no bearing on its value to the economy or society. Makes perfect sense.


Can you point to me a single time in history where political power has been equal on anything besides a very small scale?
Nope, it never has.


So then I assume that this implies that you want everyone to have equal economic power, correct?
More or less.



I am sorry if you do not understand the fact that money is not neutral, and that the insertion of new money into the economy alters demand and hence the production structure, which will lead to the real wages of some people increasing for the simple fact that the demand for their labor has increased.
So, printing more money will make some people's real wages go up? I'm not refuting the point, but how the hell do you reach this conclusion?

Or is this about investment?

In any case, the real wage issue is not refuted by pointing out that market conditions empower some and weaken others. If that is what you are talking about (the only possible outcome when aggregate real wages go down, but some people's real wages go up). It sounds like you're defendign capitalism because "some people get rich!" You must see how, even if you misunderstood me, it wouldn't make any sense to talk about the real wages of a minority going up, unless you wanted to empower my edifice.


It is so typical for a person who just took econ 201 to start telling everyone else to take/go back to econ 201, even though the book always presents the case for capitalism.
Gems such as:
-endorsing the free trade zones that have crippled Spain, Greece and Ireland;
-Discussing (and endorsing) policies on pharmaceutical research in India without mentioning the actual effects of the industry: http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/news/2005/12/69595
-Defending ticket scalping, and in effect all forms of price gouging in that they achieve the "real price" in regards to demand
-The blind optimism of the law of demand

In fact, in the discussion of real wages, the book points out that only by controlling our nominal wages can we be sure to maintain our real wages. It only gives the example of labor unions as to how the working class might control its real wages; only labor unions are given as a possible way to achieve this, whose contracts "almost never" account for the full rate of inflation.

It does give the case for capitalism but it doesn't give it well. And it fails to even address communism or socialism, erroneously describing command economies as such.

[Skooma Addict]

The reverse is true in the US at least:
Real Wages http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/...ning_real.html (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.html)
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/real_earnings.gif
That however does not measure real compensation.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/RCPHBS_Max_630_378.png



It was not your response, and if it was, you should have framed it that way. In any case, its a piss-poor argument that simply indicates that while the average person gets poorer, these people were enriched, so capitalism must be good!It is what I thought you were talking about when you referred to unions. It is not an argument as much as it is a fact.


Yeah, right. The actual material manifestation of the corporate entity has no bearing on its value to the economy or society. Makes perfect sense.What does the effect of inflation on the economy have to do with corporations?


More or less.So then earnings are not tied to the ability to satisfy demand in any way. More productive people will have equal earnings as people with lower productivity. So what is the incentive to work hard?



So, printing more money will make some people's real wages go up? I'm not refuting the point, but how the hell do you reach this conclusion?Once the money is injected into the economy, yes, due to the non-neutrality of money. Those who receive the new money first will spend it in certain sectors of the economy which would have otherwise not had that business. Those sectors will be more profitable at least in the short term, and the real wages of those working in the relevant industries will increase.



Or is this about investment?The money could be invested or used to buy consumer goods.

[RGacky3]

Cenk is a centrist hack. He makes some decent points at times, but Obama made a lot of great points, as this (great!) video from The Daily Show With Jon Stewart 06-15-10 shows: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...-my-authoritah (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah)


I gotta say something against that, when it comes to progressives, cenk I would argue is one of the best, better than Jon Stewart, he's funnier, but he's definately much more team democrat and lets all be friends bipartisanship (meaning giving into corporations), Cenk is one of the few that spends a lot of time on how the rich control the governmnet and how the financial system is a total scam against the poor, how it continually robs the poor, he is also not at all on team democrat, he rips into them all the time when they are walstreet buttboys.