Bit Coin: 2 bit bubble

Maybe this will do some good: Tech giants and tax havens targeted by historic G7 deal

quote:

---

ONDON (Reuters) -The United States, Britain, and other large, rich nations reached a landmark deal on Saturday to squeeze more money out of multinational companies such as Amazon and Google and reduce their incentive to shift profits to low-tax offshore havens.

​

Hundreds of billions of dollars could flow into the coffers of governments left cash-strapped by the COVID-19 pandemic after the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies agreed to back a minimum global corporate tax rate of at least 15%.(...)

---

The G20 meet later in the month and will have to accept what the big boys suggest yet may suggest consensus. I'm all for globalism if it helps the poorer folks come up without stripping the middle classes of the top nations. We don't want to become poorer, after all, though there was a case made for socialism on Planet Money.
>TranscriptEdited by Phat, : added transcript

OK, granted that I'm jumping right into the middle of it, but so much just does not add up! OK, to paraphrase from The Princess Bride, "You keep saying that. I don't think it means what you think it does."Just exactly what is this globalist agenda and why do you think it's bad? From what I can gather, it's how American manufacturing jobs have been going overseas which leads to jobs being lost here. Am I correct in that?Assume that's what you are saying, then what does socialism have to do with it? I mean outside of trying to get at least half-way decent wages for American workers so that in response the Capitalists turn to far cheaper labor overseas. If a capitalist can manufacture and ship an item for even a few pennies less overseas, then he will do it in less than a heartbeat. The driving force in capitalism (albeit not of the Adam Smith variety) is the bottom line, profit, and the evolution of capitalism drives towards becoming more and more competitive by increasing profits even if it means keeping your workers on slave wages (or eliminating those workers altogether, eg through automation like was done by some companies in the Great Tax Scam of 2017).So then it is capitalism, not socialism, that is responsible for globalization, for US jobs being lost to overseas. Why would you even begin to blame socialism for that? Huh? That doesn't make any sense. You are talking about progressive concerns which have virtually nothing to do with socialism.Socialists care about the workers, the very "guy next door" you're talking about. For the most part, capitalists don't care about their workers ... except in businesses involving highly skilled workers (eg, engineers). That was the very problem raised by the Industrial Revolution that Karl Marx was trying to address. I've written about the Luddites before, highly skilled craftsmen who made a very good living weaving wool into cloth. Then the factories moved in with weaving machinery that could not only outproduce them at vastly less cost, but which also used unskilled labor with a minimum amount of training. The workers, including children, were nothing more than cogs in the machinery working almost their entire waking lives for near-slave wages in very dangerous conditions that often proved deadly or at least crippling (in which case, the crippled worker was entirely on his/her own for what remained of their life); if any worker ever objected in any way, then he'd be out on the street and replaced by the next person waiting in that long line at the front gate.I would recommend the episode of Netflix' "Genius of the Modern World" about Karl Marx. He saw capitalism as highly effective and successful, but he also saw that as the problem. As capitalism grows, it evolves into a ravenous monster that devours everything around it and eventually even itself. Examples abound (eg, large corporations that buy out smaller competitors just to remove the competition from the market), including WalMart in so many ways. A fellow chief used to talk all the time about Walmart's practices. You being a young and budding capitalist come up with a good product, say some kind of snack food. Walmart offers you a deal for them to carry it, but they greatly reduce your profit margin in order to sell it for less. It's a huge deal and a great opportunity, so you agree. Then they start whittling your profit down more and more and eventually make you agree to second-source your product and you eventually find yourself out of business. A similar thing happened at MOS Scale International who developed an electronic shipping scale that interfaced with a computer; based on the weight, carrier, destination, etc it would calculate the shipping rate and print out the labels including the postage. They got a contract with the US Post Office who insisted on a second source, Unisys. Pretty soon, Unisys had the USPS contract instead of MOS Scale; now it's somebody else but you can still find the same tech in the post office but you cannot find MOS Scale anymore (I worked there in the early 90's and have looked for them; the old building is now a self-storage facility and the small office by the airport they had moved to is now occupied by somebody else). In addition, when Walmart moves into a US town, they get all kinds of tax breaks from the local government and then give their workers so few hours that they don't have to give them any benefits; part of new worker orientation training is explaining to them how to go on welfare. Meanwhile, across the border in Canada Walmart cannot pull those welfare tricks so they pay their workers decent wages and can still make a profit.I was impressed at how right Karl Marx was about the problems with capitalism, but I don't agree with his proposed solutions. There must be a better solution. In part, we have found a better solution with some of the results of socialism such as labor unions, labor laws, OSHA, child labor laws, weekends, etc. Things that capitalists keep trying to take away from us. And just what did The Great Tax Scam of 2017 result in? Except for a very few exceptions of employers doing the right thing, most of that tax cut went to buying back the company's shares artificially inflating their value (most large corporation executives are now paid in company stock, so that was their way to enrich themselves). Other companies, like FedEx (as I recall) invested in increased automation in order to reduce their workforce (cutting costs on the backs of the workers). Small businesses are the life blood of the economy. Most workers are employed by them, plus they represent money staying in the local economy (more on that below).One feature in both pandemic stimulus packages, Trump's and then Biden's, was aid to keep small businesses afloat.So what happened with Trump's? Very few small businesses ever saw any of that money, because most of that "small business" money was immediately gobbled up by the large corporations.Gee, who was it who took that money away from small businesses? Socialists? No, it was capitalists.BTW, for Trump's stimulus package Pelosi insisted on transparency and accountability to make sure that every dollar was accounted for and went to where it belonged. And Trump said, "Nope!" And millions of dollars just disappeared.Yet another investigation that we need to conduct. Here's an economics question. How does money move and stay in neighborhoods?On a talk show several months ago, they were talking about a small town in New Hampshire which had lost its main industry based on lumbering. However, they still had their local bank and they were able to keep their local money circulating in the community and so were able to get by. They were even able to support a local family run diner.But then a fast food place (Burger King, I think) opened. Not only did it compete with the family diner, but it caused money to flow out of the community impoverishing everybody. As long as they went to eat at the diner, the money they spent stayed in the community and continued to circulate. For example, the diner would buy its food locally. But the money they spent at the Burger King left town as it went to corporate headquarters, plus they bought their food from corporate's suppliers so the local farmers were no longer making money. The entire town suffered economically.We usually hear that story as Walmart moving into town and putting everybody out of business. A friend using to live in Burlington, Vermont, where she owned a clothing boutique, but then Walmart arrived and put her out of business. I saw the same thing with South Coast Plaza, our first big mall, opened in the mid-60's. Before then, Downtown Santa Ana was the main area for shopping but as soon as the mall opened all that business went away and it has taken downtown decades to start to revitalize, but it's still not like it used to be. The latest season of "Stranger Things" on Netflix depicts the same thing happening. In our case, to make matters worse the mall opened in the next town over, just across the street that forms the border, so our city also lost all the business tax and license revenue.A similar situation was described to a call-in on the radio. In poor black neighborhoods they suffer from too little money circulating. Most of the businesses are opened by immigrants who have the initial capital to open a shop, whereas the local families don't have that capital to do likewise. As a result, the money that those businesses do make don't circulate back into the community, but rather the community's money is basically being sucked out through those businesses.We normally hear about such money circulation issues when discussing trade balances between countries, so I found it interesting that it also happens on such smaller scales. Since we both live in metropolitan areas we don't normally see that because money tends to flow back and forth between adjacent communities, but when communities are more isolated it becomes more apparent.Also, look at the first stimulus package in the pandemic under Trump.

I can't reply to your Message 46 because your god damn NPR is fucking up my browser. Stop posting crap like that and use your own words.

The US Dollar has historically been the prime global reserve currency for close to 70 years. The dollar used to be backed by gold and was strong due to that and due to the fact that we were the top dog coming out of WW II. The good old days as it were. Times when my Father could become a middle-class achiever through hard work. He made enough building houses to support his family and his kids long after he died (prematurely at age 60..cancer) Nowadays, the dollar is through. Government debt, coupled with global awareness will finish it off. Once the world loses confidence in the dollar and the US loses reserve currency status, prices here will skyrocket and we won't get to benefit from being able to create dollars out of thin air to pay our bills. The emerging nations will begin to prosper and buy the things we Americans can no longer afford. Our standard of living will no longer be a given. Should I blame someone else than the globalists? They won't bail us out. As jar always crowed, the bill will get paid. It worries me. ringo is not concerned...he claims that such events happen to many nations in history. This leads to my accusation that socialism has no favorites. I almost believed that the populists would have fought the world to keep their standard of living and opportunities...but I stayed moderate. You have a point. You are probably right. So what good does it do for me to simply blame the wealthy and capitalism? Anglagard and others suggest that we tax them more. But they can simply leave the tax base and live elsewhere. Then what do we have? Some all-inclusive nation of equals...all of us poor. This whole future seems like a no-win situation. I'll think about it. All I know is that money has to move. It has to circulate. I see the economy these days as akin to a giant game of musical chairs. As long as we spend...as long as the music plays...the money passes through many hands. When and if the music stops, people grab what they can and stash it. Only a few chairs are occupied. The rest of the money (and people) evaporates and falls through the cracks.My big fear is that the world does not care about the middle class in the United States. They are our competition. And they are hungrier than we are. So far, anyway.Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

If a company is headquartered in the USA, they would be subject to a corporate tax. Any company headquartered outside the USA is subject to tariffs on any goods and services. What is not made in taxes can be more than compensated by tariffs.Or we could just tax the poor and the middle class to make up for the lack of revenue from *daring* to tax the rich., as is done now, apparently with your full support.

Put it in your own words.

MV=PQM = money supply
V = velocity of money
P = inflation
Q = GDPWhat is actually happening is V is suppressed relative to other economies. This is because of vastly greater income inequality relative to other nations. The rich hide their money in offshore accounts (or in plain sight) and use none of it to produce goods, sell services, or invest in infrastructure. What is the incentive? Mitt Romney pays 15% you pay over 30% because he makes it all in rents (property, money, etc.). Therefore V is suppressed, Q is suppressed, and everyone else (except the top 0.001%) is oppressed.Rule of the people, by the people, for the people. Do you consider yourself a person? Or is only Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeffery Epstein, human deserving of any rights? Yeah, NZ, Uruguay, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Germany have all decided to give everything to the wealthiest because Equatorial Guinea and Bangladesh have lower wages.Nope, they ain't stupid, unlike too many in this country.

OK. The show is Planet Money on NPR. The episode features Socialist Economist Richard D.Wolff. Have you ever heard of him, ringo?
I never had before listening to this podcast.

quote:

---

Richard David Wolff (born April 1, 1942) is an American Marxian economist, known for his work on economic methodology and class analysis. He is Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School in New York. Wolff has also taught economics at Yale University, City University of New York, University of Utah, University of Paris I (Sorbonne), and The Brecht Forum in New York City.

​

In 1988 Wolff co-founded the journal Rethinking Marxism. In 2010 he published Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It, also released on DVD. In 2012 he released three new books: Occupy the Economy: Challenging Capitalism, with David Barsamian (San Francisco: City Lights Books), Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian, with Stephen Resnick (Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: MIT University Press), and Democracy at Work (Chicago: Haymarket Books). In 2019 he released his book Understanding Marxism (Democracy at Work).[8]

​

Wolff hosts the weekly 30-minute-long program Economic Update, which is produced by the non-profit Democracy at Work, which he co-founded. Economic Update is on YouTube, FreeSpeech TV, WBAI-FM, New York City (Pacifica Radio), CUNY TV (WNYE-DT3), and available as a podcast. Wolff is featured regularly in television, print, and internet media. The New York Times Magazine has named him "America's most prominent Marxist economist".[9] Wolff lives in Manhattan with his wife and frequent collaborator, Harriet Fraad, a practicing psychotherapist.

​

---

I dont know if I trust him yet. He is one of those educated elitist liberals. Probably could care less if the US Middle Class suffers.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Planet Money is misdefining socialism just like most everyone else, even though they've got economist Richard Wolff right there correcting them. Planet money says that what many western countries have is capitalism with a socialist band-aid, and that this is the kind of capitalism that politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advocate.But conservatives call this form of capitalism socialism, even though it's not. Right after Planet Money calls it capitalism with a socialist band-aid, there's economist Richard Wolff saying straight out, "That's not socialism." Start listening at 11:20.There *are* socialist advocates and politicians in North America and Europe, but they're not Democrats. Not even the most progressive Democrats are socialists. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare are not socialism, and anyone who thinks they are is just wrong. Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers instead of by the capitalists, but in reality the state becomes a surrogate for the workers and the state ends up owning the means of production. In actual socialist countries the state owns all businesses and factories and hospitals and shops and banks and so forth. That's what socialism means, and no one in the Democratic party is advocating socialism.The reason Democrats get called socialists so much is because conservatives find it a very effective labeling tool to beat Democrats over the head with. In the public mind socialism is associated with evil, bringing to mind communism and dictatorships.Democrats who advocate making Medicare more widely available will be called socialists by conservatives, but government paying for medical care is not socialism. It's a social program. The only thing the term "social program" has in common with "socialism" is that it includes the word "social."No Democrat wants the government to own the means of production. Electing Democrats will not turn the US into a socialist country.Anyone who believes that the governments of wealthy countries should provide a social safety net for the poor, the ill, and the elderly, and maybe pay for college too, all this paid for by taxes on everyone who isn't poor, ill, elderly or a student, and by taxes on corporations, should be a Democrat because the alternative, the Republicans, are robbing the country dry for the benefit of the rich at the expense of everyone else, plus the Republicans are delusional and have become a nationalistic, racist anti-democratic cult of personality. Conservatism has a lot to recommend it, but the Republicans have given up on conservatism to instead serve an orange master.Our democracy is not guaranteed. It *can* fail. How quickly the Republican party and a good part of America has come under the sway of an autocratic demagogue is sobering. Democracies have failed in the past. After the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia became a democracy under Boris Yeltsin. It is now a dictatorship under Vladimir Putin. Whether our own democracy fails will depend in large part on how many people finally remember that what's most important is not that your guy win but that the guy with the most votes wins.--Percy

Richard Wolff is not a liberal. You can call him a socialist or a Marxist, but not a liberal.Marx's "to each according to his needs" is the closest Marxism comes to social programs, in that welfare and Medicaid provide for the needs of those who can't earn enough to provide for themselves. But believing in the importance of a social safety net is not in any way related to state ownership of the means or production.You don't have to like Democrats or liberals, but at least get your terminology and definitions right, else you'll be vulnerable to being duped.--Percy

While we are in this topic, Percy...I might ask you if you believe that the US is heading for a rough patch of road financially or whether things will go on cyclically as they always have?

No. Why would I? I keep telling you I'm not a Marxist. You're more of a Marxist than I am. Yeah, education is such a bad thing. I could care less if the US middle class suffers a little, if it makes the lower classes suffer a little less.And You still haven't told us what that @#$%ing link says.

Did you believe the Trump deficits would cause a rough financial patch? Your judgment about whether a deficit will cause problems seems highly dependent upon who is president.Problems are not solved by deciding which person or group to believe. That approach is doomed from the start, and you'll be yanked to and fro as emotionally appealing arguments and counterarguments are presented. Problems are solved by first understanding them.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

The argument goes beyond politics. Both political parties have added to the national debt and ran budget deficits. The debate is not about the differences in ideology so much as the fiscal monetary policies of the Federal Reserve and the Central Banks and the relationship between the government's ability to borrow and essentially create more money out of nothing. The US Dollar is a fiat currency.

quote:

---

The mortgage crisis of 2007 and subsequent financial meltdown, however, tempered the belief that central banks could necessarily prevent depressions or serious recessions by regulating the money supply.10 A currency tied to gold, for example, is generally more stable than fiat money because of the limited supply of gold.11 There are more opportunities for the creation of bubbles with fiat money due to its unlimited supply.

---

After studying some of what the so-called experts are saying, I am convinced that the dollars days are numbered. Whatever replaces it will be traceable to the fullest extent.

Yes, it goes all the way to religion. You would believe that because of your religion, whether you had studied anything or not.Edited by ringo, : Punktuation.