{myadvertisements[zone_1]}
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Capitalism is dead and finance has become a 'poison'
#1
Capitalism, as it is described in textbooks, is dead, according to Victor Shvets, global strategist at Australian investment bank Macquarie.

The traditional business cycle that characterized post-World War II capitalism until the 1980s has been replaced by ever-increasing debt levels and an abundance of capital and labor.

"The key driver is what we refer to as 'declining returns on humans and conventional capital'. Value and role of labor inputs (measured in hours worked) and conventional capital (finance, infrastructure, machinery) is declining," Shvets said this month in a note to clients.

Shvets said countries have reached the limit of borrowing to maintain their wealth levels.

"Only the least financialized societies (representing ~10% of global demand) still have considerable room for further leveraging," he said. "The rest have perhaps already crossed the Rubicon at which finance becomes 'poison' rather than a positive boost. Global leverage doubled from ~1.5x GDP in the early 1990s to ~3x GDP and leverage continues to climb as societies refuse to adjust capacity and instead insist on trying to grow demand to match excess capacity." 


There is one good "ticket out of prison" and two bad options, according to Shvets: 

War: Or, as Shvets describes it, "the destruction of surplus capital and/or labor." This is the more likely but "least pleasant" potential outcome.

http://www.businessinsider.com/macquarie...ism-2018-2

Basically, he is saying Capitalism is dead because of gross global human overpopulation, and that the American economy won't recover until a vast culling of the global human population takes place.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#2
(02-25-2018, 07:03 PM)ModestProposals Wrote: There is one good "ticket out of prison" and two bad options, according to Shvets: 

War: Or, as Shvets describes it, "the destruction of surplus capital and/or labor." This is the more likely but "least pleasant" potential outcome.

http://www.businessinsider.com/macquarie...ism-2018-2

Basically, he is saying Capitalism is dead because of gross global human overpopulation, and that the American economy won't recover until a vast culling of the global human population takes place.

Iinteresting choices, indeed.
  • 1. Central banks win: The best outcome is a "sustained recovery in private sector productivity" which allows central banks to gradually withdraw financial stimulus and return to normal rates without an asset-price shock. Shvets said the probability of this happening is "low for years to come."

  • 2. Governments take over: If the private sector cannot mop up the supply of capital and labour, then the public sector will have to step in, Shvets said. Policy choices include a universal income, a merger of central banks and treasuries, massive Marshall Plan investments in under-developed countries and boosting education. "Such significant shifts are unlikely until a 'jolt' to the system," Shvets said.

  • 3. War: Or, as Shvets describes it, "the destruction of surplus capital and/or labour." This is the more likely but "least pleasant" potential outcome.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#3
What he calls 'capitalism' is actually 'financialism'.

and sure, it's toxic.

Getting back to basics: Capitalism is the economic system where individuals have the right to own their own labour and possessions. 

That's all.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#4
(02-28-2018, 07:14 PM)andrew_o Wrote: What he calls 'capitalism' is actually 'financialism'.

and sure, it's toxic.

Getting back to basics: Capitalism is the economic system where individuals have the right to own their own labour and possessions. 

That's all.

I would agree.  It isn't actually capitalism that is the poison.  It is the Finance-Insurance-Real Estate sector that has become a parasite on the economy.  (geez, we agree on something.  Yet another sign of the apocalypse).

[Image: saupload_apocalypse_now.jpg]
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#5
(03-01-2018, 02:05 PM)aqua Wrote:
(02-28-2018, 07:14 PM)andrew_o Wrote: What he calls 'capitalism' is actually 'financialism'.

and sure, it's toxic.

Getting back to basics: Capitalism is the economic system where individuals have the right to own their own labour and possessions. 

That's all.

I would agree.  It isn't actually capitalism that is the poison.  It is the Finance-Insurance-Real Estate sector that has become a parasite on the economy.  (geez, we agree on something.  Yet another sign of the apocalypse).

[Image: saupload_apocalypse_now.jpg]

Yes we do agree!

(and I like your cartoon)

I call it 'The rise of the middle men'

In days long gone an investor in a company was either the owner or his personal backer - either way the 'owner' was pretty close to the 'asset'.

But today there is a tangled web of service providers that sit between the owner and the asset. These include bankers, insurers, fund & portfolio managers, pension managers and last but not least the company management team themselves.

Add to that the average investor doesn't know shit about what they're invested in. Most don't know or care where they're invested.

These two factors mean that the middle men have a vast scope to arrange things to cream money off the top, generally arrange affairs to suit themselves and obfuscate as much as possible to hide things.

So my scheme is to always to learn about the company and invest directly in the asset
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#6
When you let one privileged group create money (which acts as or controls capital), and shills - politicians, economists, freidman, greenspan, etc., treat that system as capitalism, who can figure out anything? got part of that from Finster ....

meanwhile, Gillie and I go round and round about defining the undefinable ................ probably on the same page if we'd use the right words ..........
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#7
(03-02-2018, 06:48 PM)cbeatty Wrote: When you let one privileged group create money (which acts as or controls capital), and shills - politicians, economists, freidman, greenspan, etc., treat that system as capitalism, who can figure out anything? got part of that from Finster ....

meanwhile, Gillie and I go round and round about defining the undefinable ................ probably on the same page if we'd use the right words ..........

Yeah, I think we are mostly on the same page, just using different words to define the problem.

[Image: cre8.gif]
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#8
Quote:When you let one privileged group create money (which acts as or controls capital), and shills - politicians, economists, freidman, greenspan, etc., treat that system as capitalism, who can figure out anything? got part of that from Finster ....

meanwhile, Gillie and I go round and round about defining the undefinable ................ probably on the same page if we'd use the right words ..........
Yeah, I think we are mostly on the same page, just using different words to define the problem.


wow, I sense.....................

rare CONSENSUS across the whole TAO BOARD!!


imo the basic element is
using fraud as money,
which leaves all those finance people free to secretly steal off whatever they want
(the symptoms we all see and complain of).

so much harder to do when money was real,
so think of the future,
when money is CRYPTO
ouch
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#9
(02-28-2018, 07:14 PM)andrew_o Wrote: What he calls 'capitalism' is actually 'financialism'.

and sure, it's toxic.

Getting back to basics: Capitalism is the economic system where individuals have the right to own their own labour and possessions. 

That's all.

Capitalism is the system where factors of production are privately owned.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#10
(03-03-2018, 03:38 AM)DaveGillie Wrote:
Quote:When you let one privileged group create money (which acts as or controls capital), and shills - politicians, economists, freidman, greenspan, etc., treat that system as capitalism, who can figure out anything? got part of that from Finster ....

meanwhile, Gillie and I go round and round about defining the undefinable ................ probably on the same page if we'd use the right words ..........
Yeah, I think we are mostly on the same page, just using different words to define the problem.


wow, I sense.....................

rare CONSENSUS across the whole TAO BOARD!!


imo the basic element is
using fraud as money,
which leaves all those finance people free to secretly steal off whatever they want
(the symptoms we all see and complain of).

so much harder to do when money was real,
so think of the future,
when money is CRYPTO
ouch

I see no future for the CRYPTO crowd.

If you think paper money has little intrinsic value.........what kind of value can you put on an electronic line of computer code? ? ?

[Image: 737a523ebc0ee427f16a3077beb7a52e.jpg]
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
{myadvertisements[zone_2]}