The Anti-Regulators are the Job Killers

[Arraya]

LOL.

That’s quite an elaborate conclusion drawn from a single sentence.

All it took was one

His ideas are so logically inconsistent, there’s really no making sense of them.

Logical inconsistency is a mainstay of economics and monetary ‘sciences’ in general. But thanks for proving my point on not understanding.

Perfect fodder for tyrants and thugs who claim to have found a better way.

Oh good grief. Not the “we are at the apex of our social evolution and anybody that suggests otherwise are tyrants” . Quite possibly we have no idea what we are doing.

Subjective theory of value was an attempt to preserve the notion of value introduced in labor theory of value form by the likes of Smith, Ricardo and Sismondi (it was not introduced by Marx), ie the classical political economists, and fully developed by Marx, while taking away its socially-determined character. It was discarded after a short bit, as for example money had to be explained as having value in terms of prices, while prices already assume money, thus creating circular reasoning(circular reasoning is inherent in economics specifically value). Economics as a field then decided to discard value as a concept, and prices were deemed to be all there was, what you see is what you get,no need for value to anchor price. The labor theory of value was no longer useful for TPTB and the theorists working for their system as it exposed the exploitation inherent in capitalism, for one thing, but even more, was not useful for business owners in terms of providing strategies as to how to set prices, channel investments,..
Here’s an interesting discussion.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1974/crisis/ch01.htm

If you really want to understand “Capital”. Here is 13 video lectures by David Harvey. “Capital” is were the meat of Marx’s critique is.
http://davidharvey.org/

Be careful you might become a tyrant.

[no_such_reality]

So far you’ve all missed the difference between speculation and investing.

What people call investing is no longer investing, it is speculation.

In it’s own way, the speculators free the capital of the investors to do the real investment. But the speculator model that currently holds sway, rewards knowledge based gambling. You don’t invest in Google today, you speculate that tomorrow someone else is going to give you more for it because they think the next day someone else will give them even more.

Investing in Google would have been funding it as the start up or pre-startup because you understood the business model and ability to generate cash flow in the future by providing valuable services. However, that same investment may be speculation if the pay-off calculation is based on an IPO and the sell-off of a yet another ‘growth’ stock that relies on the ponzi model to generate returns.

It’s a fundamental problem with our market, IMHO. The speculative model rewards growth and valuation through ponzi-like investor replacement rather than generating direct sustainable cash flow (value) for the investors. The leadership viewpoint then becomes short term focused to juice the ponzi-multipiers.

A good example was Amazon at peak of the dotcom boom that had a PE ratio that translated to them having 100s of billions in revenues in the future with 10s of billions in earnings annually when a rationally imposed set of multipliers was used to value the similar to other successful high-margin (AMZN is low margin) companies.

[/soapbox]

That said, labor in and of itself is not good.

[no_such_reality]

So far you’ve all missed the difference between speculation and investing.

What people call investing is no longer investing, it is speculation.

In it’s own way, the speculators free the capital of the investors to do the real investment. But the speculator model that currently holds sway, rewards knowledge based gambling. You don’t invest in Google today, you speculate that tomorrow someone else is going to give you more for it because they think the next day someone else will give them even more.

Investing in Google would have been funding it as the start up or pre-startup because you understood the business model and ability to generate cash flow in the future by providing valuable services. However, that same investment may be speculation if the pay-off calculation is based on an IPO and the sell-off of a yet another ‘growth’ stock that relies on the ponzi model to generate returns.

It’s a fundamental problem with our market, IMHO. The speculative model rewards growth and valuation through ponzi-like investor replacement rather than generating direct sustainable cash flow (value) for the investors. The leadership viewpoint then becomes short term focused to juice the ponzi-multipiers.

A good example was Amazon at peak of the dotcom boom that had a PE ratio that translated to them having 100s of billions in revenues in the future with 10s of billions in earnings annually when a rationally imposed set of multipliers was used to value the similar to other successful high-margin (AMZN is low margin) companies.

[/soapbox]

That said, labor in and of itself is not good.

[no_such_reality]

So far you’ve all missed the difference between speculation and investing.

What people call investing is no longer investing, it is speculation.

In it’s own way, the speculators free the capital of the investors to do the real investment. But the speculator model that currently holds sway, rewards knowledge based gambling. You don’t invest in Google today, you speculate that tomorrow someone else is going to give you more for it because they think the next day someone else will give them even more.

Investing in Google would have been funding it as the start up or pre-startup because you understood the business model and ability to generate cash flow in the future by providing valuable services. However, that same investment may be speculation if the pay-off calculation is based on an IPO and the sell-off of a yet another ‘growth’ stock that relies on the ponzi model to generate returns.

It’s a fundamental problem with our market, IMHO. The speculative model rewards growth and valuation through ponzi-like investor replacement rather than generating direct sustainable cash flow (value) for the investors. The leadership viewpoint then becomes short term focused to juice the ponzi-multipiers.

A good example was Amazon at peak of the dotcom boom that had a PE ratio that translated to them having 100s of billions in revenues in the future with 10s of billions in earnings annually when a rationally imposed set of multipliers was used to value the similar to other successful high-margin (AMZN is low margin) companies.

[/soapbox]

That said, labor in and of itself is not good.

[no_such_reality]

So far you’ve all missed the difference between speculation and investing.

What people call investing is no longer investing, it is speculation.

In it’s own way, the speculators free the capital of the investors to do the real investment. But the speculator model that currently holds sway, rewards knowledge based gambling. You don’t invest in Google today, you speculate that tomorrow someone else is going to give you more for it because they think the next day someone else will give them even more.

Investing in Google would have been funding it as the start up or pre-startup because you understood the business model and ability to generate cash flow in the future by providing valuable services. However, that same investment may be speculation if the pay-off calculation is based on an IPO and the sell-off of a yet another ‘growth’ stock that relies on the ponzi model to generate returns.

It’s a fundamental problem with our market, IMHO. The speculative model rewards growth and valuation through ponzi-like investor replacement rather than generating direct sustainable cash flow (value) for the investors. The leadership viewpoint then becomes short term focused to juice the ponzi-multipiers.

A good example was Amazon at peak of the dotcom boom that had a PE ratio that translated to them having 100s of billions in revenues in the future with 10s of billions in earnings annually when a rationally imposed set of multipliers was used to value the similar to other successful high-margin (AMZN is low margin) companies.

[/soapbox]

That said, labor in and of itself is not good.

[no_such_reality]

So far you’ve all missed the difference between speculation and investing.

What people call investing is no longer investing, it is speculation.

In it’s own way, the speculators free the capital of the investors to do the real investment. But the speculator model that currently holds sway, rewards knowledge based gambling. You don’t invest in Google today, you speculate that tomorrow someone else is going to give you more for it because they think the next day someone else will give them even more.

Investing in Google would have been funding it as the start up or pre-startup because you understood the business model and ability to generate cash flow in the future by providing valuable services. However, that same investment may be speculation if the pay-off calculation is based on an IPO and the sell-off of a yet another ‘growth’ stock that relies on the ponzi model to generate returns.

It’s a fundamental problem with our market, IMHO. The speculative model rewards growth and valuation through ponzi-like investor replacement rather than generating direct sustainable cash flow (value) for the investors. The leadership viewpoint then becomes short term focused to juice the ponzi-multipiers.

A good example was Amazon at peak of the dotcom boom that had a PE ratio that translated to them having 100s of billions in revenues in the future with 10s of billions in earnings annually when a rationally imposed set of multipliers was used to value the similar to other successful high-margin (AMZN is low margin) companies.

[/soapbox]

That said, labor in and of itself is not good.

[Anonymous]

Were the folks who bought Amazon at the peak speculators, or just really dumb investors?

I completely agree that there is a difference between investing and speculation.

At the same time, I’ve never been able to develop a robust explanation of that difference.

But here’s my soapbox:

Let’s stop using the word “Ponzi” for every financial phenomenon that we don’t like.

Ponzi schemes are based on fraud. Ponzi was a crook. He was a liar.

Ponzi schemes are fraudulent by design, the source of their returns simply don’t exist. They are unsustainable because there is nothing sustaining them except more participants, and the number of participants is always finite.

Not everything that is expected to grow indefinitely is a Ponzi scheme. There is a crucial difference.

The stock market and social security are NOT Ponzi schemes. Their growth is not dependent upon increased participation. They are based upon economic and/or population growth which, for all of history, has always been pretty reliable. They are based upon something we can count on as well as anything in life (in the long run, at least.)

There may be legitimate criticisms of the the stock market, or social security, but they are not “Ponzi.”

[/soapbox]

[Anonymous]

Were the folks who bought Amazon at the peak speculators, or just really dumb investors?

I completely agree that there is a difference between investing and speculation.

At the same time, I’ve never been able to develop a robust explanation of that difference.

But here’s my soapbox:

Let’s stop using the word “Ponzi” for every financial phenomenon that we don’t like.

Ponzi schemes are based on fraud. Ponzi was a crook. He was a liar.

Ponzi schemes are fraudulent by design, the source of their returns simply don’t exist. They are unsustainable because there is nothing sustaining them except more participants, and the number of participants is always finite.

Not everything that is expected to grow indefinitely is a Ponzi scheme. There is a crucial difference.

The stock market and social security are NOT Ponzi schemes. Their growth is not dependent upon increased participation. They are based upon economic and/or population growth which, for all of history, has always been pretty reliable. They are based upon something we can count on as well as anything in life (in the long run, at least.)

There may be legitimate criticisms of the the stock market, or social security, but they are not “Ponzi.”

[/soapbox]

[Anonymous]

Were the folks who bought Amazon at the peak speculators, or just really dumb investors?

I completely agree that there is a difference between investing and speculation.

At the same time, I’ve never been able to develop a robust explanation of that difference.

But here’s my soapbox:

Let’s stop using the word “Ponzi” for every financial phenomenon that we don’t like.

Ponzi schemes are based on fraud. Ponzi was a crook. He was a liar.

Ponzi schemes are fraudulent by design, the source of their returns simply don’t exist. They are unsustainable because there is nothing sustaining them except more participants, and the number of participants is always finite.

Not everything that is expected to grow indefinitely is a Ponzi scheme. There is a crucial difference.

The stock market and social security are NOT Ponzi schemes. Their growth is not dependent upon increased participation. They are based upon economic and/or population growth which, for all of history, has always been pretty reliable. They are based upon something we can count on as well as anything in life (in the long run, at least.)

There may be legitimate criticisms of the the stock market, or social security, but they are not “Ponzi.”

[/soapbox]

[Anonymous]

Were the folks who bought Amazon at the peak speculators, or just really dumb investors?

I completely agree that there is a difference between investing and speculation.

At the same time, I’ve never been able to develop a robust explanation of that difference.

But here’s my soapbox:

Let’s stop using the word “Ponzi” for every financial phenomenon that we don’t like.

Ponzi schemes are based on fraud. Ponzi was a crook. He was a liar.

Ponzi schemes are fraudulent by design, the source of their returns simply don’t exist. They are unsustainable because there is nothing sustaining them except more participants, and the number of participants is always finite.

Not everything that is expected to grow indefinitely is a Ponzi scheme. There is a crucial difference.

The stock market and social security are NOT Ponzi schemes. Their growth is not dependent upon increased participation. They are based upon economic and/or population growth which, for all of history, has always been pretty reliable. They are based upon something we can count on as well as anything in life (in the long run, at least.)

There may be legitimate criticisms of the the stock market, or social security, but they are not “Ponzi.”

[/soapbox]

[Anonymous]

Were the folks who bought Amazon at the peak speculators, or just really dumb investors?

I completely agree that there is a difference between investing and speculation.

At the same time, I’ve never been able to develop a robust explanation of that difference.

But here’s my soapbox:

Let’s stop using the word “Ponzi” for every financial phenomenon that we don’t like.

Ponzi schemes are based on fraud. Ponzi was a crook. He was a liar.

Ponzi schemes are fraudulent by design, the source of their returns simply don’t exist. They are unsustainable because there is nothing sustaining them except more participants, and the number of participants is always finite.

Not everything that is expected to grow indefinitely is a Ponzi scheme. There is a crucial difference.

The stock market and social security are NOT Ponzi schemes. Their growth is not dependent upon increased participation. They are based upon economic and/or population growth which, for all of history, has always been pretty reliable. They are based upon something we can count on as well as anything in life (in the long run, at least.)

There may be legitimate criticisms of the the stock market, or social security, but they are not “Ponzi.”

[/soapbox]

[Arraya]

From the Top of the Great Pyramid

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2008/11/debt-rattle-november-26-2008-from-top.html
Everyone has heard of pyramid, or Ponzi, schemes. In their simplest form they are short-lived deliberate frauds where a small number of existing members are paid from the buy-in of a larger number of newer members until the supply of newer members is exhausted, whereupon they collapse. Typically, the founders, and perhaps a few others who got in early and out before it was too late, end up making a lot of money at the expense of later entrants, who end up holding the empty bag. There are always many more losers than winners. What most do not realize, however, is that Ponzi dynamics are far more pervasive than people think. There are many human systems that ultimately rest on the buy-in of new entrants, and every one of them will ultimately meet the same fate, although it can take far longer for complex constructions than for simple pyramid frauds.

snip

At the largest scale, empires are also grounded in pyramid dynamics, which is why they too have a limited lifespan. They grow by assuming control, either politically or economically, of new territories, positioning themselves to cream off surpluses from an ever-expanding geographical area in a form of involuntary buy-in. In the past political control through invasion or physical colonization was more common, but latterly globalization has enabled the development of a sophisticated system of economic control based on international debt slavery, supplemented with economic colonization for the purpose of resource extraction. Both resources and financial surpluses, in the form of perpetual interest payments, could be efficiently extracted from the periphery and accumulated at the centre, where they led to the development of an unprecedented level of socioeconomic complexity.

[Arraya]

From the Top of the Great Pyramid

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2008/11/debt-rattle-november-26-2008-from-top.html
Everyone has heard of pyramid, or Ponzi, schemes. In their simplest form they are short-lived deliberate frauds where a small number of existing members are paid from the buy-in of a larger number of newer members until the supply of newer members is exhausted, whereupon they collapse. Typically, the founders, and perhaps a few others who got in early and out before it was too late, end up making a lot of money at the expense of later entrants, who end up holding the empty bag. There are always many more losers than winners. What most do not realize, however, is that Ponzi dynamics are far more pervasive than people think. There are many human systems that ultimately rest on the buy-in of new entrants, and every one of them will ultimately meet the same fate, although it can take far longer for complex constructions than for simple pyramid frauds.

snip

At the largest scale, empires are also grounded in pyramid dynamics, which is why they too have a limited lifespan. They grow by assuming control, either politically or economically, of new territories, positioning themselves to cream off surpluses from an ever-expanding geographical area in a form of involuntary buy-in. In the past political control through invasion or physical colonization was more common, but latterly globalization has enabled the development of a sophisticated system of economic control based on international debt slavery, supplemented with economic colonization for the purpose of resource extraction. Both resources and financial surpluses, in the form of perpetual interest payments, could be efficiently extracted from the periphery and accumulated at the centre, where they led to the development of an unprecedented level of socioeconomic complexity.

[Arraya]

From the Top of the Great Pyramid

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2008/11/debt-rattle-november-26-2008-from-top.html
Everyone has heard of pyramid, or Ponzi, schemes. In their simplest form they are short-lived deliberate frauds where a small number of existing members are paid from the buy-in of a larger number of newer members until the supply of newer members is exhausted, whereupon they collapse. Typically, the founders, and perhaps a few others who got in early and out before it was too late, end up making a lot of money at the expense of later entrants, who end up holding the empty bag. There are always many more losers than winners. What most do not realize, however, is that Ponzi dynamics are far more pervasive than people think. There are many human systems that ultimately rest on the buy-in of new entrants, and every one of them will ultimately meet the same fate, although it can take far longer for complex constructions than for simple pyramid frauds.

snip

At the largest scale, empires are also grounded in pyramid dynamics, which is why they too have a limited lifespan. They grow by assuming control, either politically or economically, of new territories, positioning themselves to cream off surpluses from an ever-expanding geographical area in a form of involuntary buy-in. In the past political control through invasion or physical colonization was more common, but latterly globalization has enabled the development of a sophisticated system of economic control based on international debt slavery, supplemented with economic colonization for the purpose of resource extraction. Both resources and financial surpluses, in the form of perpetual interest payments, could be efficiently extracted from the periphery and accumulated at the centre, where they led to the development of an unprecedented level of socioeconomic complexity.

[Arraya]

From the Top of the Great Pyramid

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2008/11/debt-rattle-november-26-2008-from-top.html
Everyone has heard of pyramid, or Ponzi, schemes. In their simplest form they are short-lived deliberate frauds where a small number of existing members are paid from the buy-in of a larger number of newer members until the supply of newer members is exhausted, whereupon they collapse. Typically, the founders, and perhaps a few others who got in early and out before it was too late, end up making a lot of money at the expense of later entrants, who end up holding the empty bag. There are always many more losers than winners. What most do not realize, however, is that Ponzi dynamics are far more pervasive than people think. There are many human systems that ultimately rest on the buy-in of new entrants, and every one of them will ultimately meet the same fate, although it can take far longer for complex constructions than for simple pyramid frauds.

snip

At the largest scale, empires are also grounded in pyramid dynamics, which is why they too have a limited lifespan. They grow by assuming control, either politically or economically, of new territories, positioning themselves to cream off surpluses from an ever-expanding geographical area in a form of involuntary buy-in. In the past political control through invasion or physical colonization was more common, but latterly globalization has enabled the development of a sophisticated system of economic control based on international debt slavery, supplemented with economic colonization for the purpose of resource extraction. Both resources and financial surpluses, in the form of perpetual interest payments, could be efficiently extracted from the periphery and accumulated at the centre, where they led to the development of an unprecedented level of socioeconomic complexity.

[Author]

Posts