Re: China's growth trumps ours due to neoeconomics

"Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dih1gv$rdp$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "The Trucker" <mikcob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:di91a302q5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:di6i62$n4l$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > "The Trucker" <mikcob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> speaking of the "middle class":
>> >>
>> >> I never claimed that they owned LESS stocks, B-liar. I
>> >> claimed that they owned LESS of the means of production.
>> >> That means that their percentage of ownership has fallen:
>> >> ------
>> >>
>> >> What did happen is that the percentage of households with some
> ownership
>> > of
>> >> stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did
> go
>> > up very
>> >> dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of
>> > households had
>> >> some ownership of stock.
>> >> By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more
> widespread
>> > stock
>> >> ownership, in terms of number of families.
>> >
>
> jeb:
>
>> > Er, yes.
>
>> >>
>> >> But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market.
> In
>> > 2001,
>> >> only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and
> only
>> > 25
>> >> percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.
>> >>
>> >> So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings
> of
>> > stock.
>> >> There hasn't been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the
> richest
>> > 1 or
>> >> 10 percent.
>
> jeb:
>> >
>> > You see wealth as a "zero sum" game because you think in terms of
> "percent
>> > of the total". So most household that owned NO stocks in 1980 now own
>> > "only" $10K-25K. I say that is an increase. You claim not. Because
> the
>> > total has grown faster?
>>
>> No. I claim that wealth has a zero sum dimension as well as
>> a non zero sum dimension. The top guns still control all the means
>> of production and they reap so much more from their ownership
>> that they will ever maintain _control_. No _control_ has been
>> transferred to the small guys. You refuse to understand that
>> _WEALTH_ has two dimensions. One is related to goods but
>> the zero sum dimension is power. It is the power to have others
>> do as you (an owner) may want.
>
> Hi,
>
> OK, I see two different ways of looking at stock/bond ownership. I (and I
> think most people) think in terms of "how much do I need so I can retire and
> live from the interest and dividends?". When I own enough to do that, I can
> consider quitting/retiring from my job and doing what I please. To us, it
> is the absoulte value of the stocks and bonds that count. If I have enough
> to do that, I don't care if you have 10 times as much.

That is a socially acceptable manner of controlling the labors
of others so as to provide for ones self. People work and
produce so as to pay you what they supposedly owe you.
I have made the point many times that it really does not
matter whether they are paying through the higher prices
they need to pay so as to provide you with the interest,
dividends, and rents that you have supposedly earned, or
they pay a tax to government that then pays you a pension.
Either way, they are producing excess goods that you will
consume. You seem to want to think that the goods that
you are consuming in old age are coming out of a big bank
inside of Fort Knox.

> Others (you and some other eci.econ posters) think in terms of control. How
> much of a stock do I need to influence company policy? For that, it is
> percent of total that is important.

You have again missed the point; probably quite purposefully.
As for myself, I consider both dimensions of wealth as opposed
to the single dimension in which you seem to be locked. Your
"influence" over corporate decisions is not the point. It is
your indirect control of labor that is being addressed here.
That sort of control "the command of labor" is most certainly
seen as socially acceptable and even encouraged in our
society. I question whether it is the only way or even the
best way to arrange for retirement. The entire system is
based on the stupid notion that "individual financial saving" is
necessary to _real_ capital development. While excess
goods must be produced so as to fund _real_ capital
development, there is no atomic need for self deprivation
and hoarding. As a matter of fact, so long as there is any
unemployment then there is no excuse to differ development
of appropriate infrastructure.

> Note that some companies have had "stockholder revolts" where lots of small
> shareholders get together and demand changes in company policies. Sometimes
> they get what they want and sometimes not. Often they want political things
> like "don't invest in Israel" or "don't buy products that have been tested
> on animals".
>

snore......


--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is a share or stock of a company really mean?
    ... > Stock represents legal ownership, which is meaningless for most of us ... > Contrast your lack of control with your ownership in your own business. ... > So, stock is legal ownership ... > hope of dividends for now. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Chinas growth is not due to trade
    ... >>> claimed that they owned LESS of the means of production. ... >>> some ownership of stock. ... I claim that wealth has a zero sum dimension as well as ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: OT ~ Not a bad suggestion
    ... control of the federal government for three years and we are ... didn't have the cojones to tell the UAW to take a hike. ... gain control of the assets, got the 0bama cramdown and about 10 cents on ... As I understand it the trust needs to sell the stock as a way to pay ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • US is not FREE, Stock Fixes, Censurship, Violence, Joblessness
    ... Us has turned into one conspiracy after another where control is way more ... take it out to a different stock the one you were in goes back up. ... a multitude of players often because the money has showed up!!! ... respiratory health, the accumulated cost in billions of people made to ...
    (talk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Chinas growth is not due to trade
    ... Rich is a zero sum game. ... >> What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership ... >> some ownership of stock. ... You have the only house. ...
    (sci.econ)