The boys are back in town again.
https://x.com/haveigotnews/status/1708801499906642224?s=20
You must log in or register to see media
The boys are back in town again.
https://x.com/haveigotnews/status/1708801499906642224?s=20
What. A. ****Pants on fire.
You must log in or register to see media
No no no all politicians are the same. Labour do it too. I have no examples but they do. Might as well not vote. Or just vote for Tories as we know what they are like! Low taxes! It’s all just banter anyway.What. A. ****
No, don’t vote, then we’ll get the kind of strong leadership this country needs.No no no all politicians are the same. Labour do it too. I have no examples but they do. Might as well not vote. Or just vote for Tories as we know what they are like! Low taxes! It’s all just banter anyway.
Simply having capital makes capital and that means that the hard working many are downtrodden by the often lazy few.
Brilliantly put Schad, and spot on.To expand on one small part of that post, General Electric is a famous example of this. GE was probably the preeminent maker-of-things and corporate technological innovator of the first 70 years of the 20th century. It's also a company that paid extremely well and had excellent job security, because when you are in the business of being at the forefront of technological innovation across a whole bunch of different industries, you need to attract and keep top talent, because that talent will generate patents that you control and which will support your business for decades.
But in the 1980s, Jack Welch came along. And his great revision to the model was to stop spending so much money on research and development, employees and manufacturing, and start spending it on mergers, acquisitions, stock buybacks, and accounting tricks to reassign debt. And it worked: GE became much more profitable as basically a giant venture capital firm with a manufacturing wing than it did as a manufacturing-driven company. Because making **** is really expensive. The margins aren't that great, you may have to spend years burning money before ever developing something that is even worth manufacturing, etc. And in many cases, when in mergers-and-acquisitions mode, it's far more profitable to strip all of those pesky employees away from a new acquisition, keep the property (intellectual or physical), and then spin that off in a future sale.
So over the course of thirty years, GE went from being a company that created hundreds of thousands of good-paying, stable jobs, to one that sought out companies to purchase specifically so they could fire all of their employees. Because it's far easier to turn capital into more capital when you don't have to pay so many people along the way, and removing the long research and development cycle means that you can prioritize shareholder gains today rather than spend 10-15 years trying to innovate.
This is the problem with modern capital: the smart play is to make as few products as possible, employ as few people as possible (and make those you do employ as disposable as possible to keep costs down) and simply operate as a combination casino/real estate flipper. And GE is hardly alone: Welch is probably the most influential corporate manager of the past half-century, and his grubby fingerprints are all over the actions of his acolytes, who implemented his aggressive form of capitalism at some of the largest firms around the world.
When people talk about 'making capitalism work for those who work', this is what we're talking about. The incentives are incredibly ****ed up if there is more money to be made by not making things -- and focusing instead on vampire capitalism -- than one could make in 70 years of being the world's leader in making things. Capitalism is never going to be eliminated (nor should it be) but government's job is to lay out the guardrails which guide capitalism toward socially-acceptable ends. It's not just taxing more/less, it's what you tax; the rise of vampire capitalism, not coincidentally, accompanies a period of low capital gains taxes and enormous corporate tax loopholes that make it far more profitable to turn money into more money without the annoying middle step of paying people to do things.
And no: removing even more guardrails will not suddenly make capital more responsive to the needs of the polity, nor will it magically lift all boats...there is zero reason to assume so other than pure dogmatic belief, because history demonstrates the opposite. Capital is like water flowing downhill: left to its own devices, it's going to take the shortest route to get where it wants to go, and if that involves sweeping your village away, well...so it goes. But like water flowing downhill, it can be channeled: the profit motive is powerful, and when focused toward beneficial things within strict parameters, it can be immensely beneficial in driving innovation. But it must be focused, and right now it isn't, and the fact that it isn't is the primary driver of forty years of backsliding living conditions for the working and middle classes at a time of incredible wealth concentration at the top.
Asset stripping on a global scale.To expand on one small part of that post, General Electric is a famous example of this. GE was probably the preeminent maker-of-things and corporate technological innovator of the first 70 years of the 20th century. It's also a company that paid extremely well and had excellent job security, because when you are in the business of being at the forefront of technological innovation across a whole bunch of different industries, you need to attract and keep top talent, because that talent will generate patents that you control and which will support your business for decades.
But in the 1980s, Jack Welch came along. And his great revision to the model was to stop spending so much money on research and development, employees and manufacturing, and start spending it on mergers, acquisitions, stock buybacks, and accounting tricks to reassign debt. And it worked: GE became much more profitable as basically a giant venture capital firm with a manufacturing wing than it did as a manufacturing-driven company. Because making **** is really expensive. The margins aren't that great, you may have to spend years burning money before ever developing something that is even worth manufacturing, etc. And in many cases, when in mergers-and-acquisitions mode, it's far more profitable to strip all of those pesky employees away from a new acquisition, keep the property (intellectual or physical), and then spin that off in a future sale.
So over the course of thirty years, GE went from being a company that created hundreds of thousands of good-paying, stable jobs, to one that sought out companies to purchase specifically so they could fire all of their employees. Because it's far easier to turn capital into more capital when you don't have to pay so many people along the way, and removing the long research and development cycle means that you can prioritize shareholder gains today rather than spend 10-15 years trying to innovate.
This is the problem with modern capital: the smart play is to make as few products as possible, employ as few people as possible (and make those you do employ as disposable as possible to keep costs down) and simply operate as a combination casino/real estate flipper. And GE is hardly alone: Welch is probably the most influential corporate manager of the past half-century, and his grubby fingerprints are all over the actions of his acolytes, who implemented his aggressive form of capitalism at some of the largest firms around the world.
When people talk about 'making capitalism work for those who work', this is what we're talking about. The incentives are incredibly ****ed up if there is more money to be made by not making things -- and focusing instead on vampire capitalism -- than one could make in 70 years of being the world's leader in making things. Capitalism is never going to be eliminated (nor should it be) but government's job is to lay out the guardrails which guide capitalism toward socially-acceptable ends. It's not just taxing more/less, it's what you tax; the rise of vampire capitalism, not coincidentally, accompanies a period of low capital gains taxes and enormous corporate tax loopholes that make it far more profitable to turn money into more money without the annoying middle step of paying people to do things.
And no: removing even more guardrails will not suddenly make capital more responsive to the needs of the polity, nor will it magically lift all boats...there is zero reason to assume so other than pure dogmatic belief, because history demonstrates the opposite. Capital is like water flowing downhill: left to its own devices, it's going to take the shortest route to get where it wants to go, and if that involves sweeping your village away, well...so it goes. But like water flowing downhill, it can be channeled: the profit motive is powerful, and when focused toward beneficial things within strict parameters, it can be immensely beneficial in driving innovation. But it must be focused, and right now it isn't, and the fact that it isn't is the primary driver of forty years of backsliding living conditions for the working and middle classes at a time of incredible wealth concentration at the top.
To expand on one small part of that post, General Electric is a famous example of this. GE was probably the preeminent maker-of-things and corporate technological innovator of the first 70 years of the 20th century. It's also a company that paid extremely well and had excellent job security, because when you are in the business of being at the forefront of technological innovation across a whole bunch of different industries, you need to attract and keep top talent, because that talent will generate patents that you control and which will support your business for decades.
But in the 1980s, Jack Welch came along. And his great revision to the model was to stop spending so much money on research and development, employees and manufacturing, and start spending it on mergers, acquisitions, stock buybacks, and accounting tricks to reassign debt. And it worked: GE became much more profitable as basically a giant venture capital firm with a manufacturing wing than it did as a manufacturing-driven company. Because making **** is really expensive. The margins aren't that great, you may have to spend years burning money before ever developing something that is even worth manufacturing, etc. And in many cases, when in mergers-and-acquisitions mode, it's far more profitable to strip all of those pesky employees away from a new acquisition, keep the property (intellectual or physical), and then spin that off in a future sale.
So over the course of thirty years, GE went from being a company that created hundreds of thousands of good-paying, stable jobs, to one that sought out companies to purchase specifically so they could fire all of their employees. Because it's far easier to turn capital into more capital when you don't have to pay so many people along the way, and removing the long research and development cycle means that you can prioritize shareholder gains today rather than spend 10-15 years trying to innovate.
This is the problem with modern capital: the smart play is to make as few products as possible, employ as few people as possible (and make those you do employ as disposable as possible to keep costs down) and simply operate as a combination casino/real estate flipper. And GE is hardly alone: Welch is probably the most influential corporate manager of the past half-century, and his grubby fingerprints are all over the actions of his acolytes, who implemented his aggressive form of capitalism at some of the largest firms around the world.
When people talk about 'making capitalism work for those who work', this is what we're talking about. The incentives are incredibly ****ed up if there is more money to be made by not making things -- and focusing instead on vampire capitalism -- than one could make in 70 years of being the world's leader in making things. Capitalism is never going to be eliminated (nor should it be) but government's job is to lay out the guardrails which guide capitalism toward socially-acceptable ends. It's not just taxing more/less, it's what you tax; the rise of vampire capitalism, not coincidentally, accompanies a period of low capital gains taxes and enormous corporate tax loopholes that make it far more profitable to turn money into more money without the annoying middle step of paying people to do things.
And no: removing even more guardrails will not suddenly make capital more responsive to the needs of the polity, nor will it magically lift all boats...there is zero reason to assume so other than pure dogmatic belief, because history demonstrates the opposite. Capital is like water flowing downhill: left to its own devices, it's going to take the shortest route to get where it wants to go, and if that involves sweeping your village away, well...so it goes.
> But like water flowing downhill, it can be channeled: the profit motive is powerful, and when focused toward beneficial things within strict parameters, it can be immensely beneficial in driving innovation. But it must be focused, and right now it isn't, and the fact that it isn't is the primary driver of forty years of backsliding living conditions for the working and middle classes at a time of incredible wealth concentration at the top.
Loving the metaphor of the last paraSeems more like a red meat move as it is all “may” and implementing will be “very challenging”. Rather than a solid and confirmed change
Seems more like a red meat move as it is all “may” and implementing will be “very challenging”. Rather than a solid and confirmed change
Seems more like a red meat move as it is all “may” and implementing will be “very challenging”. Rather than a solid and confirmed change
I said exactly the same thing to my friends last night when this story popped up. It is truly staggering(If the rumours are true)
I am in awe of the political skill required to not only cancel half of the countries flagship infrastructure project, but to announce it at the intended destination and to make it the cornerstone of your pre election Conference speech held in said destination.
It really is big brain from Rishi.
A masterpiece.
I said exactly the same thing to my friends last night when this story popped up. It is truly staggering