The ugly face of capitalism

[IFocus]

Some thing I read the other day by a ardent wealthy US Republican that surprised me was that capitalism should never be left alone to run unabated as that would always be a disaster but it should be regulated to ensure fairness and benefit to the nations people.

There is a price for doing business in a democracy that many fail to understand and that is the price for the masses to accept and adhere to the rule of law and so to give certainty for business to invest.

I think at times many believe its the other way around.

 

[Value Collector]

.

Unbridled capitalism concentrates wealth and power.

The only reason it does that is because the bulk of people aren’t taught the rules of the game.

It makes it very easy for a few of us to score a lot of goals, when our peers aren’t even aware the game is happening.

The sad part is though, rather than blame them selves for not attempting to accumulate capital assets, they tend to make up stories about “elites” stealing wealth.

As I said though it not totally their fault they aren’t taught about it at home or at school.

All of the world largest and most powerful corporations are open to the public to take ownership in for as little as $500.

No point complaining that Coca-Cola, Apple, Disney etc etc are powerful when you could own them for $500.

 

[Value Collector]

Essential services on the other hand should be provided by governments at a reasonable price with excess charges applied if people waste the resources.

Even in that situation they are still being provided by private investors.

Eg, the government is funded by the sale of bonds, which are sold to the public.

The price charged by the government would still need to cover the interest charges on the bonds, plus a margin of profit for the risk etc.

The aim of most regulated assets is to provide the company with earnings on its capital at a certain margin above bond rates, which put them in the same position as if the government were funding the service.

 

[sptrawler]

I'm certainly not going to denigrate your "system" because it encourages self sufficiency and more people should do it if they can.

I think that the current superannuation system probably does a lot of the work for people already, so people are really forced to save for their retirement, like it or not.

The down side of that is, they don't save any of what they earn, they think super will cover it.
So they don't have any money for a house deposit, after the holidays, the mobile phone plan, the grooming etc.

 

[sptrawler]

I was chatting to a method addict the other day, I asked how much meth does an addict use a day?
He said about 1gram, I asked how much does that cost, he said $800. OMG

 

[SirRumpole]

No point complaining that Coca-Cola, Apple, Disney etc etc are powerful when you could own them for $500.

Come on, a $500 stake in a company gives you no power over company decisions whatever.

Companies are not a one vote one value proposition, the size of your shareholding decides the value of your vote.

 

[SirRumpole]

The down side of that is, they don't save any of what they earn, they think super will cover it.
So they don't have any money for a house deposit, after the holidays, the mobile phone plan, the grooming etc.

That's a pretty general comment, applying to some perhaps, but I think owning a home is the major priority for most couples as it always has been.

 

[SirRumpole]

The aim of most regulated assets is to provide the company with earnings on its capital at a certain margin above bond rates, which put them in the same position as if the government were funding the service.

Not really, with government controlled services, the customers get the vote on the quality of the service not the shareholders.

 

[Smurf1976]

That's a pretty general comment, applying to some perhaps, but I think owning a home is the major priority for most couples as it always has been.

Owning a home is a priority for most that's true but I also think the underlying point that many spend with no thought to the future is also true.

I've seen it first hand - people on over $100K salary, no dependents, and nothing of any lasting value to show for it and by that I mean not even a decent car or furniture let alone a house, shares or other investments.

Some do have a very "hand to mouth" approach.

 

[qldfrog]

Not really, with government controlled services, the customers get the vote on the quality of the service not the shareholders.

Do we?
Ask business owner with the ato treatment of sme or welfare recipient with centerlink
We, as voter, can influence maybe the direction of public services but only if a big enough percentage of voters are users
There is no counterweight for many if not most of PS department
And this bring in arrogance , procedures, and once forgotten USSR attitude
So my praise of capitalism for service delivery, but this is not what
We have here.capitalism without competition is servitude

 

[Value Collector]

Come on, a $500 stake in a company gives you no power over company decisions whatever.

Companies are not a one vote one value proposition, the size of your shareholding decides the value of your vote.

For $500 you have more voting power in the company than an American citizen has in deciding who is president.

What I am saying is, people constantly point to all these companies as being super profitable and making the rich richer etc, when they could be taking ownership in these companies, and be part of the system, rather than just complain about it.

 

[Value Collector]

Not really, with government controlled services, the customers get the vote on the quality of the service not the shareholders.

Either way the government regulations decide the rules of the game.

 

[Value Collector]

Owning a home is a priority for most that's true but I also think the underlying point that many spend with no thought to the future is also true.

I've seen it first hand - people on over $100K salary, no dependents, and nothing of any lasting value to show for it and by that I mean not even a decent car or furniture let alone a house, shares or other investments.

Some do have a very "hand to mouth" approach.

I have seen that a lot.

My in-laws have always earned pretty good income, but are still living pay check to pay check.

Over the last 15 years I have tried so hard to get them to save and build up some investments, but it is always “yeah yeah yeah, once we pay of the car, (cruise or the credit card)” then we will Save”

But it never happens,

Now their 36 year old daughter and I are retired, and they act like we are some how rorting the system, and that being an investor is not a valid way to earn a living.

They are so short sighted, but that’s normal I guess.

 

[SirRumpole]

Now their 36 year old daughter and I are retired, and they act like we are some how rorting the system, and that being an investor is not a valid way to earn a living.

Better make it clear that you are not available for loans when they get in trouble.

 

[Smurf1976]

My in-laws have always earned pretty good income, but are still living pay check to pay check.

I've never understood that mentality if someone has a decent income.

I mean, well I don't drive around with half a litre of petrol in the tank and I don't have the cupboards empty at home and so on so not having some money saved just seems crazy to me if someone's earning a decent income.

 

[SirRumpole]

I've never understood that mentality if someone has a decent income.

I mean, well I don't drive around with half a litre of petrol in the tank and I don't have the cupboards empty at home and so on so not having some money saved just seems crazy to me if someone's earning a decent income.

Seems to be the same principle as people who retire with a lump sum super payment, blow it all on cars or cruises and then go on the pension.

Crazy.

 

[Value Collector]

Better make it clear that you are not available for loans when they get in trouble.

Been there done that.

Currently have 1 outstanding loan to them, but they are making payments, and if they did stop paying I wouldn’t let it affect me personally.

 

[Value Collector]

I've never understood that mentality if someone has a decent income.

I mean, well I don't drive around with half a litre of petrol in the tank and I don't have the cupboards empty at home and so on so not having some money saved just seems crazy to me if someone's earning a decent income.

It seems with them this months pay check is always paying of last months credit card bill.

They are always a month behind, it seems like credit cards allowed them to over spend for a few months, and they have just never caught up.

But that’s normal these days it seems.

 

[sptrawler]

I've never understood that mentality if someone has a decent income.

I mean, well I don't drive around with half a litre of petrol in the tank and I don't have the cupboards empty at home and so on so not having some money saved just seems crazy to me if someone's earning a decent income.

It reminds me of a time when SECWA introduced a computer based maintenance planning system, way back in 1984, I said to the American salesman this is rubbish all we are doing is telling people what work needs to be done.
He said, if everyone could plan, they wouldn't have money problems.

 

[Macquack]

Seems to be the same principle as people who retire with a lump sum super payment, blow it all on cars or cruises and then go on the pension.

Crazy.

What is so crazy about that idea?

The crazy thing is that the ridiculous superannuation provisions set a minimum percentage pension amount in retirement but not a maximum percentage withdrawal.

Anyway, my left field view is that people that piss all their money up against the wall actually keep the economy ticking over while the "savers" are just producing and not consuming.