Where do you stand politically?

[Anthony DeAngelis]

Simplicity at what level? At a base level action and reaction are typically VERY simple.

My muscles are my muscles. I work for them. I should control how they are used. And that's not good news for you since I am a stronger caveman (and you happen to be made of meat).

Sound familiar?

Are you talking about eating me bro?

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

Dude, I have no issue with paying taxes. There comes a point where taxes for the good of us all become taxes to redistribute to whomever the government deems fit. Paying for roads and schools is a lot different than giving it to those who someone else feels are in need. Also, how does you imposing physical force on me have anything to do with me working for a paycheck and wanting to have control of those earnings?

I prefer people do maximize their liberty. I don't think I know what is right for someone else and I know others don't know what is right for me. Pretty elegant and simple way to think if you ask me.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

Let's simply shelve this convo. I don't want to make my prediction come true.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Agree, let's not derail this discussion and make it look like a two-person words fight.

 

[euroazn]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with charity - I believe those who are well off should support their communities, and as an example most billionaires support or create their own foundations for the common good. These work far more effectively than government, which tends to look like this: www.thelocal.se/34338/20110614/

Still a bit surprised at the number of left/vs right wingers, it's not even 50-50!

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Still a bit surprised at the number of left/vs right wingers, it's not even 50-50!

This is NY, a green state which just legalized same-sex marriage and you expect to see a lot of conservatives, republicans, red/right?
I'm sure they are out there among the members here. That or the test is rigged

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

I happen to agree with Alexei's stance more or less. There's nothing wrong with making money and using it for your personal enjoyment. However, when you're running a multibillion dollar corporation--an entity existing only on paper whose sole purpose is to amass capital, and then use that capital for the benefit of your on-paper-only corporation to the detriment of the people around you, well, at some point, someone has to say "enough is enough".

I mean come on...Koch Industries, any "too big to fail" bank (ahem Glass Steagall), any company wealthy enough to simply buy up patents and then sue rivals (or smaller entities) for "copyright infringement" or "patent infringement" or any number of things that companies with legions of lawyers do to say "hey I don't like the fact that you're competing with me, so rather than compete with you, I'll try to sue you out of business", and so forth.

Capitalism works because of the idea that humans are naturally greedy and will want to produce more to improve their own economic situation, and by doing so, produce a good or service that someone else wants. However, corporations distort that by turning into parasitic multinationals, outsourcing jobs, importing people, and generally cutting as many corners as possible to fulfill their legal fiduciary duty, which is to maximize shareholder value, not to A) Create jobs (hence you know that anything the right wing says is complete and utter BS on this one) B) do some other beneficial thing which comes about only as a side effect of their main raison d'etre, which is to maximize shareholder value.

This is where the role of government comes in--realizing that corporations are out to fuck up as much as they possibly can if it means more money. By creating more laws and rules and regulations, it adjusts the procedure for corporations to maximize shareholder value, ideally, it adjusts them so that the only way they maximize shareholder value is by creating goods, services, and jobs.

 

[euroazn]

This is NY, a green state which just legalized same-sex marriage and you expect to see a lot of conservatives, republicans, red/right?
I'm sure they are out there among the members here. That or the test is rigged

This is NY? I was under the impression that this is the internet good sir...

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

If you were seriously ill and a doctor refused to help you because he wanted a bonus, I suggest you file complaint against him. Honestly, sounds like you should find a much better doctor. I think what you had was a one off jerk rather than a systemic issue.

As far as companies maximizing shareholder value, what would you have them do? Everyone wants companies to support feel good causes until the companies ethics go against a persons beliefs. Many people think abortion is unethical or distasteful, but I could only imagine the uproar if a company donated profits to anti abortion causes.

Many people are against genetically modified food, but a person could ethically be for GM food because of the increased yields and more people it could feed.

I think it is much safer and much better for a company to remain neutral and make money so its investors can use those profits in a way that the individuals things is more ethical and efficient.

Also, how is outsourcing wrong? If anything it gives people in developing nations a change to earn a living. The USA could be selfish and tariff the hell out of goods and keep jobs in the US. That might be "ethical" in a US centric sense, but is it ethical to keep jobs in this country that should be done in other countries?

Also, innovation leads to job lose. If we did away with automation, computers and farm equipment, everyone would be fully employed. How is a company looking to do things more efficiently inherently bad? I didn't realize that when I take money from my pocket, that could go to any number of things, but instead give it to a company with the intent of hopefully getting more in return, that my investment was really a "charitable" donation.

We each have different ethical beliefs. I think we should seek to maximize our individual beliefs, while not trying to force upon others beliefs which they might not hold.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

Forgive my typing errors. I am pretty tired. Night all.

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

Anthony, I absolutely understand your point about maximizing shareholder value. But in all honesty, there are some things that, in hindsight, just look really f*ing stupid. Case in point? 2008 housing->credit bust. Maximize shareholder value? Oh hey let's all drink from the mixed-drink punch bowl till 3 of us die of alcohol poisoning. (The 3 being Merrill, Bear, and Lehman. Bad analogy probably but I'll go with it.) Another case in point? BP and its oil explosion.

And so on and so on and so forth. There's a difference between "don't provide donations for late-term abortion providers" and "spend a little more on the pollutant scrubbing in your chemical plants rather than fight every environmental policy tooth and nail". There is certainly a difference between running a pure feel-good non-profit out to save the world, and loudly and proudly emanating the image of fat-cat corporate douchebaggery that so many in large corporations just about anywhere are so seemingly fond of doing. And hence, there's a place for government to say "since the way you maximize shareholder value isn't contributing to the societal good, we're going to put rules and regulations in place so that the only way you make money is by creating social good".

As for what's wrong with outsourcing: simple. It decreases the standards of living here in the US. Sure, you may have shareholders benefiting as well as the upper management in that company, but they are the minority among most of the people. And yes, innovation creates job loss. After all, the car killed the horse driver, and GPS killed the paper map. And someday (hopefully), cars that will be able to drive and park themselves will be able to displace taxi drivers and perhaps the car insurance industry. That's different from slashing jobs at home and moving them overseas just to reduce costs. Hence once again, in order to realign corporate interests with American interests, the American government can create more laws to dissuade corporations from outsourcing.

And so on. In terms of ethics, the responsibility of the US government is to ensure the best standards of living for Americans, and anything else is ancillary. The responsibility of corporations is to maximize shareholder value. Where these two goals conflict, it's up to the men and women serving in congress to make sure that the corporations in the US serve the American people, rather than the American people serving the corporations.

 

[DominiConnor]

ikyaka nicely illustrates the points, I'm what an American would call a social liberal but an economic hawk, but even then the granularity of any political party can't represent my views on the things I care about. I generally regard anyone who agrees with the whole platform of any party as either a liar or a simpleton.

All parties are driven by activists, the only real difference between the loons of the Tea Party and the ones who shape the main parties is they do it publicly. Do you care about Federal forestry policy in Utah ? Someone does and some care about it a lot. That means important policies get compromised by horse trading between policies that have nothing to do with each other.

As for shareholder value maximisation, it doesn't scale...

Consider a rational investor who owns a portfolio of 100 equities, 1% in each spread over diverse business sectors.

He learns that one firm is taking a risky strategy that has an expected increase in equity value of 30%, but with a 10% chance of destroying the company. Since his downside is a maximum of 1% /10 = 0.1% of his portfolio he does not fear the loss, and cares only about the expected return and if risk neutral will see this bet as good.

The equity market as a whole is risk neutral, so on average there's a lot of people whose risk preferences are like that

Since most equities are in the hands of fund managers who try to diversity their utility is generally maximised by each company taking the strategy which has the biggest average return, regardless of the risk necessary to achieve that.

The scaling issue is that if all firms decide to do this the fallout from the continuous stream of corporate failures will screw the economy.

Of course my example is artificial, no firm knows the probability of being destroyed by a strategy and the expected return is mostly "calculated" by the internal politics of the firm, but the principle remains and especially applies to bank and other firms whose collapse has effects much larger than their capitalisation implies.

Do we want banks to be risk neutral ?
Their share holders do, OK that's not what they say, but the share price will be driven by risk neutrality and since senior execs rise on the promise of raising share price and fall when the prices don't meet expectations it is the way things will go.

 

[euroazn]

responsibility of the US government is to ensure the best standards of living for Americans

I agree. If government was perfect, I would be all for it.
However, just think about your arguments for a second. The rich are greedy right, because they're powerful?
Shouldn't the same principle apply to a government with too much power?

 

[DanM]

In terms of ethics, the responsibility of the US government is to ensure the best standards of living for Americans, and anything else is ancillary.

Unfortunately, the US Constitution does not outline such a responsibility. The Founders' intention was for the government to act in defense of individual liberties (ie against being physically hurt, stolen from, or aggressed against in any unreasonable manner) and to protect property rights and the right to contract. In no way is the government's responsibility to transfer wealth or to engage in the plethora of other social engineering schemes that leftists support.

Damn constitution!

 

[DanM]

I agree. If government was perfect, I would be all for it.
However, just think about your arguments for a second. The rich are greedy right, because they're powerful?
Shouldn't the same principle apply to a government with too much power?

More importantly, given that leftists consider the wealthy to be greedy, it's shocking that their answer to alleviating the "ever increasing gap between rich and poor" is more government. The wealthy have, and always will, use their power, wealth, and influence to "persuade" politicians to enact policies that are beneficial to them. Concentration of wealth isn't something that is to be fixed by bigger government - it is a symptom of it.

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

I agree. If government was perfect, I would be all for it.
However, just think about your arguments for a second. The rich are greedy right, because they're powerful?
Shouldn't the same principle apply to a government with too much power?

Who says the government is made up of angels? No, at the moment it's made up of a few idealists, a bunch of people with dirty sexual issues, or corporate shills like most of the right wingers. However, at the least, the government acts as a counter force (ideally) against entities whose path of least resistance means to screw over the people in the USA.

The reason for laws on corporations is so that what previously would work as a source of maximizing shareholder value now carries fines, legal penalties, arrest, and so forth, in order to discourage those kinds of actions.

After all, just because the government is involved doesn't prevent the "invisible hand of the market" from acting, either. If you saw a headline saying "Douchebag Corporation ABC fined $500 million for flaying living babies", does it matter whether or not the government fined it? Rather, for us the consumers, the government punishing corporations that step out of line simply makes it easier for your everyday layman consumer to see that information faster.

Basically, the case is this: the legal obligation of the corporation is to maximize shareholder value, not to ensure better standards of living for Americans. So, the government, in all of its good intentions but incredible imperfections, exists to balance out the hold of these multinational all-consuming entities.

 

[euroazn]

Basically, the case is this: the legal obligation of the corporation is to maximize shareholder value, not to ensure better standards of living for Americans. So, the government, in all of its good intentions but incredible imperfections, exists to balance out the hold of these multinational all-consuming entities.

Ok, I know why government exists.
But in our non-ideal real world, it doesn't work that way - that is, it fulfills its overall role awfully poorly.
Shouldn't we look to the reality rather than hypothetical?

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

1) Regulation in moderation is not an issue. Of course worker safety laws are good. Of course laws preventing companies from dumping radioactive waste into lakes is good.

2) How is it that corporations and right wingers are somehow inherently bad or unable to govern? Democrats and left leaning politicians screw things up all the time also. How is pandering to big business worse than pandering to a social class or environmentalists?

This is exactly why I prefer less government and less business ethics. What you think is ethical and ideal, I see as an intrusion and a nanny state. I know you would absolutely dislike my form of government and corporation actions.

I simply cannot understand how people can willingly wish for the government to tell them what to do all the time. Personally, I think it is nothing more than a misguided attempt to control other people. Being a libertarian is so easy and so hard. You need to allow people to make bad decisions. You need to realize that people are free and individuals and you have no right to tell another grown adult what to do, as long as their actions are not harming you or others.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

Ford benefited all people. Pharmaceutical companies benefit all. GE has been beneficial. ADM, MSFT, APPL, on and on. Companies, seeking to maximize profits and gain market share, have benefited people incredibly. Private companies, universities and the department of defense have invented or created some of the most beneficial things I can immediately remember. Seems that the profit motive and the motive to defend oneself bring out the best when it comes to creativity.

Invisible hand of the market FTW

 

[euroazn]

Ford benefited all people. Pharmaceutical companies benefit all. GE has been beneficial. ADM, MSFT, APPL, on and on. Companies, seeking to maximize profits and gain market share, have benefited people incredibly. Private companies, universities and the department of defense have invented or created some of the most beneficial things I can immediately remember. Seems that the profit motive and the motive to defend oneself bring out the best when it comes to creativity.

Invisible hand of the market FTW

To add on to that, sneakers, TV dinners, modern mattresses have stemmed off of NASA research which is a child of the Cold War.
The Depression ended because of World War II. Not that I'm a war-mongler, it's just that Anthony brings up a good point.