Another flaw in capitalism, the capitalists these days don't actually OWN their capital. I think we've established that.

quote:

Another flaw in capitalism, the capitalists these days don't actually OWN their capital. I think we've established that.

I'd go further: most of capital is really and in the deep sense of the word virtual. Not mapped into anything tangible. So they're not owners of something that does not exist but is negotiated. If they (the capitalists) were poor guys, that would be a crime that here in the lands of South we call "estelionato" (sell something that does not exist, that does not belong to you or that is not what it is said to be).

But then what you are saying is that Capital is leased.. so in that perspective the REAL capitalists of the modern era are banks, and that because we have such a dependency on the stock markets and on financial companies it could be argued that no one actually owns their own company and its assets. It does make sense since when a company declares bankruptcy the banks are the first to seize everything and whats ever left goes into paying of liable parties and creditors (in the event of a liquidation).

Bayer had a product implicated in the deaths of 22,000 people who might have been saved if the FDA had acted more quickly.

If those were all Americans, that is a hell of a liability that just presented itself to Bayer (and, conceivably the FDA). Even at a mere million a head in a wrongful death case, that is a lot of zeroes and a fuckload of legal fees....

quote:

so in that perspective the REAL capitalists of the modern era are banks, and that because we have such a dependency on the stock markets and on financial companies it could be argued that no one actually owns their own company and its assets.

In USA it would be quite fair and true. In Europe some governments are "important capitalists". In most of the 3rd world you have a mix of banks, governments and privileged people. In China you have government as the big capitalist.

But you're right: capital is leased. That's the only way to store/circulate/increase astronomic amounts of "virtual goods".

When bankruptcy happens, what follows depend on the country. But you're right: best insured entities have the lesser losses. Banks are almost always well insured...

quote:

Theorem: as liberal/neo-liberal governments don't limit credit, loosely regulates stock markets, and pay high interest rates to support their inefficiencies and sometimes their war efforts around the world, monetary base grows sky high

Are you saying the US government is liberal? Is this a specific financial definition of liberal as opposed to a regular political definition of liberal?

Pretty sure liberal/neo-liberal in this case equals the US-ian definition of conservative/neo-conservative, especially with regard to economic (laissez-faire?) policies.

I think interest rates are low at the moment, which is what pushes the money into stocks as there is supposed to be a better return. I seem to remember in the 80's interest rates were in the teens for a while.

My dad had a mortgage at 13.25% once upon a time.

US foreclosures up 57% in January.

quote:

There was a 90% increase in the number of houses being repossessed by banks compared with January 2007.

quote:

Originally posted by theminx:
My dad had a mortgage at 13.25% once upon a time.

My parents counted their lucky stars when US interest rates came down to 11% in 1986; they had been above 20% for a while there, in the early-to-mid 80s.

We were just glad my step-dad was tangentally involved in banking and kept his ridiculously low interest rate (either 3 or 5% I can't recall) through the whole period. He had 2 mortgages to pay. I think my dad only kept his house because my grandparents continually bailed him out.

quote:

Originally posted by theminx:
My dad had a mortgage at 13.25% once upon a time.

Sounds like the 1970's to me.

Really? I'm surprised you remember. Those of us that do will tell you it was the 80's. We were there. First hand reports from the front line and all.

Yesterday US$ tanked... The lowest cotation since 1997: US$1,00 = R$1,68

They'll be paying you to borrow the way things are going.

Yeah, the Oz dollar hit 94 cents last night - and with Bernanke indicating more US interest rate cuts are likely, and the virtual certainty of an interest rate rise here next month, parity can't be too far away.

And Japan did apparently have a negative official interest rate at one stage in the 90s (?), so I guess it's not impossible.

Gotta think the drastic cutting of interest rates in the US is likely to build in even more of what is already causing the problem - excessive and unsustainable borrowing.

Canadian to US dollars, 5 year timeline:

Which means that if we moved the Van meat to Seattle, the Canadians could fund the whole thing from their pocket change.

LOL

You'll see it's right about par just now

Reckon there are lots of Canucks in the malls these days though.