Then I think about the Walmarts and the Dollar Stores, the cheap food and the cheap electronics.

The Protectionist stance is what Sanders and Trump have in common. My ideology says 100% to be Protectionist: A dream of a country working together to build a better tomorrow even if it eliminates the Walmarts and Dollar Stores, cheap food and cheap electronics.

Then I think about the Walmarts and the Dollar Stores, the cheap food and the cheap electronics.

and that’s where I have to say, “Shit… shit shit shit shit shit… I like those things…. and I don’t *know* if I could afford to wait for a possible novel solution to either work or fail when we have a flawed machine that at least does _something_ [globalism].

So it leaves me in a perpetual bind.

===

One of the things she was referring to in this video is “robo-trading”.

It’s an activity by investment firms moreso than individual “day traders” but them too.

It’s not the CORPORATIONS doing their business but rather businesses having to answer to “shareholder value”. You can have a very solid business model with fantastic plans for the future.

But you have a bad quarter. What happens? You get dumped by the market. The investors,

(some of whom ARE the banks allowed to participate in investing since the repeal of the Glass Steigall act in 1999 by her husband but that act was nearly dead when it was signed out and I don’t think the dot com crashes and such of the early 2000s had anything to do with that: The repeal of the act was to try to FIX a desperate problem.. a stopgap that creates artificial money for the market in the hopes that we’ll be floated to a better tomorrow SOMEHOW…)

…want the corporate heads on a platter. So to protect their own heads, they focus on the *appearance* of wealth rather than actual substance.

I took advantage of the “shareholder value” thing. I did _very well_ investing in 1999-2002. I was able to use the ongoing earnings up through 2014 when i finally picked away at the final principal investments.

But think about it: P/E ratio – “Price to Earnings Ratio” – such a focus for investors. But what does Price to Earnings have to do with a company? What it produces? What it does? How it treats their workers? Their retirements? Their business model?

Very little. It’s too generic. So, she *does* have a strong point about the market view of public corporation.

I still don’t know if I agree or not but it’s nice to think about this stuff again.

===

It’s an “If and only If” Trade agreement from what I can gather.

“if you do x, y, and z AND you are above [insert amount] AND agree to [a, b c] THEN you can gain the protection of the TPP allies to ensure that your trade line [that is restricted to [I, II, III, IV] only ] is free. ”

====

Oh it had an effect. A profound effect. But some of the things attributed to the repeal were going to happen anyway, just in a different way.

The dot com crash happened. Had nothing to do with Glass Steagall. How could it?

At the time it came out, banks did *not* rush in to add additional activities because there WAS a threat of penalties.

They believed the penalties *at first* and stepped cautiously.

While they hesitated, dot com crash happened, subPrime mortgage crisis began [as a solution to float the money just a little bit longer].

I don’t think the benefits for the repeal really even BEGAN for the banks until around the mid 2000s.

Then it was a snowball effect after that of course.

But I’m currently convinced that 2008 would have happened EVEN WITHOUT the repeal.

The subprime mortgage thing _still_ would have happened: it just would have been spread among more banks rather than fewer.

We’ve been in a period of economic stagnation for a very long time on the planet.

I’m not JUSTIFYING the repeal: I think the Glass -Steagal should haven strengthened; it was already almost DEAD when they repealed it… there were tons of loopholes that allowed them to get around it anyway.

But it’s what happened when an Academic Ideal became policy:

‘Let the market regulate itself”

I still think the economic crisis would have happened. But what we WOULDN’T have that we have today is the APPEARANCE of a healthy stock market.

But we’re in a very big bubble right now. Very big bubble.

===

In short, I don’t put all of the blame on the repeal of the Glass Steagal. It was a stupid move that made for fewer players but it allowed the creation of [fake] money that we’re still using today.

Mortgages were doomed from the start: I think we’re still living off the building boom of the 1950s and those 30/40 yr mortgages (repeated) have lost their false value and we’ve been building on air all this time.

Still, a “Reality Check” *will* be very hard and world-shifting were we to do it. China *is* the defacto world power because they are the producer of so much.

The moment the curtain falls on the Wizard of Oz (whose been back there since the start of the “let’s live on debt” concept) completely, we’ll be vulnerable. That part is somewhat scary tbh.

It also helps explain the TPP better unfortunately.

===

Oh absolutely. But, and maybe I *did* “buy into it*. Just a quick Google search and I found the opinion that I tend to hold: The Glass Steagal was a mistake and it was a strong contributing factor but it wasn’t the sole factor by any means. Signing it off was putting the final nail in the coffin of something that had already died long before then.

The banks didn’t RUSH IN in 1999/2000/2001/2002/2003 to take advantage yet because they thought the penalties were real. But as they kept pushing the envelope further and further and nobody cared, they went too far.

Led to a more tangled mess than we WOULD have had.. but I believe we would STILL have had a 2008 either way. The financial crisis is a global one, not limited to the USA. and it’s been ongoing for decades.

====

What we *need* to do is to bring back a NEW Glass Steagal Act – and pronto.

===

What we *need* to do is to bring back a NEW Glass Steagal Act – and pronto.

It won’t solve the financial crisis though . We’re due for a long period of economic stagnation worldwide. I don’t think there’s any way around that. It’s back to the 1930s for us.

===

oh ik. I run a small business. there’s absolutely ZERO benefit to working within the system-as-it-is for corporate protections unless you’re at LEAST in the “Small Business” level – which is 50-200 employees… *NOT* the 1-4, or the 5-12, or the 12-49 employee levels.

And 50’s the minimum for “small business”

I had employees once. A few. Pain in the ass. Lots of paperwork. Lots of penalties. Nothing beneficial. I’m not incorporated but I couldn’t find much benefit there either, except an anti-lawsuit thing, and consumer protection laws in florida are FAR more powerful than corporate protection laws here against seizure of asset.

So, I restructured how I did things and everybody’s a subcontractor.

I can do this because I don’t tell them HOW to do their jobs. My main company is umbrella, and basically handles the money and marketing but little else.

Banks are no help to me, although I like the remote check deposit at my bank. I don’t have to move and I can put the checks in. It’s worth the monthly charge for that – still waiting for local credit unions to catch up to speed on the tech so I can drop them though.

===

Looking at the list of businesses, I’m not surprised. _Many_ of these involve the fast-flow of money that get things done quickly.

Airline tickets *should be* about $1000 a ticket.

The Internet *should be* much more expensive (Level 3)

Cars *should be* more expensive. (GM)

Paper and wood products *should be* astronomical. (Wayerhauser).

If you look at the industries, it’s easy to see why they got such tax breaks available: If they raise their prices, we’re doomed to face the reality of our true financial situation, which is that “THINGS SUCK and we’re all peasants”.

But keeping them here _does_ keep jobs and productivity flowing.

I’m not saying I agree with it. Honestly, I could see these companies becoming government entities – at least a few of them… which wouldn’t exactly improve anything either.

So, I dunno. Shit’s complicated. I’ve been “out of” the economics game for many years, so I’m behind on the blame game.

====

They still want to keep their profits. They’re not non-profit enterprises. This is true for all businesses, monopoly down to micro-business.

====

I know. Again, I’m not agreeing with how they do things. But how they do things makes sense:: it’s a great illusion that keeps the people just miserable enough to tolerate things but not so miserable that they burn down Wall Street.

Of course it’s been failing. People are more educated than they used to be and people ARE more willing to burn down Wall Street than they used to be.

But they’re not the cause of the problem.

The cause of the problem is: The world economy isn’t as it appears to be. The great illusion of prosperity has been what’s allowed us to keep going for so long with so little.

There’s very little “there” there.

Is there REALLY $32 Trillion in offshore accounts?

No. They can’t cash it out.

The grand illusion of the economy makes things happen – very real and tangible things – but it has to keep moving in some way.

Let’s say the $32 trillion is pulled out all at once.

Who has the $32 trillion? Where is it? What’s it backed by?

Promises.

Honestly, this is making me think I should start investing in a mining company.

===

Dig. Pull something out of the ground. Sell.
I’d go with recycling but only if the recycling process was non-polluting and didn’t end up causing OTHER problems in the process of recycling.

Maybe a metal recycling. They’re pretty basic. Strip wires off cables. Melt. Brick. Resell.

====

*thankfully* I’ve been spared most of that stuff ’cause I’m independent politically and my companies are small. We’re on Google Maps (even though it’s my house) and I give the County and the Feds what they’re due but beyond that, not much exposure on those lists thankfully.

===

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


two + 4 =

Leave a Reply