Economics

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Pope Francis is right - greed has hijacked capitalism: Column

Ever since his selection as the leader of the largest Christian church, I, along with throngs of Catholics and non-Catholics looked with surprise, delight and admiration at this remarkable man.

He speaks truth to power. He is direct. He hopes to be transformational. And his agenda is clear. He wants to move the vast herd of mankind towards the good and greener pastures.

I am a businessman and one who has written about what it takes to succeed in business. (Creativity and values are at the top of the list). So in his most recent visit to Latin America, my hero, Pope Francis, had harsh words about capitalism, our way of doing business. He was forceful and direct. As the New York Times put it, he does more than excoriate the excesses of capitalism: "He does not simply argue that systemic 'greed for money' is a bad thing. He calls it 'a subtle dictatorship' that 'condemns and enslaves men and women.' He went on to compare the excesses of global capitalism to the “dung of the devil.”

A mighty strong indictment coming from a partisan of the poor and the vulnerable. It’s easy to dismiss such an extreme condemnation. But not from this man. Not without giving his perspective careful consideration. Upon reflection, one has to consider the pope’s attack on capitalism partly fair (putting aside his rhetoric) but also seriously incomplete.

In today’s world, capitalism really means free market enterprise. The name capitalism came from a time when money was the most important scarce resource which enabled business success to flourish. Capital was power in a way that isn’t the case now. Today business success is driven by many other factors, importantly entrepreneurship and the inventive, innovative capability of men and women. By itself, money is plentiful. The real engine of growth and prosperity is a free market driven by human workers to create new value through products and services which are wanted/needed by consumers.

What Pope Francis did not acknowledge, is the extraordinary contribution of this free market capitalism system to lift hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty into a much more humane standard of living. True miracles happened in China, India, Brazil, South Africa and more. And in America, a robust middle class was built. All of that in many of our lifetimes — the post World War II era of the 20th Century. Pope Francis also misses the amazing contributions of the good wealthy people who in America have contributed to creating remarkable achievements through their generosity to secondary and higher education, the well-being of academic medical institutions, the arts, sciences, and helping aiding the poor. This generosity of spirit is clearly compatible with the capitalism the Pope derides so vociferously.

So another, more generous way to look at Pope Francis’ concern with “capitalism” is by asking, what have you, capitalism, done for society lately? And here Pope Francis’ excoriation is much more on target. In reality, for the last several decades, the forces of greed have managed to hijack free enterprise. Short-term value maximization driven by quarterly capitalism, created a culture where short-term shareholder primacy rules. That is our zeitqeist today; that is our prevalent culture.

Yet, a corporation has multiple critical stakeholders: the customers, the employees, the shareholders, the corporation itself and the communities in which the businesses exist. At capitalism's zenith, businesses thrived and prospered when a reasonable balance of a business’ profits were distributed among these groups. Alas, no more. Shareholder primacy demands short-term maximization to shareholders. The free market engine which created wealth for many, now creates mountains of wealth for only a few. These shareholders pretend they have special rights, that they are legitimate owners. What a myth. Shareholders buy shares when they want, sell at will. At best they behave like renters. And legally, as Cornell scholar Lynn A. Stout and others argue, the corporation owns its own assets — not the shareholders. Shareholders have rights, but so do the other stakeholders. Yet, the current culture of shareholder primacy dominates.

What’s worse is that this culture of greed benefits only few: shareholders, CEOs and a few in top management. Management in turn is being paid ridiculous sums to deliver the hijacked loot to shareholders. As a result of exorbitant CEO salaries and a dramatic diminution of relative employee income — as the Economic Policy Institute reports — we see greater inequality of income and wealth, an underclass with little opportunity, less and less hope, and a chronically vulnerable society. The ability to escape this newly created vast underclass is becoming close to impossible. Clearly this is what Pope Francis means by “enslavement”, strong words but Pope Francis sees the ugly reality which most of us want to ignore or deny.

Pope Francis refuses to give the system credit for yesterday’s remarkable positive contributions. Perhaps that may be unfortunate. What the Pope is clearly right about, is that our current version of capitalism contributes mightily to human suffering to the loss of dignity and our humanity. In the end, Pope Francis is holding up a mirror to our reality. It’s an ugly picture. The Pope is ringing the alarm bells. We better hear them. Our free enterprise capitalism has become dramatically less free. We had better have the courage to fix our damaged wealth creating engine. In the end, he might have done us a huge favor.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
Topic that got brought up recently: Offshore bank accounts and taxation.

Can someone explain to me how billionaires and billionaire corporations can store money offshore but still be able to have access to it in the States for spending, avoiding taxes on both ends? The whole process of this is confusing to me. I know it's meant to be that way (ie. loopholes and gray areas), but I'm thoroughly confused by how someone can "get away" with doing it. Isn't it illegal? Yet so many uber-wealthy people do it...like it's common knowledge...?
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Topic that got brought up recently: Offshore bank accounts and taxation.

Can someone explain to me how billionaires and billionaire corporations can store money offshore but still be able to have access to it in the States for spending, avoiding taxes on both ends? The whole process of this is confusing to me. I know it's meant to be that way (ie. loopholes and gray areas), but I'm thoroughly confused by how someone can "get away" with doing it. Isn't it illegal? Yet so many uber-wealthy people do it...like it's common knowledge...?
It's done through shell corporations. Wealthy Guy Steve sets up Steve's Cayman Holdings, Inc. The corporation holds Steve's assets and pays the 0% Cayman Islands corporate taxes on them. Officially, US citizens are taxed on their worldwide income, but Steve's Cayman Holdings, Inc. is not a US citizen.

There are numerous other benefits of offshore investments besides the tax side though. Confidentiality, restructuring, diversification, etc.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
It's done through shell corporations. Wealthy Guy Steve sets up Steve's Cayman Holdings, Inc. The corporation holds Steve's assets and pays the 0% Cayman Islands corporate taxes on them. Officially, US citizens are taxed on their worldwide income, but Steve's Cayman Holdings, Inc. is not a US citizen.

There are numerous other benefits of offshore investments besides the tax side though. Confidentiality, restructuring, diversification, etc.

I understand that side of it, but I guess where I'm confused is once Wealthy Guy Steve has his money protected offshore, how does he go about spending it, but still avoid U.S. taxes? What good is $100M offshore if you can't live it up in The States (where we're assuming Wealthy Guy Steve lives)?
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I understand that side of it, but I guess where I'm confused is once Wealthy Guy Steve has his money protected offshore, how does he go about spending it, but still avoid U.S. taxes? What good is $100M offshore if you can't live it up in The States (where we're assuming Wealthy Guy Steve lives)?
One way is timing. Let's say Steve no longer works for a traditional salary and makes his money from investments (a la Mitt Romney). He has a bad year in the domestic stock market so he has a net capital loss for tax year 2015. That would be the perfect time to repatriate some offshore holdings. Capital gains from his repatriated money can offset capital losses without being taxable. You can play games with your fluctuating income so that you bring money back to the states in a year when you have a lower taxable income, thus paying a lower rate.

There are a number of other ways that I vaguely understand but can't explain. It's called "financial engineering," and it's a master's degree.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
One way is timing. Let's say Steve no longer works for a traditional salary and makes his money from investments (a la Mitt Romney). He has a bad year in the domestic stock market so he has a net capital loss for tax year 2015. That would be the perfect time to repatriate some offshore holdings. Capital gains from his repatriated money can offset capital losses without being taxable. You can play games with your fluctuating income so that you bring money back to the states in a year when you have a lower taxable income, thus paying a lower rate.

There are a number of other ways that I vaguely understand but can't explain. It's called "financial engineering," and it's a master's degree.

The best way to do it is to have another corporation set up in the US that is a sub of the offshore. Opens up numerous options.
 

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,536
Reaction score
3,287
That is the kind of stuff the makes my head spin because to me it just sounds so convoluted and impossible to understand as an "average" person (again done on purpose).
 

potownhero

New member
Messages
164
Reaction score
34
I understand that side of it, but I guess where I'm confused is once Wealthy Guy Steve has his money protected offshore, how does he go about spending it, but still avoid U.S. taxes? What good is $100M offshore if you can't live it up in The States (where we're assuming Wealthy Guy Steve lives)?

Can someone explain the double taxation that US companies pay that foreign companies don't?

Also, what's the story with non-repatriated income? Does a company have to pay taxes on those funds if they are reinvested abroad vs in USA??

Thanks.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
I guess I just don't understand how these extremely wealthy people can have gigantic "salaries" and avoid taxation, legally. That's so far beyond what I can comprehend. I'm sure it's basic wealth management 101 for some people. To me, it's confusing as hell.

Thanks for the input. I'm know it's a complicated topic.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Can someone explain the double taxation that US companies pay that foreign companies don't?
A US multinational is actually quadruple taxed.

1. Overseas income is taxed by the local country where business is conducted.

2. Worldwide income is taxed by the United States.

3. Overseas holdings are taxed when they are repatriated into the United States.

4. Distributions to shareholders (i.e. dividends) are taxed as capital gains.
 

potownhero

New member
Messages
164
Reaction score
34
A US multinational is actually quadruple taxed.

1. Overseas income is taxed by the local country where business is conducted.

2. Worldwide income is taxed by the United States.

3. Overseas holdings are taxed when they are repatriated into the United States.

4. Distributions to shareholders (i.e. dividends) are taxed as capital gains.

So because we double (or more) tax our companies on foreign income earned, does that encourage them to invest those funds in jobs and infrastructure outside of our country?

Why in the world would we have a tax structure that actively encourages the off-shoring of jobs?
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
So because we double (or more) tax our companies on foreign income earned, does that encourage them to invest those funds in jobs and infrastructure outside of our country?
Not only that, but it encourages them not to be United States corporations at all. There are significant tax advantages of not headquartering in the US.

Why in the world would we have a tax structure that actively encourages the off-shoring of jobs?
Because Americans are idiots and when President Obama says "the Republicans want to give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas," people believe him. Companies that ship jobs overseas are exactly who you want to give tax breaks to, precisely so they don't ship jobs overseas.

Donald Trump's tax plan (released within the last few hours) offers a one-time 10% fee to all profits held overseas whether or not it's repatriated. Repatriation would be tax-free beyond the 10%.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,964
Reaction score
6,452
Hopefully IE comments on this idea will not simply demonize the concept for philosophical reasons but step back and recognize that the vision of a shorter work week is a positive thing as long as one defines one's quality of life in ways which such an economic model can sustain.

I'm interested to see if this idea works at all over there, and how many job types it might apply to. I have a friend currently being forced to work twelve hour shifts six days a week. His health is VISUALLY failing. "Working" is not an absolute good. "Activity" comes closer to being such as good, but even then there should be plenty of time for family, community, and silence.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I don't understand why the "work day" needs to be centrally defined, whether it's six hours or twelve hours.
 

tussin

Well-known member
Messages
4,153
Reaction score
1,982
Oy vey!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Zmji36q8E4o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Martin Ford published this on LinkedIn Pulse:

Education is not an adequate defense against the rise of the robots
Nov 28, 2015


The conventional wisdom has long been that the solution to technology-driven job losses is invariably more education and vocational training. As machines and smart software eat away at low-skill jobs, workers are urged to retool themselves and continuously climb the skills ladder, taking on roles that are beyond the reach of automation.

Economists refer to this propensity for technology to erode the value of lower skill work, while at the same time boosting the incomes of workers who are better equipped to participate in the information economy, as “skill-biased technological change” or SBTC. Evidence for the impact of SBTC can be found in the college wage premium. As of 2012, college graduates had average incomes that were over 80 percent higher than workers with only a high school diploma. Incomes for those with advanced degrees are higher still.

Delving further into the numbers, however, uncovers a discomfiting reality. That educational wage premium is being driven not by the fact that college graduates are inundated with opportunity—but rather because prospects for those with only high school educations are in collapse. A 2012 analysis by Citi Research found that incomes for young workers with bachelor’s degrees declined by a full 15 percent between 2000 and 2010, and that decline began well before the 2008 financial crisis. Any recent graduate can tell you that we have entered the age of the degree-bearing barista: as many as half of new college graduates end up taking jobs that don’t utilize their education.

This disturbing trend was analyzed formally by economists Paul Beaudry, David A. Green, and Benjamin M. Sand, who published a paper entitled “The Great Reversal in the Demand for Skill and Cognitive Tasks” in March 2013. Their analysis found that the need for skilled labor in the United States peaked around 2000 and has since gone into decline. As a result, many college graduates are taking lower-skill service jobs—often displacing those without college degrees in the process.

It turns out that workers are not the only ones who can climb the skills ladder: computer technology is proving remarkably adept at the same feat. Indeed, it is a well known truth among those who work in robotics and artificial intelligence that it is often much easier to automate the information-based jobs held by white-collar workers than lower wage positions that require physical manipulation. Building a robot that can come close to replicating the visual perception, dexterity and hand-eye coordination of a human being remains a staggering technical challenge. In contrast, smart software already writes coherent news stories and reports, performs document analysis for law firms, and, of course, trades on Wall Street. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is currently funding an $11 million project at Rice University designed to automate many aspects of routine computer programming.

The fact that high-skill jobs are disappearing leaves aside a second, obvious problem: not everyone in our workforce is destined to become a rocket scientist. Only a minority of the population has the combination of cognitive capability and motivation necessary to excel in technical fields. There is very likely a fundamental limit to the percentage of our workforce that we can expect to graduate from college and then take on a job that requires genuinely high levels of intellectual ability or creativity. In other words, even if the jobs at the top of the skills ladder were there in sufficient numbers, we would still ultimately have a serious problem finding a role for a large fraction of our workforce.

The hard truth is that the traditional solution to unemployment and poverty—and the solution that nearly all analysts and policy makers continue to support—is not going to be sufficient in the robotic age. Education has incalculable value both on a personal level, and as a public good that benefits society as a whole. For those reasons, we should continue to strongly support it and invest in it. We should not, however, expect ever more schooling to assure workers a foothold in the future economy.

Martin Ford is the author of Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future (Basic Books), winner of the Financial Times and McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award 2015. He is the founder of a Silicon Valley–based software development firm and has over twenty-five years of experience in computer design and software development. Follow him on Twitter: @MFordFuture.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wSF82AwSDiU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
"Exchange rate policies, not high wages, are why U.S. lags China and Germany in export performance":

Introduction and key findings

The decline of manufacturing in the United States over the past 15 years has been well documented: 5.4 million manufacturing jobs and over 82,100 manufacturing establishments were lost between 1997 and 2013. There is a common but incorrect idea that high wages in U.S. manufacturing are causing growing job losses and declining U.S. export competitiveness. Germany has among the highest manufacturing wages in the world but maintained a stable share of world exports throughout this period and suffered only minimal manufacturing job losses, most of which occurred in the wake of the Great Recession. Meanwhile, manufacturing wages in Germany exceeded those in the United States by more than one-third through much of this period.

The findings in this report provide a concise, evidence-based strategy for rebuilding U.S. manufacturing:

  • The decline of American manufacturing over the past 15 years is due to currency manipulation and unfair trade, and not high wages.
  • China and Germany both benefited from exchange rate policies that reduced the cost of exports and raised the cost of imports. In the Chinese case, the cause was direct, sustained currency manipulation. In Germany, real exchange rates fell due to flaws in the structure of the European Union, but the end result was the same: currency misalignments that resulted in growing trade surpluses. These countries effectively engaged in “beggar thy neighbor” trade policies that exported unemployment to trade partners, and supported employment in their own countries, especially in manufacturing industries.
  • In addition to currency manipulation, China illegally subsidizes and shares cyber espionage findings with Chinese companies. It also makes huge investments in “leading and pillar” industries, resulting in substantial excess capacity in many industries, which in turn leads to massive increases in exports of subsidized and dumped products (i.e., products sold below cost).
  • The effect of these policies can be seen in the data: Between 1997 and 2013, China’s total share of world exports of manufactured goods more than quadrupled from 3.9 percent to 17.6 percent, and Germany’s share declined only slightly from 11.0 percent to 10.4 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. share fell by nearly one-third, from 13.7 percent to 9.5 percent.
  • As production of manufactured goods for export to the world shifted from the United States to China, U.S. manufacturing employment also declined sharply—by 31.0 percent (5.4 million jobs) between 1997 and 2013, while manufacturing employment fell only 4.7 percent in Germany.
  • In 2013, average hourly manufacturing compensation in Germany ($48.98) was more than one-third higher than in the United States ($36.34). Between 1997 and 2013, manufacturing compensation grew faster in Germany (3.3 percent a year) than in the United States (2.9 percent a year).
  • If high wages alone were sending production to China, then surely Germany would not have held its exports steady: The gap between manufacturing compensation in Germany and China grew from $28.83 per hour in 1997 to $45.49 in 2013.
  • Because high wages are not to blame for manufacturing job loss in the United States, the U.S. can rebuild manufacturing without cutting manufacturing wages.
  • The strategy of pushing manufacturing into the low-wage, nonunion southern states is a race-to-the-bottom strategy that should be rejected in favor of high-road strategies: fighting currency manipulation and doing more to rebuild American manufacturing, taking a page from the German and European models (with supply-side policies that benefit and support the manufacturing sector, including increased spending on research and development as a share of gross domestic product; support for “stakeholder capitalism” in which boards of directors include an equal number of representatives of workers and managers; and heavy investment in training and job creation).
  • Background
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest

Jenna-Fischer-Hot-Sign-On-The-Office-Gif.gif
 
Top