Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@davidmoran: Thank you, for another outstanding article on mutual fund investing. If one didn't know better, you'd think this was a political discussion website. Ted
@Ted Yes because we all know that the stock market functions in a vacuum and all that money made in our funds has no impact on the real world. Profits come via the magical profit fairy waiving her magic wand. It has nothing to do with globalization, industry consolidation, upgrading technology and outsourcing jobs overseas and clicking Buy on Amazon instead of shopping at Macy's. The "profits," which by no means came from the aforementioned but from the profit fairy instead, are passed on to shareholders of mutual funds, and have nothing to do with life on earth and some peons who lost their jobs at Macy's.
YES: "While we can’t stop job losses from happening, however, we can limit the human damage when they do happen. We can guarantee health care and adequate retirement income for all. We can provide aid to the newly unemployed. And we can act to keep the overall economy strong — which means doing things like investing in infrastructure and education, not cutting taxes on rich people and hoping the benefits trickle down."
@MFO Members: I got the answer ! Lets redistribute the wealth and take monies earned from those who work and give it to those who don't work or won't work. Regards, Ted
@Ted When you receive a capital gains or dividend distribution from your mutual fund, how have you worked for that dividend or capital gain distribution? You may have worked for the $1,000 you put into the fund, but not for the $100 in profit you get back from the fund each year. Where did that profit come from? Did it just magically appear or was it produced by the labor of others? Is that not also a form of redistribution? While some return on capital is necessary for the capitalist to put his $1,000 on the line--his "risk" capital--the question becomes how much is enough and when does the redistribution to the capitalist become excessive to the point where some of those profits should be returned to the labor force that really produced that $100 gain for you? The thing is investors benefit from redistribution all the time. And some profit is necessary for the system to function, but while profits have expanded dramatically for capitalist investors, wages for workers after adjusting for inflation have barely budged in 30 plus years and have actually declined for the lowest wage workers who are being displaced by machines and foreign workers so you and I and every investor can get more profits.
Nor is this "communism" to say this. Communism would be to kill all the capitalists via violent revolution and seize all of their assets in their entirety. What liberals--liberals in the old and new sense--like Krugman want is to create a social safety net with some but not all of those profits extracted from labor by capitalists to help labor displaced by capitalist activities such as globalization, by providing funds to unemployed or unemployable labor, retraining that labor, putting it back to work when possible, pay for its retirement if not and help the vulnerable and incapacitated in general. This is a mature recognition of the advantages of capitalism--it creates economic growth--while addressing some of its drawbacks via a social safety net. Such activity actually prevents violent revolution and communism by keeping displaced unemployed or underemployed labor from becoming desperate.
@Lewis: "When you receive a capital gains or dividend distribution from your mutual fund, how have you worked for that dividend or capital gain distribution?" I put money at risk, that's how I worked for it ! Regards, Ted
@Ted You only worked for the money you invested, not the profit you received. Someone else produced that profit. And they are putting more than their money--their financial capital--at risk when they work to make those profits for you. They are putting their careers--their human capital--and in some cases their actually lives at risk in the case of dangerous jobs to produce those profits for you.
"Such activity actually prevents violent revolution and communism by keeping displaced unemployed or underemployed labor from becoming desperate."
@LewisBraham- I'm afraid that an analysis such as this (short though it may be) is just a bit too complex for the "Teds" of this world. Their appreciation of 19th century evolutionary social history is nonexistent.
It's the exact same "Freedom Caucus" mentality that believes that everyone should have the freedom to be unable to afford basic medical care.
@MFO Members: I got the answer ! Lets redistribute the wealth and take monies earned from those who work and give it to those who don't work or won't work. Regards, Ted
Other wealthy countries manage to provide help for laid-off workers in the form of concerted re-training and benefits. The US solution always seems to be to embrace our federalism and leave it to the states. How did that work with civil rights? or voting rights? or redistricting? In Britain they have a wonderful term for layoffs: "redundancies." Let's face the fact that some jobs are redundant, but we could still show some compassion for the workers. I know, if I would just realize that the guy who used to be employed in Akron manufacturing tires would just be a real American and pull himself up by his bootstraps, all these problems would resolve themselves. Americans are generous when it comes to making charitable donations, but we come up short when we need to allocate big bucks to a national effort to help our struggling middle class.
@MFO Members: I got the answer ! Lets redistribute the wealth and take monies earned from those who work and give it to those who don't work or won't work. Regards, Ted
I would have thought people of yore were more charitable. Then again, those that claim to have "worked" for everything they've got might have inherited at least their traits (if not their wealth) which has worked (pun intended) out quite well for them.
In the modern world, they are still libertarian. They want to government to do everything to protect THEM but not others, and otherwise stay out of their business. Just another word really. Same difference.
Comments
Ted
@Ted Yes because we all know that the stock market functions in a vacuum and all that money made in our funds has no impact on the real world. Profits come via the magical profit fairy waiving her magic wand. It has nothing to do with globalization, industry consolidation, upgrading technology and outsourcing jobs overseas and clicking Buy on Amazon instead of shopping at Macy's. The "profits," which by no means came from the aforementioned but from the profit fairy instead, are passed on to shareholders of mutual funds, and have nothing to do with life on earth and some peons who lost their jobs at Macy's.
Regards,
Ted
Nor is this "communism" to say this. Communism would be to kill all the capitalists via violent revolution and seize all of their assets in their entirety. What liberals--liberals in the old and new sense--like Krugman want is to create a social safety net with some but not all of those profits extracted from labor by capitalists to help labor displaced by capitalist activities such as globalization, by providing funds to unemployed or unemployable labor, retraining that labor, putting it back to work when possible, pay for its retirement if not and help the vulnerable and incapacitated in general. This is a mature recognition of the advantages of capitalism--it creates economic growth--while addressing some of its drawbacks via a social safety net. Such activity actually prevents violent revolution and communism by keeping displaced unemployed or underemployed labor from becoming desperate.
Regards,
Ted
like the very wealthy, for example.
>> I put money at risk, that's how I worked for it !
Now that's funny.
@Ted, did you not just receive some health care, I believe you posted?
Regards,
Ted
Actually, I was thinking also of your caregivers.
@LewisBraham- I'm afraid that an analysis such as this (short though it may be) is just a bit too complex for the "Teds" of this world. Their appreciation of 19th century evolutionary social history is nonexistent.
It's the exact same "Freedom Caucus" mentality that believes that everyone should have the freedom to be unable to afford basic medical care.
That was a really shitty comment.
In the modern world, they are still libertarian. They want to government to do everything to protect THEM but not others, and otherwise stay out of their business. Just another word really. Same difference.