Earlier quoted context omitted.
For my money I would much, much rather own shares of stock in my retirement plan than have a state- or corporate-backed pension. Have you seen the movie Casino? That actually happened, the Teamsters pension fund came under control of the mob. What about Illinois, which is facing a $120 billion pension shortfall due to decades of accounting gimmicks? What about the UAW guys, who were counting on pensions from the big…
And I vastly prefer the reverse. Pensions avoid the classic hopping you die before you run out of money. Further, money enough to cover the basics is vastly more important than 'extra'.
Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism
61–70 of 122 posts
Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism
#62Apple had $2.33 EPS for Q2 2015 and for Q2 2017 reported $1.90 EPS. So declined over the last 2 years.
Google other revenues (non ad) were over $10B for 2016 and growing at 50%. Apple total revenues in 2004 when it was 28 years old were less than just Google other. Just sayin.
Btw, Google holds the record of getting to $100B cap faster than any other. Even accounting for inflation.
Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism
#63When I read the title I thought about the difference that Apple is selling to users and Google to advertisers. These are two different ways of capitalisms, too.
Well, they really are two different business models, not really two different models of capitalism. The title is a bit pompous, but the article does actually relate the policies of the two companies with a basic concept of capitalism (allocation of capital).
Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they necessarily want to, but I think it's often needed for reasons mostly tangential from pensions. But if you accept that multiple jobs/careers are a reality, then pensions plans, as traditionally constructed, don't do much for workers.
I think it's often needed for reasons mostly tangential from pensions Such as?
Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I originally thought that too, until I read through the entire article. Technically, the "one" that wins is not the company, but the style of how they treat shareholders. Effectively, these two companies embody fairly different points on the spectrum of shareholder control: Google being effectively a public closely-held company; Apple being a public widely-held company. True, Google has millions of shareholders, but…
Except, given that both models ended up #1, and #2 respectively, doesn't it imply that both models can work and other factors are more important in success? Following that, doesn't it imply that shareholders should/will care more about those other factors?
Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism
#66There is so much wrong with this article I hardly know where to begin. First, it presumes a 19th-century separation of "capital" and "labor" where "capital" is a bunch of greedy pigs trying their damndest to exploit labor, with little crossover between the two groups. The modern reality is way more complicated. Almost every member of "labor" has some form of pension, 401(k), IRA, or personal stock holding, and even i…
Objectively speaking, it does not seem like that is the case for even half of workers. https://www.ebri.org/publications/benfaq/index.cfm?fa=retfaq...
Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism
#67There is so much wrong with this article I hardly know where to begin. First, it presumes a 19th-century separation of "capital" and "labor" where "capital" is a bunch of greedy pigs trying their damndest to exploit labor, with little crossover between the two groups. The modern reality is way more complicated. Almost every member of "labor" has some form of pension, 401(k), IRA, or personal stock holding, and even i…
You seem to be asserting that anyone who owns any stock is completely aligned with the interests of the respective corporation, regardless of proportionality. To wit, If I own (say) $5k of Amazon stock as the result of being invested in a mutual fund, that is not sufficient cause for me to take time out of my day to call my representatives and actively lobby for Amazon.
Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism
#68- by building a payment service that's way cheaper and easier than e.g. Western Union or banks
- by using literally every last cent in his pockets to make SpaceX work (which benefits the whole world in terms of cheap, reliable, environmentally-friendly, russian-free § launches as well as the planned Mars colony)
- by launching the maybe most successful pure electric car, which soon goes into mass-market price range
This is what I as a socialist see as the one example of capitalism that actually WORKS.
§ not meant to be racist at all, but political - given the obvious tensions between Russia and the Western world, e.g. by Russian meddling in US elections, financing at least the German and French neonazi parties and invading Ukraine, it's simply unacceptable to depend on Russia honoring their rocket engine delivery contracts.
Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess this may be not popular opinion here, but I don't see anything wrong with legally avoiding taxes. It might be wrong that the whole system is convoluted enough that this would be very hard for your average honest citizen, but easy enough for resourceful corporation, if anything. But avoiding taxes seems only logical, if you think you can manage and allocate resources better than your government. And rest assur…
> if you think you can manage and allocate resources better than your government. This phrase gets used from time to time to give some moral or net efficiency argument for avoiding taxes. I don't think it's useful. A corporation and government have completely different responsibilities and constituencies. Of course Apple can allocate resources better for Apple than the government would choose to, because Apple has no…
Re: Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That means that 1) wages are too low, and 2) taxes are too low. No, it does not. There is no correlation there at all. Not one person I know who has ever run a business would make that connection. Why? Because they understand business reality vs. the fantasies floating around out there. I'll give you just one easy-to-assimilate example: Economic collapse Q4 of 2008. I was able to keep about 20 people employed becau…
Would you care to share your ideas/ideology as informed by your experiences?
In general terms though, this view that business is bad, evil and greedy and that it (as an amorphous mass) conspires to abuse workers, drive down wages and hoard cash is a fantasy of unknown sources. Not reality.
Being in business is hard. Very hard. Nobody enjoys unlimited cash until you've achieved great success. Even then, one could argue there's never enough cash.
Most businesses operate at the ragged edge of failure for N years (variable based on the nature of the business and the industry). I don't know many businesses that could survive a 6 month to 1 year negative event. We were fortunate because we had a number of really good years and, yes, hoarded cash because I've always been of the idea that preparing for that moment was important.
Ask almost any business owner if they could survive if business fell by 50% to 75% overnight and most are likely to say "no".
And so, a business HAS TO seek lowest costs and maximize revenue in order to remain healthy, grow, develop new products and survive glitches (be they due to the economy or business issues).
Forcing randomly high minimum wage on businesses is locally destructive. A business, if it has the option and is forced to do so, will always find ways to control it's costs. In the case of skills and function that can be off-shored, well, a "we pulled it out of our collective asses" high minimum wage having no relationship whatsoever to local economic reality will result in those jobs being exported to the extent possible.
So I'll say, based on my experience, artificially manipulating minimum wage isn't in the best interest of the local economy. You force businesses to act against the interest of the local population as they could very well be facing a choice between remaining a viable concern and exporting jobs in order to stay alive. Bad idea.
Taxation is another interesting topic. We should all be for the absolute lowest taxes possible. Somehow we've migrated into this thinking that ever-higher taxes is a good thing. It isn't. And it isn't because of a number of reasons, both local and global.
At the global level it is easy to see that an environment where, to exaggerate, a government charges businesses 0% taxes will be far more competitive in the short and long term than a location where government, let's say, punishes businesses with 100% taxation. In other words, we take all of your profits at the end of the year. It should be enough for you to survive and make zero profits. The asymmetry of these two scenarios should be obvious. Identifying where destruction will occur in the long run is easy.
At the local level it should be equally easy to understand that we should pay just enough taxes to pay for what we need out of our society in order to have it function as desired. This has many convoluted facets. Health care is one of those. Can't get into all the details here.
At a fundamental level taxation is a necessary part of a society. We need to pay for stuff. We need people to administer and run various things. And we all need to pay for that. At the same time, we need to also demand that the people and organizations we effectively fund and hire to perform those functions do so efficiently and without waste. We don't do that. We are all too busy to force optimization of this very important metric. And so, somewhere between 25% to 50% of our money is wasted.
It's like giving your kids $1,000 a month for college and he proceeds to burn 80% of it. And, of course, the solution is to give them more money. No. Not at all. The solution is to use the available funds as efficiently as possible. More money makes the situation worst.
Taxing corporations is a weird thing to me. A company with 1,000 employees has a thousand people paying taxes. Now we take their work product and tax it one more time. The people we hire to run the town, city, state are taking a dip into this economic activity twice. And then our money is taxed again at the gas pump, the supermarket, the grocery store, our property is taxed, utilities are taxed, our investment income is taxed.
We have somehow created a system where nearly every single activity is taxed in some form. If this money were used effectively it'd be one thing. Yet, it isn't. Where I live (Los Angeles area) roads are in dire need of maintenance despite the fact that we've been pouring tax money into the very agencies that are supposed to be done this work. It's a mess.
And so, focusing on punishing companies through higher taxation levels seems completely counter intuitive, it will make things worst, not better. Our focus ought to be in forcing a change where it matters most: The effective utilization of tax revenues. We ought to demand that they do more with less taxes. The surplus we would have by paying less taxes for the same services would then go into the economy and have positive effects.
Got to stop there. Real work to be done.