Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Left-leaning libertarianism (which is very close to an oxymoron, although I leave room for potential semantic confusion), like all left-leaning ideologies, requires a mountain of rationalization to even begin to appear coherent, and even then at best leaves the issues more confused than when the advocate started talking.

I am one of them. The ideal society would be one of co-operatives and small businesses (especially in finance) with a limited government sector -- and no concentrated wealth. Concentrated wealth itself becomes a source of authority and invariably becomes dictatorial.

the author used the words "corporations" and "the rich" interchangeably. That was enough for me to conclude that he was an idiot and tune him out, although I did read it completely. If he had a point, I'm not sure what it was, other than that labor unions and libertarianism are not at odds, which he completely failed to prove. I would say there is no problem with private sector labor unions, as long as they're voluntary. As soon as someone is forced to join one, they are oppressive organizations.

Ownership is ordinarily by rich people or by bureaucratic organizations with their money-sucking executives. As for private-sector unions -- the free-ride problem (if one isn't a member of a union one gets the obvious benefits of collective bargaining even if one is a non-member).

Arguing about how some long-dead person or group of people may or may not have illegitimately acquired property is utterly irrelevant to the present and the future, and serves as nothing more than an excuse to punish people now living for the actions of someone they never even knew.

Of course the heirs derive benefit from being born into the right family. It's obvious that I have every incentive to have been born into the Rockefeller family, but I am only about an eighth cousin. Somehow inheritance seems less connected to creating wealth than does the original investment and subsequent work by employees.

Libertarians and anarchists, as the two groups exist today, are not remotely the same thing. Anarchists are continually trying to claim the libertarian label for themselves, because they know it is much better advertising than the appropriate label: communist. The goal of anarchists is the stateless communist Utopia that Marx looked forward to, without the whole twisted mess of Marx's theories about how to get there.

Right-libertarians believe that those who own the gold have the right to make the rules. It is possible to twist some libertarian arguments even to defend the basis of the Confederate economy -- not so much land and cotton but the hereditary toil that some "owed" their masters.

Communists have essentially the same ideal: government ownership and operation of all productive assets in the supposed interest of the working people. Left libertarianism distrusts Big Government even in a democratic system because the government can sway left and right. Communism appalls Left anarchists because socialism (in the sense of government ownership and operation of productive assets) without democracy is a sham.

In practice, Communism invariably takes the assets from aristocrats and capitalists and puts them under the command of bureaucratic cliques that -- is this a surprise? -- act as executives usually do, enriching themselves by command of the bureaucratic order. Working people still get the shaft under Communism, and the Communist Party officials begin to act like an aristocracy.

My idyll is early New England, where nobody could get rich without earning one's riches. Small business flourished, and such farming was on a small scale.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I suppose you think that is an accusation? If Marx' communist utopia were feasible, it would represent the ideal society. No more greed, no more wars, no more government, no more hunger, everyone living in peace and sharing all the world, like John Lennon's song. Who, aside from the greedy and selfish, could complain about that? Why do you think Marxism has had so much appeal for so many people over the years? The only thing wrong with it is that it can't be done.

In any case, that doesn't put anarchism in opposition to libertarianism. Libertarians basically are anarchists who have made a compromise with reality, as they are liberals who have refused to make a further compromise with reality. And anarchists are liberals without any respect for reality whatsoever. All three philosophies properly belong on the left, not the right. As, of course, does Marxism -- not for the turnip-ghost reason you would probably assume (since clearly anarchism does not push for "big government," nor in the theoretical end does marxism, and in fact nor does either liberalism or libertarianism, so you're batting zero there), but because all four are motivated by the well-being of ordinary people against the oppression of privileged elites.

I read over the piece that Kurt linked, too. Here is a very important passage that I find represents a common recognition by left-libertarians. In fact, one can distinguish left- from right-libertarians on the basis of whether they acknowledge this economic/political reality.



Now I don't necessarily agree with everything that author says, but this is pretty clear. The government intervenes in the economy on behalf of entrenched private power, and that is the source of the capitalist system in the first place. This is, in large measure, an economic injustice inflicted on the people by the state, and so to combat this is in keeping with libertarian principles. To forget that, to pretend that the capitalist system arose naturally and persists with constant government support, while at the same time working against all efforts to ameliorate the vile results, is not in keeping with libertarian principles.

Capitalism and libertarianism are natural foes, not allies.

Nah. The left and logic are natural foes.

Libertarianism, in the present tense, stands apart from the left and the right in advocating individual liberty in all cases. Both the left and the right advocate varying degrees of infringement on individual liberty for "the common good".

Anarchism and socialism are collectivist ideologies. Libertarianism is an individualist ideology. "Liberalism" in the modern sense (in America) is not liberalism, it is socialism. The Liberal Party in Australia is the center-right equivalent of the Republican Party in the U.S. They use the term correctly there. As in the UK, the center-left party is the Labor Party.

"Capitalism" is nothing more than the modern system of handling investment. In order to get rid of it, you would have to outlaw corporations. In order to outlaw corporations, you would have to outlaw publicly traded stock. Tell me how such an economy would function, as a modern economy, without then resorting to the central planning of state capitalism?

That's where all of this "left libertarian" anarchist crap falls apart. You have two options: state capitalism or pre-modern Luddite agricultural bartering. Take your pick.

I have a simple question for all of the left leaning individuals here. It's a stupid question, but it may need to be asked.

Do you understand that wealthy individuals and corporations are not the same thing, and are not necessarily related in any way?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I believe the issue in question was "the economic policies of the last 30 years", instituted by Reagan and more or less maintained by all of his successors until Obama.

Correct. The proper comparison is not between Democrats and Republicans, but among the different economic eras regardless of party. The differences between Clinton's economic policies and those of Reagan or either of the Bushes are not that significant. The difference between the policies under any of those presidents and all leaders from Truman through Carter are night and day.

It makes sense to divide the post-Civil War U.S. economy into three periods with bookend disaster periods. The disaster periods are the Great Depression, the oil crisis, and the Great Recession. As we are currently in one of the bookends, we should be heading for a fourth economic paradigm. In making the comparisons, it's proper to leave the bookend periods out of consideration IMO. I would label the paradigms and bookend periods as follows:

First paradigm -- Pure capitalism: this prevailed from the end of the Civil War until the Great Depression. It was characterized by government policies that maximized concentration of wealth, kept labor aspirations down, subsidized banking and key industries, and basically did everything for the benefit of the rich and powerful, despite occasional half-hearted moves towards reform. Duration 1865-1929.

First bookend -- the Great Depression: this brought the first economic paradigm to an end and forced the development of the second. Duration late 1929 - 1942.

Second paradigm -- mixed or "New Deal" economy: the elements of this were fully established during World War II, but became more clearly visible in the late 1940s after the specifically wartime rationing and controls were repealed. It was characterized by a unionized workforce, high marginal tax rates to discourage profit taking, regulated business, and government policy that tried to narrow income gaps. Duration 1943-1973.

Second bookend -- the oil crisis: this torpedoed the mixed economy with a supply-side (key natural resource) poblem that its Keynesian economic paradigm was not prepared to deal with. It is the reason why the economy under Nixon in his second term and under Ford and Carter significantly underperformed what it did from Truman through Nixon term 1, despite operating under the same rules that achieved such massive success earlier. It is also the reason why the economy under Reagan post-1983 significantly outperformed the Nixon 2/Ford/Carter economy, despite going back in part to an earlier set of rules that had led to the Depression (although it predictably underperformed the economy of Truman through Nixon 1). Duration 1973-1983.

Third paradigm -- capitalism redux: this saw a return in part to the government policies of the first paradigm, although some features of the mixed economy have been retained. In addition, the globalization of the economy has allowed end runs around some features of the second paradigm, rendering them ineffective. Tax rates have been compressed and businesses deregulated to encourage profit taking and concentration of wealth, with predictably bad results. Real wages have stagnated or declined, while profits and the income of the richest Americans have soared. Duration 1983-2008.

We're in a new bookend period, as I said.

The proper comparison is therefore among those three paradigm periods: 1865-1929, 1943-1973, and 1983-2008, leaving out the periods of the Great Depression, oil crisis, and Great Recession. That won't necessarily favor the Democrats. But it most definitely will favor the second paradigm over either the first or the third, and therefore liberal over conservative economics.

The reason certain tunnel-visioned conservative Xers think that Reagan represented a change for the better is because they are focused narrowly on the transition from Carter to Reagan, which means that they are comparing the third paradigm not to the second but to a bookend period (the oil crisis). A similar distortion would be found if one compared the economy under Eisenhower to that under Roosevelt. Obviously, during the Depression the economy was in trouble. But the economy under Eisenhower compares VERY favorably to the economy under Coolidge, and that's a more significant comparison. Similiarly, one should compare the economy under Reagan -- more properly, under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush -- to the way it performed under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon 1. And never mind the political party occupying the White House at any of those times. What matters is the economic philosophy under which the government operated, not the party labels.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I have a simple question for all of the left leaning individuals here. It's a stupid question, but it may need to be asked.

Do you understand that wealthy individuals and corporations are not the same thing, and are not necessarily related in any way?

Yes, it was a stupid question, and the answers are yes and no. That is, wealthy individuals and corporations are certainly not the same thing, but no, it is NOT true that they are not related in any way. The entire purpose of corporations is to enrich wealthy individuals; they are a means to that end. Big corporations are a tool in the hands of individuals of massive wealth.

I suppose you could argue that corporations and wealthy individuals aren't "necessarily" related on the grounds that a tiny minority of wealthy individuals obtained their wealth from great success in the entertainment industry, but that's a trivial point. For almost all rich individuals, the relation is a necessary one.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Libertarianism, in the present tense, stands apart from the left and the right in advocating individual liberty in all cases.

That's what it says. But it makes this claim only by assuming, falsely, that the government is the only threat to liberty.

Anarchism and socialism are collectivist ideologies. Libertarianism is an individualist ideology.

One truth and three falsehoods. Socialism is a collectivist ideology. The remaining three assertions are all false.

"Capitalism" is nothing more than the modern system of handling investment.

That's one possible definition. However, the word has come to encompass many other things, and as usual when you insist on original or (frankly) antiquated definitions of words, you are doing so in a self-serving manner intended to sow confusion.

In order to get rid of it, you would have to outlaw corporations. In order to outlaw corporations, you would have to outlaw publicly traded stock. Tell me how such an economy would function, as a modern economy, without then resorting to the central planning of state capitalism?

It would take too long to explain this in a single post, but if you think that the question has never been considered -- and not as a rhetorical question, either -- you are mistaken. Answers to it have been proposed. Those are not the only alternatives.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Left-leaning libertarianism (which is very close to an oxymoron, although I leave room for potential semantic confusion), like all left-leaning ideologies, requires a mountain of rationalization to even begin to appear coherent, and even then at best leaves the issues more confused than when the advocate started talking.

Well, it leaves you confused certainly. But that's because you're recoiling from having your assumptions exposed to you.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

In the article you linked, the author used the words "corporations" and "the rich" interchangeably . . . Do you understand that wealthy individuals and corporations are not the same thing, and are not necessarily related in any way?

Yes, but why is this an important distinction? Corporations are just a common form that concentrations of wealth take in our economy. They are not the only one, but so what? Isn't the important question whether these concentrations of wealth are inherent in an industrial economy or simply a product of state policy?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Libertarians and anarchists, as the two groups exist today, are not remotely the same thing. Anarchists are continually trying to claim the libertarian label for themselves,

Yes, that's because they invented it. The use of "libertarian" to describe classical liberals is very recent (only since the 1960s, and mostly in America).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Correct. The proper comparison is not between Democrats and Republicans, but among the different economic eras regardless of party. The differences between Clinton's economic policies and those of Reagan or either of the Bushes are not that significant. The difference between the policies under any of those presidents and all leaders from Truman through Carter are night and day.

It makes sense to divide the post-Civil War U.S. economy into three periods with bookend disaster periods. The disaster periods are the Great Depression, the oil crisis, and the Great Recession. As we are currently in one of the bookends, we should be heading for a fourth economic paradigm....

Quite a good analysis.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yes, it was a stupid question, and the answers are yes and no. That is, wealthy individuals and corporations are certainly not the same thing, but no, it is NOT true that they are not related in any way. The entire purpose of corporations is to enrich wealthy individuals; they are a means to that end. Big corporations are a tool in the hands of individuals of massive wealth.

I suppose you could argue that corporations and wealthy individuals aren't "necessarily" related on the grounds that a tiny minority of wealthy individuals obtained their wealth from great success in the entertainment industry, but that's a trivial point. For almost all rich individuals, the relation is a necessary one.

I'm glad you recognized the key word "necessarily" halfway through your post.

Actually, one of the best and most common ways to become incredibly wealthy is to start a company (a private company, owned only by you and/or a few partners), grow that company into something successful, and then sell it off through an IPO (initial public offering), at which point it becomes a publicly traded corporation, but you no longer own it, or no longer own a controlling interest in it. That is usually how it works. A few people, like Warren Buffet, become billionaires solely through playing the stock market. An individual can become reasonably wealthy (at least according to Obama standards) by being a doctor, or a lawyer, or an engineer, or having any other job that requires a (useful) college degree and advancing over time.

Meanwhile, corporations are owned by a huge and diverse base of shareholders. They are not owned by a small handful of people. They may be huge companies, but they are also jointly owned by a huge number of people. They may be a "concentration of wealth", but they are, by design, a dispersion of ownership.

In other words, whatever faults there may be in corporations, they still represent a greater decentralization and dispersion of ownership than central control where the government owns everything. More importantly, they operate on economic considerations, not political ones, which is a GOOD thing, not a BAD thing.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Well, it leaves you confused certainly. But that's because you're recoiling from having your assumptions exposed to you.

Uh...no. I'm recoiling from it because it makes no sense. You cannot simultaneously claim to be an individualist and a collectivist. And you most definitely cannot explain how such a system would actually work, without either having central planning or reverting to a pre-modern economy.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm glad you recognized the key word "necessarily" halfway through your post.

I recognized that word as key to a distortion of reality and a fallacious, misleading argument you were trying to fob off. It's key to nothing else, though.

Actually, one of the best and most common ways to become incredibly wealthy is to start a company (a private company, owned only by you and/or a few partners), grow that company into something successful, and then sell it off through an IPO (initial public offering), at which point it becomes a publicly traded corporation, but you no longer own it, or no longer own a controlling interest in it. That is usually how it works. A few people, like Warren Buffet, become billionaires solely through playing the stock market.

Both of those involve corporations. In fact, both of those involve big, publicly traded corporations, although the first one didn't start that way. Most small-business start-ups never get to the IPO stage, of course. Typically, when the owner goes public, it's true that he no longer owns a controlling interest in the corporation. Are you trying to argue that that is of some significance? If so, you have failed to do so, and merely stating the fact as if it means something of any importance cannot substitute for providing reasons why we should think that.

Meanwhile, corporations are owned by a huge and diverse base of shareholders. They are not owned by a small handful of people.

This is very much like your use of "necessarily" above: a diversion and a fallacious argument. Let me put it this way. Suppose there is a pile of bricks in my back yard, totalling 10,000 bricks in all. 9,450 of those bricks are mine. The other 550 bricks are owned by a dozen or so people who have dumped them in my back yard for storage. If you ask "who owns all those bricks?" and someone answers, "Brian does," that will be technically incorrect, since I don't really own all of them.

But I fer danged sure own most of them, don't I?

Similarly, while it is technically correct that some (as in, more than zero) shares in most publicly-traded corporations are owned by "a huge and diverse base of shareholders," it's also true that the amount of stock owned by any one of these shareholders is trivial, and that only wealthy investors own significant amounts of stock.

That should be a no-brainer, since only wealthy investors can afford to do so.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You cannot simultaneously claim to be an individualist and a collectivist.

Of course you can, because the idea that the individual and the collective are necessarily in opposition is false. The individual is in fact part of the collective, and the well-being and liberty of the individual depends on the health of the collective and vice-versa.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I recognized that word as key to a distortion of reality and a fallacious, misleading argument you were trying to fob off. It's key to nothing else, though.

You're losing the argument.

Both of those involve corporations. In fact, both of those involve big, publicly traded corporations, although the first one didn't start that way. Most small-business start-ups never get to the IPO stage, of course. Typically, when the owner goes public, it's true that he no longer owns a controlling interest in the corporation. Are you trying to argue that that is of some significance? If so, you have failed to do so, and merely stating the fact as if it means something of any importance cannot substitute for providing reasons why we should think that.

You're claiming that a tiny handful of rich people control the nation's wealth through corporations.

This is very much like your use of "necessarily" above: a diversion and a fallacious argument. Let me put it this way. Suppose there is a pile of bricks in my back yard, totalling 10,000 bricks in all. 9,450 of those bricks are mine. The other 550 bricks are owned by a dozen or so people who have dumped them in my back yard for storage. If you ask "who owns all those bricks?" and someone answers, "Brian does," that will be technically incorrect, since I don't really own all of them.

But I fer danged sure own most of them, don't I?

Similarly, while it is technically correct that some (as in, more than zero) shares in most publicly-traded corporations are owned by "a huge and diverse base of shareholders," it's also true that the amount of stock owned by any one of these shareholders is trivial, and that only wealthy investors own significant amounts of stock.

That should be a no-brainer, since only wealthy investors can afford to do so.

This just shows how little you understand about economic reality. Which is really a pre-requisite for being a leftist. You actually believe that there are corporations where one individual owns 94.5% of the stock. Here is what reality looks like:

Microsoft Corp. Top 5 Shareholders

Capital Research Global Investors
Vanguard Group Inc.
State Street Corp
Barclay's Global
Capital World Investors


Those are mutual funds. I personally own a small portion of Microsoft through Vanguard. As do many millions of other people who have 401(k)s, or who have a pension that is managed as part of a pension fund. In my case I bought it directly because I had some money I wanted to save when I was about 25. Not much, but it had done pretty well over the course of 10 years, until recently.

Bill Gates does still own a large amount of Microsoft stock. He started the company, after all. He owned 997,499,328 shares as of 2005. What percentage of ownership is that? 9.8%.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Of course you can, because the idea that the individual and the collective are necessarily in opposition is false. The individual is in fact part of the collective, and the well-being and liberty of the individual depends on the health of the collective and vice-versa.

I can also string together words into vague sentences that sound good but mean nothing. I try to avoid it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Correct. The proper comparison is not between Democrats and Republicans, but among the different economic eras regardless of party. The differences between Clinton's economic policies and those of Reagan or either of the Bushes are not that significant. The difference between the policies under any of those presidents and all leaders from Truman through Carter are night and day.

It makes sense to divide the post-Civil War U.S. economy into three periods with bookend disaster periods. The disaster periods are the Great Depression, the oil crisis, and the Great Recession. As we are currently in one of the bookends, we should be heading for a fourth economic paradigm. In making the comparisons, it's proper to leave the bookend periods out of consideration IMO. I would label the paradigms and bookend periods as follows:

First paradigm -- Pure capitalism: this prevailed from the end of the Civil War until the Great Depression. It was characterized by government policies that maximized concentration of wealth, kept labor aspirations down, subsidized banking and key industries, and basically did everything for the benefit of the rich and powerful, despite occasional half-hearted moves towards reform. Duration 1865-1929.

First bookend -- the Great Depression: this brought the first economic paradigm to an end and forced the development of the second. Duration late 1929 - 1942.

Second paradigm -- mixed or "New Deal" economy: the elements of this were fully established during World War II, but became more clearly visible in the late 1940s after the specifically wartime rationing and controls were repealed. It was characterized by a unionized workforce, high marginal tax rates to discourage profit taking, regulated business, and government policy that tried to narrow income gaps. Duration 1943-1973.

Second bookend -- the oil crisis: this torpedoed the mixed economy with a supply-side (key natural resource) poblem that its Keynesian economic paradigm was not prepared to deal with. It is the reason why the economy under Nixon in his second term and under Ford and Carter significantly underperformed what it did from Truman through Nixon term 1, despite operating under the same rules that achieved such massive success earlier. It is also the reason why the economy under Reagan post-1983 significantly outperformed the Nixon 2/Ford/Carter economy, despite going back in part to an earlier set of rules that had led to the Depression (although it predictably underperformed the economy of Truman through Nixon 1). Duration 1973-1983.

Third paradigm -- capitalism redux: this saw a return in part to the government policies of the first paradigm, although some features of the mixed economy have been retained. In addition, the globalization of the economy has allowed end runs around some features of the second paradigm, rendering them ineffective. Tax rates have been compressed and businesses deregulated to encourage profit taking and concentration of wealth, with predictably bad results. Real wages have stagnated or declined, while profits and the income of the richest Americans have soared. Duration 1983-2008.

We're in a new bookend period, as I said.

The proper comparison is therefore among those three paradigm periods: 1865-1929, 1943-1973, and 1983-2008, leaving out the periods of the Great Depression, oil crisis, and Great Recession. That won't necessarily favor the Democrats. But it most definitely will favor the second paradigm over either the first or the third, and therefore liberal over conservative economics.

The reason certain tunnel-visioned conservative Xers think that Reagan represented a change for the better is because they are focused narrowly on the transition from Carter to Reagan, which means that they are comparing the third paradigm not to the second but to a bookend period (the oil crisis). A similar distortion would be found if one compared the economy under Eisenhower to that under Roosevelt. Obviously, during the Depression the economy was in trouble. But the economy under Eisenhower compares VERY favorably to the economy under Coolidge, and that's a more significant comparison. Similiarly, one should compare the economy under Reagan -- more properly, under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush -- to the way it performed under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon 1. And never mind the political party occupying the White House at any of those times. What matters is the economic philosophy under which the government operated, not the party labels.

I think in general the bookends including the civil war were crisis 4Ts. The Depression and today represent the start of 4Ts. That figures, since events move more rapidly and catastrophically then.

The other bookend you mentioned was during an awakening. In that case the awakening had already been going on for 8 or 9 years. But the preceeding events were part of the same overall trend, and led up to the same result-- the Reagan reaction. These events included the civil rights struggle and 1964 Goldwater/Reagan backlash, Vietnam and resulting polarization and scandals, the 1967 Arab-Isreali War, and the Santa Barbara oil spill/Earth Day environmentalism.

There was a similar impact of the previous awakening, and like the last one the changes took longer. The difference was that it did not result in such a sharply-defined "redux" of what had been moved away-from before, like Reaganomics and such has reversed the post New Deal/WWII era. Nevertheless the events of the late 1880s and 1890s had a dramatic effect on the economy (and on politics too of course). The panic of 1893, and preceeding economic and labor/farmer instability, resulted in both a vastly-increased concentration of economic power (the corporate economy as we know it), as ruined companies were gobbled up, PLUS the populist, socialist and progressive/trust-busting movements that had some mitigating impact on capitalism-- at least by the 1900s. Also, more tarriffs I think. More corporate, and somewhat more collectivist too. The 2 trends moved together. Not so much a direct reversal of the previous era, but major and lasting change nevertheless.

Of course in Europe the trends were dramatic too in this awakening period; you could even call this the period of early "national socialism" without the later connotations, yet leading in that direction. But there was a certain degree of alliance between left and right against the middle in these years, quite different from any period before or after it. Not at all like today in that respect, though some might say so.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You're losing the argument.

What argument? You haven't presented one yet.

You're claiming that a tiny handful of rich people control the nation's wealth through corporations.

And you have failed to refute that assertion in any way.

This just shows how little you understand about economic reality. Which is really a pre-requisite for being a leftist.

You're losing the argument.

You actually believe that there are corporations where one individual owns 94.5% of the stock.

That is, of course, not at all what I said. Here, let me quote myself in pertinent part.

"Similarly, while it is technically correct that some (as in, more than zero) shares in most publicly-traded corporations are owned by "a huge and diverse base of shareholders," it's also true that the amount of stock owned by any one of these shareholders is trivial, and that only wealthy investors own significant amounts of stock."

Now, look carefully. I'm not saying anything about how much of the total stock of a company is owned by one person. I'm saying something about how many people own significant percentages of the company's stock.

Consider this. Suppose that we have a company with publicly-traded shares. I own 25% of those shares. 75,000 other people own 1/10 of 1% of the shares each. Do I own a majority of the company? No. But does anyone other than me own a significant amount of stock in it? No.

And that, of course, far understates the actual concentration of stock ownership in most publicly-traded companies. Which is why the mutual fund argument that you are making is so utterly bogus.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I can also string together words into vague sentences that sound good but mean nothing. I try to avoid it.

Bullshit.

Do you need help with understanding what those words I used meant, or is it the case that you already understand and are just stringing together words into vague sentences that sound good but mean nothing?

In the latter case, I think you should try to avoid it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I have a simple question for all of the left leaning individuals here. It's a stupid question, but it may need to be asked.

Do you understand that wealthy individuals and corporations are not the same thing, and are not necessarily related in any way?

It could hardly be more obvious: wealth is itself a source of power.

On the original topic of the 2012 elections -- obviously the presidency is the big one, but 2012 and 2014 are going to be very rough years for the Democrats in the Senate. This year is the most favorable one they will face until 2016. Almost half of the current Republican held seats are up for election this year, and they are going to hold all of them. In the next two cycles, it will be disproportionately Democrat held seats up for election, as they seats they won in 2006 and 2008 finish their terms.

Doggie and I might simply take a nap until 2016.

The ideology battle, obviously, remains the same. Just how bad things get is what counts.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

On the original topic of the 2012 elections -- obviously the presidency is the big one, but 2012 and 2014 are going to be very rough years for the Democrats in the Senate. This year is the most favorable one they will face until 2016. Almost half of the current Republican held seats are up for election this year, and they are going to hold all of them. In the next two cycles, it will be disproportionately Democrat held seats up for election, as they seats they won in 2006 and 2008 finish their terms.

Not so fast. The Democrats flipped six Senate seats, all then held by incumbents, all in "blue" or "purple" states in 2004. Any "reverse wave" that partially reverses Democratic gains in 2006 and 2008 would be completed by the end of this year, with some of the weaker winners of 2006 and 2008 in the House having been sorted out.

The GOP has made no substantial changes in its ideology and has shown no evidence of winning over constituencies that Democrats have long taken for granted. It's still the Religious Right (in decline due to age-based demographics) and corporate elites (not growing in raw number). The youngest voters are not Republican-leaning as they were in 1994 or 1980.

The Millennial Generation remains the predominant source of new voters, and they are so far the most liberal-leaning in America by age. Such is so even in the South. Much unlike Boomers they are not going to alienate older adults. More likely to elicit empathy than Generation X, they aren't the sort about whom people say "S--- happens". This generation is less rifted along ethnic and religious lines and is much more collegial and organized. I look at the Tea Party, the loud and fanatical representatives of an America on the fade, and I see much free-floating anger and little intellectual credibility. Sure, it draws attention but only because it is theatrical and abrasive.

2010 will show where the numbers are -- not where the media attention is. 2012? President Obama is still a formidable campaigner, and he will take one of the most effective campaign apparatuses ever out of mothballs. Even if President Obama faces one hostile House in Congress, he can run against that House of Congress to the detriment of the GOP majority that blocks everything that the President (and America on the whole) wants. After all, should the GOP make big gains in the House it will have some very weak members vulnerable to defeat.

Voters may be taking the Senate races more seriously in part because the election of the wrong Senator is a six-year mistake.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Not so fast. The Democrats flipped six Senate seats, all then held by incumbents, all in "blue" or "purple" states in 2004. Any "reverse wave" that partially reverses Democratic gains in 2006 and 2008 would be completed by the end of this year, with some of the weaker winners of 2006 and 2008 in the House having been sorted out.

The GOP has made no substantial changes in its ideology and has shown no evidence of winning over constituencies that Democrats have long taken for granted. It's still the Religious Right (in decline due to age-based demographics) and corporate elites (not growing in raw number). The youngest voters are not Republican-leaning as they were in 1994 or 1980.

The Millennial Generation remains the predominant source of new voters, and they are so far the most liberal-leaning in America by age. Such is so even in the South. Much unlike Boomers they are not going to alienate older adults. More likely to elicit empathy than Generation X, they aren't the sort about whom people say "S--- happens". This generation is less rifted along ethnic and religious lines and is much more collegial and organized. I look at the Tea Party, the loud and fanatical representatives of an America on the fade, and I see much free-floating anger and little intellectual credibility. Sure, it draws attention but only because it is theatrical and abrasive.

2010 will show where the numbers are -- not where the media attention is. 2012? President Obama is still a formidable campaigner, and he will take one of the most effective campaign apparatuses ever out of mothballs. Even if President Obama faces one hostile House in Congress, he can run against that House of Congress to the detriment of the GOP majority that blocks everything that the President (and America on the whole) wants. After all, should the GOP make big gains in the House it will have some very weak members vulnerable to defeat.

Voters may be taking the Senate races more seriously in part because the election of the wrong Senator is a six-year mistake.

I'm increasingly hesitant to respond to inaccurate and out-of-touch posts that require pedantic responses stating basic facts, but here goes:

Every two years, one third of all Senate seats are up for reelection.

Seats up in 2010:

(D) 18
(R) 16

2012:

(D) 21-23
(R) 10-12

2014:

(D) 19-20
(R) 13-14

There is some variation in the numbers because some of the elections this year are special elections that will be up again, and I counted Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders as (D) even though they're (I) because they caucus with the Democrats.

A lot of the Democrat seats up this year are in "blue states". Many more of the (D) seats up in 2012 and 2014 will be in "red states". Almost all of the Republican seats in all three elections are in "red states", since those are the only ones they have as of now.

Bottom line: This year is the most favorable year the Democrats will face in the Senate in terms of the election map for the next 3 elections, and they are currently on course to lose at least 7 seats this year.

I understand your reasoning on that, but logically it would argue that any big Senate victory will likely be lost over the next three Congressional elections as the victorious party faces more challenges than the defeated one. This is after all a mathematical prediction that always applies to any such situation. Is there any historical evidence to support this?

I don't have time to run through Senate elections over the history of the U.S. right now, but perhaps I'll find the time in a while. If someone else wants to do it, look for major victories by one party or another, and the next three elections after that.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I understand your reasoning on that, but logically it would argue that any big Senate victory will likely be lost over the next three Congressional elections as the victorious party faces more challenges than the defeated one. This is after all a mathematical prediction that always applies to any such situation. Is there any historical evidence to support this?

I don't have time to run through Senate elections over the history of the U.S. right now, but perhaps I'll find the time in a while. If someone else wants to do it, look for major victories by one party or another, and the next three elections after that.

It has happened three times within our lifetimes Brian. Going backwards the GOP Senate class of 1994 saw many defeats in 2000. The same thing happened to the Reagan class of 1980 in 1986 when the Democrats retook the Senate. That Reagan class of 1980 was itself made possible because it replaced the strongly Democratic Watergate class of 1974.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I understand your reasoning on that, but logically it would argue that any big Senate victory will likely be lost over the next three Congressional elections as the victorious party faces more challenges than the defeated one. This is after all a mathematical prediction that always applies to any such situation. Is there any historical evidence to support this?

I don't have time to run through Senate elections over the history of the U.S. right now, but perhaps I'll find the time in a while. If someone else wants to do it, look for major victories by one party or another, and the next three elections after that.

In normal (non-wave) years, the Senate outcome depends heavily on which seats are up. This should be a good year for Democrats, but it won't be. If there is yet another wave back in the Democrats favor, the natural landscape could be counteracted again. But that is highly unlikely in 2012, when the presidential candidate is a Democrat incumbent and the Democrats (likely) will still control the Senate.

It is certainly possible if the Republicans win the House that they could see some erosion in 2012, but they could just as easily pick up a few seats. It's not unusual in non-wave year House elections to see a change of only a few seats.