Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
lfh
Äganderätter som ger dig rätt som tack för att du investerar kapital i att öka effektiviteten. Utan vinstmöjligheten skulle ingen investera och då skulle ALLA vara mindre produktiva.
När du köper en aktie från en säljare så tillför du inget kapital till verksamheten. Sedan så är det inte ökande av effektiviteten att köpa aktier. Det som ökar effektivitet är innovationer och rationaliseringar i produktionslinjen. Att köpa och sälja äganderätter bidrar inte till utvecklingen av sådant.
Läs denna intervju med professor i nationalekonomi Michael Hudson som även jobbat på Wall street:
HEDGES: We’re talking about Goldman Sachs, by the way.
HUDSON: Yes, Goldman Sachs. The head of Goldman Sachs came out and said that Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world. That’s why they’re paid what they are. The concept of productivity in America is income divided by labor. So if you’re Goldman Sachs and you pay yourself $20 million a year in salary and bonuses, you’re considered to have added $20 million to GDP, and that’s enormously productive. So we’re talking in a tautology. We’re talking with circular reasoning here.
So the issue is whether Goldman Sachs, Wall Street and predatory pharmaceutical firms, actually add “product” or whether they’re just exploiting other people. That’s why I used the word parasitism in my book’s title. People think of a parasite as simply taking money, taking blood out of a host or taking money out of the economy. But in nature it’s much more complicated. The parasite can’t simply come in and take something. First of all, it needs to numb the host. It has an enzyme so that the host doesn’t realize the parasite’s there. And then the parasites have another enzyme that takes over the host’s brain. It makes the host imagine that the parasite is part of its own body, actually part of itself and hence to be protected.
That’s basically what Wall Street has done. It depicts itself as part of the economy. Not as a wrapping around it, not as external to it, but actually the part that’s helping the body grow, and that actually is responsible for most of the growth. But in fact it’s the parasite that is taking over the growth.
The result is an inversion of classical economics. It turns Adam Smith upside down. It says what the classical economists said was unproductive – parasitism – actually is the real economy. And that the parasites are labor and industry that get in the way of what the parasite wants – which is to reproduce itself, not help the host, that is, labor and capital.
HEDGES: And then the classical economists like Adam Smith were quite clear that unless that rentier income, you know, the money made by things like hedge funds, was heavily taxed and put back into the economy, the economy would ultimately go into a kind of tailspin. And I think the example of that, which you point out in your book, is what’s happened in terms of large corporations with stock dividends and buybacks. And maybe you can explain that.
HUDSON: There’s an idea in superficial textbooks and the public media that if companies make a large profit, they make it by being productive. And with …
HEDGES: Which is still in textbooks, isn’t it?
HUDSON: Yes. And also that if a stock price goes up, you’re just capitalizing the profits – and the stock price reflects the productive role of the company. But that’s not what’s been happening in the last ten years. Just in the last two years, 92 percent of corporate profits in America have been spent either on buying back their own stock, or paid out as dividends to raise the price of the stock.
HEDGES: Explain why they do this.
HUDSON: About 15 years ago at Harvard, Professor Jensen said that the way to ensure that corporations are run most efficiently is to make the managers increase the price of the stock. So if you give the managers stock options, and you pay them not according to how much they’re producing or making the company bigger, or expanding production, but the price of the stock, then you’ll have the corporation run efficiently, financial style.
So the corporate managers find there are two ways that they can increase the price of the stock. The first thing is to cut back long-term investment, and use the money instead to buy back their own stock. But when you buy your own stock, that means you’re not putting the money into capital formation. You’re not building new factories. You’re not hiring more labor. You can actually increase the stock price by firing labor.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/25/the-great-ponzi-scheme-of-the-global-economy/
Finansiell effektivitet är inte detsamma som ekonomisk effektivitet. Ett bevis för att finansieringen av ekonomin har lett till mindre effektivitet i den reella ekonomin. Incititamenten är helt skeva. Aktiehandel har bidragit till det. Du gör mer pengar på att finslipa finanssystemen istället för att finslipa den faktiska ekonomin som ju finansekonomin vilar på. Vilket jag menar är grovt omoraliskt.
Citat:
Aktier och äganderätt gör att allas produktivitet ökar. Det kan såklart leda till ökad konsumtion om det är det folk väljer att göra för sina extra pengar.
Detta är mest påståenden härledda från ideologisk övertygelse. Har du någon som helst empiri som stödjer detta påstående?
Citat:
Aktiesystemet påstår sig inte lösa det problemet. Det förbättrar däremot många andra.
Om aktiesystemet inte löser dessa ekonomiska problem utan snarare orsakar dessa ekonomiska problem, hur kan aktier vara moraliskt rätt?
