Black Bloc Tactics Contaminating Occupy Oakland

[sandinista]

Are the Black Bloc really anarchists or are they agent provocateurs acting on behalf of giant corporations?

sometimes they are cops, that has happened in canaduh on a number of occasions.

...but one example




There's more humorous ones I can't be bothered to look up now...like cops wearing Che shirts and weed bandanas looking like fucking morons. Cops are idiots.

[Seth]

The billionaires and megacorporations aren't a problem because they're preternaturally greedy, any more than people on welfare are preternaturally greedy. They're only a problem because the government has set things up to encourage excessive concentration of money.

How so?

High corporate tax rates in the U.S. encourage even U.S. based multinationals to keep profits overseas so they can't be returned to stockholders.

Agreed. That's a Democrat/Progressive policy.

Double taxation of dividends discourages corporations from returning profits to individual stockholders.

Agreed. That's a Democrat/Progressive policy.

Both of these encourage - nearly force - large corporations to retain their profits, increasing the concentration of wealth, even where it would make more objective sense, absent perverse tax incentives, to be paying dividends and thus relieving concentrations of wealth.

Agreed. Things were so bad in 1936 that FDR tried to tax "undistributed profits" to force corporations to do exactly that. That law was despised and was repealed in 1938. Again, Democrat/Progressive policy.

Interesting assertion. However HuffPo writer Bernard Condon points out that while corporations are alleged to be sitting on 3 trillion in cash, they are also buried in debt.

Who said anything about cash? I'm talking about profits and equity - which is the amount by which assets exceed liabilities, like debt. Debt has already been accounted for here.

Where? Profits and equity? Of course, but that's not the complaint. The complaint is that corporations are sitting on piles of cash they ought to be spending. Corporations are cutting distributions of profits precisely because they don't know what their debt will be next year because their debt service requirements fluctuates with the Prime Rate and other factors, so they need to have cash that might be distributed as dividends in order to have reserves to service debt, including potential tax debt, in an uncertain economy.

Here's an example. Citigroup's equity is currently more than twice its market capitalization. If it could liquidate - which it can't because of regulatory rules - the stockholders would realize an immediate profit of over 100%. That kind of indicates that the money would be more productive in the hands of individual stockholders than it is in Citigroup's coffers. Unfortunately, due to the factors mentioned above, it's very difficult for Citigroup to return even a portion of that equity to stockholders.

That's just saying that a corporation should be required to distribute it's equity to shareholders, but that's a decision for the shareholders to make. They may prefer that the earnings be retained in order to allow more investment and more profit into the future. If investors don't like the regulatory climate Citigroup operates under, nothing forces them to invest with Citigroup.

Other examples of companies that have lots more equity than they can invest productively are Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Apple actually has zero debt.

So? It's their equity. If the shareholders want a distribution of equity, they will elect a board of directors who will distribute that equity. And Apple has more cash on hand than the federal government does. So what?

And seriously, Huffington Post? They're practically a mouthpiece for Soros. No wonder they're obfuscating this issue in favor of billionaires.

I agree, but the point remains. I thought it was pretty funny actually that HuffPo was not aligning with the Progressives and Marxists in this regard.

The way to get them to spend this cash and employ people is to lower their tax burden and give them regulatory certainty for at least three to five years so that they know they won't be blindsided by politically-motivated tax increases and crippling (particularly environmental) regulations that will suddenly and unpredictably increase the cost of doing business...like Obamacare.

I certainly agree with regulatory stability and getting rid of Obamacare, but those don't have a lot to do with concentration of wealth: they're needed to help small businesses employ more people just as much as they're needed to help huge businesses employ more people.

Indeed. Concentrations of wealth not being used for something else at the moment are generally called "venture capital."

My concerns on this topic are the huge businesses that have already passed through most of their growth curves. At some point large, stable corporations need a efficient mechanism to return capital to the investors so it can be reinvested in new growth areas. That's what we're currently missing.

But that's a decision for the shareholders, isn't it? If they want the corporation to continue to grow and acquire new lines and become more and more stable while providing a stable, steady and reliable distribution of profits, that's for them to decide. If the shareholders want to trim the corporation and distribute equity, then all they have to do is vote for board members who want to do that, or a corporate resolution to that effect, at the annual shareholder's meeting. Why should government have any say at all?

The solutions are pretty simple, too. For example, make dividends tax deductible for the corporations that pay them and taxable as ordinary income for the recipients. That way corporations can repatriate overseas profits without a tax penalty, so long as they are paying them out to stockholders. The stockholders can then spend or reinvest the money, either of which helps create jobs.

Agreed.

The only problem is the big billionaire stockholders who are more interested in power and control than in money.

Well, that's just the breaks. They are the shareholders, so they get to make the decisions.

The problem is, first, oil subsidies are a small fraction of entitlement spending, and cutting them won't have much of an effect on solving the budget deficit, and second, doing so raises the price of energy and fuel far beyond the cost of the subsidies and tax breaks, which costs consumers even more on a daily basis.

I agree with the first critique. Placard slogans don't qualify as solutions if they make no sense when you do the arithmetic.

I don't agree with the second. Anything that requires government subsidies to make business sense almost by definition makes no economic sense.

Me, I'd be happy to cut both oil subsidies and social spending.

This is where we get into discussions of "strategic resources" and national sovereignty.

[Warren Dew]

The billionaires and megacorporations aren't a problem because they're preternaturally greedy, any more than people on welfare are preternaturally greedy. They're only a problem because the government has set things up to encourage excessive concentration of money.

How so?

High corporate tax rates in the U.S. encourage even U.S. based multinationals to keep profits overseas so they can't be returned to stockholders.

Agreed. That's a Democrat/Progressive policy.

Double taxation of dividends discourages corporations from returning profits to individual stockholders.

Agreed. That's a Democrat/Progressive policy.

Both of these encourage - nearly force - large corporations to retain their profits, increasing the concentration of wealth, even where it would make more objective sense, absent perverse tax incentives, to be paying dividends and thus relieving concentrations of wealth.

Agreed.

Glad we agree on the underlying facts - that the government has set things up to encourage excessive concentrations of wealth, and that it's a result of progressive Democrat policies and how they cause the problems that both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement complain about.

That's just saying that a corporation should be required to distribute it's equity to shareholders, but that's a decision for the shareholders to make. If investors don't like the regulatory climate Citigroup operates under, nothing forces them to invest with Citigroup.

The stockholders have no control over the tax rules that force Citigroup to retain its cash and concentration of wealth. In fact, the stockholders and the CEO of Citigroup have made no secret of their joint desire to distribute some of that cash, which would alleviate some of the wealth concentration that the Occupy folks complain about. Unfortunately, the company is not allowed to do it, due to government tax policies and other regulations over which the stockholders have no control.

Now sure, investors can choose to invest in commodities or invest overseas instead, and that's exactly what's happening. And again, it's the result of progressive Democrat policies that encourage the concentration of wealth. Fix those policies, and the concentration of wealth will be reduced, and capital can start creating jobs and improving the economy again.

And seriously, Huffington Post? They're practically a mouthpiece for Soros. No wonder they're obfuscating this issue in favor of billionaires.

I agree, but the point remains. I thought it was pretty funny actually that HuffPo was not aligning with the Progressives and Marxists in this regard.

Actually, the Huffington Post is indeed aligning with progressives on this issue. As you pointed out, the policies that encourage concentration of wealth are progressive Democrat policies. After all, they have to protect Soros and their other crony capitalist patrons. By talking about cash and debt, but ignoring equity, the Huffington Post's article takes the spotlight off of those progressive Democrat policies.

The solutions are pretty simple, too. For example, make dividends tax deductible for the corporations that pay them and taxable as ordinary income for the recipients. That way corporations can repatriate overseas profits without a tax penalty, so long as they are paying them out to stockholders. The stockholders can then spend or reinvest the money, either of which helps create jobs.

Agreed.

The only problem is the big billionaire stockholders who are more interested in power and control than in money.

Well, that's just the breaks. They are the shareholders, so they get to make the decisions.

They don't make the decisions by being shareholders, though, since even the big shareholders are minority shareholders. Rather, they make those decisions by paying off the government to maintain those progressive Democrat policies that concentrate wealth and power, even when the majority of the shareholders would prefer something different. That's how crony capitalism works.

[Schneibster]

Liar.

Insult. I win.

Liar.

Insult again. You lose.

[Schneibster]

Are the Black Bloc really anarchists or are they agent provocateurs acting on behalf of giant corporations?

They're brainwashed children who are too smart to be Libertardians but not smart enough to distrust propaganda.

[Seth]

Are the Black Bloc really anarchists or are they agent provocateurs acting on behalf of giant corporations?

They're brainwashed children who are too smart to be Libertardians but not smart enough to distrust propaganda.

Liar.

[Schneibster]

Are the Black Bloc really anarchists or are they agent provocateurs acting on behalf of giant corporations?

They're brainwashed children who are too smart to be Libertardians but not smart enough to distrust propaganda.

Liar.

Another insult. I win again.

Thanks, Seth, you're really generous.

[Seth]

Insult again. You lose.

Liar.

[Seth]

Are the Black Bloc really anarchists or are they agent provocateurs acting on behalf of giant corporations?

They're brainwashed children who are too smart to be Libertardians but not smart enough to distrust propaganda.

Liar.

Another insult. I win again.

Liar.

[Schneibster]

Insult again. You lose.

Liar.

And another admission that I'm right. Thanks again, Seth!

[Schneibster]

Are the Black Bloc really anarchists or are they agent provocateurs acting on behalf of giant corporations?

They're brainwashed children who are too smart to be Libertardians but not smart enough to distrust propaganda.

Liar.

Another insult. I win again.

Liar.

This is great. Obviously Seth agrees that he can't prove that Libertardians aren't dumber than kiddie anarchists. Thanks for agreeing, Seth!

[maiforpeace]

Liar.

Insult. I win.

Liar.

Insult again. You lose.

Are the Black Bloc really anarchists or are they agent provocateurs acting on behalf of giant corporations?

They're brainwashed children who are too smart to be Libertardians but not smart enough to distrust propaganda.

Are the Black Bloc really anarchists or are they agent provocateurs acting on behalf of giant corporations?

They're brainwashed children who are too smart to be Libertardians but not smart enough to distrust propaganda.

Liar.

Are the Black Bloc really anarchists or are they agent provocateurs acting on behalf of giant corporations?

They're brainwashed children who are too smart to be Libertardians but not smart enough to distrust propaganda.

Liar.

Another insult. I win again.

Thanks, Seth, you're really generous.

Insult again. You lose.

Liar.

Are the Black Bloc really anarchists or are they agent provocateurs acting on behalf of giant corporations?

They're brainwashed children who are too smart to be Libertardians but not smart enough to distrust propaganda.

Liar.

Another insult. I win again.

Liar.

Insult again. You lose.

Liar.

And another admission that I'm right. Thanks again, Seth!

Liar.

Another insult. I win again.

Liar.

This is great. Obviously Seth agrees that he can't prove that Libertardians aren't dumber than kiddie anarchists. Thanks for agreeing, Seth!

This is bordering on spamming boys....knock it off!!!

[Schneibster]

So I'm not to respond to Seth when he has no argument and insults me?

Are you sure that's a good idea? I suggest you think about it a while first.

[maiforpeace]

So I'm not to respond to Seth when he has no argument and insults me?

Are you sure that's a good idea? I suggest you think about it a while first.

If he has no argument, then there's nothing to answer. If he's insulting you, report him.

[Schneibster]

Tried that. Didn't work.