I would take the following with a huge grain of salt: Soros is an investor and may be "talking his book" (i.e., trying to get the market to move in the direction that will make him a profit); and as I suggested to midtowng last week, Soros is not a good prognosticator of the economy.
That being said, Soros has told the FT that the oil futures market may crash.
If there is a sharp reversal of the price of oil in the real world, then in the paper world of the futures market, investors may get cleaned out -- and this could include any funds, including any index funds which utilize leverage.
One other thing - I heard an investment expert the other day mentioning that we could reduce oil to 100.00 a barrel in one day by government requiring a bigger margin for commodity futures investors. Ie changing the rules.
Frankly, we ought to stop the gambling on oil. As long as there are gamblers who mostly have enough money - ie live in that other class of people from us - to play the futures, you can drill anywhere you want to and oil will still be expensive because they set the price. But remove this game and oil would become a commodity based on the simple actual cost, pricing by big oil, and profit of the item - not some fictitious price that is created by a select group people betting how high or low it will go and you and I getting stuck paying for that. Close the Enron Loophole.
Just wow. I'd say there are other bubble regions that have yet to plain pop. I am in Oregon and they have 400k, 1M homes here, many in areas where the wages are all low service level jobs. Professional salaries are flat and there is hardly anyone who can afford those prices, long term.
Oregon is all say "oh we do land management, it won't crash" yet I did a quick check of the inventory and it was amazing how many were owned by the bank. Oregon claims to not have an increased foreclosure rate but I think something stinks.
Great catch!
On readers, we had a 2000% reader increase a couple of days ago and now the reads are 2.5 times what they were a week ago.
It really helps to put links to your story over here on other sites, in blog rolls, comments and in signatures.
What happened was someone stopped by and posted the Corporate blog story on slashdot front page.
So, people are reading this site. I wish they would stick around and discuss more, but they are assuredly reading our stuff.
Rock on reality check, save the US economy agenda!
At frist I thought it might be Aarone Krowne, but I guess this is a different guy affiliated with the blog.
This diary fits the description of one category of the "3 Americas" theme I'm developing: that of Housing Hell. Anybody who, in addition to soaring prices for oil and food is caught in Housing Hell, can "Abandon All Hope...."
Are these numbers real, or are they still the fake numbers the US government has been using since the 1980s to figure inflation that ignore the cost of owning a house, fueling your car, or buying food?
As someone who has actually formed corporations, I can flatly deny your false claim: "It's the only reason coorporations are ever made and the only reason they exist, so the only PURPOSE of corporations is to maximize profits, not value."
The first (historical) reason to form a corporation was to protect assets. Specifically to protect shareholder personal assets in the event that the endeavour undertaken by the company incurred liabilities.
Having formed corporations (my own and others), I can flatly state that the most common reason cited for forming a corporation boils down to: "... so I don't lose my house if someone trips and breaks a leg."
The error you are most likely making is to presume that publicly held corps are somehow at all like privately held corps, which stupendously outnumber the publicly held. The vast majority of corps are for small businesses and most of these are formed to separate the assets/liabilities of the endeavour from those of the founder(s).
Further, the "PURPOSE of a corporation" is spelled out in its charter and minutes. That may involve profit, or providing a cooperative negotiating entity (typically for professional associations), or a centralized receivables/payables entity (clubs, neighborhood associations, e.g.), or ... essentially any activity that might create, destroy, or alter assets and/or liabilities.
So while it might be the case that what you have said might apply to some publicly traded corporations, it is ridiculously inaccurate in the larger context of corporations.
as a matter of courtesy but usually they want to make just one comment and move on. As I've said they go into a moderation queue, which means I may or may not approve them and there is also a long delay.
Registered posters can track their posts plus comment immediately. They have their own accounts.
Anonymous comments are not meant to be used by people having a discussion like this, at this point people should join the blog and create accounts so one can at least determine who (fake ID of course) is saying what to whom.
Of course that's for people who want to discuss dramatic economic policy change, economics, trade and we also cover immigration, especially H-1B, offshore outsourcing, globalization/labor arbitrage issues.
That said, glad to see so many people taking this article seriously! It's about time we really started thinking this through for the United States clearly needs strong shifts in trade, economic legislation and policy!
Welcome all Anons!
That said, this is a community blog so if people are serious one trade, economic analysis, we hope you stay and write some insightful comments and blog posts.
I don't understand why there's so much debate over what a coorporations responsibility is, as if a coorporation is a person. Granted, while it is LEGALLY a person, it's not ACTUALLY a person, it's only a piece of paper that PEOPLE use as a legal tool to maximize their profits. It's the only reason coorporations are ever made and the only reason they exist, so the only PURPOSE of corporations is to maximize profits, not value. Nobody goes through the effort of creating a coorporation unless there's something in it for them (i.e. profit).
Now, what you might argue is that it's the responsibility of these PEOPLE to be loyal to their country and community, and maybe we should hold these shareholders accountable, but the entire point of a coorporation is to absolve these people of responsibility to begin with, so we can't hold them directly accountable (or rather, if we do, we should eliminate the coorporation as an institution). The only way to hold them accountable is to minimize their profits by imposing immediate sanctions on the coorporation when they hurt local communities, a kind of indirect sanction on shareholders, or even go so far as to say that if a coorporation behaves treasonously or with disregard towards a community, it's shareholders should be legally compelled to renounce all their shares in the company (minus value added since the questionable action). We need to somehow bring some (indirect) accountability back to shareholders.
Now, while such restrictions may discourage business in the US, beaurocracy will not be significantly increased. We're not increasing the paper work for coorporations or anything of the kind. We simply need to enact laws that allow the US government to depose shareholders in certain cituations. We might lose some business, but the only companies that will chose to move overseas in response are companies at risk from this law (since costs don't increase for other coorporations). This may result in a nick in our year end GDP figures, but it doesn't even matter if communities are now safer and the American quality of life has improved.
Your vision is too narrow. We should not think only of America and US citizens, we should think of the whole world, and all humanity. We are no longer a collection of separate civilizations, free to go about our separate businesses in blissful ignorance of even the existence of other civilizations, we are a single worldwide civilization. We cannot properly tackle problems such as global warming on a mere national context, it must be an international effort.
That's what the hearing was implying, changing the corporate charter definitions and expanding upon them to act in the national interest. Then there are a lot of policies that don't do that, such as a VAT or the Warren Buffet trade certificate idea which simply start creating incentives via profits to get corporations to act in the national interest.
and probably why we have such a hard time getting any sort of policy in the national interest. Anyone who watched the DNC rules committee yesterday is probably keenly aware it sure ain't.
People, register. There is a lively discussion going on here and if you register you can track all of your comments and see replies. Check out the user guide to see all of the goodies you can use on the site if you register and login.
Although I don't think we're going to see a major crash like the dot con era because overall there is increasing demand.
The trashing of the US dollar I do think has had a lot of effect.
The problem with speculative bubbles is when does it crash? I think the dot con bubble was predicted all the way to 1996 and it took until 2000 to pop.
In your theory, the most heavily regulated states in America would be ones that all major corporations would have fled.
That would explain why Silcon Valley and San Francisco in California and Route 128 in MA are ghost towns with grass growing in what used to be city streets.
In the real heavily taxed and regulated California, major corporate HQs in the SF Bay Area are not only in the major cities, but are expanding into the bedroom communities, Concord and Walnut Creek and even San Ramon have major corporate headquarters.
Why? Turns out that when one pays high taxes and puts up with heavier regulation, one gets things like educated professionals capable of working in a high-tech workplace. And a higher quality of life. Not quantifiable, necessarily, but when professionals have a choice between living in the SF Bay Area and the low tax / low regulation Red States, they come here.
Good schools and roads don't materialize because the marketplace fairy decreed them. It's because people and businesses are willing to pay for them in taxes. Regulations that force businesses not to dump crap into the air and water make an area a more desirable place to live.
A good part of the startup money and technological expertise that backs Obama comes straight out of Silicon Valley high-tech corporate types. Is it because they expect Obama to reduce taxes and eliminate what the GOP is left of Federal regulations?
If you don't like this, there's always the Third World. They have few taxes and regulatory enforcement can generally be made to disappear with the right bribes. Why don't you already live there?
Even despite the recent hard times, the USA is still the world's biggest consumer market. As such e can still wield considerable force. We could, for example, make a binding license for corporate responsibility a precondition for doing business in the USA. Few companies could afford to write off our market; any that do would not be missed.
We must have posted almost at the same time. I just covered the Senate hearing and the Enron loophole in detail.
Did you notice Sen. Byron Dorgan pointing out that Soros has made billions trading in the commodities futures market this year?
he testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, Transportation.
The Title of the Hearing is
Energy Market Manipulation and Federal Enforcement Regimes.
I would take the following with a huge grain of salt: Soros is an investor and may be "talking his book" (i.e., trying to get the market to move in the direction that will make him a profit); and as I suggested to midtowng last week, Soros is not a good prognosticator of the economy.
That being said, Soros has told the FT that the oil futures market may crash.
If there is a sharp reversal of the price of oil in the real world, then in the paper world of the futures market, investors may get cleaned out -- and this could include any funds, including any index funds which utilize leverage.
One other thing - I heard an investment expert the other day mentioning that we could reduce oil to 100.00 a barrel in one day by government requiring a bigger margin for commodity futures investors. Ie changing the rules.
Frankly, we ought to stop the gambling on oil. As long as there are gamblers who mostly have enough money - ie live in that other class of people from us - to play the futures, you can drill anywhere you want to and oil will still be expensive because they set the price. But remove this game and oil would become a commodity based on the simple actual cost, pricing by big oil, and profit of the item - not some fictitious price that is created by a select group people betting how high or low it will go and you and I getting stuck paying for that. Close the Enron Loophole.
http://www.madnamerica.com
but they are the raw data from the BLS analyzed by McMillion. He's a well known economist and enter the no spin zone.
Just wow. I'd say there are other bubble regions that have yet to plain pop. I am in Oregon and they have 400k, 1M homes here, many in areas where the wages are all low service level jobs. Professional salaries are flat and there is hardly anyone who can afford those prices, long term.
Oregon is all say "oh we do land management, it won't crash" yet I did a quick check of the inventory and it was amazing how many were owned by the bank. Oregon claims to not have an increased foreclosure rate but I think something stinks.
Great catch!
On readers, we had a 2000% reader increase a couple of days ago and now the reads are 2.5 times what they were a week ago.
It really helps to put links to your story over here on other sites, in blog rolls, comments and in signatures.
What happened was someone stopped by and posted the Corporate blog story on slashdot front page.
So, people are reading this site. I wish they would stick around and discuss more, but they are assuredly reading our stuff.
Rock on reality check, save the US economy agenda!
At frist I thought it might be Aarone Krowne, but I guess this is a different guy affiliated with the blog.
This diary fits the description of one category of the "3 Americas" theme I'm developing: that of Housing Hell. Anybody who, in addition to soaring prices for oil and food is caught in Housing Hell, can "Abandon All Hope...."
I filled my Escort today- told them to fill up the pipe as well, and we fit 10.155 gallons into an almost empty 10 gallon tank.
I also filled up my gas cans for the lawn mower etc, and I'm planning on keeping them for emergencies.
It pays to do this because gas is up $.25/gallon over the past WEEK in Oregon.
Consumer hoarding is just around the corner, I suspect.
Are these numbers real, or are they still the fake numbers the US government has been using since the 1980s to figure inflation that ignore the cost of owning a house, fueling your car, or buying food?
As someone who has actually formed corporations, I can flatly deny your false claim: "It's the only reason coorporations are ever made and the only reason they exist, so the only PURPOSE of corporations is to maximize profits, not value."
The first (historical) reason to form a corporation was to protect assets. Specifically to protect shareholder personal assets in the event that the endeavour undertaken by the company incurred liabilities.
Having formed corporations (my own and others), I can flatly state that the most common reason cited for forming a corporation boils down to: "... so I don't lose my house if someone trips and breaks a leg."
The error you are most likely making is to presume that publicly held corps are somehow at all like privately held corps, which stupendously outnumber the publicly held. The vast majority of corps are for small businesses and most of these are formed to separate the assets/liabilities of the endeavour from those of the founder(s).
Further, the "PURPOSE of a corporation" is spelled out in its charter and minutes. That may involve profit, or providing a cooperative negotiating entity (typically for professional associations), or a centralized receivables/payables entity (clubs, neighborhood associations, e.g.), or ... essentially any activity that might create, destroy, or alter assets and/or liabilities.
So while it might be the case that what you have said might apply to some publicly traded corporations, it is ridiculously inaccurate in the larger context of corporations.
as a matter of courtesy but usually they want to make just one comment and move on. As I've said they go into a moderation queue, which means I may or may not approve them and there is also a long delay.
Registered posters can track their posts plus comment immediately. They have their own accounts.
Anonymous comments are not meant to be used by people having a discussion like this, at this point people should join the blog and create accounts so one can at least determine who (fake ID of course) is saying what to whom.
Of course that's for people who want to discuss dramatic economic policy change, economics, trade and we also cover immigration, especially H-1B, offshore outsourcing, globalization/labor arbitrage issues.
That said, glad to see so many people taking this article seriously! It's about time we really started thinking this through for the United States clearly needs strong shifts in trade, economic legislation and policy!
Welcome all Anons!
That said, this is a community blog so if people are serious one trade, economic analysis, we hope you stay and write some insightful comments and blog posts.
Why are anonymous users allowed to post?
I don't understand why there's so much debate over what a coorporations responsibility is, as if a coorporation is a person. Granted, while it is LEGALLY a person, it's not ACTUALLY a person, it's only a piece of paper that PEOPLE use as a legal tool to maximize their profits. It's the only reason coorporations are ever made and the only reason they exist, so the only PURPOSE of corporations is to maximize profits, not value. Nobody goes through the effort of creating a coorporation unless there's something in it for them (i.e. profit).
Now, what you might argue is that it's the responsibility of these PEOPLE to be loyal to their country and community, and maybe we should hold these shareholders accountable, but the entire point of a coorporation is to absolve these people of responsibility to begin with, so we can't hold them directly accountable (or rather, if we do, we should eliminate the coorporation as an institution). The only way to hold them accountable is to minimize their profits by imposing immediate sanctions on the coorporation when they hurt local communities, a kind of indirect sanction on shareholders, or even go so far as to say that if a coorporation behaves treasonously or with disregard towards a community, it's shareholders should be legally compelled to renounce all their shares in the company (minus value added since the questionable action). We need to somehow bring some (indirect) accountability back to shareholders.
Now, while such restrictions may discourage business in the US, beaurocracy will not be significantly increased. We're not increasing the paper work for coorporations or anything of the kind. We simply need to enact laws that allow the US government to depose shareholders in certain cituations. We might lose some business, but the only companies that will chose to move overseas in response are companies at risk from this law (since costs don't increase for other coorporations). This may result in a nick in our year end GDP figures, but it doesn't even matter if communities are now safer and the American quality of life has improved.
Your vision is too narrow. We should not think only of America and US citizens, we should think of the whole world, and all humanity. We are no longer a collection of separate civilizations, free to go about our separate businesses in blissful ignorance of even the existence of other civilizations, we are a single worldwide civilization. We cannot properly tackle problems such as global warming on a mere national context, it must be an international effort.
That's what the hearing was implying, changing the corporate charter definitions and expanding upon them to act in the national interest. Then there are a lot of policies that don't do that, such as a VAT or the Warren Buffet trade certificate idea which simply start creating incentives via profits to get corporations to act in the national interest.
and probably why we have such a hard time getting any sort of policy in the national interest. Anyone who watched the DNC rules committee yesterday is probably keenly aware it sure ain't.
People, register. There is a lively discussion going on here and if you register you can track all of your comments and see replies. Check out the user guide to see all of the goodies you can use on the site if you register and login.
Although I don't think we're going to see a major crash like the dot con era because overall there is increasing demand.
The trashing of the US dollar I do think has had a lot of effect.
The problem with speculative bubbles is when does it crash? I think the dot con bubble was predicted all the way to 1996 and it took until 2000 to pop.
In your theory, the most heavily regulated states in America would be ones that all major corporations would have fled.
That would explain why Silcon Valley and San Francisco in California and Route 128 in MA are ghost towns with grass growing in what used to be city streets.
In the real heavily taxed and regulated California, major corporate HQs in the SF Bay Area are not only in the major cities, but are expanding into the bedroom communities, Concord and Walnut Creek and even San Ramon have major corporate headquarters.
Why? Turns out that when one pays high taxes and puts up with heavier regulation, one gets things like educated professionals capable of working in a high-tech workplace. And a higher quality of life. Not quantifiable, necessarily, but when professionals have a choice between living in the SF Bay Area and the low tax / low regulation Red States, they come here.
Good schools and roads don't materialize because the marketplace fairy decreed them. It's because people and businesses are willing to pay for them in taxes. Regulations that force businesses not to dump crap into the air and water make an area a more desirable place to live.
A good part of the startup money and technological expertise that backs Obama comes straight out of Silicon Valley high-tech corporate types. Is it because they expect Obama to reduce taxes and eliminate what the GOP is left of Federal regulations?
If you don't like this, there's always the Third World. They have few taxes and regulatory enforcement can generally be made to disappear with the right bribes. Why don't you already live there?
The United States of America is NOT a democracy.
It is a Constitutional Republic that democratically elects its representatives.
BIG, BIG difference.
Even despite the recent hard times, the USA is still the world's biggest consumer market. As such e can still wield considerable force. We could, for example, make a binding license for corporate responsibility a precondition for doing business in the USA. Few companies could afford to write off our market; any that do would not be missed.
Pages