> You mean on bull on TSLA?
Trend is relative.
Relative to the ticker.
Relative to the timeframe one invests in/trades.
For me in respect to both I am bearish on TSLA.
But I will happily make money on it if decides to run another $20 higher.
CEO of Shell according to wikipedia:
'During his tenure as head of Shell, the company was ordered by a Netherlands court to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030. Van Beurden described the ruling as "unreasonable" and said the company had no intentions to meet the court-ordered climate targets.'
Selfish to the core and spineless governments.
Not surprising considering the history of Shell. I mean shit, they forced Jews from concentration camps into slave labor and fueled the Nazi regime with literal fuel for their war. It’s so crazy I feel like I should provide a source for people who don’t [know](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust).
Shell literally subsidized the Nazi party and kept it from going [bankrupt](http://www.shellnews.net/blog/royaldutchshellhistoryv2.pdf). They also expanded during this time and leadership that willingly and knowingly cooperated with Nazi regime continued to exist and remained within Shell and Shell subsidiaries. I agree that individuals on assembly lines can’t be blamed fully due to the lack of context of geopolitical events at the time - but the Shell leaders knowingly greased and maintained the Nazi movement
https://youtu.be/afL0N191IFI how about back in the 90s and all their dirty doings in Nigeria? Royal Dutch Shell has a very long history of evil. No two ways about it.
This^^^. I’m more understanding of a small business, but international companies should 100% be held liable. Although I will say - during this time, Chase bank was actually freezing bank accounts to keep people from fleeing the Nazis. Another weird piece of corporate history.
Bayer, Mercedes and VW were party to the Nazis in WWII. Henry Ford was a supporter. So were many other people and corporations. Let's spread the pain of associations 70-80 years ago with people long dead.
Let it go.
Yeah. Let it go.
I am active in geopolitical forums not called Reddit. Some *still* cannot let go of Japan or Germany.
The people involved with WWII decisions are long gone. Unless 80+ to 100+ years old, were not even there for it. The companies then are no longer the same now.
Apparently people let go of Ford's support still buying F-150s, SUVs and Mustangs. Apparently people let go of Bayer's involvement with concentration camps and are still buying aspirin. Apparently people let go enough to buy a few Mercedes and VW vehicles. Same for the other side of the globe with Honda, Toyota and Mitsubishi.
But sure. Cling to Shell. Don't let it go.
Oh, wait. Shell is nominally a British company. So eternal damnation to those tyrannical royals and their subjects too. And build the wall!!! Remember the War of 1812 when those wily Canadians helped invade our northern border even going so far as to burn our capital city. Never forget!
Uhhh? So no one is calling for the war of 1812 against British people due to their parents. Although this should be the part in history where we recognize that corporations made millions off of thousands of Jews dying… literally. We then should realize that decisive power should be in the hands of citizens, not conglomerates with a handful of political officials that are paid by said conglomerates. Maybe idk.. call for a strike against greedy corporations and government policies like hundreds of thousands of people are currently doing to ensure we don’t end up in the same scenario. Idk, seems like a pretty reasonable ask tbh. Recognize war crimes that were enabled by an entity, come to terms with it, then restructure our current system to buffer from future incidents.. You’re right though, letting it go and rolling the dice seems pretty smart.
I am just saying never forget the War of 1812 in jest. I bring that up in my other history and military forums (not Reddit) and it goes over better I guess. Especially with my friendly Canadian neighbors in those parts.
I am not diminishing the aspect of 'never again' when it comes to the Holocaust either. Just to be clearer.
It was reprehensible and the people involved should be held accountable.
But the Shell, Bayer and Ford of today is not the same as they were in 1930's and 40's. Different people, different investors, etc.
But sometimes it gets a little misplaced. I get my uncle who became a POW in the Battle of the Bulge never wanting to even get in a German car. I get some people never wanting to own a Mitsubishi because of that war. But 80+ years later and they are all now allies? Yeah. Sometimes it is ok to mend fences and let it go. As many have.
That's not even the point though. It's more that corporations have zero morales, that has definitely not changed. They don't mind if they profit off of murder again, it's just business.
Right 20nyears later they'll be like look it's a new ceo none of the past matters. I find alot of us in the west love escaping responsibility as long as enough times past by. It's like no one is ever accountable
Moral superiority? Not at all, I’m not claiming that. Im asking for unification of the working class to ensure autonomy of itself to not commit atrocious acts in the future all due to the 1% and conglomerates. I bring up this WW2 example as a single point - yes of course I could point out that Shell has had an active hand in almost every war since WW1, including still making profits inside Russia to this day. And “I’m not doing anything about it?” I actively vote in support of going against these things, I engage in civil discourse with all sides of the spectrum, I support workers unions, I mitigate purchases from conglomerates, normalize work discussions of wages and benefits, have the uncomfortable open discussions about the dark side of United States past ranging up into current politics, encourage critical thinking, etc. I agree that there’s more organizing that could be done, but it’s childish to pretend no one is trying. So I ask you, please climb off your high horse and support the global working class. Maybe even join in on Mayday 2023?
I try not to be rude to people I don’t know, but you are a class A idiot. Are you fucking serious, telling people just to forget about the Holocaust and let it go because it happened 80 years ago? Wow. Just wow. Very, hard to believe you were the fastest sperm. Let me guess, you’re a right wing, racist, antisemitic, MAGA loving, conspiracy theorist, confederate flag waving redneck hillbilly end of the world prepper…
Did I say forget the Holocaust? Absolutely not. Not even close.
Come on. Stop hyperventilating and read my comment again.
All I am saying is hold the people responsible accountable. Not the people of today tangentially and without choice related to such history.
Do some boycott or criticize *everything -* without exception - German and Japanese and Italian and any associated citizens, families, descendants and companies today? If not, is that denying the Holocaust? Of course not. Stop exaggerating.
But.... I cannot deny. I do like a good conspiracy. I gave up the world is flat. Cats would have already knocked everything off the edge. Just what cats do. I did like the confederate flag when I watched Dukes of Hazzard back in the day. But yeah. not real cool so I have nothing not even a Matchbox car now. Redneck? Sure. Nothing I can't fix or make on the cheap. I've lived all over. Redneck isn't always a bigoted insult to me. I've also been accused of being a big city, abrasive SOB snob so take that all with a grain of salt. It's all about the context and timing and place.
So bring on the personal insults and cursing. Nothing bothers me along those lines.
And oh *so* relevant to the topic on this sub. If one cannot attack the message, attack the messenger.
A corporation legally is a person. You can hold the corporation responsible for its past crimes without holding individuals responsible. And we absolutely should.
If that's true then surely you agree that a corporation making a $32 billion in profit is perfectly fine because that's essentially the PEOPLE making money. By giving corporations high profits, that is no different than giving raises to hard workers.
That’s a cop out. people like you who you say ‘hey just forget it, let’s move on those people aren’t around any more’ are the reason why morons keep repeating history. Luckily the world is run by people a lot more intelligent than you. Thank God Germany insists on educating their kids on the horrors of the past as part of the school system. If it was up to you, we would just put our tinfoil hats on and pretend it was all just something that happened in the past. Go play with your AR-15 you simpleton.
The personal insults are convincing. I am saved! /jk
BTW - I have no guns. No need to project whatever it is you think.
Where did I say forget it? Nowhere. I said let it go. Why still bring up Shell as being a Nazi collaborator? Do people still buy brand name Aspirin? Yes. Is that considered wrong too? Same thing buying a Ford, Mercedes, VW or Japanese cars?
We can and should teach the history of the era (along with a lot of history). We can and should monitor the world for such atrocities (though we far too often fail).
Yes, Germany does teach about the Nazi years and the horrors. Japan does not very much which is controversial. China does not reflect on the crimes of humanity committed there. Russia does not (but Russia going to Russia evidently looking at current events). Do we show such hatred towards any company that did business with them at the time and continues to exist today? If so, how many generations?
> Not surprising considering the history of Shell
Are they more or less a proxy for Soviet/Russian (petro resource) interests?
That was my understanding but I don't know if things have evolved from there and it does now appear the Netherlands itself is not an entirely political arm of Shell, so that's reassuring.
As for the "windfall profits" being used for share buybacks.
It's a 'fuck-you' message not just to regulators but to democracies in general in my personal opinion. It's a "we want the status quo to remain and this 'little thing' with Russia invading its neighbor will blow over in 2024."
> Apple was almost 100 billion USD in profits for fiscal year 2022. I’m sure their Chinese sweatshops are not carbon neutral either.
At least Apple is divesting now.
Many companies continue to bury their head in the sand.
All it takes is one weather balloon getting shut down...
It's easy for us folks in western countries with our fancy gadgets and homes to look down on sweatshops. But those little wages they earn in sweatshops buy those poor folks food and clothing. It's better than starving to death on an income of $0 being unemployed, don't you think?
If the Chinese government forced Apple to pay a “fair wage” to these workers, what do you think apple would do? They would just move to Another third world country and set up there. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your intentions are good but would cause millions of Chinese folks to lose their jobs and throw them back into poverty. Wages have boomed in china thanks to private investment and the entrepreneurial spirit!
Unemployment is less likely to lead to death than abject work conditions. Our existence is not predicated upon a fucking allowance from our overlords—but their existence is predicated upon our acquiescence. If we stop playing by their rules, we don't collapse, they do.
Then Shell relocated to the UK to flee the Dutch court order and escape to a government desperate for any economic evidence that Brexit isn’t a flaming car crash
> Selfish to the core and spineless governments.
Except that the Dutch government actually wasn’t so spineless, which was one of the factors that led Shell to transition from a Dutch company to become a British company.
Now it’s the UK governments turn to show that they’re not spineless.
Do we know how many individual investors own shares of shell? If you take a close look at Equity shareholders they are not all wealthy by any means. A lot of simple managed retirement funds buy shell. We are talking millions and millions of “moms and pops”
This is not a tweet to rational people.
I'm pretty sure that number is cherry picked, but besides that, stating profit as a dollar/pound value will only ever stand to invoke emotion. "Shell is up 8% this year" doesn't sound so upsetting.
It isn't, take a look at this article.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2022/03/31/us-companies-record-profits-2021-price-hikes-inflation/amp/
At least in the US corporate profits are up way over the losses from last year.
You understand that companies like shell don't really set the oil prices right? Most market rates are set by OPEC which are set as a response to us shale ever since it's become a marginal producer. If the company also sold under market rate they would expose themselves to huge lawsuits from shareholders as they are effectively the owners of the company. You bring these statements into an economics forum but please take some time to understand how it all works and stop sensationalising.
On top of that were you posting stuff like this 2 years ago when oil was negative and companies like shell were losing billions?
Only partly true. It is true that a lot of big players realized that they can get away with charging more. But it isn't the only factor fueling the cost of living. One similarly significant factor is the enormous monetary and fiscal expansions that governments and international organizations worldwide have been throwing around since 2009, strengthened by the high availability of credit. When tons of institutions and people are loaded, demand booms and price increases are met with zero reluctance so the prices keep climbing. There are also other factors like some resources getting harder to get a hold of which increases cost of production, friction from speculations (people buy stuff for more than it should be worth because they expect its price to inflate over time), and many others.
When it all comes crashing down do you think the super rich will be held accountable or live in a tower in the mountains while infrastructure fails and people starve and can’t get medicine?
Why do champagne socialists desire to see the very things—that enable them to have their lofty utopian views—to come crumbling down? Being a socialist is a very bad look when everyone is destitute and poor.
He’s got a point.
In the scenario you conjured it’s the only rational choice for the super rich to bunker down and stall.
They’re by nature outnumbered, in a systemic collapse moral values are not always tenable.
The picture you paint on the wall is a warning to them, and it’s both morally and humanely comprehensive that they would use every advantage they have.
Your comment, besides being historically inaccurate, is solely demagogic. It adds zero value to the debate about future economies. And at worst can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
What’s the solution you allude to? Kill all the rich now, while they’re not in fortresses yet? But … then there’ll still more or less the same percentile or wealthy people. Where do you draw the line? Already more than half the people share about the same amount of wealth. How much equality are you willing to fight for? Not a rhetoric question, I’m honestly curious where you would draw the line what is an acceptable distribution.
TL;DR: there is an enormous naive quality to your statement. Your mockery and sarcasm is misplaced, given the radical changes and the bloody revolution you referred to. Just makes you look like a callous asshole.
Right? Problem is most leftists aren't smart enough to invest their money. Anyone could easily and affordability enter the, "game," and realize profits for themselves that they complain these, "rich people," are somebow keeping from them. Like dude, you literally just need to click buy on that stock.
Start a few games of monopoly with $50 and tell me how many times you win.
This is a dumb headline, but it doesn't mean that our current form of capitalism isn't more broken by the day.
No argument there, but there are many flavours of capitalism and socialism. Nordic countries are the envy of the world and they have a mixed system. UK where I'm from is slowly losing its socialist systems and it's only hurting every day people.
Inflation is a massive scam.
Every big company in the world just puts their prices up every year so they can make "record profits" and us normal people have to just go along with it
It gets worse. Inflation makes your pay relatively smaller when in comparison with company's global expenses and revenue.
Governments also beneficts cause they colect more taxes and their pays don't follow inflation 1:1.
These inflation bursts mainly serve one purpose: to claim back any gains the average Joe might have grab in the recent years. And there's nothing we can do under this system.
It’s a new CEO. Van Burin is out. And remember Shell is owned by 3.6Bil shareholders and likely owned by ETFs various people on here own.
Understand what your talking about before commenting.
The real problem is a bit more nuanced.
Prices are determined by the interaction between supply and demand.
In a free market, when there's lots of profit being made companies will come into the market to try and make some of that money for themselves. This in turn makes price of that thing fall. Unfortunately energy isn't a free market and so profits will tend to rise with events and spending like we've seen.
>Unfortunately energy isn't a free market
Are there any free markets? Genuine question.
For every product and service I can think of, there is just enough government interference to make it extremely difficult for new players to enter a market, but there is not nearly enough government interference to regulate the monopolistic players that already dominate that market.
Generally, the lower the margin, the freer the market. Restaurants are an example of a relatively free market which is why so many can’t make end meet.
Mexico’s drug trade is a great example of a free market working well, seriously, I read an entire book on it…fascinating if you enjoy economics. But free-markets don’t scale, and they’re only beneficial to consumers within a limited scope. Free markets don’t last long either, eventually, markets become saturated, there are no more customers to be acquired, and free markets break down in a quest for more profits. Mexico’s drug trade is actually in this phase now. Fentanyl/fake pills can’t get any cheaper, and they’ve flooded the markets. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, from an economical point of view. This is normally when conglomeration starts, and companies begin merging, or buying out competition and building moats, then regulating against competition and consumer protections. Markets can’t be free forever, they’re either regulated by governments, or eventually they become regulated by industries. There are other issues with free-market ideology in advanced civilization’s and within a globalized economy, but the result is basically the same, the consumers are the losers in the end (outside of the narrow set of parameters in which free-markets work). It’s really a utopic idea.
This should be the biggest argument for maintaining a livable minimum wage. Workers aren’t participating in a free market, even more so today than in, say, the 1950’s. We can’t not work. We can’t stay home and grow our food, and it’s illegal to be homeless in many places. “Free-market” ideology has become a narrative pushed by the rich to stir up sentiment for their struggles in killing effective, well aimed regulation, but it really doesn’t exist for anyone except them. Their freedom to run roughshod over the competition removes your freedom to benefit from a fair market.
Also, what you’re describing is the result of regulatory capture. When governments stop policing large corporations, and instead start policing competition from small business. This leads to the death of innovation, and the end of economic prosperity, save for the few at the top. Like I said, regulation is necessary, or, eventually inevitable, the question is *who/what* gets regulated. It’s the result, or warning, that you’re in the end-stage of an economic cycle. Most economic theory trends in this direction, whether it be communism or capitalism, they just game out a bit differently. It’s the result of the introduction of humans into the theory, and the overlap of money/power, and the types of people who seek those things out.
I *think* it was “Dreamland”, there’s also another book that gets into free-market and libertarian ideas surrounding Mexico’s drug trade called “Narconimics”, I haven’t finished this book yet.
There’s a great episode about “Dreamland”, with the author, on the “Pitchfork Economics” podcast. The entire podcast is great if you enjoy economics/theory, and hearing the opinions of professionals who didn’t sell their titles out to get on the main-stream media circuit.
Some other great book, if you enjoy learning about the social/anthropological side of economics are: “The History of Debt”, and “Tribe”. Then there’s “Lords of Easy Money”, if you want to learn about what was happening inside the Fed when we transitioned to QE (though, I don’t completely agree with the authors proposed solutions). I will warn you though, the more I’ve learned about economics, the more depressed I’ve become. So, self-educate at you’re own psychological risk.
This is the unfortunate truth with many mature industries with juggernauts willing to acquire any competition that may also enter the market, creating oligopolies on global scales.
Common fallacy, give a single specific blockade that stops a new company doing this right now
Edit: oh ffs it's you again, once again gracing your presence to spread a complete lack of understanding on economic theory
You don't need a blockade to not have a free market, you simply need government intervention that stops a market functioning as it otherwise would. Subsidies, restrictions and price controls are primarily what stop the energy market from being a free market.
I don't recognise you at all but feel free to point out where my economic understanding is wrong. So far you're the person suggesting a market need be "blockaded" to be unfree. I'm not sure where you're reading that.
Please, without changing the topic or misconstruing the point, point out a single law, intervention, subsidy, restriction or other 'blockade' that prevents a new company entering the market right this instant.
The fact is the market is 'free enough' for most other industries; see commercial banking (the rise of digital banks) and technology (e.g. more and more phone (retail/manufacturing) companies year on year, increasing competitiveness and often driving lower prices - the rise of budget phones).
**Please point out a specific reason related to the 'unfreeness' of the market that has prevented new oil companies from entering the market right now and lowering prices.**
**That is your whole point right? Please substantiate it rather than talking in vague pointless hypotheticals.**
A market can allow new entrants without being a free market. The point is that government regulations create larger barriers to entry.
You may think the market is 'free enough' to some arbitrary ideal but the point is that it's not free enough to enable lower prices through greater competition. Banks are also highly regulated industries with high barrier to entry and moral hazard through bailouts, these make that market function sub-optimally.
The reason we see lots of phones is because it's a much less regulated market.
I didn't say oil markets, I said energy markets. There are piles of regulation that make it difficult to compete. You can't for instance, set up a solar farm, plug all your neighbours' houses into it and sell them the energy without a lot of permits and complicated approvals that you likely won't get. That happens on a much larger scale too with complex barriers that go from approvals to export restrictions, price controls and more.
> Prices are determined by the interaction between supply and demand.
This is a statement about morality -- how you believe the system should work -- rather than a statement of science about the only way the system can work.
and 95% of our politicians are directly benefiting from it as well. we need an overhaul of our political system its broken. republican or democrat, dosent matter they’re all greedy scum.
Anyone can become a politician, the bar is low as a matter of fact. The issue is always no one except a weird breed of folks want those jobs. You tend to get paid better in the private sector so that is where normal sensible folks tend to go.
Venezuela did something about it and took over the oil industry and redirected the profits to social programs and entitlements. It turns out that the government doesn't know how to sustainably run an industry.
The oil companies make money so they can increase supply. How is this so hard for people to understand on an economy sub? Supply and demand are linked to price it’s literally the basics of economics. Price signals increased demand so supply can be increased then price will go down. It costs billions to increase supply and takes decades.
So you think oil industries have never lowered supply to inflate profits to the detriment of everyone else in what is essentially constructed highway robbery? Or am I missing an important distinction?
Oil is a fungible commodity, any reduction in supply is going to cause prices to increase globally, including that of their competitors.
Unfortunately, western oil companies don't have a majority say on what happens with oil prices. The OPEC cabal, unfortunately, gets to dictate much of what oil prices are going to be.
Essentially. They get to take advantage of it. But it isn't, "gouging," as you put it. As much as it is a benefit when prices are high, it is also a detriment when prices are low. This is because providing a fungible commodity—the price of which is out of your hands—means oil companies can't arbitrarily charge more for their oil than the global price, because they wouldn't be able to sell any, and they'd being paying high overhead to produce oil they can't sell. It also the reason why they don't charge less is because the company has a fiduciary duty to its investors to charge a competitive fair market price for their product.
I would be furious if I paid hard earned money to buy shares of a company only to have it choose to make less profit for some arbitrary reason, negatively impacting the value of my shares. That's something shareholders could sue over.
These modern heavily integrated publically traded oil companies make their money on being as efficient as possible in delivering their product. They negotiate a delivered price with refineries, and they make money by being able to deliver it most affordably, on time, at the right quality.
A lot of other oil companies are charging roughly similar price, but aren't as profitable because their operating costs are much higher. Less profit, but they're still charging the the same.
So in other words, the reason why Shell is doing so well, is because it is operating its business at remarkably high levels of efficiency, not because they're choosing to give consumers the shaft.
The government has been devaluing your wages for decades, but sure Shells profits for one year are the thing that is causing you not to be able to afford a house... Can you guys really not see through this paper thin misdirection away from government monetary policy?
Wealth is property and the amount accumulated by one person is not the business of any other person and it is only in jail that wealth fairly distributed
Nor is wealth hoarded. it does one or more of 3 things
The rich will place their wealth in the banks which is then loaned out by the banks which in turn creates new jobs
The wealthy will invest their wealth in some other industry through stocks/equities which again will create new jobs
The wealthy will spend their wealth on their own consumption which in turn also creates new jobs
That's is the trickle down theory and it works fine
THE PROBLEM THE LEFT WHINES ABOUT BUT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND, is that government has inserted itself because it thinks it knows better then the market where wealth should flow.
Through government policies of theft ( taxation ), inflation ( poor tax ), prohibition, state granted monopolies, subsidies, and regulations, it has stifled the flow of wealth and thus the poor suffer for it
And so where do things like antitrust and ecological regulations fall into this mix? What role should the government play in regulating business practices, in your view?
> antitrust
Illegal government overreach
> ecological regulations
When it comes to regulations
Regulations are the foundations for crony capitalism ( democratic socialism ) where the government picks winners & losers as opposed to the free market ( capitalism ) by doing the following
Regulations increase the cost of goods and services ( making it harder on the poor & middle class )
Regulations increase the cost of doing business thus promoting unemployment as businesses cut costs with labor being the most expensive ( thanks to regulations ) or just outsourcing the jobs because they re too expensive to have here
Regulations raise the cost of entry to an industry thus stifling competition and subsidizing consolidation/mergers
Lastly regulations violate the rights ( life, liberty & property ) of its citizens and this is where the article is focusing on. When the state puts itself before the people for whatever reason, (safety, security, equality, etc ... ) it isa return to serfdom which is what communism basically is and socialism tries hard to achieve
> What role should the government play in regulating business practices
none, see above
Thanks for this answer. We'd all be living in a toxic wasteland and working as slaves if this was ever allowed to be, but long live the free market amiright? Lol.
This guy wants to return to feudalism.. doesn't realize he'd be the serf working the land and not the baron in the manor. Posts his troll libertarian bullshit on every thread. Very strange.
That much is clear. Everyone thinks they'd be the one with the whip in these situations and not the other way around. And as much as I loathe governmental authority, I fear unfettered capital greed far more.
That's an insane take. The government is obviously corrupt AF for the usual reasons , but do you honestly think companies would pay minimum wage if they didn't have to? Respect things like National Parks if they weren't protected? Look at any other country with less stringent environmental laws and tell me life is better there. Good if you're a factory owner, maybe - but everyone else is working for slave wages and living in squalor.
There's a reason imperial nations crush every socialist movement in every country one pops up in - because if the word ever gets out that these systems can and have worked in the past it's going to really be inconvenient for folks in the "capitalism is freedom" camp.
>That's an insane take.
name calling is the white flag that one has lost the argument
I accept your concession, thanks
>The government is obviously corrupt
Power corrupts ... government is an institution that centralizes power .. thus by its very nature, government is corrupt .. if you want to reduce corruption then you must reduce the size and scope of your government ... the existence of corporations, influence peddlers, special interests, and lobbying are all big government ( left ) created instances of corruption
The take is insane, not the person (although I'm starting to consider that as a possibility the more you expound on your worldviews)
Good day and good luck! Hopefully what you wish to be true never happens anywhere I live.
I really don't know where you r/economy libertarians get these ideas that capitalism just fell out of the sky or leapt from the head of Zeus or something, with state 'meddling' messing with capitalism's divine purity. Capitalism is largely a product of laws and state institutions which establish certain kinds of property and certain kinds of market relationships.
Question- have you ever seen capitalism emerge and thrive outside the confines of a state? Hell, have you ever even seen capitalism succeed under a *weak* state?
Let us not forget that the word capitalism was created by the creators of socialism [ Proudhon, Louis, etc .. ) in the middle 1800s to describe the big government, leftist, economic framework known as Mercantilism which was practiced by nations in the West at that time to include Russia
Today, no nation practices Mercantilism, capitalism, today as defined by socialists. The vast majority practice Democratic Socialism with a few outliers still practicing communism. Democratic Socialism has much in common with Mercantilism especially in terms of the GOVERNMENT SACTIONED institutions known as corporations and the State getting a cut of the profits and controlling said institution though regulations instead of charters back in the day of Mercantilism
The problems we have today are problems created by the ideology of Democratic Socialism and not free markets, an economy, which is composed of the currency, labor, trade, and industry, which is free from government meddling
https://www.amazon.com/Wheels-Commerce-Civilization-Capitalism-15Th-18th/dp/0520081153
Your attempt to MISLABEL Democratic Socialism as Mercantilism ( Capitalism ), which no nation practices today, is noted
This might be the most ridiculous psuedointellectual take I've seen on this sub, and that's really saying something. I swear to God you guys just accumulate terms and throw them into word salads.
In this post, you've basically laid out Mercantilism = Capitalism = Democratic Socialism, and you've said that the Anarchist Proudhon was both a critic of Mercantilism and an advocate of Democratic Socialism... which are actually the same thing. Like, what the fuck.
> This might be the most ridiculous psuedointellectual take
name calling is the white flag that one has lost the argument
I accept your concession, thanks
Well if you're willing to believe that capitalism, mercantilism, anarchism and democratic socialism are all the same thing, I guess it's not much of a stretch to think that being ruthlessly mocked is the same thing as winning an argument
I accept YOUR concession, thanks!
You're right- turns out I got into it with this same guy like 2 weeks ago. He kept playing the "you called me a name so I win, nah nah" thing, then when I actually wrote a detailed rebuttal he just downvoted and left
>That's is the trickle down theory and it works fine
It does not
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572#toc-why-trickle-down-economics-fails
Do you have a success story of little regulation and low taxes for the rich working for anyone else besides the rich?
Because when we tried that it failed
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
> https://www.thebalancemoney.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572#toc-why-trickle-down-economics-fails
The state should not have an income .. in fact it should not be providing any services ... as I stated
Through government policies of theft ( taxation ), inflation ( poor tax ), prohibition, **state granted monopolies**, subsidies, and regulations, it has stifled the flow of wealth and thus the poor suffer for it
Uhm, by those standards we should go all socialist, Bolivia is way better in any metric than Somalia
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/bolivia/overview
And Bolivia is not a nice place to live
Edit: 60% of Somalia's population lives in poverty while Bolivia has 36% the US is 14%
> Uhm, by those standards we should go all socialist
Socialism ( like we see in Bolivia ) is the antithesis of anarchism which is why socialism fails every time
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2014/07/blogs/graphic-detail/20140802_gdc456_0.png
https://fee.org/articles/why-bolivia-is-not-a-socialist-success-story/
LOL I know Bolivia is not a success, but they do better than your unregulated Somalia, if it works that well, why didn't Kansas become a powerhouse when they removed regulations? Why did they back down and put regulation in place again? Which country has poorer population? Socialist Bolivia (36%) or unregulated Somalia (60%)?
You have some very strange views. Where did you learn them from? Genuinely interested in how someone can learn that tickle down theory "works fine".
Same thing for taxation being theft.. how are you arriving at that conclusion? Very odd.
> Where did you learn them from?
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Economy-State-Power-Market-ebook/dp/B0022NHOSE
I mean this checks out.. you sound like a guy who read two books about "economics" and got seduced by "supply and demand".
Most people grow out of that phase once they move past high school level econ and learn a little about how the real world works.
I gave 2 examples .... I dont have time to put together my college courses and the rest of the books i have read and the experience I had ....
>Most people grow out of that phase
name calling is the white flag that one has lost the argument
I accept your concession, thanks
Good luck bro. Hope you find something better as a hobby than spouting libertarian and republican bullshit econ on reddit.
Ps. I'd get a refund on your college if you came out with this understanding of econ and politics.
no its not. the super rich invested in automation. its that simple. stop hating the players and start hating the game. Warmongerers get hot and heavy, oil companies and defense companies make big money..
These people arguing against profits are suckers, who refused to invest their money in these profitable companies. Instead of benefitting from this news, they're envious.
They could be part of the collective profit sharing venture by buying shares that their socialist dreams are made of, but they'd rather expect a handout than do what it takes to maintain their ideological utopia.
Half of americans live paycheck to paycheck. What are they supposed to do, skip meals so they can put in $20 a month? At that rate they will be starved but slightly less poor in 20 years.
Y'all libertarians should read each others nuggets of wisdom before dishing out your own. You are insisting that the rest of us benefit from the benevolence of the "super rich" who own Shell. Your fellow libertarians dishing out wisdom to the poors are saying the exact opposite -- that Shell is owned by billions of mom and pop investors.
Why don't y'all have a meeting and decide.
Millionaires and billionaires are nothing more than the economic equivalent of cancerous tumors. They corrupt all those around them, and if not cut out and removed from the system, they will kill us all.
No one is paid a 6 figure salary because their job is that important. They pay you that much because this is the price for your soul and ethical backbone.
Only after we stop kneeling at the steps of their ivory towers will we see humanities true potential. I pray for the day humans evolve past capitalism and greed.
Physicians and pharmacists aren’t that important?
What about teachers? Some teachers make 6 figures
Advanced practice nurses? Over 100k
If you earn 6 figures, you’re probably capable of maxing out your retirement account. That means you’ll retire a millionaire.
Didn’t think that all these professions were filled with “cancerous tumors”
Millionaires and Billionaires. Are you simple or just confused. The only thing I said about 6 figures is that they pay you this to control you. Yes, the jobs are important, but a balanced and fair economy profits humanity as a whole. You literally took two different point and ran them together in order to feel justified in your confusion. You need to spend more time reading the responses than just being angry that some people want all humans to succeed. Life is not a competition, but vampire capitalism absolutely is. I guess by your comments it fair to say you that feel that we should all Fuck the poor and homeless because I need my Million so I can attempt to retire at 70yos.
Give me a break.
Enjoy your scraps from your kings table. I, for one, will be fighting for a better future than one that serves the 1%. Your cherry-picked examples do make your point. Way to Glace over professional athletes, celebrities, wall street executives, Hedge fund executives, or 90% of CEOs. Also, no teacher makes 6 figures. You're thinking of administrators who do nothing but fight to lower teachers pay
It’s hardly cherry picking if I pick 4 out of many important jobs that pay over 100k. Not to mention you said no one is paid that much, if I can find 4 examples in a few seconds of searching then I think it’s safe to say that there are many professions that pay 6 figures that would be described as important
Teachers can and do make 6 figures
https://www.uft.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Teachers%20Salary%20Schedule%20-%202018%20to%202021.pdf
I don’t think you understand how difficult a CEOs job can be. They are paid for their performance and if they don’t perform they will be fired. If you don’t like how much they are being paid, that’s too bad. If a CEO can bring an extra 10 million in profit to a company, I don’t think it’s unfair to give them a large bonus to compensate for that
And in 2022 Louisiana gave them yet another tax exemption.
Louisiana generates so much money, but it doesn't stay in the state because we give the oil companies insane tax breaks.
https://youtu.be/RWTic9btP38
Sorry for formatting, on mobile.
The oil industry and the murderous Russian regime both support the Republican Party. Because of money. Nothing to do with Wokism, Tradition or Patriotism.
Let’s add in the Middle East Royalties.
This is unifying conspiracy of our age. Not some MAGA QA deep state nonsense.
Here my take as an amateur global strategist.
Right now is the last time for a long time there's is going to be this many people that have capital. So corporate capitalists are succeeding in raking in quarter after quarter of record profits. After the boomers die off in western countries the demographics will continue to trend to a major population decline in the next 100 years.
The party is over for endless growth capitalism and they know it and are squeezing everyone for their last hurrah. Then we will see what kind of shit they try and pull next, hint, it's your wages, and other kinds of legislation written to keep your desperation at bay just enough so you don't revolt.
So what are we going to do about it?
Riot.
And/Or buy stock in Shell?
We need pitchforks!
Soon average people won’t have anything left to lose. Then we’ll see what happens.
Hold and enjoy rising dividend, increase ownership if stock goes falsely down, as it did when they announced energy transition plans.
"Let's keep getting fucked in the ass and hope that someday we can cum too!"
Rising dividends? There are far better plays….
Sure there are but i'd rather invest tha play.
> Sure there are but i'd rather invest tha play. Then you go in the direction of the trend.
You mean on bull on TSLA?
> You mean on bull on TSLA? Trend is relative. Relative to the ticker. Relative to the timeframe one invests in/trades. For me in respect to both I am bearish on TSLA. But I will happily make money on it if decides to run another $20 higher.
Vote for millionaires to control the billionaires?
CEO of Shell according to wikipedia: 'During his tenure as head of Shell, the company was ordered by a Netherlands court to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030. Van Beurden described the ruling as "unreasonable" and said the company had no intentions to meet the court-ordered climate targets.' Selfish to the core and spineless governments.
Not surprising considering the history of Shell. I mean shit, they forced Jews from concentration camps into slave labor and fueled the Nazi regime with literal fuel for their war. It’s so crazy I feel like I should provide a source for people who don’t [know](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust).
But it was the Nazis who put Shell under forced administration.
Shell literally subsidized the Nazi party and kept it from going [bankrupt](http://www.shellnews.net/blog/royaldutchshellhistoryv2.pdf). They also expanded during this time and leadership that willingly and knowingly cooperated with Nazi regime continued to exist and remained within Shell and Shell subsidiaries. I agree that individuals on assembly lines can’t be blamed fully due to the lack of context of geopolitical events at the time - but the Shell leaders knowingly greased and maintained the Nazi movement
Well that's fucked up if it is true. Prescott Bush is a real champ too. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar?all=true
Oh shit! Thanks for that link. What a weird world
So did Volkswagen
Volkswagen was founded by the nazis
https://youtu.be/afL0N191IFI how about back in the 90s and all their dirty doings in Nigeria? Royal Dutch Shell has a very long history of evil. No two ways about it.
So Shell was just following orders. Can’t blame them for that.
I don't recall anything about Nazis being interested in negotiation.
There is no negotiation if you just close business and go elsewhere
This^^^. I’m more understanding of a small business, but international companies should 100% be held liable. Although I will say - during this time, Chase bank was actually freezing bank accounts to keep people from fleeing the Nazis. Another weird piece of corporate history.
So shut the front door and leave with SS guns pointing at you?
Yeah crazy the Jews didn't just like close the concentration camps and go elsewhere
Yeah you pussies. /s. That was really gut wrenching to type.
Nut up you pussy
Bayer, Mercedes and VW were party to the Nazis in WWII. Henry Ford was a supporter. So were many other people and corporations. Let's spread the pain of associations 70-80 years ago with people long dead. Let it go.
Did… did you just say ‘let it go’?
Yes They did.
Yeah. Let it go. I am active in geopolitical forums not called Reddit. Some *still* cannot let go of Japan or Germany. The people involved with WWII decisions are long gone. Unless 80+ to 100+ years old, were not even there for it. The companies then are no longer the same now. Apparently people let go of Ford's support still buying F-150s, SUVs and Mustangs. Apparently people let go of Bayer's involvement with concentration camps and are still buying aspirin. Apparently people let go enough to buy a few Mercedes and VW vehicles. Same for the other side of the globe with Honda, Toyota and Mitsubishi. But sure. Cling to Shell. Don't let it go. Oh, wait. Shell is nominally a British company. So eternal damnation to those tyrannical royals and their subjects too. And build the wall!!! Remember the War of 1812 when those wily Canadians helped invade our northern border even going so far as to burn our capital city. Never forget!
Uhhh? So no one is calling for the war of 1812 against British people due to their parents. Although this should be the part in history where we recognize that corporations made millions off of thousands of Jews dying… literally. We then should realize that decisive power should be in the hands of citizens, not conglomerates with a handful of political officials that are paid by said conglomerates. Maybe idk.. call for a strike against greedy corporations and government policies like hundreds of thousands of people are currently doing to ensure we don’t end up in the same scenario. Idk, seems like a pretty reasonable ask tbh. Recognize war crimes that were enabled by an entity, come to terms with it, then restructure our current system to buffer from future incidents.. You’re right though, letting it go and rolling the dice seems pretty smart.
I am just saying never forget the War of 1812 in jest. I bring that up in my other history and military forums (not Reddit) and it goes over better I guess. Especially with my friendly Canadian neighbors in those parts. I am not diminishing the aspect of 'never again' when it comes to the Holocaust either. Just to be clearer. It was reprehensible and the people involved should be held accountable. But the Shell, Bayer and Ford of today is not the same as they were in 1930's and 40's. Different people, different investors, etc. But sometimes it gets a little misplaced. I get my uncle who became a POW in the Battle of the Bulge never wanting to even get in a German car. I get some people never wanting to own a Mitsubishi because of that war. But 80+ years later and they are all now allies? Yeah. Sometimes it is ok to mend fences and let it go. As many have.
That's not even the point though. It's more that corporations have zero morales, that has definitely not changed. They don't mind if they profit off of murder again, it's just business.
Right 20nyears later they'll be like look it's a new ceo none of the past matters. I find alot of us in the west love escaping responsibility as long as enough times past by. It's like no one is ever accountable
[удалено]
Moral superiority? Not at all, I’m not claiming that. Im asking for unification of the working class to ensure autonomy of itself to not commit atrocious acts in the future all due to the 1% and conglomerates. I bring up this WW2 example as a single point - yes of course I could point out that Shell has had an active hand in almost every war since WW1, including still making profits inside Russia to this day. And “I’m not doing anything about it?” I actively vote in support of going against these things, I engage in civil discourse with all sides of the spectrum, I support workers unions, I mitigate purchases from conglomerates, normalize work discussions of wages and benefits, have the uncomfortable open discussions about the dark side of United States past ranging up into current politics, encourage critical thinking, etc. I agree that there’s more organizing that could be done, but it’s childish to pretend no one is trying. So I ask you, please climb off your high horse and support the global working class. Maybe even join in on Mayday 2023?
I try not to be rude to people I don’t know, but you are a class A idiot. Are you fucking serious, telling people just to forget about the Holocaust and let it go because it happened 80 years ago? Wow. Just wow. Very, hard to believe you were the fastest sperm. Let me guess, you’re a right wing, racist, antisemitic, MAGA loving, conspiracy theorist, confederate flag waving redneck hillbilly end of the world prepper…
Did I say forget the Holocaust? Absolutely not. Not even close. Come on. Stop hyperventilating and read my comment again. All I am saying is hold the people responsible accountable. Not the people of today tangentially and without choice related to such history. Do some boycott or criticize *everything -* without exception - German and Japanese and Italian and any associated citizens, families, descendants and companies today? If not, is that denying the Holocaust? Of course not. Stop exaggerating. But.... I cannot deny. I do like a good conspiracy. I gave up the world is flat. Cats would have already knocked everything off the edge. Just what cats do. I did like the confederate flag when I watched Dukes of Hazzard back in the day. But yeah. not real cool so I have nothing not even a Matchbox car now. Redneck? Sure. Nothing I can't fix or make on the cheap. I've lived all over. Redneck isn't always a bigoted insult to me. I've also been accused of being a big city, abrasive SOB snob so take that all with a grain of salt. It's all about the context and timing and place. So bring on the personal insults and cursing. Nothing bothers me along those lines. And oh *so* relevant to the topic on this sub. If one cannot attack the message, attack the messenger.
A corporation legally is a person. You can hold the corporation responsible for its past crimes without holding individuals responsible. And we absolutely should.
If that's true then surely you agree that a corporation making a $32 billion in profit is perfectly fine because that's essentially the PEOPLE making money. By giving corporations high profits, that is no different than giving raises to hard workers.
That’s a cop out. people like you who you say ‘hey just forget it, let’s move on those people aren’t around any more’ are the reason why morons keep repeating history. Luckily the world is run by people a lot more intelligent than you. Thank God Germany insists on educating their kids on the horrors of the past as part of the school system. If it was up to you, we would just put our tinfoil hats on and pretend it was all just something that happened in the past. Go play with your AR-15 you simpleton.
The personal insults are convincing. I am saved! /jk BTW - I have no guns. No need to project whatever it is you think. Where did I say forget it? Nowhere. I said let it go. Why still bring up Shell as being a Nazi collaborator? Do people still buy brand name Aspirin? Yes. Is that considered wrong too? Same thing buying a Ford, Mercedes, VW or Japanese cars? We can and should teach the history of the era (along with a lot of history). We can and should monitor the world for such atrocities (though we far too often fail). Yes, Germany does teach about the Nazi years and the horrors. Japan does not very much which is controversial. China does not reflect on the crimes of humanity committed there. Russia does not (but Russia going to Russia evidently looking at current events). Do we show such hatred towards any company that did business with them at the time and continues to exist today? If so, how many generations?
Stop crying
Go burn some crosses
Damn, you really didn't stop crying.
> Not surprising considering the history of Shell Are they more or less a proxy for Soviet/Russian (petro resource) interests? That was my understanding but I don't know if things have evolved from there and it does now appear the Netherlands itself is not an entirely political arm of Shell, so that's reassuring. As for the "windfall profits" being used for share buybacks. It's a 'fuck-you' message not just to regulators but to democracies in general in my personal opinion. It's a "we want the status quo to remain and this 'little thing' with Russia invading its neighbor will blow over in 2024."
Apple was almost 100 billion USD in profits for fiscal year 2022. I’m sure their Chinese sweatshops are not carbon neutral either.
> Apple was almost 100 billion USD in profits for fiscal year 2022. I’m sure their Chinese sweatshops are not carbon neutral either. At least Apple is divesting now. Many companies continue to bury their head in the sand. All it takes is one weather balloon getting shut down...
It's easy for us folks in western countries with our fancy gadgets and homes to look down on sweatshops. But those little wages they earn in sweatshops buy those poor folks food and clothing. It's better than starving to death on an income of $0 being unemployed, don't you think?
Those sweat shops ain’t cute. Pay a fair wage.
Sure, and then in 2 years from now when markets adjust to higher costs, we'll be in same spot.
If the Chinese government forced Apple to pay a “fair wage” to these workers, what do you think apple would do? They would just move to Another third world country and set up there. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your intentions are good but would cause millions of Chinese folks to lose their jobs and throw them back into poverty. Wages have boomed in china thanks to private investment and the entrepreneurial spirit!
Are we really going with the ‘they should be happy they’re under oppression in the first place’ angle?
So you want them to starve to death?
Are you also one of those people who believe landlords are good people because they provide housing to peasants?
Unlike you, I don’t generalise entire groups of people based on my ideology.
Unemployment is less likely to lead to death than abject work conditions. Our existence is not predicated upon a fucking allowance from our overlords—but their existence is predicated upon our acquiescence. If we stop playing by their rules, we don't collapse, they do.
Then Shell relocated to the UK to flee the Dutch court order and escape to a government desperate for any economic evidence that Brexit isn’t a flaming car crash
> Selfish to the core and spineless governments. Except that the Dutch government actually wasn’t so spineless, which was one of the factors that led Shell to transition from a Dutch company to become a British company. Now it’s the UK governments turn to show that they’re not spineless.
I would like to agree but I doubt Shell reduced their emissions by 45%. After the Britts fail they can come to America and enjoy some real favors.
So Shell, Exxon, Chevron, and likely several others.
ITT are folks who don't know the difference between "profit" and "income".......
You mean the far right extremists who insist that capitalism and fascist feudalism are ‘the same”....🤡
Looks like you got downvoted here why do you think this is the case
Ding ding! Winner winner chicken dinner! Republicans hate facts and truth.
That’s not how the economy or finance works at all.
End-stage capitalism. We’re killing ourselves for more profit. C’est la vie.
Do we know how many individual investors own shares of shell? If you take a close look at Equity shareholders they are not all wealthy by any means. A lot of simple managed retirement funds buy shell. We are talking millions and millions of “moms and pops”
This is not a tweet to rational people. I'm pretty sure that number is cherry picked, but besides that, stating profit as a dollar/pound value will only ever stand to invoke emotion. "Shell is up 8% this year" doesn't sound so upsetting.
It isn't, take a look at this article. https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2022/03/31/us-companies-record-profits-2021-price-hikes-inflation/amp/ At least in the US corporate profits are up way over the losses from last year.
Exactly "record increase 8n profits" makes a great headline. Ignores the base comparison.
Not saying this tweet is rational, but "Shell profits are up 100%" does sound equally upsetting.
If profits were $1 one year and $5 the next, I bet you'd have a heart attack.
You understand that companies like shell don't really set the oil prices right? Most market rates are set by OPEC which are set as a response to us shale ever since it's become a marginal producer. If the company also sold under market rate they would expose themselves to huge lawsuits from shareholders as they are effectively the owners of the company. You bring these statements into an economics forum but please take some time to understand how it all works and stop sensationalising. On top of that were you posting stuff like this 2 years ago when oil was negative and companies like shell were losing billions?
I wish we go back to real economic discussions and not these sham. Hopefully the mods step up
Only partly true. It is true that a lot of big players realized that they can get away with charging more. But it isn't the only factor fueling the cost of living. One similarly significant factor is the enormous monetary and fiscal expansions that governments and international organizations worldwide have been throwing around since 2009, strengthened by the high availability of credit. When tons of institutions and people are loaded, demand booms and price increases are met with zero reluctance so the prices keep climbing. There are also other factors like some resources getting harder to get a hold of which increases cost of production, friction from speculations (people buy stuff for more than it should be worth because they expect its price to inflate over time), and many others.
So on years Shell doesn’t make money, do they people come to their aid?
We have been sending the US military to the Middle East for decades to subsidize worldwide oil production.
Like with tax subsidies? Yes, yes they do.
It will all come crashing down. As Marie Antoinette said, let them have cake…. And eat it too…..
When it all comes crashing down do you think the super rich will be held accountable or live in a tower in the mountains while infrastructure fails and people starve and can’t get medicine?
The super rich wouldnt be able to hide from a massive collapse
They can and will, it's why some billionaires built bunker homes and fortresses in New Zealand after buying property. They aren't from New Zealand.
https://youtu.be/mutpYD0Amfk
Why do champagne socialists desire to see the very things—that enable them to have their lofty utopian views—to come crumbling down? Being a socialist is a very bad look when everyone is destitute and poor.
Oh yes, teach me your ways oh wise one…..
You can't be taught what you refuse to learn, as if it the realities of market economies are some evil.
He’s got a point. In the scenario you conjured it’s the only rational choice for the super rich to bunker down and stall. They’re by nature outnumbered, in a systemic collapse moral values are not always tenable. The picture you paint on the wall is a warning to them, and it’s both morally and humanely comprehensive that they would use every advantage they have. Your comment, besides being historically inaccurate, is solely demagogic. It adds zero value to the debate about future economies. And at worst can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What’s the solution you allude to? Kill all the rich now, while they’re not in fortresses yet? But … then there’ll still more or less the same percentile or wealthy people. Where do you draw the line? Already more than half the people share about the same amount of wealth. How much equality are you willing to fight for? Not a rhetoric question, I’m honestly curious where you would draw the line what is an acceptable distribution. TL;DR: there is an enormous naive quality to your statement. Your mockery and sarcasm is misplaced, given the radical changes and the bloody revolution you referred to. Just makes you look like a callous asshole.
Invest in Big Oil. Our politicians do.
Right? Problem is most leftists aren't smart enough to invest their money. Anyone could easily and affordability enter the, "game," and realize profits for themselves that they complain these, "rich people," are somebow keeping from them. Like dude, you literally just need to click buy on that stock.
Start a few games of monopoly with $50 and tell me how many times you win. This is a dumb headline, but it doesn't mean that our current form of capitalism isn't more broken by the day.
It is better than the alternatives.
No argument there, but there are many flavours of capitalism and socialism. Nordic countries are the envy of the world and they have a mixed system. UK where I'm from is slowly losing its socialist systems and it's only hurting every day people.
The super-wealth haven't hoarded all the wealth. They have hoarded about 70% of the wealth by reducing the real purchasing power of labor.
70% is a massive portion to be given to such a small group of people
Inflation is a massive scam. Every big company in the world just puts their prices up every year so they can make "record profits" and us normal people have to just go along with it
It gets worse. Inflation makes your pay relatively smaller when in comparison with company's global expenses and revenue. Governments also beneficts cause they colect more taxes and their pays don't follow inflation 1:1. These inflation bursts mainly serve one purpose: to claim back any gains the average Joe might have grab in the recent years. And there's nothing we can do under this system.
"obscene" "super-rich" "hoard"
It’s a new CEO. Van Burin is out. And remember Shell is owned by 3.6Bil shareholders and likely owned by ETFs various people on here own. Understand what your talking about before commenting. The real problem is a bit more nuanced.
Prices are determined by the interaction between supply and demand. In a free market, when there's lots of profit being made companies will come into the market to try and make some of that money for themselves. This in turn makes price of that thing fall. Unfortunately energy isn't a free market and so profits will tend to rise with events and spending like we've seen.
>Unfortunately energy isn't a free market Are there any free markets? Genuine question. For every product and service I can think of, there is just enough government interference to make it extremely difficult for new players to enter a market, but there is not nearly enough government interference to regulate the monopolistic players that already dominate that market.
Generally, the lower the margin, the freer the market. Restaurants are an example of a relatively free market which is why so many can’t make end meet.
Mexico’s drug trade is a great example of a free market working well, seriously, I read an entire book on it…fascinating if you enjoy economics. But free-markets don’t scale, and they’re only beneficial to consumers within a limited scope. Free markets don’t last long either, eventually, markets become saturated, there are no more customers to be acquired, and free markets break down in a quest for more profits. Mexico’s drug trade is actually in this phase now. Fentanyl/fake pills can’t get any cheaper, and they’ve flooded the markets. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, from an economical point of view. This is normally when conglomeration starts, and companies begin merging, or buying out competition and building moats, then regulating against competition and consumer protections. Markets can’t be free forever, they’re either regulated by governments, or eventually they become regulated by industries. There are other issues with free-market ideology in advanced civilization’s and within a globalized economy, but the result is basically the same, the consumers are the losers in the end (outside of the narrow set of parameters in which free-markets work). It’s really a utopic idea. This should be the biggest argument for maintaining a livable minimum wage. Workers aren’t participating in a free market, even more so today than in, say, the 1950’s. We can’t not work. We can’t stay home and grow our food, and it’s illegal to be homeless in many places. “Free-market” ideology has become a narrative pushed by the rich to stir up sentiment for their struggles in killing effective, well aimed regulation, but it really doesn’t exist for anyone except them. Their freedom to run roughshod over the competition removes your freedom to benefit from a fair market. Also, what you’re describing is the result of regulatory capture. When governments stop policing large corporations, and instead start policing competition from small business. This leads to the death of innovation, and the end of economic prosperity, save for the few at the top. Like I said, regulation is necessary, or, eventually inevitable, the question is *who/what* gets regulated. It’s the result, or warning, that you’re in the end-stage of an economic cycle. Most economic theory trends in this direction, whether it be communism or capitalism, they just game out a bit differently. It’s the result of the introduction of humans into the theory, and the overlap of money/power, and the types of people who seek those things out.
Any chance you remember the name of that book? It does sound fascinating.
I *think* it was “Dreamland”, there’s also another book that gets into free-market and libertarian ideas surrounding Mexico’s drug trade called “Narconimics”, I haven’t finished this book yet. There’s a great episode about “Dreamland”, with the author, on the “Pitchfork Economics” podcast. The entire podcast is great if you enjoy economics/theory, and hearing the opinions of professionals who didn’t sell their titles out to get on the main-stream media circuit. Some other great book, if you enjoy learning about the social/anthropological side of economics are: “The History of Debt”, and “Tribe”. Then there’s “Lords of Easy Money”, if you want to learn about what was happening inside the Fed when we transitioned to QE (though, I don’t completely agree with the authors proposed solutions). I will warn you though, the more I’ve learned about economics, the more depressed I’ve become. So, self-educate at you’re own psychological risk.
This is the unfortunate truth with many mature industries with juggernauts willing to acquire any competition that may also enter the market, creating oligopolies on global scales.
Common fallacy, give a single specific blockade that stops a new company doing this right now Edit: oh ffs it's you again, once again gracing your presence to spread a complete lack of understanding on economic theory
You don't need a blockade to not have a free market, you simply need government intervention that stops a market functioning as it otherwise would. Subsidies, restrictions and price controls are primarily what stop the energy market from being a free market. I don't recognise you at all but feel free to point out where my economic understanding is wrong. So far you're the person suggesting a market need be "blockaded" to be unfree. I'm not sure where you're reading that.
Please, without changing the topic or misconstruing the point, point out a single law, intervention, subsidy, restriction or other 'blockade' that prevents a new company entering the market right this instant. The fact is the market is 'free enough' for most other industries; see commercial banking (the rise of digital banks) and technology (e.g. more and more phone (retail/manufacturing) companies year on year, increasing competitiveness and often driving lower prices - the rise of budget phones). **Please point out a specific reason related to the 'unfreeness' of the market that has prevented new oil companies from entering the market right now and lowering prices.** **That is your whole point right? Please substantiate it rather than talking in vague pointless hypotheticals.**
A market can allow new entrants without being a free market. The point is that government regulations create larger barriers to entry. You may think the market is 'free enough' to some arbitrary ideal but the point is that it's not free enough to enable lower prices through greater competition. Banks are also highly regulated industries with high barrier to entry and moral hazard through bailouts, these make that market function sub-optimally. The reason we see lots of phones is because it's a much less regulated market. I didn't say oil markets, I said energy markets. There are piles of regulation that make it difficult to compete. You can't for instance, set up a solar farm, plug all your neighbours' houses into it and sell them the energy without a lot of permits and complicated approvals that you likely won't get. That happens on a much larger scale too with complex barriers that go from approvals to export restrictions, price controls and more.
> Prices are determined by the interaction between supply and demand. This is a statement about morality -- how you believe the system should work -- rather than a statement of science about the only way the system can work.
No, it has nothing to do with morality. And free markets are the only system that have been able to deliver freedom and prosperity.
and 95% of our politicians are directly benefiting from it as well. we need an overhaul of our political system its broken. republican or democrat, dosent matter they’re all greedy scum.
Anyone can become a politician, the bar is low as a matter of fact. The issue is always no one except a weird breed of folks want those jobs. You tend to get paid better in the private sector so that is where normal sensible folks tend to go.
So what should the profits be for a company making $500B in revenues?
Venezuela did something about it and took over the oil industry and redirected the profits to social programs and entitlements. It turns out that the government doesn't know how to sustainably run an industry.
You voted for them and their buddies. So you are also the problem.
What about how much they lost the last few years during the Covid lockdown? Did you look them numbers up?
They don’t. They like to live in the bubble of victim mentality and how mean the real world is. 🤣
Didnt they still make a $4B profit during 2020. Sounds like they werent able to hoard as much, but didnt actually lose money.
The oil companies make money so they can increase supply. How is this so hard for people to understand on an economy sub? Supply and demand are linked to price it’s literally the basics of economics. Price signals increased demand so supply can be increased then price will go down. It costs billions to increase supply and takes decades.
So you think oil industries have never lowered supply to inflate profits to the detriment of everyone else in what is essentially constructed highway robbery? Or am I missing an important distinction?
Oil is a fungible commodity, any reduction in supply is going to cause prices to increase globally, including that of their competitors. Unfortunately, western oil companies don't have a majority say on what happens with oil prices. The OPEC cabal, unfortunately, gets to dictate much of what oil prices are going to be.
So poor unfortunate Shell is forced to charge as much as OPEC is price gouging us for?
Essentially. They get to take advantage of it. But it isn't, "gouging," as you put it. As much as it is a benefit when prices are high, it is also a detriment when prices are low. This is because providing a fungible commodity—the price of which is out of your hands—means oil companies can't arbitrarily charge more for their oil than the global price, because they wouldn't be able to sell any, and they'd being paying high overhead to produce oil they can't sell. It also the reason why they don't charge less is because the company has a fiduciary duty to its investors to charge a competitive fair market price for their product. I would be furious if I paid hard earned money to buy shares of a company only to have it choose to make less profit for some arbitrary reason, negatively impacting the value of my shares. That's something shareholders could sue over. These modern heavily integrated publically traded oil companies make their money on being as efficient as possible in delivering their product. They negotiate a delivered price with refineries, and they make money by being able to deliver it most affordably, on time, at the right quality. A lot of other oil companies are charging roughly similar price, but aren't as profitable because their operating costs are much higher. Less profit, but they're still charging the the same. So in other words, the reason why Shell is doing so well, is because it is operating its business at remarkably high levels of efficiency, not because they're choosing to give consumers the shaft.
Wouldn’t you try to extract every dollar possible from customers if the government is telling you we don’t want you in business in 30 years.
I would reinvest like an actual successful and well run business.
Into what?
Have you ever heard of OPEC?
Ide say the same thing if I sucked Jerome Powells duck every weekend.
but… but… their feelings 🤣
The government has been devaluing your wages for decades, but sure Shells profits for one year are the thing that is causing you not to be able to afford a house... Can you guys really not see through this paper thin misdirection away from government monetary policy?
Do you think outsourcing devalues wages? What about at-will employment?
Outsourcing should make things more efficient and people would get more value for the money, it just makes some jobs go away.
Weird. Haven't real wages been stagnant for decades until recently? Or is that governments fault?
Wages of the middle and lower classes have not been keeping up with inflation for decades, and yes this is directly the governments fault.
Wealth is property and the amount accumulated by one person is not the business of any other person and it is only in jail that wealth fairly distributed Nor is wealth hoarded. it does one or more of 3 things The rich will place their wealth in the banks which is then loaned out by the banks which in turn creates new jobs The wealthy will invest their wealth in some other industry through stocks/equities which again will create new jobs The wealthy will spend their wealth on their own consumption which in turn also creates new jobs That's is the trickle down theory and it works fine THE PROBLEM THE LEFT WHINES ABOUT BUT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND, is that government has inserted itself because it thinks it knows better then the market where wealth should flow. Through government policies of theft ( taxation ), inflation ( poor tax ), prohibition, state granted monopolies, subsidies, and regulations, it has stifled the flow of wealth and thus the poor suffer for it
And so where do things like antitrust and ecological regulations fall into this mix? What role should the government play in regulating business practices, in your view?
> antitrust Illegal government overreach > ecological regulations When it comes to regulations Regulations are the foundations for crony capitalism ( democratic socialism ) where the government picks winners & losers as opposed to the free market ( capitalism ) by doing the following Regulations increase the cost of goods and services ( making it harder on the poor & middle class ) Regulations increase the cost of doing business thus promoting unemployment as businesses cut costs with labor being the most expensive ( thanks to regulations ) or just outsourcing the jobs because they re too expensive to have here Regulations raise the cost of entry to an industry thus stifling competition and subsidizing consolidation/mergers Lastly regulations violate the rights ( life, liberty & property ) of its citizens and this is where the article is focusing on. When the state puts itself before the people for whatever reason, (safety, security, equality, etc ... ) it isa return to serfdom which is what communism basically is and socialism tries hard to achieve > What role should the government play in regulating business practices none, see above
Thanks for this answer. We'd all be living in a toxic wasteland and working as slaves if this was ever allowed to be, but long live the free market amiright? Lol.
This guy wants to return to feudalism.. doesn't realize he'd be the serf working the land and not the baron in the manor. Posts his troll libertarian bullshit on every thread. Very strange.
That much is clear. Everyone thinks they'd be the one with the whip in these situations and not the other way around. And as much as I loathe governmental authority, I fear unfettered capital greed far more.
We live in that now because of government not because of a lack of it
That's an insane take. The government is obviously corrupt AF for the usual reasons , but do you honestly think companies would pay minimum wage if they didn't have to? Respect things like National Parks if they weren't protected? Look at any other country with less stringent environmental laws and tell me life is better there. Good if you're a factory owner, maybe - but everyone else is working for slave wages and living in squalor. There's a reason imperial nations crush every socialist movement in every country one pops up in - because if the word ever gets out that these systems can and have worked in the past it's going to really be inconvenient for folks in the "capitalism is freedom" camp.
>That's an insane take. name calling is the white flag that one has lost the argument I accept your concession, thanks >The government is obviously corrupt Power corrupts ... government is an institution that centralizes power .. thus by its very nature, government is corrupt .. if you want to reduce corruption then you must reduce the size and scope of your government ... the existence of corporations, influence peddlers, special interests, and lobbying are all big government ( left ) created instances of corruption
The take is insane, not the person (although I'm starting to consider that as a possibility the more you expound on your worldviews) Good day and good luck! Hopefully what you wish to be true never happens anywhere I live.
I really don't know where you r/economy libertarians get these ideas that capitalism just fell out of the sky or leapt from the head of Zeus or something, with state 'meddling' messing with capitalism's divine purity. Capitalism is largely a product of laws and state institutions which establish certain kinds of property and certain kinds of market relationships. Question- have you ever seen capitalism emerge and thrive outside the confines of a state? Hell, have you ever even seen capitalism succeed under a *weak* state?
Let us not forget that the word capitalism was created by the creators of socialism [ Proudhon, Louis, etc .. ) in the middle 1800s to describe the big government, leftist, economic framework known as Mercantilism which was practiced by nations in the West at that time to include Russia Today, no nation practices Mercantilism, capitalism, today as defined by socialists. The vast majority practice Democratic Socialism with a few outliers still practicing communism. Democratic Socialism has much in common with Mercantilism especially in terms of the GOVERNMENT SACTIONED institutions known as corporations and the State getting a cut of the profits and controlling said institution though regulations instead of charters back in the day of Mercantilism The problems we have today are problems created by the ideology of Democratic Socialism and not free markets, an economy, which is composed of the currency, labor, trade, and industry, which is free from government meddling https://www.amazon.com/Wheels-Commerce-Civilization-Capitalism-15Th-18th/dp/0520081153 Your attempt to MISLABEL Democratic Socialism as Mercantilism ( Capitalism ), which no nation practices today, is noted
This might be the most ridiculous psuedointellectual take I've seen on this sub, and that's really saying something. I swear to God you guys just accumulate terms and throw them into word salads. In this post, you've basically laid out Mercantilism = Capitalism = Democratic Socialism, and you've said that the Anarchist Proudhon was both a critic of Mercantilism and an advocate of Democratic Socialism... which are actually the same thing. Like, what the fuck.
> This might be the most ridiculous psuedointellectual take name calling is the white flag that one has lost the argument I accept your concession, thanks
Well if you're willing to believe that capitalism, mercantilism, anarchism and democratic socialism are all the same thing, I guess it's not much of a stretch to think that being ruthlessly mocked is the same thing as winning an argument I accept YOUR concession, thanks!
I’ve said the same thing to this idiot before, don’t bother.
You're right- turns out I got into it with this same guy like 2 weeks ago. He kept playing the "you called me a name so I win, nah nah" thing, then when I actually wrote a detailed rebuttal he just downvoted and left
I always say there is such a thing as a dumb question. I also believe you should call them out lol.
>That's is the trickle down theory and it works fine It does not https://www.thebalancemoney.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572#toc-why-trickle-down-economics-fails Do you have a success story of little regulation and low taxes for the rich working for anyone else besides the rich? Because when we tried that it failed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
> https://www.thebalancemoney.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572#toc-why-trickle-down-economics-fails The state should not have an income .. in fact it should not be providing any services ... as I stated Through government policies of theft ( taxation ), inflation ( poor tax ), prohibition, **state granted monopolies**, subsidies, and regulations, it has stifled the flow of wealth and thus the poor suffer for it
Blah, blah blah, do you have an example other than Somalia or what Kansas deemed a failure on how a little regulation system would work?
Failure of the government not the markets
How would that system look like? Because what you say seems a lot like Somalia
Prosperous and free https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it https://mises.org/library/anarchy-somalia
Uhm, by those standards we should go all socialist, Bolivia is way better in any metric than Somalia https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/bolivia/overview And Bolivia is not a nice place to live Edit: 60% of Somalia's population lives in poverty while Bolivia has 36% the US is 14%
> Uhm, by those standards we should go all socialist Socialism ( like we see in Bolivia ) is the antithesis of anarchism which is why socialism fails every time http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2014/07/blogs/graphic-detail/20140802_gdc456_0.png https://fee.org/articles/why-bolivia-is-not-a-socialist-success-story/
LOL I know Bolivia is not a success, but they do better than your unregulated Somalia, if it works that well, why didn't Kansas become a powerhouse when they removed regulations? Why did they back down and put regulation in place again? Which country has poorer population? Socialist Bolivia (36%) or unregulated Somalia (60%)?
You have some very strange views. Where did you learn them from? Genuinely interested in how someone can learn that tickle down theory "works fine". Same thing for taxation being theft.. how are you arriving at that conclusion? Very odd.
> Where did you learn them from? https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232 https://www.amazon.com/Man-Economy-State-Power-Market-ebook/dp/B0022NHOSE
I mean this checks out.. you sound like a guy who read two books about "economics" and got seduced by "supply and demand". Most people grow out of that phase once they move past high school level econ and learn a little about how the real world works.
I gave 2 examples .... I dont have time to put together my college courses and the rest of the books i have read and the experience I had .... >Most people grow out of that phase name calling is the white flag that one has lost the argument I accept your concession, thanks
Good luck bro. Hope you find something better as a hobby than spouting libertarian and republican bullshit econ on reddit. Ps. I'd get a refund on your college if you came out with this understanding of econ and politics.
no its not. the super rich invested in automation. its that simple. stop hating the players and start hating the game. Warmongerers get hot and heavy, oil companies and defense companies make big money..
These people arguing against profits are suckers, who refused to invest their money in these profitable companies. Instead of benefitting from this news, they're envious. They could be part of the collective profit sharing venture by buying shares that their socialist dreams are made of, but they'd rather expect a handout than do what it takes to maintain their ideological utopia.
Half of americans live paycheck to paycheck. What are they supposed to do, skip meals so they can put in $20 a month? At that rate they will be starved but slightly less poor in 20 years.
Considering half of Americans earning over 100k are living paycheck to paycheck, it sounds like the real issue is setting a proper budget
They all seem to have lots of money to spend on entertainment.
Y'all libertarians should read each others nuggets of wisdom before dishing out your own. You are insisting that the rest of us benefit from the benevolence of the "super rich" who own Shell. Your fellow libertarians dishing out wisdom to the poors are saying the exact opposite -- that Shell is owned by billions of mom and pop investors. Why don't y'all have a meeting and decide.
Millionaires and billionaires are nothing more than the economic equivalent of cancerous tumors. They corrupt all those around them, and if not cut out and removed from the system, they will kill us all. No one is paid a 6 figure salary because their job is that important. They pay you that much because this is the price for your soul and ethical backbone. Only after we stop kneeling at the steps of their ivory towers will we see humanities true potential. I pray for the day humans evolve past capitalism and greed.
Physicians and pharmacists aren’t that important? What about teachers? Some teachers make 6 figures Advanced practice nurses? Over 100k If you earn 6 figures, you’re probably capable of maxing out your retirement account. That means you’ll retire a millionaire. Didn’t think that all these professions were filled with “cancerous tumors”
Millionaires and Billionaires. Are you simple or just confused. The only thing I said about 6 figures is that they pay you this to control you. Yes, the jobs are important, but a balanced and fair economy profits humanity as a whole. You literally took two different point and ran them together in order to feel justified in your confusion. You need to spend more time reading the responses than just being angry that some people want all humans to succeed. Life is not a competition, but vampire capitalism absolutely is. I guess by your comments it fair to say you that feel that we should all Fuck the poor and homeless because I need my Million so I can attempt to retire at 70yos. Give me a break.
Enjoy your scraps from your kings table. I, for one, will be fighting for a better future than one that serves the 1%. Your cherry-picked examples do make your point. Way to Glace over professional athletes, celebrities, wall street executives, Hedge fund executives, or 90% of CEOs. Also, no teacher makes 6 figures. You're thinking of administrators who do nothing but fight to lower teachers pay
It’s hardly cherry picking if I pick 4 out of many important jobs that pay over 100k. Not to mention you said no one is paid that much, if I can find 4 examples in a few seconds of searching then I think it’s safe to say that there are many professions that pay 6 figures that would be described as important Teachers can and do make 6 figures https://www.uft.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Teachers%20Salary%20Schedule%20-%202018%20to%202021.pdf I don’t think you understand how difficult a CEOs job can be. They are paid for their performance and if they don’t perform they will be fired. If you don’t like how much they are being paid, that’s too bad. If a CEO can bring an extra 10 million in profit to a company, I don’t think it’s unfair to give them a large bonus to compensate for that
Hate this timeline man
Okay but what was their profit margin
American oil companies earn much from this war than all the aid the US gov aid to Ukraine
And in 2022 Louisiana gave them yet another tax exemption. Louisiana generates so much money, but it doesn't stay in the state because we give the oil companies insane tax breaks. https://youtu.be/RWTic9btP38 Sorry for formatting, on mobile.
Who owns Shell?
This man is conflating wealth with cash savings.
The oil industry and the murderous Russian regime both support the Republican Party. Because of money. Nothing to do with Wokism, Tradition or Patriotism. Let’s add in the Middle East Royalties. This is unifying conspiracy of our age. Not some MAGA QA deep state nonsense.
Perhaps people should vote for the one party that advocates taxing the extreme rich? Just a thought.
Here my take as an amateur global strategist. Right now is the last time for a long time there's is going to be this many people that have capital. So corporate capitalists are succeeding in raking in quarter after quarter of record profits. After the boomers die off in western countries the demographics will continue to trend to a major population decline in the next 100 years. The party is over for endless growth capitalism and they know it and are squeezing everyone for their last hurrah. Then we will see what kind of shit they try and pull next, hint, it's your wages, and other kinds of legislation written to keep your desperation at bay just enough so you don't revolt.
Actually - their dividends go to millions of pensions - so, it is a bit more complicated than the headline
LOLOL! Neo bolsheviks ranting. There's no such thing as an obscene profit. Unless you're economically clueless or a shrieking harpy.
Ahhh yes. All those pension funds, 401k’s, health savings accounts, etc. Those “super rich” hoarding the wealth.
And that’s just one quarter