|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 13:26, Woland wrote: The NYTimes once reported that the family's holding company "controls companies that account for an estimated 40 percent of shares traded on the Stockholm stock exchange" but that is VERY different from what you are claiming / what that blurb at fundinguniverse says. Looking at the actual numbers and estimates of the family's wealth and the size of the Stockholm exchange, etc., the NYTimes description seems to me to be far more accurate. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/03/busine......g_family Here is what the Wharton School of business says: "By the late 1990s the Wallenbergs controlled some 40% of the value of the companies listed on the Swedish stock exchange." http://www.whartonzurich07.com/bio-s-wallenberg2.html Controlling interest is VASTLY different than ownership. While I obviously agree that the family is enormously wealthy, powerful, and influential, saying that it owns roughly half of the value of the Stockholm exchange looks to be a great exaggeration.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
I read it, my opinion still stands. Note I'm not impressed that the guy is at Harvard. I know how their business school runs and reality doesn't come into play. One of the great joys in my life was watching a Harvard MBA self destruct at a staff meeting because he just couldn't grasp how humans come into play at work.
|
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 12:53, LobowolfXXX wrote: I've not read it, not slammed it and not defended it. 3/3 John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 12:38, LobowolfXXX wrote: Indeed. Let's be clear, the paper never made any claims about preferences for any specific method or model for redistribution. It commented on the preferences people exhibited for the MODEL OF the distribution. Model as in statistical model or shape. Uniform or lightly or heavily skewed. Unless one takes things out of context or goes out of one's way to misunderstand, I think this is very clear from a reading of the paper. Nowhere does it say that Americans would prefer living under a Swedish model if by model you mean Swedish laws and tax regime etc. etc. In fact, the paper clearly states in its final sentence that "Americans exhibit a general disconnect between their attitudes towards economic inequality and their self-interest and public policy preferences (Bartels, 2005; Fong, 2001), suggesting that even given increased awareness of the gap between ideal and actual wealth distributions, Americans may remain unlikely to advocate for policies that would narrow this gap."
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
People do not read 'papers' they scan articles and the article was misrepresenting the paper and implied that 92% of Americans prefered to have a socialist democracy.
How can you reduce the gap? They are not going to up the pay of the workers, the guys getting slopped with money and very often do not deserve it are not going to reduce their take. Public companies have one obligation and that is to make money for their investors and you can't just snatch up an oil company and say "you are now owned by the state" unless you are some socialist paranoid in South America. Even if you say "You can only pay a ceo $350,000 a year" which is about a third of what the lowest paid CEO's of sizable companies get then they will just slip 'em huge bonuses, stock options, give them loans for property and forgive the loan, pay for housing and living expenses and club memberships on top of the pay. My former CEO was the lowest paid guy in semiconductors, made a measly $900k a year. The New England Business Journal selected him the most over compensated CEO in New England high tech. The reason? Though the lowest paid CEO his additional comps added up to over $60 MILLION dollars. The lowest paid corporate level exec at that company over all, though making around $400k a year, was $35 million IN A YEAR. The CEO, who is STILL there, was fined a couple million for manipulating the stock and the company was told they had to stop their present stock option plan. How did they react? They cut off the workers stock options. Nice huh? And there ain't a dang thing that will be done about it. Why would the board do anything? They are execs from other huge companies who get $50,000 to spend two days in meetings a year in Boston while being wined and dined when not in the meeting. In my last year there and the following year they reduced their US work force by about 25% but the only complaints were from investors that the stock wasn't going up enough. If people are not aware of how completely out of whack the pay difference is they better wake up. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
One BIG discrepancy and flaw in this study is that the charts were not representing the same thing.
They told the people being polled that they were discussing "wealth," and defined "wealth" as such: “Wealth, also known as net worth, is defined as the total value of everything someone owns minus any debt that he or she owes. A person's net worth includes his or her bank account savings plus the value of other things such as property, stocks, bonds, art, collections, etc., minus the value of things like loans and mortgages.” HOWEVER, in a foot note, they address the chart representing sweden, the nation they claim people would prefer for distribution. This would certainly seem to imply that they are suggesting, despite people's voting habits, and political leanings, in reality, they may prefer a system that resembles sweden, or at the very least, something that garners similar results, given that the results (wealth distribution) is what they were (supposedly) directly being asked about. "2 We used Sweden’s income rather than wealth distribution because it provided a clearer contrast to the equal and United States wealth distributions; while more equal than the United States’ wealth distribution, Sweden’s wealth distribution is still extremely top heavy." Emphasis mine. So, the actual wealth distribution is still "extremely top heavy," and so, they used different data to give the appearance they desired. If they were dealing with completely fictitious nations, and were NOT using the data to imply, or explicitly state "americans prefer sweden," then this would not be an issue, as they would simply be asking, 'would you rather live in a place where wealth was distributed evenly, or really unevenly?' However, they clearly used the data from the poll, based on manipulated statistics, to serve a specific agenda.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
I noted that as well.... what a BS study.
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
I' not sure there's even a point in this post after what I pointed out in my previous one, but, what the hell.
"Nowhere does it say that Americans would prefer living under a Swedish model if by model you mean Swedish laws and tax regime etc. etc." I think where it says "Americans Prefer Sweden" it is implying EXACTLY that. Not explicitly stating, but I don't think any one was criticizing it for that. They were criticizing it, and the reporting on it, for implying something that was not actually said by the people polled. Also, the study presented the people with options, and said which would you prefer, given a Rawls constraint, but the options given were end results of distribution, AND, did not have any representation of the amount distributed if you will. Unless I missed that. What I mean is, the models showed how wealth was distributed by percentage, but gave no indication of how much wealth a single percentage represented. My point is, you could present similar charts to people where the smallest group from chart A actually was wealthier than any of the groups in the perfectly distributed chart C. Of course this is dependent on total wealth available for the nation, as well as total population. I am not saying this is what the charts presented represent, as there is not that much disparity between america and sweden. However, it does show how a person picking which chart they think is ideal, if they were to be randomly placed in any of the demographics, is far from representative given that it is a VERY uninformed choice. Again, I may very well have COMPLETELY missed point in the paper where they DID tell them that it was more comparable than that, so please, don't take this as a solid critique yet, merely a concern for a potential flaw. To simplify, showing someone two options, one that says they could end up in a demographic that owns 0.1% of the wealth, or, in a completely different nation, they will be in a demographic that could own from 11-36%, but the first choice is 0.1% of a million dollars, and the second choice is 11-36% of a thousand dollars. With just the charts, option two looks much more appealing, but when the umbers are taken into account, option one, worst case scenario gives you $1000, and in option 2, best case scenario gives you $360. Again, not necessarily representative of america and sweden, but that's just it, the people polled MAY not have had any idea what the wealth of the nations represented, and just assumed they were all representative of nations of comparable wealth. They did ask them which distribution they would prefer for america to have, which actually goes to my point even more in that saying "americans prefer sweden" is completely fallacious based upon this. They would prefer a more equal distribution in america, based on america's current wealth, this does NOT mean they "prefer" sweden. There is no indication that what ever system of "redistribution" would, or would not, limit the wealth available to america. It's not like a nation has a set net wealth that doesn't change. If eaqual distribution mean the over all nations wealth that was distributed went from a million to a thousand, then it might change what the majority "prefer." ***NOTE*** I am well aware that the numbers I used, a million and a thousand, are far from representative of the actual value of nations, and are merely used for ease of calculation.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 16:51, MagicSanta wrote: Yeah, I would say that COMPLETELY negates pretty much everything, especially the "conclusion" that "americans prefer sweden" when they were clearly comparing apples and oranges. I really can not think of a real life example that is better described as comparing apples and oranges, besides actually comparing apples and orag]nges. Well, except maybe comparing card magic and coin "magic" . . .
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Balducci,
It's easy for you to shrug off the fact that 40-50% of the Swedish economy is owned or controlled by one family. (In terms of economic power, what is the difference between owning and controlling a company? If they can compel the company tod o what they want, isn't that effectively ownership?) Somehow however I don't think you would be so blithe if 40-50% of the New York Stock Exchange's value was controlled by one American family . . . . Peace Out. Woland |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 17:35, Woland wrote: Bazinga
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 17:35, Woland wrote: Woland, if I am going to have a serious discussion with anyone about any subject, I simply prefer it if people use actual facts instead of exaggerations. Since you brought Sweden to my attention in your recent posts (I do believe you were the one who first mentioned Sweden, though I may be mistaken on that) I have been noticing more and more stories about Sweden in the news. Just today (like, an hour ago as I was reading the newspaper while having a late lunch), I came across the following story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-inv......1772336/ Summary: According to a recent study, Sweden is the second most competitive / innovative economy. Hungrier Competitors, Higher Returns Value if $100 invested on Jan. 1, 1970 Competitiveness ranking Country At Dec. 31, 1999 At Sept. 30, 2010 1 Switzerland $5,242 $9,178 2 Sweden $14,540 $23,180 [An exercise for the interested reader would be to investigate exactly how an investment in the DJIA performed over the same periods. Over the last 10 years, you would be about break even at best.] I've since found an older online article from last month saying more about this: http://etfdailynews.com/blog/2010/09/09/......ewd-ewl/ "Surging from its number four rank last year, Sweden now finds itself as the second most competitive economy on earth. Sweden ranks highly for its business sophistication, innovation, and general lack of corruption in the society. Although tax rates are relatively high in the country, investors and businesses seem to be willing to tolerate the high marginal rates in exchange for access to an extremely well-educated and technological savvy population." http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gc......ndex.htm "The United States falls two places to fourth position, overtaken by Sweden (2nd) and Singapore (3rd)." So when you ask, how would I react if "40-50% of the New York Stock Exchange's value was controlled by one American family" (which is a silly apples to oranges comparison considering the relative size of these countries and their populations, but nonetheless) I would say bring it on, if they could promise and deliver the same returns on investment as we see in Sweden. Woland, please keep in mind that this sub-discussion started when you started making exaggerated and demonstratively factually incorrect claims about Sweden and its economy. Apparently Sweden is doing far better than you ever dreamed.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Balducci,
Evidently Sweden has become more business-friendly recently. Which I think is a good thing. I had thought Denmark was the most business-friendly of the Scandinavian countries. I think Denmark is still socially more free than Sweden, where, for example, you are only allowed to purchase a fixed amount of alcoholic beverage every month, checked against your government-issued I.D. . . . I might caution that the articles you quote sound a bit like puff pieces placed to please those they describe . . . I am sure you could find "advertorials" in many newspapers touting the benefits of many simply awful places . . . Woland |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 19:30, Woland wrote: Oh, please, give me a break. The first article was entirely the opposite. It was critical of the country (Canada) in which its main readership would be found. The second was a simple factual summary, that listed the countries at the top with no editorial or opinion added whatsoever. The third was a 500+ page study. At this point, I don't think I can take you seriously anymore.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 15:23, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: Well done, Sir! I confess, though, that I found it curious that you advised that people should read the study before criticizing it, as opposed to reading it before commenting on it.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 19:39, LobowolfXXX wrote: Fair enough.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 15:41, balducci wrote: I find that whole final paragraph odd and/or biased. Here are the only four reasons they can come up with for why Americans don't push to take the steps that would result in a more Swedish-like "model": 1) Ignorance 2) Ignorance 3) Disagreements about the source of the current inequality 4) Cognitive dissonance Perhaps the current system offers some things that Americans value highly, despite the result non-ideal distribution of wealth. No mention at all of any competing perceived plusses that the American system that Americans may feel offsets the one minus that the study focuses on. Nope, it's pretty much all either ignorance, partisan bickering, or some sort of psychological dysfunction. Those are the only reasons the scientists can conceive of for our not wanting to pass the laws necessary to make us more like Sweden. Interesting.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 19:44, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: John, I respect you greatly and appreciate your contributions to these threads. You'd bring a lot more entertainment value to the table, though, if you weren't so darned reasonable!
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 19:30, Woland wrote: My Goodness, where do you get this crap from? Unless they introduced it again recently (which I doubt), Sweden did away with rationing back in 1955. http://people.su.se/~totto/downloadable_......1987.pdf The rationing was a consequence of the temperance movement, much like prohibition was in the States. It was long ago abandoned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratt_System However, from what I've heard, alcohol is still restricted in various parts of the U.S. (e.g., dry counties).
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Balducci,
Then tell me why the Swedish tourists flock into Denmark to drink, and cram their leisure craft full of alcoholic beverages to smuggle back into their country? It isn't just the high Swedish taxes. WOland |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » As predicted! (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |