OWNERSHIP: Re: Money, price, wealth, value, dividend, profit

["William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>]

Yes, your observation is very perceptive.  He does use
the word, "acquisition."  Binarianism is not about
capital formation but about capital acquisition, not
necessarily by the putative "owners," but the specific
group of individuals who will acquire the controlling
block of stock, who will name the board of directors,
who will approve the stripping of real assets from the
firm, that enable it to be a going, productive
concern--the selling of those real assets to get the
cash to repay the financing the "leveraged" buyouters
used to gain control of the firm.  The firm is thereby
destroyed as a going concern, stealing real value from
the majority of stockholders, not to mention the
community at large which the firm once served, and, in
the case of the ESOPs, the nominee employee "owners"
who will soon lose both their jobs and their pensions.

The technique is powerful and does work, there's no
doubt about that.  It has been demonstrated
repeatedly, as the Enrons and Worldcoms attest.

But to call it "economics" is an inversion of the
dictionary.
-



--- Graeme Taylor <telergy@bigpond.com> wrote:
In response to Ashford's
----- Original Message -----

> [Ashford] Although banks may and do engage in
> fractional reserve lending, sound bank lending
> practice for capital acquisition always requires two
> prospective sources of repayment: 1. The projected
> cash flow of the capital acquired...
> ---------------------------
> ----------------------------
W.Bill Ryan retorts

> Almost always?  The statement is patently
ridiculous.
> Never would be closer to the truth.

Ashford specifies, not the creation of all new money,
but it's creation for capital acquisition. This is why
they lend money to large corporations to buy out
smaller competitors, especially if the little
competitor is profitable. So it is true, but hardly
desirable, in my view. Of course, much fractional
reserve money is created to endebt consumers, as a
supply and demand market allows and credit cards are a
very profitable mechanism for the banks.

It seems to me, that China better understands how to
invest it's money, so maybe they understand binary
economics better than most western advocates. China
recognises the productive potential of plants,
machinery and infrastructure and do so, in a manner
that will out compete most other
economies.

Whilst I agree with the binary economics concepts, I
do find the following, poorly worded

> From Ashford's referenced paper:
>
> "According to the binary view of production,
although
> labor and capital may cooperate (just as people may
> cooperate) to do work, each factor (the human and
the
> non-human) provides its own 'independent
> productiveness.'"

Ten workers sitting in a gutter locked outside a
dormant factory is not productiveness. So the human
and the non-human factors are only potentialities
until they engage. That the fruits of this need best
be shared is not the same as them having "independent
productiveness".

The professor is seeking feedback, so thise is mine

Graeme Taylor
-

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
To subscribe to this or another of COG's discussion groups register at:
http://cog.kent.edu/register.html
To unsubscribe from this group send a message to majordomo@cog.kent.edu
with a single line in the body of the message that says:
unsubscribe ownership