12

Praying to the Porcelain God, by Robert Gore

Posted by straightlinelogic 9 years, 3 months ago to Economics
30 comments | Share | Flag

At the corporate level, the exhaustion of productive investment opportunities prompts executives to either return funds to shareholders through dividends or to use that cash flow (sometimes augmented by cheap debt), to speculate on the company’s share price. Hillary Clinton has made political hay about corporations buying their own shares instead of making productive investments. The world is glutted with raw materials, intermediate goods, finished goods, and consumer goods, the visible manifestation of return on investment equilibrating to the artificially low cost of funds. Glutted markets and falling asset prices are screaming, “No more!” In what would Ms. Clinton have corporations invest? Undoubtedly there are elements of self-enrichment and bull market crowd psychology at play when executives authorize share buybacks. However, returning capital to shareholders is also an admission that they don’t have any better ideas of what to do with the money. Ms. Clinton doesn’t either.

This is an excerpt. Please click the above link for the rest of the article.
SOURCE URL: http://straightlinelogic.com/2015/10/09/praying-to-the-porcelain-god-by-robert-gore/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago
    Q: Who comes out well in every boom and every bust?
    A: Who creates the money at no cost?

    Without unlimited ability to create no-cost credit by the central banks none of this could have occurred.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 9 years, 3 months ago
    excellent economic analysis by mr gore again...the Fed has loaned over $4 trillion dollars since 2007...to the big banks to keep them solvent...at the expense of savers (zero interest on money)...and paid the banks NOT to loan 90% the money out (except ot big corporations, i.e., crony capitalism(...the result...over 6 million full-time jobs lost and a record 93+ million workage adults looking for work...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years, 3 months ago
    40 centuries of price control history provide amble evidence there is no such thing as "a just price" for goods, services or money.

    Rand Paul was interviewed a couple of days ago and he anwered the question by first explaining history and why it was the basis for his current solution to the subject of the question. The interviewer said: "All that is history. What about going forward?"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to be journalists or politicians.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
        Thumbs up and a Laugh but consider changing journalists (those who record events accurately) to reporters (as Clancy defined them in one of his tomes "Why should I trust you? You are reporters." I'm convinced some would not say the sun got up this morning but rather the earth spun to the East engaging another day with the sun overhead. And that's all the spin you'll find a journalist reporting. Not a well regarded group true but they can be used - then discarded.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 3 months ago
    Excellent!
    'If interest rates are free to fluctuate, the interest rate will equilibrate that demand and supply.'
    Well put. I suggest, there is no such thing as a correct interest rate. When not fixed by edict, rates fluctuate with time and vary across the economy according to the borrower and across lenders.
    Negative (real) interest rates-
    not anything new, it is what happens when interest rates get, or are held, below inflation. Even with low inflation as in Switzerland sometimes, when including bank charges the net interest rate can drop below zero.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
      Why not? You pay a fee for them to protect your money from nosy parkers. T Bills are routinely sold at zero per cent. The money may lose value to inflation, devaluation and the repudiation cycle but you get it back with only that loss. Bank will get you FDIC 250,000 max. no matter how many millions the government swindled. Unless you set up a bunch of LLC's etc. otherwise it's one time one account and might be paid in savings bonds.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago
    As an owner of a small business. I am psychologically more desirous of not expanding, but saving assets or selling out before the inevitable collapse comes
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 3 months ago
    Of course only the elite are actually able to borrow at zero percent. This policy is a way of transferring wealth, not just from savers, but from all productive people to the political elite.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 3 months ago
    Great article... and it applies to the artificially low student loan rates' also creating a bubble of demand, plus allowing colleges to raise their rates more easily to absorb the resulting excess supply of money in the face of simultaneously-increasing market demand for college class seats.

    So now, the MainScream wants to blame the banks, colleges and students for reacting logically to the artificially low loan rates?

    Yep, the inmates have taken over.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 3 months ago
    Exhaustion of productive investment opportunities? Really?...it's the charge of business to 'Create' value in favor of the end user of it's product or service and the the 'Stockholders' are Not the end user and Money is not the object, it's just a tool.

    The observations in this article are spot on and shows in living color the shear lack of creativity, the shear dependence upon the easy way out and the shear idiocy of shuffling about shares in a shell game to only perpetuate business and to avoid the creation of new business...new value.

    I've argued before that the beginning of the useful end of big corporations was the advent of professional so called CEO's. They have no connection to the original intent of it's founder; never mind the original founders connection to the people that helped in that creation of value. Professional CEO's no Nothing but the perpetuation of business, not the creation of business.

    My other argument is with allowing shareholders a right to vote in the business of that corporation. If the corporation does not perform or worse, actually does harm to it's consumer then; Sell your share's stupid.

    Should be Free Market Principles all the way.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 9 years, 3 months ago
    if you follow gore's analysis and add my comments, you can see that the Fed's action since 2007 has been to save the big banks and crony corporate companies...the rise in the stock market is totally artifical by Fed QE...there is no value added basis to the market or valuations...what was lost in 2007 is not coming back under the current govt conditions...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 9 years, 3 months ago
    only 10% of the $4 trillion dollars has been loaned out by the big banks...and that only to big corporations...why risk money on small businesses that might fail when the govt is paying you to sit on the money...how the Fed will re-absorb the $4 trillion is unknown...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 9 years, 3 months ago
    Didn't Mitt take the position during his campaign that the market should be allowed to find its equillibrium ( allowing some govt-supported corporate restructuring for Detroit) in order to get healthy more quickly ?

    2. I thought I heard the Fed was slowly reversing all its Quantative Easing. No ?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 3 months ago
    This all makes sense, except for my usual question of why the effects of loose money would be confined to the valuation of capital assets and not affect goods and services.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      A good question. The valuation of financial assets follows the deflationary path of glutted goods and services markets, but not always simultaneously. Deflation is deflation after all. Financial asset prices can decouple from the real economy for a while, mainly due to mass bullish psychology, but not forever. They are necessarily linked. Debt is subject to the law of diminishing returns. That is why I'm predicting a financial crash; fiat government and central bank debt has reached its point of negative returns. A crash will reconfirm cause and effect, destroying the false but widely held notion that fiat debt can produce ever-rising markets and economic activity. In the long run, a central bank exchanging its fiat debt for its government's fiat debt only produces an excess of fiat debt and deflation of all prices once debt contracts, especially in a system, such as ours, where debt has become the medium of exchange.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 3 months ago
        "The valuation of financial assets follows the deflationary path of glutted goods and services markets, but not always simultaneously."
        My question is why don't the same forces that cause malinvestment in assets leading to a glut off goods and services also lead to a glut of demand for goods and services themselves? It should be the exact same inflationary psychology that you describe for assets.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          For a while debt causes malinvestment and increases demand. However, it being debt, it has to be paid back. Too much debt and it reaches its point of negative marginal returns for investment, production, and consumption, which is when the cycle goes into reverse. Non market based debt (central bank and government debt) and below market interest rates in an economy not saturated with debt will lead to inflation of goods, services, and asset prices. Once saturation is reached (which describes the current economy) deflation and falling prices loom.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo