B402, Yes, in the '80s as we have impressed upon you from the start. From the one link you provided, by Robert J. Rhee, "In light of well-known business, economic, and intellectual histories, the hockey stick pattern of cases with the 1980s as the inflection point should not be surprising. The data is confirming. Shareholder primacy is judge-made law. [...] The form of law is important. Shareholder primacy and managerial authority cannot coexist in a rule?sanction form, i.e., law in Austinian form. Such coupling would be incoherent within the structure of corporate law. The legal mechanism of shareholder primacy must work within these constraints: (1) managerial authority is a rule?sanction form, and as such it is a first order rule with independent dignity; (2) shareholder primacy is a rule?no sanction form, and as such it is a second order rule, subordinate to any first order rule in a conflict; (3) the purpose of the first order rule is to serve the second order rule at the level of prescription, and as such the latter must be efficacious in spite of the former. When the problem is framed in this way, we see why, in the absence of an enforceable fiduciary duty, the legal status of shareholder primacy has been opaque and contestable for so long." Your - https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/04/11/a-legal-theory-of-shareholder-primacy/
Not sure but feel may be a bit relevant here:
--- Yep. And under American capitalism women have always suffered the most. Also put to the 'reds under the bed' phobics, there are other ways Is Capitalism Built on Greed? [...] But what prevents the capitalist from operating philanthropically, and taking nothing for themselves? Or taking home only the same amount as the lowest-paid worker? Why does the capitalist need to “take something home” over and above the amount needed to subsist? It’s perfectly possible to start a business and operate it in the interests of the community without using it to make a fortune. The capitalist chooses to try to make money, and it’s that choice that is accurately described as acquisitiveness, or greed, because nothing in the economic system mandates it. Jeff Bezos does not need to be a billionaire. He didn’t need to take any ownership of Amazon himself. He exploits people for his own benefit because he has an insatiable greed and lust for power, not because facts about the economy compel him to own the company. P - When we are asking whether capitalists act as they do out of greed or if they are compelled by some kind of systemic force, one way to test the proposition is to think about what would happen if we substituted an altruist in the capitalist’s role. We can see that certain things would not change. If you made the CEO of a company an altruist, but the CEO was under a legal mandate to maximize shareholder value, then if they exploited their workers less the board of directors might replace them. The altruistic CEO alone may have few options to improve the company. But the owner of a company, the person who puts up the capital, can make a huge difference depending on whether they are pursuing gain or the public good. Pursuing gain means that workers have to be more exploited than market pressures alone require so that a sum of profit can go to the owner. If public good is the goal, no such sum need be generated. Nor does the owner need to relentlessly expand the business in order to pursue larger profits. The business can stay the same size, if doing so serves the public good. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170842150 ---
Back to the bottom of your Rhee article:
"In conclusion, the law of shareholder primacy is complex, efficacious, and efficient. The rule is complex because it must harmonize first order and second order rules that is unique to the structure of corporate law while respecting the independent dignity of both rules. It is efficacious because the rule has been internalized by managers even though it is unenforceable. It is efficient because it achieves compliance at minimal cost. Whether the rule is socially efficient, equitable, or ethical—all contestable points—is in the domain of normative theory. However, the normative debate and policy prescription must be informed by a positive legal theory. The cause and effect of shareholder primacy rests on a legal foundation, and not some general notion of collective social belief that perhaps can change with enough suasion or argumentation. Any policy prescription that follows from a normative theory must contend with the law of shareholder primacy." https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/04/11/a-legal-theory-of-shareholder-primacy/
At this stage, see again: How ‘Neoliberalism’ Became the Left’s Favorite Insult of Liberals [...] Its basic claim is that, from the New Deal through the Great Society, the Democratic Party espoused a set of values defined by, or at the very least consistent with, social democracy or socialism. Then, starting in the 1970s, a coterie of neoliberal elites hijacked the party and redirected its course toward a brand of social liberalism targeted to elites and hostile to the interests of the poor and the working class.
[Insert: Correct me if wrong, that sounds like B402 to a T.]
The first and most obvious problem with this version of history is that there is little reason to believe the Democratic Party has actually moved right on economic issues.The most commonly used measure .. http://k7moa.com/political_polarization_2014.htm .. of party ideology, developed by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, has tracked the positions of the two parties’ elected members over decades. Here is how they have evolved on issues of the government’s role in the economy:
This chart indicates that Democrats have not moved right since the New Deal era at all. Indeed, the party has moved somewhat to the left, largely because its conservative Southern wing has disappeared.
Now, the Poole-Rosenthal measure does not end the discussion. No metric can perfectly measure something as inherently abstract as a public philosophy. One obvious limit of this measure is its value over long periods of time, when issue sets change in ways that make comparisons difficult. The Poole-Rosenthal graph has special difficulty comparing the Democratic Party before and after the New Deal. But it does raise the question of why the Democrats’ supposed U-turn away from social democracy does not appear anywhere in the data.
Any remotely close look at the historical record, as opposed to a romanticized memory of uncompromised populists of yore, yields the same conclusion as the numbers. The idea that the Democratic Party used to stand for undiluted economic populism in its New Deal heyday is characteristic of the nostalgia to which the party faithful are prone — no present-day politician can ever live up to the imagined greatness of the statesmen of past.
In reality, the Democratic Party had essentially the same fraught relationship with the left during its supposed golden New Deal era that it does today. [...] The Democratic Party has evolved over the last half-century, as any party does over a long period of time. But the basic ideological cast of its economic policy has not changed dramatically since the New Deal. American liberals have always had some room for markets in their program. Democrats, accordingly, have never been a left-wing, labor-dominated socialist party. (Union membership peaked in 1955, two decades before the party’s supposed neoliberal turn, and has declined steadily since.) They have mediated between business and labor, supporting expanded state power episodically rather than dogmatically. The widespread notion that “neoliberals” have captured the modern Democratic party and broken from its historic mission plays upon nostalgia for a bygone era, when the real thing was messier and more compromised than the sanitized historical memory. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170923414
Obviously, B402, you disagree vehemently with that position of Johnathon Chait's. I don't think though you have given any good evidence to discount either the basis for, or the logic toward, that chart of his.
I don't know where you got that NAFTA material from. Looks you forgot the link this time. Ok, this looks like it, though you have omitted the heading and the first paragraph .. looks like i found your 3rd paragraph which is the 2nd paragraph here:
Posted December 9, 2013 at 4:00 pm by Jeff Faux
NAFTA’s Impact on U.S. Workers
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NATFA) was the door through which American workers were shoved into the neoliberal global labor market.
By establishing the principle that U.S. corporations could relocate production elsewhere and sell back into the United States, NAFTA undercut the bargaining power of American workers, which had driven the expansion of the middle class since the end of World War II. The result has been 20 years of stagnant wages and the upward redistribution of income, wealth and political power. https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
Then what? Ok. This is the first and last time, i hope, you have excluded the heading then eight paragraphs of an article without indicating you have. If you had put in the customary [...] it would have saved me some trouble.
Here is your 3rd paragraph, about the 10th in the article:
"Despite the rhetoric, the central goal of NAFTA was not “expanding trade.” After all, the U.S., Mexico, and Canada had been trading goods and services with each other for three centuries. NAFTA’s central purpose was to free American corporations from U.S. laws protecting workers and the environment. Moreover, it paved the way for the rest of the neoliberal agenda in the US—the privatization of public services, the regulation of finance, and the destruction of the independent trade union movement. https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
Like i said earlier you would know the 'if you put 100 economists in a room...' story, but still that first paragraph looks in conflict with at least a result of NAFTA. About all the articles you have been given, i think, have given figures indicating it actually increased the volume of the trade between the three countries. Just picked this up:
-- Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Mexico, and Canada went into effect, trade within North America has increased dramatically. Exports from the United States to Mexico have risen 150% and exports to Canada are up 66%. This much is beyond dispute. https://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2003/0103dollar.html --
Haven't read more there yet. And how about this i just posted, though not directly to you:
NAFTA, 20 Years Later: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs? [...] Two decades ago, says Guillen, “People knew that trade within NAFTA would increase, so the U.S.,Canada and Mexico would trade more with each other. We [also] knew that low-wage manufacturing was going to move to Mexico from Canada and the U.S. And of course, part of this also moved to China and other locations, but Mexico has the advantage of proximity to the U.S.” [...] As recently as 2008,Japan exported almost twice as many cars to the United States as did Mexico. This year, however, Mexico will export 1.69 million vehicles to the U.S., surpassing the 1.51 million vehicles exported by Japan to the same market. By 2015,Mexico will export 1.9 million vehicles to the U.S., surpassing Canada as the largest exporter to the U.S. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170952283
Though volume didn't seem a focus there, those two bits certainly go to it.
Now i was being patient with you in thinking this is the first i recall you posted as you did there, but now have lost the patience i had. I have no idea where you got the rest of your post from, but it sure as hell is not in the article .. https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/ i found two of your paragraphs in.
It looks you mixed more than one article without supplying links to any of them. That's the sort of bullshit others have pulled here earlier. mr40, was one. Conix, perhaps too. I don't recall you doing it before. Make sure it doesn't happen again.
PS: If you have a more charitable explanation for what i see as a crap post from i'd be happy to hear, so to be able to consider, it. Or if i have made some silly mistake please let me know too.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
