Billionaire trader Paul Tudor Jones thinks the "free market" is going to solve income and wealth inequality. Keep dreaming, Paulie. He also thinks that capitalists should just "give" more of their profits to workers in the form of higher wages. Guess what? That's not capitalism. (Is he really advocating for Socialism?)
Would he be okay with the state making things more equitable, like it's done at certain times in the past? Of course not, he already made that clear. The free market has to be the one to do it.
What fucking bullshit these people.
And he says that income inequality will eventually be addressed...either through war or revolution or, shriek...HIGHER TAXES. (I'm sure he'd prefer the former two.) He lumps taxes in with war and revolution. Nice. Yeah, to his kind it's worse.
By the way...it wasn't the "free fucking market" that made guys like Paul Jones so vastly more wealthy than the average Jones; it was policies of the state, which he and his kind control.
Related: Protesters to picket Paul Tudor Jones' home over income inequality
Seems Jones is a big supporter of Republicans. Not that Dems have done much to end income inequality (think, Clintons and their cronies), but Jones' choice of party affiliation is disturbing and hypocritical.
10 comments:
Ego.
He's actually right about wages though. At some point it just needs to be a decision to pay more. The owners will have to make do with less to give more to workers.
If enough bosses think it's the right thing to do they will do it.
I prefer a stronger min wage law but that ain't happening
I've asked a few of them how you have a free market when the currency itself is coercive. Still waiting for a good reply.
War or Revolution, huh? Well I guess if you kill off enough of the "surplus population" then you'll run into a labor shortage...
I don't know Greg, seems to me that owners have to be forced to pay more. Historically, labour unions had to fight the owners for every concession.
Bob - Unless the labor unions were really a big concern:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/social_security.html
Labour unions today act as an arm of management.
You are right Bob, they have had to be forced to in the past...... Im just saying that I think Mr Tudor is correct that the owners should just "give" more of their profits as higher wages.
Too many economists talk as if owners are just obeying market forces and paying what workers are worth, which is just BS. All wages are always a choice, there is no market derived wage that is correct.
Owners pay the least amount they have to to maximize THEIR income, which is fine.....until it isn't fine.
It's a question of incentives, Greg. Do I get rewarded for maximizing profit? Do I get punished for offering my employees better wages and benefits than my competitor?
Some members of the French aristocracy were probably as 'enlightened' as Mr. Tudor. Yet they carried on anyways until it was too late.
Then there's maximizing shareholder value, via stock buybacks on the open market, etc.
https://hbr.org/resources/pdfs/comm/fmglobal/profits_without_prosperity.pdf
Why do businesses choose to become publicly traded companies?
Post a Comment