Only reports quoting high level officials at the meetings. The evidence isn’t easily verifiable. But if you look at the historical and documentary record of US foreign affairs, what these reports say fall right in with what we’d expect.

Of course the reason given is that Putin is a war criminal— which is undeniable, but inconsistent based on past actions.

I’d ask you the same: is there verifiable evidence that the US is encouraging peace negotiations? I don’t consider that the default.

“Ukrainian news outlet suggests UK and US governments are primary obstacles to peace”
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/05/09/ukrainian-news-outlet-suggests-uk-and-us-governments-are-primary-obstacles-to-peace/

"The American administration forbids its wards in Kyiv to even think about talks with us, and evidently forces them to fight to the last Ukrainian," Zakharova told reporters.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-foreign-ministry-no-contact-with-us-ukraine-peace-talks-2022-07-21/

The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/

Again, I apparently start from a very different vantage point about the US. Like any empire, their actions are never disinterested. This war is a proxy war against a perceived enemy, and ally to China. It’s not simply about defending a country against evil men— there are plenty of those around which we do nothing about, and often support.

Though a corrective or counterbalance is necessary, or else it merely becomes self-reinforcing dogma. — Manuel

True. Not sure if that corrective makes a difference.

Okay, so Putin is pushing for war — Olivier5

I think this is pretty obvious. Given that he invaded a country.

and Biden is not. — Olivier5

Biden — or at least his administration — is pushing for war as well. By blocking negotiations.

Exactly what I was saying! — Olivier5

If you’re not really interested in talking, please don’t waste my time.

Some people here are unable to discuss anything. — Olivier5

I didn’t say I was unable or unwilling to discuss anything, but that we probably won’t get too far. Mainly because assumptions about the US’s intentions are pretty fundamental, and in my experience unlikely to change.

But it does not follow that the US is pushing for war. — Olivier5

Blocking or discouraging peace agreements and negotiations is pushing for war.

The US is not pushing for war but helping Ukraine defend herself, which is perfectly legitimate. — Olivier5

So here’s the disagreement, then. I think this statement is naive. The motivations go far beyond defending Ukraine. If that’s truly where you think they stop, then we probably won’t get far in discussions. And that’s OK.

When the defense Secretary says the goal is to weaken Russia, I believe him.

you should definitely post like, once a week or so, takes like yours and Isaac's are the most rational ones to my mind. — Manuel

I’ve mostly avoided this thread. A lot of heat, almost no light. Or substance.

Exactly. As I said, the US (and UK) staying out of it would itself be a good start, since neither are interested in peace.

The US (or someone of similar standing) offer to broker peace talks. — Isaac

Or even get out of the way of negotiations.

As I’m sure has been cited, back in April there were negotiations between Kiev and Moscow. Both the UK and the US (Austin outright saying the goal is to “weaken Russia”) pressured against these talks.

The terms of that settlement would have been for Russia to withdraw to the positions it held before launching the invasion on February 24. In exchange, Ukraine would “promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

The tentative deal was the result of in-person peace talks Russian and Ukrainian officials held in Istanbul at the end of March. Virtual talks resumed after the meeting in Istanbul, but the two sides ultimately failed to reach a deal.

A major factor in the failed negotiated settlement was pressure from the West.

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/08/31/report-russia-ukraine-tentatively-agreed-on-peace-deal-in-april/

The idea that the US involvement is principled or benevolent is pretty absurd.

To put it simply, the U.S. position that the war must continue to severely weaken Russia, blocking negotiations, is based on a quite remarkable assumption: that facing defeat, Putin will pack his bags and slink away to a bitter fate. He will not do what he easily can: strike across Ukraine with impunity using Russia’s conventional weapons, destroying critical infrastructure and Ukrainian government buildings, attacking the supply hubs outside Ukraine, moving on to sophisticated cyberattacks against Ukrainian targets. All of this is easily within Russia’s conventional capacity, as U.S. government and the Ukrainian military command acknowledge — with the possibility of escalation to nuclear war in the not remote background.

The assumption is worth contemplating. It is too quickly evaded.

Indeed.

For the war to end, one of two things has to happen.

1. Putin initiates and follows through on a cease fire.

2. Ukraine surrenders. — frank

Those aren’t the only options. The war could end with nuclear weapons, which we’re getting closer and closer to — and so threatens the survival of life on earth. It does well not to overlook this.

You would be glad to learn that its present contribution to the defense of Ukraine is quite significant and effective. — Olivier5

It does appear so. I don’t see how Ukraine could have come this far without US backing.

The US motivations are questionable. It’s certainly not for love of democracy or freedom — let’s face it. It’s an opportunity to strengthen and expand their influence. Otherwise they wouldn’t be involved to this degree. And of course because the government is owned and run by corporate America, and the defense contractors love war, it’s not being opposed by either political party.

So I’m not happy about it. I’m not happy about pushing for continued war without equally pushing for peace negotiations.

The problem could be that analysing the past — Olivier5

But notice that I didn’t mention the past. I’m talking about right now.

Arguing over whose fault it is, won't solve this conflict. — Olivier5

I’m not interested in arguing about that either. I’m interested in finding out what I can do to stop the war, however little that may be, and thus where best to put my energy.

Because I live in the US, I’m biased towards learning about its present contributions. But I would be equally biased if I lived in Mozambique regarding its policies.

It happens that I live in one of the countries with a significant hand in the war, so my criticisms will be disproportionately slanted in that direction.

As to your specific questions, I haven't any idea why anyone would want to discuss who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are in geopolitical events. If virtue signalling your disgust at Putin's actions is your thing, then you crack on, some of us take seriously our duty to hold our governments to account for their actions, so for us what matters here is the justness of the actions of our governments, and for most of us, that isn't Russia. — Isaac

Yes indeed.

I’m surprised by how often this is getting equated with Russian apologetics. I haven’t heard one person cheering Putin on. His actions, to any rational human being, are hideous. That shouldn’t be the end of the discussion.

We can’t do much about the war in Ukraine. We can barely do much about our own states’ actions. But our attention should focus on wherever we can make most of a difference to end the war. If you live in the UK, or Germany, or the US, etc., you should analyze what part they’re playing in the war.

It just so happens that the US has played an enormous role in this conflict, as has NATO. The motives should be carefully questioned.

This is all fairly obvious. So what’s the problem?

Eh— If you need to go through exercises like these to remind yourself that people aren’t “orcs,” then there are bigger problems afoot.

Fair enough. I only know Friedman. Hayek and Von Mises are probably worth reading as well. But who has the time for bullshit.

Just playing devils advocate, as difficult as it is. I agree with you.

Embedded liberalism was supported by Marxists and socialists. If it had continued to evolve, the US would be more leftist right now. Those who targeted it for destruction claimed that it was collectivism at it's worst and was bound to lead to some kind of slavery in America. The characterization of it as socialist isn't unacceptable. — frank

Ok. Failing to see the relevance to the thread, but fine.

Fine by me. :wink: — Tom Storm

But this infringes on the rights of private citizens. In the private enterprise system the role of the corporation is solely to maximize profits within the bounds of the law, because that's what the shareholders (owners) want. Anything beyond this is -- any social responsibility -- is socialism; i.e., infringement on private property rights and the freedom of individuals to pursue their self interests.

It's in line with embedded liberalism. The main practical argument for it is that it should protect a capitalist economy from breakdowns like the Great Depression. — frank

But in terms of the idea that corporations have social responsibilities, it's socialism. The argument being that the corporation is owned by the shareholders, and the shareholders want to maximize profits. That should be its sole responsibility, within the bounds of the law.

Corporations are part of our community and should be responsible to that community for how they conduct business and what they produce. — Tom Storm

But corporations are not owned by the community. While they’re in communities, what they do in the privacy of their own buildings isn’t the business of the community. Those from the community who wish to work there indirectly agree that the owners run the company.

To argue corporations should conduct their business and decide what to produce based on community needs is socialism through and through.

I sound like a broken record, but any time one wants to discuss science one should at least define what one means by science.

Who looks silly now?You, of course. — god must be atheist

:kiss:

I was hoping that you would connect the dots yourself as any good philosopher should do. — Deus

There are no dots to connect — which is why you can’t explain what they are.

Next time, don’t just copy and paste from a Website and claim that it answers something if you don’t know yourself.

What was the “question” which those quotes are supposed to answer, anyway? Can you even explain that?

The version of him that’s given today is just ridiculous. But I didn’t have to any research to find this out. All you have to do is read. If you’re literate, you’ll find it out.

(Chomsky)

Don’t know much about this Chomsky guy but looking at the quotes you’ve provided he seems like the typical academical scholar divorced from reality. — Deus

Yeah, sorry, but a comment like this is embarrassing. Considering Chomsky has actually read Smith, unlike you — apart from the fact that he’s an internationally respected scholar.

Also, nothing in your copy-and-paste job has the slightest relevance to the OP. If you want to try to draw the connection, do so. Otherwise you’re just quoting incoherently.

I recommend *reading* Adam Smith instead of pasting random passages from a Website. It’s transparently obvious you haven’t yet done so, and I’m not interested in posturing.

Gotta agree with Chomsky here regarding Smith:

Just read it. He’s pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.

He also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work. He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call “national interests.” He simply observed in passing, because it’s so obvious, that in England, which is what he’s discussing — and it was the most democratic society of the day — the principal architects of policy are the “merchants and manufacturers,” and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, “most peculiarly attended to,” no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies. He didn’t have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right.

I’m very familiar with Smith. I don’t consider this a summary of his “overall thought,” nor do I see much connection with the OP or what we were discussing.

That’s a well known quote. But have you actually read Adam Smith? Was this what you meant by “covered it well”?

What you describe seems to be what he described as the “vile maxim”:

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

He says of “merchants and manufacturers” that they’re….

an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the publick, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the publick, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

He was writing before the rise of corporations, of course.

Elsewhere:

The interest of the dealer, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respect different from, and even opposite to, that of the publick. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the publick; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they would normally be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.

He goes on and on.

I would try to resist the influence of mainstream libertarian portrayals of Smith.

Adam Smith covered this concept pretty well. — Deus

Yeah? Please point me to the relevant passages you have in mind.

From January 2020, before the pandemic, William Lazonick:

Even as the United States continues to experience its longest economic expansion since World War II, concern is growing that soaring corporate debt will make the economy susceptible to a contraction that could get out of control. The root cause of this concern is the trillions of dollars that major U.S. corporations have spent on open-market repurchases — aka “stock buybacks” — since the financial crisis a decade ago. In 2018 alone, with corporate profits bolstered by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, companies in the S&P 500 Index did a combined $806 billion in buybacks, about $200 billion more than the previous record set in 2007. The $370 billion in repurchases which these companies did in the first half of 2019 is on pace for total annual buybacks that are second only to 2018. When companies do these buybacks, they deprive themselves of the liquidity that might help them cope when sales and profits decline in an economic downturn.

Pretty spot-on. Three months later, COVID lockdowns would start and the debt picture wasn't pretty -- especially among the shadow banks. So another massive bailout was needed...again.

So much for free market capitalist fantasies.

Regarding the OP:

The investment in the knowledge base that makes a company competitive goes far beyond R&D expenditures. In fact, in 2018, only 43% of companies in the S&P 500 Index recorded any R&D expenses, with just 38 companies accounting for 75% of the R&D spending of all 500 companies. Whether or not a firm spends on R&D, all companies have to invest broadly and deeply in the productive capabilities of their employees in order to remain competitive in global markets.

Stock buybacks made as open-market repurchases make no contribution to the productive capabilities of the firm. Indeed, these distributions to shareholders, which generally come on top of dividends, disrupt the growth dynamic that links the productivity and pay of the labor force. The results are increased income inequity, employment instability, and anemic productivity.

Buybacks’ drain on corporate treasuries has been massive. The 465 companies in the S&P 500 Index in January 2019 that were publicly listed between 2009 and 2018 spent, over that decade, $4.3 trillion on buybacks, equal to 52% of net income, and another $3.3 trillion on dividends, an additional 39% of net income. In 2018 alone, even with after-tax profits at record levels because of the Republican tax cuts, buybacks by S&P 500 companies reached an astounding 68% of net income, with dividends absorbing another 41%.

Harvard Business Review

So why is this happening?

Why have U.S. companies done these massive buybacks? With the majority of their compensation coming from stock options and stock awards, senior corporate executives have used open-market repurchases to manipulate their companies’ stock prices to their own benefit and that of others who are in the business of timing the buying and selling of publicly listed shares. Buybacks enrich these opportunistic share sellers — investment bankers and hedge-fund managers as well as senior corporate executives — at the expense of employees, as well as continuing shareholders.

This answers the question of the thread: the profits are being shipped to shareholders at the rate of about 90%.

That's where the profits go. At the expense of everyone else.

We need some kind of electoral reform to do away with fist past the post voting systems that always result in a two-party system. — bert1

It is indeed strange that we’re one of only a few developed countries that don’t have a labor party or something similar. We have, as many others have pointed out, two factions of one party: the corporate party. I think destroying that is a good idea. Whether that means electoral reform, I don’t know.

The laffer curve. Lol. Do people still take that nonsense seriously?

Why the Laffer Curve Is Garbage

Not only have numerous studies and authors debunked these economic underpinnings, but the model itself is an unreliable predictor of economic outcomes.

There has never been a conclusive study that demonstrates a connection between lowered tax rates on the wealthy and GDP growth or increased tax receipts. During the 1940s and the 1970s, the top marginal tax rate was anywhere between 70 percent and 94 percent. In this same period, we experienced the largest GDP growth our country has ever seen, and we were able to invest in the future of our children, economy and environment.

After the 1980s, when the top marginal tax rate began its steady decline, we haven’t seen nearly the GDP gains that we saw during our post-World War II boom. Currently, our top marginal tax rate rests at 39.6 percent.

To understand why The Laffer Curve is garbage economics, we need to look past first order consequences. Rather, we need to try to determine the second and third level effects of the given cause.

Let’s say the top tax rate is a punishing 99 percent of income over $5 million, but all other aspects of the tax code are intact. These income earners are unlikely to take a dollar over that $5 million, but the excess money doesn’t simply evaporate – it came to them through profits the business.

There are two places where this money could go: back into the business or the hands of employees. Shareholders benefit either way, through increased capital reserve or infrastructure investment or happier, better-paid labor. That is one very important purpose of a strong progressive tax structure – it incentivizes those on the top to take less for themselves and invest in their business.

Adjusting income tax rates does not completely remediate the problem. Capital earners pay nearly half of what top income earners pay. It is these capital earners who most distort our economic and political systems. As a result of this tax schema, the share of the economic pie the wealthy command is metastasizing. We need to revisit how we tax capital, too.

Sure. And you could keep your Twitter-level posts out of conversations in which you’re not involved and have no interest in keeping up with. So I guess we can all improve ourselves! :wink:

For the record, at best one might say China is state-capitalist, like the US. But “socialist market economy” is probably the most accurate in the end. State intervention is rather extensive, I’d day.

Anyway- This thread is a good example of how important (and clearly unexamined) one’s self-serving definitions are. And how quickly capitalist apologists devolve into laughable incoherence.

Successful economy? That’s capitalism.
Failed economy? Socialism.

Easy. Simple.

This is the level of thinking among supposed adults on a philosophy forum. ::shrug::

So they’re mixed economies
— Xtrix

Sure. Japan and S. Korea are capitalist countries. — frank

Sure. Japan and South Korea are socialist countries.

It just means industry is privately owned and profit driven as opposed to a centrally planned. — frank

Massive state intervention on every level is…capitalism. Got it.

China's prosperity is a direct result of the adoption of capitalism. — frank

:lol:

China isn’t capitalist either.

But you’re welcome to your fantasies.

Average argument of a socialist. — javi2541997

your brainwashed claims! — javi2541997

fake news or Marxist liars who want to spread their fundamentalism. — javi2541997

you enjoy poverty and you see formidable the struggle of a country which suffers from dictatorship. — javi2541997

Cuba? Because you seem obsessed with this country. — javi2541997

:ok:

“Or feel free to continue spouting nonsense. Your call.”

So you went with this option. Oh well!

You probably have to define profits here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Net earnings. The “bottom line.”

Payments out to owners, either dividends if stock has been issued, or profit sharing for partnerships. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or buybacks, which are gargantuan. Together with dividends they account for 90% of where the profits go. Wasn’t always that way, but in the neoliberal era it is. We see the results.

But obviously the rationale for owner control gets less and less compelling as the company gets larger and the owners less involved in operations. At a certain size, labor should have a say in profit use. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I would argue they should have a say at any size. But yes, I’m mostly talking about multinational corporations — S&P 500, etc. Not small businesses.

Beat me to it, but looking at bailouts — especially in 2009 — shows that the wealthy really have no risks— they’re fine no matter what. They’re too big to fail.

A nice non sequitur. Feel free to read what was said and try again:

Japan too developed as a state-directed economy, with a huge shot in the arm from the Korean and Vietnam wars.

There’s plenty of literature on the true history of development: Ha-Joon Chang, Alice Amsden, Robert Wade, many others. The fact that from England, to the US, to Europe and Japan and the recent Asian “tigers,” large-scale state intervention and radical interference with markets has been a leading factor in economic development. In the US it’s so extreme that it’s laughable.

So they’re mixed economies— like the rest of the world. — Xtrix

Possibly helpful:

Two mental giants. One thinks Cuba has no markets or private property, the other thinks the existence of a corporation proves the economy is “capitalist.” :lol:

According to your own economical criteria what the hell are they? Because they are so far for being communist. — javi2541997

I never said they were communist.

Japan too developed as a state-directed economy, with a huge shot in the arm from the Korean and Vietnam wars.

There’s plenty of literature on the true history of development: Ha-Joon Chang, Alice Amsden, Robert Wade, many others. The fact that from England, to the US, to Europe and Japan and the recent Asian “tigers,” large-scale state intervention and radical interference with markets has been a leading factor in economic development. In the US it’s so extreme that it’s laughable.

So they’re mixed economies— like the rest of the world.

What is the main issue of Cuban poverty then? — javi2541997

The United States.

Because Cuba does have markets and private property.
— Xtrix

No, they haven't. — javi2541997

Cuba has both markets and private property. That’s a fact. You can do a simple Google search to educate yourself.

Or continue embarrassing yourself. Your choice.

Only if you leave of your comfort democratic capitalist zone and go to Cuba to prove how good they are living there :yum: — javi2541997

I’ve been to Cuba. I liked it a lot, actually. I like Jamaica as well. I noticed a lot more poverty in Jamaica, but both were nice.

So let me know when you’ve done the bare minimum of homework on issues you have no clue about.

Or feel free to continue spouting nonsense. Your call.

So now you want to compare pictures? Are you 15?

Simple google search of Cuba:





Looks good to me. I guess that proves something…

What next? Should we measure penis sizes?

:roll:

Try growing up and educating yourself before embarrassing yourself online repeatedly. Deal?

already pointed out Japan and South Korea as a good examples of developed nations but you consider them as "meaningless". — javi2541997

Japan and South Korea are not meaningless.
They are not capitalist.

I think the one who is missing the point is you because you think that a country like Cuba has markets and private property. — javi2541997

Because Cuba does have markets and private property.

Come on... they don't even have medical supplies. — javi2541997

They have medical supplies as well.

So are you just going to talk nonsense now? If so, I’m not interested.

What is "meaningless" according to you then? — javi2541997

Try reading what I wrote again.

But if that’s too hard, I’ll repeat it yet again: the terms “capitalism” and “socialism” are so amorphous as to be meaningless.

Yes both countries are so similar... come on man. — javi2541997

I didn’t say they were similar, I was just highlighting how stupid it is to point to pictures of poverty as if it means anything. The reason for Cuba’s poverty isn’t socialism or communism.

The statistics you give are estimates, but there’s a lot of poverty in Cuba, no doubt. The United States has helped create that poverty, in fact. For decades. You can read about this, of course.