The article should have discussed the failure to use SOX in the broader theme of its UN-use against a parade of obvious targets. As it stands, it gives the impression that the SOX-silence at DOJ is Dimon-specific, rather than systemic vis a vis the finance titans who essentially own/fund DOJ, SEC and the other “regulators.”

Obviously, under an unconflicted Department of Justice and/or SEC there is no doubt that a SOX action against Dimon would have been deemed appropriate, warranted and just.

Can’t tell who your question was aimed at but, in case it was me:

“And how do any of these systems work when there is no growth to be had? Do you have any suggestions for our present circumstances where no more economic growth is possible due to ecological collapse?…”

Mathematically the system doesn’t change, only the inputs and outputs change.

Are you suggesting that our current problems have more to do with banging up against resource limitations than bad money management?

“… In fact I think we’ll be lucky if we can coast this century with even zero growth instead of terminal, rapid degrowth…”

I agree that long-term (maybe even medium and short-term) we have to be looking at a steady-state non-growth based economy. Read Buckminster Fuller among others.

Seems to me that this will require a non-profit system since accumulating wealth requires growth.

Rapid degrowth is fine provided we don’t starve 90% of the planet to do it.

Can any of your theories account for the reality that we face?

I haven’t proposed any theories. I’ve stated that there is a simple uncontroversial a mathematical relationship between economic growth and monetary growth in a monetary economy. The economy can’t grow without expansion (or recirculation/redistribution)of the fuel that powers it.

Money. Persistent money, not credit. The natural flow of money is from consumers to producers, not the reverse. When the producers have all of the money through extraction of profit from the system what will happen then (assuming we don’t create more)?

What I have stated is in fact in paradigm with reality. The natural state of the economy is equilibrium in the form of inactivity. At rest, like what happens with a car when you take your foot of fthe gas.

Under capitalism, the system requires money to be input to maintain a steady-state out of equilibrium condition, economic activity.

When most of the money is hoarded by the few, how do you think the system will respond?

If inflation takes off, which will probably occur if China weakens, Europe fails and devaluates and the US starts to rebuild itself, incomes will finally increase… unless the population lets the 1% keep the loot. The ones who would gain would be the workers. That means a generational wealth transfer.

The next time the economy tanks, rates won’t get cut, companies unable to refi will fail, M&A will soar, capacity will shrink and this will generate inflation.

In a few years, Americans will start to buy houses again and debt creation will happen.

IMO, the reason why changes are not happening is because the top 15% minus the top 5% have enough to retire but not enough to lose to be able to keep on going the way they have. They are 50+ and they don’t want a redistribution to occur in their lifetime. If there is a redistribution, only the top 5% will be able to keep on on going the way they have been. North Amercians in the top 10-20% most probably have created themselves lives that are too big for what they afford long term. And now they are stuck.

So the problem is not only the top 1%, it’s also the top 15% that is still clinging to their overpriced lifestyles.

A universal bailout would reduce relative wealth disparity without making anyone poorer. Example: A has $100,000 and B has only $1000. The wealth ration is 100 to 1. Now give both A and B $100,000. The wealth ration is now only 1.089 to 1 yet A is not any poorer at least not in nominal terms!

* * *

Oh noez!!!! The Supreme Court!!!!!