Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
bullcrap!! common sense regulations can be put in place. the problem is that both sides of the isle have knee jerk reactions to issues, and start pushing a regulation that would prevent a particular problem from ever happening again, in theory.
Common sense yes. But common sense is not THAT common. Businesses would prefer ZERO regulations.
You know exactly what I meant with my example. If we lower taxes its not going to result in job creation, just more money in your pocket, and if businesses want to do that, go knock yourself out, but spare me on the lower taxes leads to job creation BS.
rubbish. when tax rates were lowered in 2001 ans 2003, we had 54 straight months of job growth, and an ultimate unemployment rate of just under 5%. same thing during the reagan years, we had job growth after taxes were lowered. this however is a different time from then. we are in an economic recession and as such businesses are reluctant to invest, especially since they dont know what is going to happen with the tax rates, and obamacare, and what new regulations this administration is going impose on business.
business needs certainty before they invest. get that certainty, and watch the investments happen. and i dont mean what will happen in the next year or two, but rather what is going to happen in the next five to ten years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Common sense yes. But common sense is not THAT common. Businesses would prefer ZERO regulations.
wrong, businesses want those common sense regulations. why? because it helps eliminate frivolous lawsuits. all they have to do is prove that they have complied with the regulations, and the lawsuits end up with no merit. regulations also level the playing field for all businesses. it means that their competitor down the street has no advantage over them.
The theory is that cutting taxes will allow business owners to keep more of their profits after taxes to invest in infrastructure, buy more equipment, open another store etc. The reality is, they never do this. They give themselves higher salaries, bigger pay to executives, and more dividend payments to stockholders. its a talking point that they keep promoting and for some reason democrats have never been to sell to the public that its a load of crap.
Uh, not quite. This is a similar situation to how people like nighttrain blame everything on Bush despite there being a Democrat congress, then excuse Obama's failures by blaming the obstructionist Republican congress.
They put choking regulatory roadblocks in front of economic progess, then ignore that fact and claim that trickle down economics didn't work.
When you create a positive climate for business, then the economy improves. Obviously, trickle down economics isn't going to work no matter how low you set taxes if you turn around and make it burdensome and complicated to operate a business. Or if you threaten to raise the taxes again later.
I mean Obama tried to pass cap & trade and did pass Obamacare and then made speeches against businesses sitting on their money instead of investing it. Duh.
wrong, businesses want those common sense regulations. why? because it helps eliminate frivolous lawsuits.
Like I said, common sense is not that common. Color me surprised that businesses want regulations that are designed to protect them, as in... regulate people, deregulate business.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.
Look at it this way. How much does a loaf of bread cost? Who sets the cost of a loaf of bread?
A loaf of bread is sold at a price which incorporates all of its costs plus profits. Its costs are going to include taxes.
If hypothetically the costs of making bread is $.90, and the expected profits are $.10($1 a loaf of bread).. And then you raised taxes for the producer, and now the costs of making bread is suddenly $1.00 a loaf. Are they going to just take no profits at all?
No, they are going to raise the price of a loaf of bread from $1 to $1.10. And the people who will actually be paying for the increased tax on bread, is the consumer, not the producer.
There are only a few ways to deal with the "rich/poor" dynamic.
1) You can promote more competition. More competition means that profit margins will most likely be very small.
2) You can have the government set the price of goods and/or profit margins. Thus in the bread scenario before, the government could prevent the price of bread from rising from $1 to $1.10, and maybe instead peg prices at $1.05, to cut the profits of producers in half.
Of course, I would rather a policy that promotes competition. I think any attempt to regulate the market does more harm than good.
No I don't have a fundamentsl midunderstsnding at all. What I have is a clear vision of vast numbers of underpaid working people in the USA producing huge profits for the owners. My fundamental observation is that many sectors of the American economy are still nothing much better than exploitation machines. Squeezing the most out of workers and returning the least possible.
You know, the owner class cries the blues about any improvment in their workers lives. They truely are like a bunch of freakin Scrooges. They are also mostly full of BS when they make any comments at all on reforms in employment standards. A few years ago in Alberta there wee so many decent jobs available that the local MacDonalds had to pay $20 an hour for burger flippers. How many MacDonalds do you suppose went out of business? NONE did, the owners just had to make do with a little less profit.
All trickle down economics really is, is an attempt at keeping the most money possible at the top using a whole variety of ways and means to acchieve that goal. Labour law, taxation, trade barriers and what ever else they can rig to unbalance the playing field in their favour.
Right who cares if supply is way up when no one wants to purchase the product. Make a quality product or offer a service the people want at a fair price and you'll have a winner.
I agree, and the consumer has to have a job where he or she can afford to purchase that product too. It's just sad that the corporations would rather outsource to increase their profit margins but not think about the laid off employees or low wage earning employees working for them.
Right who cares if supply is way up when no one wants to purchase the product. Make a quality product or offer a service the people want at a fair price and you'll have a winner.
A slave who is thirsty whose master has decided shall not have fresh water has nothing to do with the quality of fresh water. Buying power is a necessary element in "market demand".
But how silly does that sound? What company says well I'm only making 1 million a year but if I can get a tax break I'll make 2 million so I can leave America and go elsewhere. Did the tax say the company is forced to move to take advantage of the tax break? Of course not. A company goes where the profits are, that's how they stay in business. Nothing stops companies from leaving except incentives to stay and profitability.
The reason they left is because they can make more money elsewhere if they can make more money here they'd stay. It's that easy.
I get your point. But, our government gives these same corporations tax breaks to remain profitable in the USA. That was my point in my original post.
I find the term, Trickle down" offensive to the max. What it means is while the benefits of all econmic activity FLOW to those who already have 90% of everything, the dregs of what is left over after they buy their 5th home their 15th car and pad their forever estate with a few more tens of millions, these dregs finally end up in the hands of those who do all of the work creating the wealth. Do you have a minimum wage job? Well if you do then you should thank those who take most of the friuts of economic activity that they are allowing you a job. If not for them you could be living in a cardboard box or under a bridge or something. Now as bad as things are for the working poor these economic parasites want to make it worse for you. Social programmes, "Get rid of them all" government pensions, "Give them to us to manage, cut pillage and rape" Political reform, "No way, we like controlling everything with our 1% minority".
How about a "trickle up", economic policy?
Ha ha ha, and very good point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
