ElasticNinja
Android Expert
didnt their Reagan cut social programs and ended the poverty reduction that had started after WWII?
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Ayn Rand.
- Thread starter Snow_Fox
- Start date
didnt their Reagan cut social programs and ended the poverty reduction that had started after WWII?
Thanks for reminding me of one of his great quotes:
"My friends, some years ago the federal government declared war on poverty - and poverty won."
Ok, let's put some of this to bed shall we.
The poverty rate started rising during the Oil Embargo (that's late 70's, before Reagan took office).
The poverty rate continued a continuous climb through 1982. The poverty rate was the same from 1982 through 1983, and started to decline again through 1989.
3devious
Android Expert
That proves you didn't read it! LOL. Just pulling your chain a little bit. I read it and enjoyed it (well maybe not the 100 page speech.)
Anyone who knows anything about the world and people in it understands that no one is entirely good or entirely bad as they're made out to be.
No, I am not kidding about the speech and yes, you wouldn't miss anything by skipping it.
Respectfully disagree.
byteware said:
Are you serious? How about the the socialization of business risk, while keeping the profits private? Who exactly did you think benefited from things like TARP? Sure it probably kept the economy from becoming complete toxic waste, but the ownership of the financial structure in this country was bailed out at the expense of everyone else.
Or how about the offshoring of jobs? The middle class in the country is slowly being wiped out because businesses are relentlessly pursing the lowest wages they can find. This is done in direct response to the relentless insistence by stockholders on short-term gains.
byteware said:
And anyone who believes that the Social Security trust fund will be repayed is a fool. It has been clear from day 1 that it was nothing more than a Congressional dodge to raise money without raising taxes. Experts have been railing for years that the money for the trust fund was being spent, but people kept right on electing the same clowns who spent it. What will happen is that eligibility will be tightened and benefits will be cut such that repayment won't be done.
byteware said:
Maybe you should take your own advice instead of believing your are continually correct about everything.
Who benefited from TARP? You did. Anyone with a job did. Did businesses? Yes. However, so did you.
So, let me get this straight... you think businesses offshore jobs so that they can keep the workforce in the US poor?
They offshore jobs because it's more economical to do so.
Intel's Otellini Calls For More U.S. Investment in Technology - Forward Thinking by Michael J. Miller
It costs a billion dollars more to build a factory in the US than it does to build one in a foreign country. That's Billion with a B.
I'm sure we all have principles, but come on... at some point it's financially STUPID to do things in this country, just to do them in this country.
You misunderstand quite a bit. At some point, when the SS taxes are insufficient to pay for SS, the government will have to start borrowing money to pay for SS... that borrowed money will flow into the General fund, and from there go to SS. It's not a repayment. The government cannot, and will not do that... it's just keeping them afloat.
I do my research Hangdog...
byteware said:
So we're all supposed to blindly accept that all a business has to do is get big enough to dent the economy, and then they can operate risk free? No matter how stupidly they behave their profits are theirs but the risk belongs to everyone? That isn't a free market, that is a kleptocracy.
byteware said:
And at some point it is socially STUPID to allow the middle class to vanish. Manufacturing has been brutalized by outsourcing, and those were jobs that sustained a large portion of the middle class. Even people like Andy Grove (you know, one of those guys building factories that cost a billion) recognize that outsourcing is national suicide because not only do you lose the manufacturing capability, you lose the ability to do the innovation that goes along with manufacturing. In other words, you start falling behind exponentially faster. At what point does the good of the country start outweighing the good of the business owners?
byteware said:
Maybe you misunderstand. If push comes to shove, it is a very real possibility that those bonds won't be repayed. At very least eligibility will be so tightened that the Social Security Trust Fund will only minimally have to dip into their bond holdings.
Do you or do you just find stuff that agrees with your pre-ordained positions?
That's an entirely different issue.
I personally feel that any company "too big to fail" that the government has to bail out should be forcibly broken up by the government so that it doesn't have to bail it out again. The leadership should be replaced from the top down, and each smaller company should be let loose as it becomes profitable again. All "golden" parachute contracts should become null and void, and the leadership of those companies should be personally liable for any losses the government incurs while saving the company.
That's my personal opinion.
Being bailed out by the government should be a painful process. Very Very painful.
You cannot force companies to commit financial suicide. Otherwise, you will lose the middle class AND All the American companies that provide their jobs.
What you CAN do is make operating in the US attractive. We haven't done that. If you want companies to continue bringing jobs to the US, then it has to make BUSINESS Sense for them to do so.
That, unfortunately, means lowering business taxes, and giving business incentives for creating jobs in the US.
I have no pre-ordained positions here, at least on this topic.
I lean conservative, but that's just me.
Businesses and rich people don't want the US to be a nation of poor people. That's rhetoric, and a lie. They need wealth in this nation for us to buy things from them for them to get richer.
They don't want us all to be poor. They would prefer us all to be upper middle class. That's just the way it is.
That doesn't mean that they are willing to sacrifice themselves and lose their businesses to get us there.
We aren't in a class war. Rich people don't think about you when they make business decisions. They think about what's best for them. If you want them to do what's best for this nation, then you have to make what's best for THIS nation the same as what's best for them.
JimmyRayBob
Android Enthusiast
I agree with this, with one exception: the word "unfortunately". Why is it unfortunate to lower business taxes and to give business incentives to create US Jobs? Those exact jobs will more than make up for lower taxes very easily.
I like to hear more of these businesses in the US paying taxes.
I'm not aware of any.
I'm not aware of any.
3devious
Android Expert
You really believe that businesses don't pay taxes here? While they may not pay their fair share of them, it is hard to believe that they do not pay any at all. I would like to see evidence of a profitable business that has paid no taxes. (OK, I wouldn't like it but it would be interesting.)
I would personally like to remove ALL Business taxes on money spent in the US.
I would personally like to impose a 50% tax on money US businesses send outside the US for any reason, other than charity.
I would personally like to impose taxes on savings that companies keep back for a certain period of time.
This will keep money in the US economy and keep that money flowing through the economy.
These are just some things off the top of my head, but I think things like this would help keep jobs here, and more jobs. Lots more jobs.
3devious
Android Expert
I don't know about that. I would prefer that the businesses pay a local tax on all of the areas they operate in. Large employers/retailers put a strain on our resources and they should help pay for the things they affect.
If your goal is to create jobs, I would like to see the companies who outsource have to reimport their goods and services and that we impose an appropriate tariff on them. Perhaps we shouldn't work out shady deals with foreign companies who export stuff to us but apply tariffs universally even to local companies who outsource internationally.
If they want to employ people outside of the US, they should be able to work on products for external countries with no penalty from us but once those goods come to the US, we should apply the same tariff to them as we would if the company were owned and operated completely outside of the US.
If your goal is to create jobs, I would like to see the companies who outsource have to reimport their goods and services and that we impose an appropriate tariff on them. Perhaps we shouldn't work out shady deals with foreign companies who export stuff to us but apply tariffs universally even to local companies who outsource internationally.
If they want to employ people outside of the US, they should be able to work on products for external countries with no penalty from us but once those goods come to the US, we should apply the same tariff to them as we would if the company were owned and operated completely outside of the US.
Tariffs are a zero game. The more we use them, the more other countries will.
Maybe US companies exporting goods from out of the country should pay a tariff on the goods to make up for the differences in labor costs... on top of paying taxes on the money sent outside the country. That extra cost (for only US companies) would be painful enough for them to keep their business here, at least for their US clients.
JimmyRayBob
Android Enthusiast
Profitable businesses in the United States send money to the government. This money is called "taxes". It is really just another cost of doing business, much like buying the steel to make a car.
Because this is a cost of business, it is factored into the price of the product of service being made / offered.
If these taxes are lowered / eliminated, the cost to provide the product or service drops, and the business may be inclined to lower the price they charge (in a competitive market, this WILL happen).
If the taxes are raised, the price of the good / service will be raised.
If we want the businesses in the United States to keep jobs here - and to prosper, grow and hire more workers, then the tax structure must be such that it is not obviously economically feasible to make more money by moving overseas.
Because this is a cost of business, it is factored into the price of the product of service being made / offered.
If these taxes are lowered / eliminated, the cost to provide the product or service drops, and the business may be inclined to lower the price they charge (in a competitive market, this WILL happen).
If the taxes are raised, the price of the good / service will be raised.
If we want the businesses in the United States to keep jobs here - and to prosper, grow and hire more workers, then the tax structure must be such that it is not obviously economically feasible to make more money by moving overseas.
3devious
Android Expert
I will concede that for sure. Those that move everything to those shell companies should have to pay the tariff when importing their own product.
To conclude that every company does this as EarlyMon implies is dubious at best. See what I meant when I said that I wouldn't be happy to find one (not just because I would be wrong, that happens all the time.)
Thank you for pointing that out, Hangdog42.
byteware said:
No, actually it isn't a different issue at all. The companies that drove the US economy into the ground fully understood that they were too big to fail, and they acted accordingly. They knew that in the event of a disaster, they would personally not suffer because middle-class taxpayers would be forced to pick up the bill or watch the country implode.
.byteware said:
No, it shouldn't be painful, it should be completely impossible. To make it painful, no matter how painful, means that someone will count on being bailed out and can figure out a way to profit from it. Why do you think there was such a negative reaction to the Frank legislation? Because companies like making their risk someone else's problem.
byteware said:
I don't give a fig about their true motivation, their actions are what are destroying the middle class. Does it really matter if jobs are shipped overseas because it is beneficial for the company or if they do it because they want to screw people? The end result is the same.
You really need to go read Tragedy of the Commons.
I'm afraid it IS a different issue. It may be related, but SHOULD it be allowed to happen with impunity is entirely different from WHO benefited from it.
See my ideas on what should happen if the government has to step in, because you are too big to fail...
Well then you have two choices. You can either choose to A) force companies to limit their growth to a certain size. or B) Allow the US to fall into a Depression akin to the Great Depression.
Neither of those options sounds great to me.
Make it painful. Make sure the people responsible don't profit, and make sure that they personally are responsible for any losses the government incurs, and you will see that this never happens again.
Yes, it absolutely does matter. Why? Because without knowing WHY they are shipping jobs overseas, you will never EVER get them back.
This is a very good point, but I think you miss the irony of it.
The Fall of the US middle class really won't hurt Businesses all that much. They will find customers in the many emerging markets around the world.
Where The Tragedy of the commons really applies is this:
Politicians and Unions have been going after businesses in this country for their own benefit. This is driving businesses to do their business in other countries, which in turn hurts unions and constituents (which hurts politicians).
Politicians and Unions respond by doing more of what they did to drive jobs overseas in the first place.
Politicians and Unions want companies to keep jobs here, no matter how much they are mistreated. It isn't going to happen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your solution to this Tragedy of the commons is for businesses to do what's not in their self interest so that everyone else can continue to do what is in THEIR self interest. That's just not going to happen.
If you want someone to do something for YOUR self interest, you need to do something for THEIR self interest, otherwise you are just demanding that everybody only do what's best for you, and screw themselves.
byteware said:
No, it is the same issue because the people who benefited from it were the architects of it. We didn't just slide into a lassiez-faire business environment by accident, we were actively pulled there by people with a huge economic interest in socializing risk.
byteware said:
So lets see, if we allow companies to pay Chinese level wages and commit Chinese level environmental atrocities everything in this country will be hunky-dory again? Is that really what you're after? Because that is what essentially companies are saying by moving jobs to where wages are lowest and enforcement is weakest.
byteware said:
Politicians and unions aren't alone in this. Why do you think unions happened in the first place? Because rich, greedy business owners refused to recognize that workers had any rights beyond what the owners assigned. The owners were making sure they could maximize profits by keeping workers poor. Go read some history on unions and early American industrialists if you don't believe me, it is one of the uglier chapters in American history and most people today take the gains won by unions for granted. Yeah, unions got fat, lazy and stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that they were desperately needed. And would be again if businesses had their way.
byteware said:
Wrong. The problem is that we've allowed businesses to define their self interest solely in financial terms when in fact it they do owe something back to the society in which they operate. Do you really thing safety or environmental regulations would have happened without societies intervention? Do you really want to live in a world where profit is the only measure of what is worthwhile? We know what happens when you go completely lassiez-faire. You end up with China. Or the Cuyahoga river catching fire. Or sweat shops. Or child labor. Or slavery. All of those things are perfectly rational when profit is your only guideline.
Do businesses need to make a profit? Yes, capitalism is the best system for advancing humanity. But it must be recognized that capitalism isn't perfect, and it does tend towards excesses that are very, very damaging to society. And it needs to be recognized that businesses benefit from being in a stable, well run society in ways that can't be measured financially. How do you measure the financial value to a company of a predictable (or largely predictable) court system? Because the US has such a system, companies can make rational decisions and have enforceable rights. But that system isn't cheap, so don't you think that companies owe US society for the maintenance of such a system? In a purely profit driven world, it doesn't.
Your misinterpretation of the Tragedy of the Commons points out a serious void in conservative thinking, which is that they rarely recognize that rights come with responsibilities.
The entire world benefited from it.
The financial crisis threatened to plunge the Entire World into a Great Depression. Imagine not being able to buy food, or the supermarket not getting food in stock. Yeah... bad.
Don't worry, if that is what it would take to bring jobs back, then we've already lost... permanently, and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it.
Otherwise, figure out WHY the jobs are going overseas, and change the circumstances.
I know the history of Unions. I know how they began, and Why they began.
They didn't begin so that manufacturers could be forced to pay workers to go sit in a room all day and do nothing.
The Wall Street Journal Classroom Edition
When they are spending $2 Billion on employees that aren't working... you really wonder why they ship jobs overseas?
First off, they don't owe you anything. They simply don't. You want them to owe you something, because you want something from them. This is the biggest disjoint between your thinking and mine. Businesses don't owe you a darn thing, but a paycheck if you work for them.
Rights have responsibilities. None of them are to keep jobs in the US. They don't have that responsibility. You want them to. Fine. They don't. You want them to keep jobs in the US. Fine. Give them reason to.
I don't have a responsibility to buy from American companies that make crappy stuff. I will buy their products when they make products worth buying.
Nobody owes you nothing.
It's reality. If you make it cheaper to hire lobbyists and accountants than paying taxes, what outcomes do you expect?
It extends to small businesses as well, believe me, or talk to an owner.
Been this way for years. Many, many years.
3devious
Android Expert
I did that and it isn't always true.
Nothing's 100%, but it's more true than not. Small businesses tend to start at 35% tax, minimum, then rise from there - on profit, not income. Many owners therefore will bonus that to themselves and employees - business net doesn't change, and the owners and employees pay a lower percentage to the IRS as personal taxes. Very, very common.
Back in the 70s, that report linked above didn't list the top 35 - it listed the top 100 in the US, and none - zero - of them paid taxes.
All this talk of tax reform for businesses you hear every four years is nothing more than rhetoric for those us who count as cannon fodder in the tax system.
Most of the taxes the big boys pay is simply taxes that have been passed up from us, the end-point of consumption.
You don't have to like it, but it's a simple truth.
Back in the 70s, that report linked above didn't list the top 35 - it listed the top 100 in the US, and none - zero - of them paid taxes.
All this talk of tax reform for businesses you hear every four years is nothing more than rhetoric for those us who count as cannon fodder in the tax system.
Most of the taxes the big boys pay is simply taxes that have been passed up from us, the end-point of consumption.
You don't have to like it, but it's a simple truth.