If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Obama to CEOs "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" CEOs to Obama: "We will let you give us tax breaks"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 220
    More: Obvious, President Obama, protection agency, gasoline taxes, Business Roundtable, tax breaks, shareholder value, trade agreement, bondholders  
•       •       •

4804 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2011 at 4:40 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



220 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-02-08 01:13:13 PM
CEOs to Obama: "We will let you give us tax breaks"

But we won't look at you while we fark you
 
2011-02-08 01:27:08 PM
Speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the president urged the business community to help accelerate the slow economic recovery by increasing hiring and unleashing some of the $2 trillion piling up on their balance sheets.

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane. so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. they care about one thing: maximum profits. that's it. they don't care about jobs, they don't care about approval ratings, they don't care about morality or ethics. they care about money. they care about how much money they've got, how much they have to spend and how to make more money.

grind it into your skull - corporations do. not. care. they are a necessary evil, and they can do some really great things for you and your economy...but the moment the economic situation changes, they will abandon you to your fate. Use corporations to accomplish your goals. NEVER trust them. Always assume that a corporation will f*ck you over first chance they get. If they behave, hey - that's great! But you'll want a big stick handy just in case they turn against you.

so don't try appealing to the better side of a corporation - they don't have one. instead - focus your efforts on finding ways to get corporations to accomplish your goals. if you have to lie, manipulate and/or resort to outright thuggery in order to bring a corporation to heel then do so...because if situations were reversed, a corporation can and will do so to you and your country.

welcome to the machine.
 
2011-02-08 01:34:01 PM

Aar1012: But we won't look at you while we fark you


Obama is the Dorothy Vallens for Frank Booth's CEO love ovens.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2011-02-08 01:51:36 PM
Weaver95:

That's exactly why I can't wait for the death of the for-profit motive. I'll be dead long before it, mind you, but it will be nice for whoever is alive.
 
2011-02-08 01:56:00 PM

Weaver95: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'.


Not only that, but if they do skew towards the "greater good", their shareholders will sue them, and win.
 
2011-02-08 04:42:44 PM
Tax Revenue is now lowest it has ever been as a percent of GDP.

Corporate profits are at a record level.

Yet somehow asking the rich to pay their fair share is socialism. Pfft.
 
2011-02-08 04:45:33 PM
You would think they would have the courtesy to at least give us a reach-around.
 
2011-02-08 04:47:44 PM

EatHam: Weaver95: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'.

Not only that, but if they do skew towards the "greater good", their shareholders will sue them, and win.


And yet their status as "persons" is being continually reinforced. It's only a matter of time before the US Supreme Court says that they too have the right to vote, and that one vote per thousand dollars of market capitalization seems fair.

/half-kidding
 
2011-02-08 04:48:02 PM
I hereby swear:

I will vote for the candidate that says "Yes, it is time to raise taxes and pay the bills."
 
2011-02-08 04:48:46 PM

LasersHurt: Weaver95:

That's exactly why I can't wait for the death of the for-profit motive. I'll be dead long before it, mind you, but it will be nice for whoever is alive.


Unfortunately the profit motive will only die when all human life dies, so the celebration might be a bit muted.
 
2011-02-08 04:49:47 PM

LasersHurt: Weaver95:

That's exactly why I can't wait for the death of the for-profit motive. I'll be dead long before it, mind you, but it will be nice for whoever is alive.


Perhaps when the entire nation (or planet) can agree on the one thing that can replace it.
 
2011-02-08 04:51:34 PM

Nightsweat: Tax Revenue is now lowest it has ever been as a percent of GDP.

Corporate profits are at a record level.

Yet somehow asking the rich to pay their fair share is socialism. Pfft.


not just socialism, but EVIL COMMIE class warfare socialism...

we should total give more the wealthy, they are sooooo struggling:

2.bp.blogspot.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

/if it's war, the rich are winning
 
2011-02-08 04:52:10 PM
When greedy bloodsucking companies offshore jobs, their tax rate should be raised to 100%.
 
2011-02-08 04:54:15 PM

Weaver95: Speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the president urged the business community to help accelerate the slow economic recovery by increasing hiring and unleashing some of the $2 trillion piling up on their balance sheets.

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane. so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. they care about one thing: maximum profits. that's it. they don't care about jobs, they don't care about approval ratings, they don't care about morality or ethics. they care about money. they care about how much money they've got, how much they have to spend and how to make more money.

grind it into your skull - corporations do. not. care. they are a necessary evil, and they can do some really great things for you and your economy...but the moment the economic situation changes, they will abandon you to your fate. Use corporations to accomplish your goals. NEVER trust them. Always assume that a corporation will f*ck you over first chance they get. If they behave, hey - that's great! But you'll want a big stick handy just in case they turn against you.

so don't try appealing to the better side of a corporation - they don't have one. instead - focus your efforts on finding ways to get corporations to accomplish your goals. if you have to lie, manipulate and/or resort to outright thuggery in order to bring a corporation to heel then do so...because if situations were reversed, a corporation can and will do so to you and your country.

welcome to the machine.


And yet there are millions of Americans who have a strong faith that if we just stop regulating corporations, and we eliminate checks on their power like unions, their lives will improve and the kind, benevolent corporations really will take care of them.
 
2011-02-08 04:55:15 PM
stolen from
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Now ... let's do a quick Cliff Notes review of this man as it relates to commerce and the private markets.

Barack Obama is a man who has:

Never had to write a business plan
Never had to review a business plan to determine its worthiness
Never had to create a budget for a private business
Never had to calculate the economic worth of an existing or new employee for a business
Never had to worry about the cost of benefits provided to a business employee
Never had to worry about whether or not a business was making a profit
Never had to explain to a boss or to shareholders why a business was losing money
Never had to file a business tax return
Never had to talk to an accountant about business matters
Never had to hire an attorney to deal with business matters
Never had to worry about the effects of government regulations on a business he owns or operates
Never had to tell an employee that he was being let go because business was slow
Never had to place a "help-wanted" ad looking for a new worker
Never had to look at a list of revenues and expenses to determine how much a new employee can be paid.
Never had to face competition from a new business down the street
.... And most importantly:

Barack Obama is a man who has referred to the private sector as "the enemy." And don't think that these men and women of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn't remember that line while he was reading his teleprompter in front of them yesterday.

In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business, yet there he is telling businesses that they have to go out there and figure out how they can hire more people.
 
2011-02-08 04:56:04 PM

EatHam: Weaver95: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'.

Not only that, but if they do skew towards the "greater good", their shareholders will sue them, and win.


So you guys are for effective government regulation of businesses?
 
2011-02-08 04:56:47 PM

LasersHurt: Weaver95:

That's exactly why I can't wait for the death of the for-profit motive. I'll be dead long before it, mind you, but it will be nice for whoever is alive.


The people that try to bring about the death of the for-profit motive will be killed and their meat will be sold at auction.
 
2011-02-08 04:57:40 PM
That CEOs during the post-war era considered themselves beneficent overlords is an historical aberration. That time is not coming back - shareholders no longer look at long-term profitability, only the quarterly balance sheet. The social contract was torn up by trickle-down economics and elevation of greed as good.
 
2011-02-08 04:57:54 PM

Beeblebrox: LasersHurt: Weaver95:

That's exactly why I can't wait for the death of the for-profit motive. I'll be dead long before it, mind you, but it will be nice for whoever is alive.

Perhaps when the entire nation (or planet) can agree on the one thing that can replace it.


Probably won't happen soon. We have too many people around who seem to think, despite every other social system around having positives and negatives, capitalism is perfect, and that the thing we need to fix our current capitalism is more capitalism.
 
2011-02-08 04:58:29 PM
Welcome to the new Corporate-owned world, where forests are property of Phizer, the Oceans owned by both Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and you are property of the company you work with.

/Been reading Jeniffer Government lately
 
2011-02-08 05:00:22 PM

macdaddy357: When greedy bloodsucking companies offshore jobs, their tax rate should be raised to 100%.


You get a tax break for that. No kidding.
 
2011-02-08 05:01:43 PM

macdaddy357: When greedy bloodsucking companies offshore jobs, their tax rate should be raised to 100%.


This is why we can't have rational discussion about limiting corporate influence.
 
2011-02-08 05:03:18 PM
Give them a tax amnesty on all new hires. I know, I know. That wouldn't punish them for being rich.
 
2011-02-08 05:03:30 PM

edlmco: In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business


George W. Bush ran a number of businesses. He really helped our country out.
 
2011-02-08 05:03:45 PM

edlmco: In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business, yet there he is telling businesses that they have to go out there and figure out how they can hire more people.


And Yet a large percent of the Republicans would rather have bigger morons like Sarah Palin in office. People who not only lack the things you just listed, but are even less educated.
 
2011-02-08 05:04:54 PM

edlmco: stolen from
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Now ... let's do a quick Cliff Notes review of this man as it relates to commerce and the private markets.

Barack Obama is a man who has:

Never had to write a business plan
Never had to review a business plan to determine its worthiness
Never had to create a budget for a private business
Never had to calculate the economic worth of an existing or new employee for a business
Never had to worry about the cost of benefits provided to a business employee
Never had to worry about whether or not a business was making a profit
Never had to explain to a boss or to shareholders why a business was losing money
Never had to file a business tax return
Never had to talk to an accountant about business matters
Never had to hire an attorney to deal with business matters
Never had to worry about the effects of government regulations on a business he owns or operates
Never had to tell an employee that he was being let go because business was slow
Never had to place a "help-wanted" ad looking for a new worker
Never had to look at a list of revenues and expenses to determine how much a new employee can be paid.
Never had to face competition from a new business down the street
.... And most importantly:

Barack Obama is a man who has referred to the private sector as "the enemy." And don't think that these men and women of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn't remember that line while he was reading his teleprompter in front of them yesterday.

In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business, yet there he is telling businesses that they have to go out there and figure out how they can hire more people.


So when people do research on diseases, they must first have the disease? I don't understand the point of your post? Obama wasn't elected to be a god damn CEO.
 
2011-02-08 05:06:10 PM

edlmco:
Never had to write a business plan
Never had to review a business plan to determine its worthiness
Never had to create a budget for a private business
Never had to calculate the economic worth of an existing or new employee for a business
Never had to worry about the cost of benefits provided to a business employee
Never had to worry about whether or not a business was making a profit
Never had to explain to a boss or to shareholders why a business was losing money
Never had to file a business tax return
Never had to talk to an accountant about business matters
Never had to hire an attorney to deal with business matters
Never had to worry about the effects of government regulations on a business he owns or operates
Never had to tell an employee that he was being let go because business was slow
Never had to place a "help-wanted" ad looking for a new worker
Never had to look at a list of revenues and expenses to determine how much a new employee can be paid.
Never had to face competition from a new business down the street
.... And most importantly:

Barack Obama is a man who has referred to the private sector as "the enemy." And don't think that these men and women of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn't remember that line while he was reading his teleprompter in front of them yesterday.

In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business, yet there he is telling businesses that they have to go out there and figure out how they can hire more people.


You really think Obama sits behind a desk and comes up with all this stuff from his own head? That he doesn't have cadres of staffers, handlers, and talking heads shaping everything about his agenda?

Obama is the symbol of the presidency and thus the de facto scapegoat for much of the nation's problems (as it is for every president), but one of the biggest things I took away from a class on the presidency I took as an undergrad was how little control he actually has. He didn't even write the speech you heard.

Kinda like how you hear about how Cheney was Bush's puppetmaster. Just because Obama may not have done those things doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people on his staff who have, and a lot of lobbyists making sure he's aware of those issues. I suspect he has some idea in the universe...
 
2011-02-08 05:06:10 PM

edlmco: Barack Obama is a man who has referred to the private sector as "the enemy." And don't think that these men and women of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn't remember that line while he was reading his teleprompter in front of them yesterday.


Maybe you'd like Bush back? You know, the guy who was adept at running companies into the ground.
 
2011-02-08 05:06:54 PM

edlmco: stolen from
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Now ... let's do a quick Cliff Notes review of this man as it relates to commerce and the private markets.

*snipcopypastawhargarbl*


And? Dubya sure as hell never did that. Clinton, either. Neither did Reagan. I think Bush I and Carter did, though. Huh, both one-termers, too. Odd that.

Basically, to be President, everyone should have experienced and be an expert on every bootstrappy thing possible- or, barring that, you can spin their minimal/non-existent experience as being groundshaking in nature. I'm guessing you generally go with option #2.
 
2011-02-08 05:07:02 PM

edlmco: [a bunch of never statements clipped for space]

Barack Obama is a man who has referred to the private sector as "the enemy." And don't think that these men and women of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn't remember that line while he was reading his teleprompter in front of them yesterday.

In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business, yet there he is telling businesses that they have to go out there and figure out how they can hire more people.


yeah, i'm pretty sure he's probably more done a couple of those in his pre-socialist dictator days...also, for the majority of americans the private sector is the enemy. corporation would love longer working hours, less safety regulation, no consumer protections, etc. if you don't want to live in a third world country you have to fight corporations. as Weaver95 said they are farking evil and out to kill you. that's their job.

/hell, i've hired attorneys & accountants and hired people
 
2011-02-08 05:07:31 PM

LasersHurt: Weaver95:

That's exactly why I can't wait for the death of the for-profit motive. I'll be dead long before it, mind you, but it will be nice for whoever is alive.


Are you a non-profit photographer or something?
 
2011-02-08 05:07:48 PM
solution:

remove limited liability from corporate owners and stockholders

the problem will fix itself

(also remove immunity from police, judges and prosecutors)
 
2011-02-08 05:08:34 PM
edlmco


In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business, yet there he is telling businesses that they have to go out there and figure out how they can hire more people.


*shrugs*

All oncology doctors have had cancer
All IVF doctors are infertile

Don't be greedy pricks that destroy America seems to be an okay message to me.

Whatever...
 
2011-02-08 05:09:12 PM
Somebody needs to give the "ask what you can do for your country" speech to the politicians themselves. Too many (all?) get into the government biz solely to benefit themselves and their buddies.
 
2011-02-08 05:09:38 PM

RembrandtQEinstein: remove limited liability from corporate owners and stockholders


So when a company farks up and gets caught doing something illegal, every shareholder gets to go to jail?

Great plan there.
 
2011-02-08 05:09:46 PM
holy crap, you're gonna need a bigger boat.
 
2011-02-08 05:12:37 PM
Cut all taxes to zero, and all problems go away.
IT'S SIMPLE F*CKING ECONOMICS, DUMBASSES!!!!
 
2011-02-08 05:13:02 PM

Shakin_Haitian: So when people do research on diseases, they must first have the disease? I don't understand the point of your post? Obama wasn't elected to be a god damn CEO.


No, but the doctor working on you better know how a body works and what makes diseases go away.

Obama doesn't know how a capitalist economy works. Neither do the people railing against the "profit motive." It's like they're a second-year pre-med bio major trying to perform open heart surgery while blindfolded.
 
2011-02-08 05:15:01 PM

edlmco:
In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business, yet there he is telling businesses that they have to go out there and figure out how they can hire more people.


Yes, so what the US needs is another pair of CEOs (of oil companies again preferably) for President and VP! That'll fix the economy!
 
2011-02-08 05:15:10 PM

Weaver95: look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane. so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. they care about one thing: maximum profits. that's it.


Yep, this is about as clear and concise a statement you can get about Capitalism.

So it seems to me that we as a nation need to answer this question: Is the economy going to serve us are are we merely here to serve the economy?
 
2011-02-08 05:16:20 PM

edlmco: stolen from
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Now ... let's do a quick Cliff Notes review of this man as it relates to commerce and the private markets.

Barack Obama is a man who has:

Never had to write a business plan
Never had to review a business plan to determine its worthiness
Never had to create a budget for a private business
Never had to calculate the economic worth of an existing or new employee for a business
Never had to worry about the cost of benefits provided to a business employee
Never had to worry about whether or not a business was making a profit
Never had to explain to a boss or to shareholders why a business was losing money
Never had to file a business tax return
Never had to talk to an accountant about business matters
Never had to hire an attorney to deal with business matters
Never had to worry about the effects of government regulations on a business he owns or operates
Never had to tell an employee that he was being let go because business was slow
Never had to place a "help-wanted" ad looking for a new worker
Never had to look at a list of revenues and expenses to determine how much a new employee can be paid.
Never had to face competition from a new business down the street
.... And most importantly:

Barack Obama is a man who has referred to the private sector as "the enemy." And don't think that these men and women of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn't remember that line while he was reading his teleprompter in front of them yesterday.

In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business, yet there he is telling businesses that they have to go out there and figure out how they can hire more people.


Speaking as an attorney (and I assume you're probably not one),

You are a person who:
Never construed a law
Never written a legal opinion
Never attended law school
Never taken the bar
Never interviewed a client to review the merits of a claim
Never spent hundreds of hours sitting in a law library somewhere doing research
Never written a law review article
Never studied constitutional history and constitutional law
Never filed any substantive legal document (except pro se stuff like small claims)
Never had to file a case
Never had to work 15 hours a day on a legal case

By the same coin, you have no idea in the universe what it means to analyze and speak substantively on the law, yet I'm sure you've at least said at least one law is unconstitutional (without really knowing what unconstitutionality really entails).

Also, seriously, express your own opinions. Don't steal someone else's.
 
2011-02-08 05:16:31 PM
Businesses don't exist to create jobs, Mr. President; they exist to create profit.

Of course, I wouldn't expect a person with absolutely no business acumen to know anything about that.
 
2011-02-08 05:17:10 PM

edlmco: stolen from
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Now ... let's do a quick Cliff Notes review of this man as it relates to commerce and the private markets.

Barack Obama is a man who has:

Never had to write a business plan
Never had to review a business plan to determine its worthiness
Never had to create a budget for a private business
Never had to calculate the economic worth of an existing or new employee for a business
Never had to worry about the cost of benefits provided to a business employee
Never had to worry about whether or not a business was making a profit
Never had to explain to a boss or to shareholders why a business was losing money
Never had to file a business tax return
Never had to talk to an accountant about business matters
Never had to hire an attorney to deal with business matters
Never had to worry about the effects of government regulations on a business he owns or operates
Never had to tell an employee that he was being let go because business was slow
Never had to place a "help-wanted" ad looking for a new worker
Never had to look at a list of revenues and expenses to determine how much a new employee can be paid.
Never had to face competition from a new business down the street
.... And most importantly:

Barack Obama is a man who has referred to the private sector as "the enemy." And don't think that these men and women of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn't remember that line while he was reading his teleprompter in front of them yesterday.

In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business, yet there he is telling businesses that they have to go out there and figure out how they can hire more people.


And yet, somehow I still trust him to keep the American economy fair and profitable for everyone without destroying capitalism from the inside than I do you, bootstrapper.
 
2011-02-08 05:17:13 PM

GoldSpider: RembrandtQEinstein: remove limited liability from corporate owners and stockholders

So when a company farks up and gets caught doing something illegal, every shareholder gets to go to jail?

Great plan there.


If you are supporting that illegal activity with your investment money, why shouldn't you be held responsible?
 
2011-02-08 05:17:51 PM
Reacting, Bruce Josten, the Chamber's chief lobbyist, said, "Companies first, unlike a government, have to sustain their operation and that requires being able to pay your employees, vendors, suppliers and bondholders."

"Bottom line, the most patriotic thing a company can do is ensure it is in business and take steps to stay in business; otherwise everyone loses and more people lose their jobs," he said.


Or in other words, Mister President, STFU and GBTW.
 
2011-02-08 05:18:22 PM
Pincy

So it seems to me that we as a nation need to answer this question: Is the economy going to serve us are are we merely here to serve the economy?


Be a good little consumer, serve the economy.
 
2011-02-08 05:19:03 PM
RexTalionis, while it means nothing to you, that just earned you a place on my favorites list. Well played.
 
2011-02-08 05:20:33 PM

almex: RexTalionis, while it means nothing to you, that just earned you a place on my favorites list. Well played.


Cheers, man.
 
2011-02-08 05:20:48 PM
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." - Thomas Jefferson
 
2011-02-08 05:20:49 PM

Pincy:
So it seems to me that we as a nation need to answer this question: Is the economy going to serve us are are we merely here to serve the economy?


What does this nonsense even mean? We are the economy. You are asking: are we here to serve ourselves, or are we here to serve ourselves?
 
2011-02-08 05:21:04 PM

Hydra: Obama doesn't know how a capitalist economy works. Neither do the people railing against the "profit motive." It's like they're a second-year pre-med bio major trying to perform open heart surgery while blindfolded.



I think Obama is doing it Wrong when it comes to dealing with business. On the other hand, there is a lot of simplified thought going into making decisions about business. Yes capitalism functions efficiently and it might be the right decision for a business to lay off workers, or stop hiring Americans and hire third world labor at near slave wages.

But there's only so far we as a nation can push that ideal. Sure, Bob down the street got laid off, but I'm a small business owner happily paying my bills! Go capitalism!

Then Jane gets laid off next door, then Tom across the street, then Steve a block over, then Joe on the corner. Suddenly my company manufacturing emergency raincoats is running nice and efficiently, but I have no business in America because no one can afford it, and I can't live in my own neighborhood anymore because everyone is poor and I don't feel safe.

Capitalism's fark The Neighbors attitude works fine as long as the nation is growing as a whole, but free markets mean we're going to end up with a serious underclass here at home.

The "Service Industry" accounts for a large portion of our economy already (One third I believe?). People serving captains of industry lattes at Starbucks can't afford the nice things those companies depend on for revenue.

ANd suddenly we're blaming poor people again for ruining the economy.
 
2011-02-08 05:21:27 PM
Obama to Bill O'Riley -- I do not believe in wealth redistribution>

Obama to Corp CEOs -- Company profits need to be shared with the employees.
 
2011-02-08 05:22:30 PM

edlmco: stolen from
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Now ... let's do a quick Cliff Notes review of this man as it relates to commerce and the private markets.

Barack Obama is a man who has:

Never had to write a business plan
Never had to review a business plan to determine its worthiness
Never had to create a budget for a private business
Never had to calculate the economic worth of an existing or new employee for a business
Never had to worry about the cost of benefits provided to a business employee
Never had to worry about whether or not a business was making a profit
Never had to explain to a boss or to shareholders why a business was losing money
Never had to file a business tax return
Never had to talk to an accountant about business matters
Never had to hire an attorney to deal with business matters
Never had to worry about the effects of government regulations on a business he owns or operates
Never had to tell an employee that he was being let go because business was slow
Never had to place a "help-wanted" ad looking for a new worker
Never had to look at a list of revenues and expenses to determine how much a new employee can be paid.
Never had to face competition from a new business down the street


Just curious--how many of those did Ronald Reagan ever have to do?
 
2011-02-08 05:22:48 PM
So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belabouring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms - and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah - to "undo the heavy burdens -. and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavour, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again - not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are - but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" - a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shank from this responsibility - I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Be the ball. Win the future. There is no spoon. JFK is out! Peace!
 
2011-02-08 05:23:26 PM

RexTalionis: Speaking as an attorney (and I assume you're probably not one),

You are a person who:
Never construed a law
Never written a legal opinion
Never attended law school
Never taken the bar
Never interviewed a client to review the merits of a claim
Never spent hundreds of hours sitting in a law library somewhere doing research
Never written a law review article
Never studied constitutional history and constitutional law
Never filed any substantive legal document (except pro se stuff like small claims)
Never had to file a case
Never had to work 15 hours a day on a legal case

By the same coin, you have no idea in the universe what it means to analyze and speak substantively on the law, yet I'm sure you've at least said at least one law is unconstitutional (without really knowing what unconstitutionality really entails).

Also, seriously, express your own opinions. Don't steal someone else's.


And that, my friend, is why you get to keep that handle without any crap from me whatsoever. Well served.
 
2011-02-08 05:24:02 PM

RexTalionis: (without really knowing what unconstitutionality really entails).


Ah. A law degree and commensurate work experience is required to understand what falls under "enumerated powers", and what doesn't? Forgive me, oh exalted one, for rejecting your assertion, but I feel uppity today.
 
2011-02-08 05:25:48 PM

almex: RexTalionis, while it means nothing to you, that just earned you a place on my favorites list. Well played.


Agreed. Well done.

/It merits noting that BHO is a former Constitutional law professor
 
2011-02-08 05:26:53 PM
Weaver95

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane.

Wrong. You may want to think you are a capitalist, but when I read the rest of your drivel, you are spouting nothing more that the standard leftist/borderline conspiracy theorist explanations for 'corporations'


so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. .......
welcome to the machine.


So, you think that all corporations are evil and just want to grind the good worker into the dirt.

Well, since you hate them so much, I assume you made your own house, car, food, clothes, furniture, televisions, TV stations, movies, electric, water, AC, heating, personal airplane, ski resort, bank, and on and on, right?

Also, I assume you run your own, small business and give away your product for cost or less, using only the supplies that you can get on your own, and have your own delivery service, processing service, use your own method of exchanging goods and services for money, right sport?

See, it is this kind of simplistic thinking that just shows how out of touch people are. Corporations exist to make money to be sure, but they make money for all of their share-holders (please tell me you don't own any stocks, right, or your retirement is just all the money in your mattress, not a bank, 401K, etc). They make money by providing a service that people are willing to pay for. Cars - GM, Ford, Toyota, etc, Food/Supermarkets - Giant, Shoppers, Albertsons, Movies/Tv shows, electronics, I can go on and on. Yes, they want to make money, but they also employ literally Billions of people and provide goods and services that we all want. They aren't evil or the boogeyman, they want to maximize profits and get as large of a share of the market as they can.

Stop being such a whiny, leftist shill and think for yourself just once in a while. What Obama said is that corporations should view government regulations as being good, but anytime the government makes the companies spend more money trying to meet or enforce more and more regulations, the less money they have to employ people or pay to their stockholders. That is bad.
 
2011-02-08 05:27:11 PM

Robo Beat: It merits noting that BHO is a former Constitutional law professor


You left out "editor of the Harvard Law Review"
 
2011-02-08 05:27:20 PM

EatHam: Not only that, but if they do skew towards the "greater good", their shareholders will sue them, and win.


The shareholders may not sue them, and winning would be very difficult. See the standard is shareholder returns, not profits. It was only in the 80s when idjits like Carl Icahn got involved it was turned to profits. And also it was then such lawsuits even started being filed.
 
2011-02-08 05:27:21 PM

Iwouldhitit: edlmco: stolen from
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Now ... let's do a quick Cliff Notes review of this man as it relates to commerce and the private markets.

Barack Obama is a man who has:

Never had to write a business plan
Never had to review a business plan to determine its worthiness
Never had to create a budget for a private business
Never had to calculate the economic worth of an existing or new employee for a business
Never had to worry about the cost of benefits provided to a business employee
Never had to worry about whether or not a business was making a profit
Never had to explain to a boss or to shareholders why a business was losing money
Never had to file a business tax return
Never had to talk to an accountant about business matters
Never had to hire an attorney to deal with business matters
Never had to worry about the effects of government regulations on a business he owns or operates
Never had to tell an employee that he was being let go because business was slow
Never had to place a "help-wanted" ad looking for a new worker
Never had to look at a list of revenues and expenses to determine how much a new employee can be paid.
Never had to face competition from a new business down the street

Just curious--how many of those did Ronald Reagan ever have to do?


Very few, if any, I would wager. Reagan was, after all, an actor, a union leader, and a politician.
 
2011-02-08 05:29:02 PM

notShryke: RexTalionis: (without really knowing what unconstitutionality really entails).

Ah. A law degree and commensurate work experience is required to understand what falls under "enumerated powers", and what doesn't? Forgive me, oh exalted one, for rejecting your assertion, but I feel uppity today.


Fun fact, my uppity friend, the words "enumerated powers" doesn't appear a single time in the US Constitution.
 
2011-02-08 05:29:28 PM

Weaver95: look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane. so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. they care about one thing: maximum profits. that's it.


Testify! I'm not anti-capitalist. I've seen the good things corporations can be used for. But that's used for. Nothing good they do is even slightly motivated by inherent interest. It all comes back to money.

The company I work for prides itself on quality and service. They deal with customers and business partners honestly. Why, because they're ethical? Of course not. It's merely to provide an alternative to competitors which provide no service at all, lie like crazy and wouldn't know quality if it punched them in the face. You definitely want companies to compete and innovate, but they need to be kept on a short leash.
 
2011-02-08 05:30:17 PM

btfoom: they want to maximize profits


In doing this they can actually hurt their own future stability and growth. You can increase your profits by cutting R&D or IT spending, but it might be a bad idea to do that.
 
2011-02-08 05:30:53 PM

Robo Beat: Very few, if any, I would wager. Reagan was, after all, an actor, a union leader, and a politician.


Sounds like a formula for a goddamn lieberal if you ask me.
 
2011-02-08 05:31:06 PM

btfoom: Wrong. You may want to think you are a capitalist, but when I read the rest of your drivel, you are spouting nothing more that the standard leftist/borderline conspiracy theorist explanations for 'corporations'


This, my friends, is a good example of a capitalist who is NOT sane.
 
2011-02-08 05:31:58 PM
I got a better deal for the CEOs. We'll give your company a tax cut and not close loop-holes for your tax haven packing if you start hiring American workers and pay them better. Deal? No? Then stick it where the sun don't shine and enjoy the increased taxes. 85 out of 100 companies have been shown to be hiding profits in off shore tax havens. It's time for them to pay the piper.

And while we are at it... let's start taxing religious centers. They are currently at 0% with some of the employees at 3%. Excuse me if I say that the needs of the people outweigh the needs of the religious. And besides, didn't Jesus say something about being a pauper to get into heaven? Surely the churches would support this.
 
2011-02-08 05:32:04 PM
Any business that has to have a bunch of tax breaks to survive should instead be allowed to fail. That's the free market.

I have to pay taxes on my income, you should pay taxes on yours.
 
2011-02-08 05:32:26 PM

RexTalionis: notShryke: RexTalionis: (without really knowing what unconstitutionality really entails).

Ah. A law degree and commensurate work experience is required to understand what falls under "enumerated powers", and what doesn't? Forgive me, oh exalted one, for rejecting your assertion, but I feel uppity today.

Fun fact, my uppity friend, the words "enumerated powers" doesn't appear a single time in the US Constitution.


So what? Are you disputing my claim?
 
2011-02-08 05:33:02 PM

Weaver95: grind it into your skull - corporations do. not. care. they are a necessary evil,


FTFY.
 
2011-02-08 05:34:39 PM
Someone tell these CEO's that hiring people is its own tax break. Since corporations pay taxes on what's left after expenses have been paid, if you spend more on employees, you end up with a lower tax bill.
 
2011-02-08 05:35:16 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: LasersHurt: Weaver95:

That's exactly why I can't wait for the death of the for-profit motive. I'll be dead long before it, mind you, but it will be nice for whoever is alive.

The people that try to bring about the death of the for-profit motive will be killed and their meat will be sold at auction for profit.


/FTFY
 
2011-02-08 05:36:18 PM

Hydra: Shakin_Haitian: So when people do research on diseases, they must first have the disease? I don't understand the point of your post? Obama wasn't elected to be a god damn CEO.

No, but the doctor working on you better know how a body works and what makes diseases go away.

Obama doesn't know how a capitalist economy works. Neither do the people railing against the "profit motive." It's like they're a second-year pre-med bio major trying to perform open heart surgery while blindfolded.


I have a hard time finding folks credible on capitalist economies while they completely ignore-if-not-dismiss the demand side of the market.
 
2011-02-08 05:36:20 PM
and JFK said businessmen were S.O.B.'s, and he was right
 
2011-02-08 05:38:46 PM

Snarky Acronym: and JFK said businessmen were S.O.B.'s, and he was right


Hell, he just had to look at his own dad to figure that out.
 
2011-02-08 05:41:59 PM

edlmco: stolen from
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Now ... let's do a quick Cliff Notes review of this man as it relates to commerce and the private markets.

Barack Obama is a man who has:

Never had to write a business plan
Never had to review a business plan to determine its worthiness
Never had to create a budget for a private business
Never had to calculate the economic worth of an existing or new employee for a business
Never had to worry about the cost of benefits provided to a business employee
Never had to worry about whether or not a business was making a profit
Never had to explain to a boss or to shareholders why a business was losing money
Never had to file a business tax return
Never had to talk to an accountant about business matters
Never had to hire an attorney to deal with business matters
Never had to worry about the effects of government regulations on a business he owns or operates
Never had to tell an employee that he was being let go because business was slow
Never had to place a "help-wanted" ad looking for a new worker
Never had to look at a list of revenues and expenses to determine how much a new employee can be paid.
Never had to face competition from a new business down the street
.... And most importantly:

Barack Obama is a man who has referred to the private sector as "the enemy." And don't think that these men and women of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn't remember that line while he was reading his teleprompter in front of them yesterday.

In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business,


And thank god for all this. Running the government like a business and for the betterment of business as per the model established with Reagan and reinforced by Clinton has been an absolute disaster for America. We need less business people in government whose minds are only programmed to look one fiscal quarter into the future.

yet there he is telling businesses that they have to go out there and figure out how they can hire more people.

Again, the only reason they're not doing this in the first place is because business never looks past next quarter's profits; they lack the collective foresight and coordination necessary to make broad social and economic decisions even if it's something that would make more money for them in the future.
 
2011-02-08 05:42:31 PM

theMightyRegeya: Beeblebrox: LasersHurt: Weaver95:

That's exactly why I can't wait for the death of the for-profit motive. I'll be dead long before it, mind you, but it will be nice for whoever is alive.

Perhaps when the entire nation (or planet) can agree on the one thing that can replace it.

Probably won't happen soon. We have too many people around who seem to think, despite every other social system around having positives and negatives, capitalism is perfect, and that the thing we need to fix our current capitalism is more capitalism.


I don't know if many think capitalism is perfect. The U.S. is pretty far from a purely capitalist system anyway.
 
2011-02-08 05:44:27 PM
Welcom to the new Gilded age.

Oh, and capitalism is what corporatist greedheads hide behind.
 
2011-02-08 05:45:02 PM
Here's the story behind the JFK quote.
The Steel Crisis of 1962

The "steel crisis" emerged when, just 4 days after ten of eleven major steel producers had signed a new contract with their workers, U.S. Steel, the largest of them with about 25% of the market, announced an across-the-board 3.5% increase in prices. The Kennedy administration had just hailed the pact as "non-inflationary," and indeed Labor Secretary Arthur Goldberg had been personally involved in the months-long negotiations and had used his prestige with labor to secure their agreement to no wage increases and only modest increases in fringe benefits.

Though the Kennedy administration had never directly asked the steel industry to hold prices, regarding that as improper, Kennedy and his advisors clearly felt there was a tacit agreement, and that they had been double-crossed. Coming right on the heels of the signed labor contract, the announcement seemed to be a deliberate attempt to tell the Democratic President that he didn't tell American business what to do. The stakes were higher than a simple personal affront; the importance of steel in the economy meant the high likelihood that the price increase would trigger further price jumps across many sectors, and kick off a new round of inflation. Kennedy was furious, telling advisors:

"My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of biatches, but I never believed it until now."


Source: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_and_Steel,_Bush_and_Oil
 
2011-02-08 05:46:08 PM

Philip J. Fry: Capitalism's fark The Neighbors attitude works fine as long as the nation is growing as a whole, but free markets mean we're going to end up with a serious underclass here at home.


Exactly.

What happens when two economies meet? And let's say that one has a very high standard of living and the other has a very low standard of living. Do you think that the lower one rises to the level of the higher one? Well, it probably does rise, but the higher one will drop as well. Why? Because the higher one can't compete on a level playing field with the lower cost of labor that the lower one brings to the table. It's simple supply and demand. Business is going to go where production costs are lowest. And that's exactly what is happening here in this country right now. Our well-paying jobs are leaving because we can't compete with the cheaper labor costs in other countries. Well, I guess we could compete if we were all willing to work for a lot less and lose all the environmental and worker safety regulations and health care benefits and all those other annoying things that companies don't have to deal with in other parts of the world.

So ya, the underclass is going to grow bigger. And since we don't want to become Socialist Communist Marxist Fascist Un-American Obamunists we will effectively do nothing about it.
 
2011-02-08 05:46:43 PM

WhyteRaven74: Someone tell these CEO's that hiring people is its own tax break. Since corporations pay taxes on what's left after expenses have been paid, if you spend more on employees, you end up with a lower tax bill.


Corporations do not pay taxes. It is a cost of doing business and is passed on to the consumer.
 
2011-02-08 05:47:25 PM
lol obama....

reading words from a teleprompter will get you played.

words and speeches got obama votes, but now that he's president.... that's all he still has... except now he's playing high stakes poker and getting rolled.
 
2011-02-08 05:50:13 PM

140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: Someone tell these CEO's that hiring people is its own tax break. Since corporations pay taxes on what's left after expenses have been paid, if you spend more on employees, you end up with a lower tax bill.

Corporations do not pay taxes. It is a cost of doing business and is passed on to the consumer.


Maybe. If we really have competition in this country then the business that can do a better job of absorbing taxes will increase their overall business by being able to offer a lower price. So tax increases don't automatically mean higher prices, at least if there truly is competition in a market.
 
2011-02-08 05:55:58 PM

140toesandfingers: is passed on to the consumer.


So you raise your prices, which raises your revenues, which raises profit before tax, which raises your tax bill.
 
2011-02-08 05:56:54 PM

Weaver95: Speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the president urged the business community to help accelerate the slow economic recovery by increasing hiring and unleashing some of the $2 trillion piling up on their balance sheets.

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane. so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. they care about one thing: maximum profits. that's it. they don't care about jobs, they don't care about approval ratings, they don't care about morality or ethics. they care about money. they care about how much money they've got, how much they have to spend and how to make more money.

grind it into your skull - corporations do. not. care. they are a necessary evil, and they can do some really great things for you and your economy...but the moment the economic situation changes, they will abandon you to your fate. Use corporations to accomplish your goals. NEVER trust them. Always assume that a corporation will f*ck you over first chance they get. If they behave, hey - that's great! But you'll want a big stick handy just in case they turn against you.

so don't try appealing to the better side of a corporation - they don't have one. instead - focus your efforts on finding ways to get corporations to accomplish your goals. if you have to lie, manipulate and/or resort to outright thuggery in order to bring a corporation to heel then do so...because if situations were reversed, a corporation can and will do so to you and your country.

welcome to the machine.


I don't know Weaver. I'm quickly getting to the point that outlawing corporations may be the only responsible thing to do. Corporations are, by their very nature, immoral. Even those that claim to honor "religious principles" are scum.

What is the point of allowing blatantly anti-American crap like this? Heck it's not even WASP work ethic at the top (c-level) anymore for large multi-national corps.
 
2011-02-08 05:57:05 PM

Pincy: 140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: Someone tell these CEO's that hiring people is its own tax break. Since corporations pay taxes on what's left after expenses have been paid, if you spend more on employees, you end up with a lower tax bill.

Corporations do not pay taxes. It is a cost of doing business and is passed on to the consumer.

Maybe. If we really have competition in this country then the business that can do a better job of absorbing taxes will increase their overall business by being able to offer a lower price. So tax increases don't automatically mean higher prices, at least if there truly is competition in a market.


Once money is taxed it is destroyed. It has to be borrowed back into existence. The more time a dollar can be turned over before it is destroyed the more money the government and corporations will create.
 
2011-02-08 05:57:53 PM

Pincy: So tax increases don't automatically mean higher prices, at least if there truly is competition in a market.


Plus you can always buy new equipment, which gives you not only a tax break in the current year, but in subsequent years as you can deduct depreciation from your taxes.
 
2011-02-08 05:58:44 PM

140toesandfingers: Once money is taxed it is destroyed


LOL wut?
 
2011-02-08 06:00:11 PM

WhyteRaven74: In doing this they can actually hurt their own future stability and growth. You can increase your profits by cutting R&D or IT spending, but it might be a bad idea to do that.


I think these days long range planning means next quarter.
 
2011-02-08 06:01:27 PM
Corporations are evil by design, the more evil the more successful, if they weren't evil they would fail, that's just a fact.
Most of the largest corporations have already come to the conclusion that Obama isn't on their side enough (100% or greater) and so they will do everything they can to make sure he fails to be re-elected and someone else (republican) gets elected, in fact i'm surprised that Obama hasn't been assassinated by corporate hitmen already.

/not even trollin'
 
2011-02-08 06:01:38 PM
I don't know Weaver. I'm quickly getting to the point that outlawing corporations may be the only responsible thing to do. Corporations are, by their very nature, immoral. Even those that claim to honor "religious principles" are scum.

What is the point of allowing blatantly anti-American crap like this? Heck it's not even WASP work ethic at the top (c-level) anymore for large multi-national corps.


Name a country that has done this and was successful.
 
2011-02-08 06:02:40 PM
What an ass Bruce Josten, the Chamber's chief lobbyist pimp is.

Not just an ass but a Consummate Ass.

In the words of Clark Griswald-

I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shiat he is!
 
2011-02-08 06:04:15 PM

WhyteRaven74: 140toesandfingers: Once money is taxed it is destroyed

LOL wut?


Where do you think a dollar bill comes from? Money has to be borrowed into existance.
 
2011-02-08 06:05:23 PM
Over the last couple years, the majority of Americans have come to the realization that large companies do not stand for the greater good.

Our President is not a socialist or a communist.
Our President is a capitalist.
 
2011-02-08 06:09:00 PM

edlmco: stolen from
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Now ... let's do a quick Cliff Notes review of this man as it relates to commerce and the private markets.

Barack Obama is a man who has:

Never had to write a business plan
Never had to review a business plan to determine its worthiness
Never had to create a budget for a private business
Never had to calculate the economic worth of an existing or new employee for a business
Never had to worry about the cost of benefits provided to a business employee
Never had to worry about whether or not a business was making a profit
Never had to explain to a boss or to shareholders why a business was losing money
Never had to file a business tax return
Never had to talk to an accountant about business matters
Never had to hire an attorney to deal with business matters
Never had to worry about the effects of government regulations on a business he owns or operates
Never had to tell an employee that he was being let go because business was slow
Never had to place a "help-wanted" ad looking for a new worker
Never had to look at a list of revenues and expenses to determine how much a new employee can be paid.
Never had to face competition from a new business down the street
.... And most importantly:

Barack Obama is a man who has referred to the private sector as "the enemy." And don't think that these men and women of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn't remember that line while he was reading his teleprompter in front of them yesterday.

In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business, yet there he is telling businesses that they have to go out there and figure out how they can hire more people.


Kinda like Teddy Roosevelt? Jeez...enough already.
 
2011-02-08 06:09:56 PM

Brick-House: Obama to Corp CEOs -- Company profits need to be shared with the employees


Corp CEOs to Obama:

i3.photobucket.com
 
2011-02-08 06:12:29 PM

unlikely: I hereby swear:

I will vote for the candidate that says "Yes, it is time to raise taxes and pay the bills."


I'll vote for the one that will actually DO IT.

/It's going to be a long wait...
 
2011-02-08 06:16:52 PM
If you don't give them tax breaks, the economy will tank.

/Oh, wait.
 
2011-02-08 06:19:40 PM

Brick-House: Obama to Bill O'Riley -- I do not believe in wealth redistribution

Obama to Corp CEOs -- Company profits need to be shared with the employees.


the employees are creating those profits and are not being fairly compensated for their work. there are even graphs to support that point:
i55.tinypic.com

but you know hasn't suffered? the boards and CEOs:
www.epi.org
 
2011-02-08 06:20:24 PM
btfoom
Wrong. You may want to think you are a capitalist, but when I read the rest of your drivel, you are spouting nothing more that the standard leftist/borderline conspiracy theorist explanations for 'corporations'

This is amusing.


TheJoeY
I have a hard time finding folks credible on capitalist economies while they completely ignore-if-not-dismiss the demand side of the market.

but but but everyone is infinitely greedy

(this is what capitalists actually believe!)
 
2011-02-08 06:23:36 PM

140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: 140toesandfingers: Once money is taxed it is destroyed

LOL wut?

Where do you think a dollar bill comes from? Money has to be borrowed into existance.


That paycheck that the DoT roadworker cashes in to pay for his living and discretionary expenses paid to entities other than the government says otherwise.

Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?
 
2011-02-08 06:25:07 PM
MadCat221
Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?

This one talks like someone who's been on an Austrian economics forum for way too long.
 
2011-02-08 06:28:13 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Weaver95: Speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the president urged the business community to help accelerate the slow economic recovery by increasing hiring and unleashing some of the $2 trillion piling up on their balance sheets.

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane. so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. they care about one thing: maximum profits. that's it. they don't care about jobs, they don't care about approval ratings, they don't care about morality or ethics. they care about money. they care about how much money they've got, how much they have to spend and how to make more money.

grind it into your skull - corporations do. not. care. they are a necessary evil, and they can do some really great things for you and your economy...but the moment the economic situation changes, they will abandon you to your fate. Use corporations to accomplish your goals. NEVER trust them. Always assume that a corporation will f*ck you over first chance they get. If they behave, hey - that's great! But you'll want a big stick handy just in case they turn against you.

so don't try appealing to the better side of a corporation - they don't have one. instead - focus your efforts on finding ways to get corporations to accomplish your goals. if you have to lie, manipulate and/or resort to outright thuggery in order to bring a corporation to heel then do so...because if situations were reversed, a corporation can and will do so to you and your country.

welcome to the machine.

And yet there are millions of Americans who have a strong faith that if we just stop regulating corporations, and we eliminate checks on their power like unions, their lives will improve and the kind, benevolent corporations really will take care of them.


this
 
2011-02-08 06:28:25 PM

RanDomino: MadCat221
Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?

This one talks like someone who's been on an Austrian economics forum for way too long.


This one likes to pretend he's high and mighty by referring to those he disparages in the third person despite his post having nothing of substance to the argument.
 
2011-02-08 06:28:53 PM
That bumbling Kenyan Muslim should know the Constitution *restricts* his power, not gives him anything special.

I wonder if Obama will attack those rich college presidents and professors, or those rich Hollywood producers and directors, or how about those rich labor union leaders...

Somehow I don't count on it...
 
2011-02-08 06:30:07 PM

fark80: That bumbling Kenyan Muslim should know the Constitution *restricts* his power, not gives him anything special.

I wonder if Obama will attack those rich college presidents and professors, or those rich Hollywood producers and directors, or how about those rich labor union leaders...

Somehow I don't count on it...


2/10
 
2011-02-08 06:32:36 PM

paygun: I think these days long range planning means next quarter.


Which is kinda the problem.

140toesandfingers: Where do you think a dollar bill comes from? Money has to be borrowed into existance.


That doesn't even make any sense.

Name a country that has done this and was successful.

Done what? Gotten corporations to behave?
 
2011-02-08 06:41:03 PM

MadCat221: 140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: 140toesandfingers: Once money is taxed it is destroyed

LOL wut?

Where do you think a dollar bill comes from? Money has to be borrowed into existance.

That paycheck that the DoT roadworker cashes in to pay for his living and discretionary expenses paid to entities other than the government says otherwise.

Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?


I don't know where you get your dollars but mine say it is a Federal Reserve Note aka an IOU.
 
2011-02-08 06:43:40 PM
edlmco you got served
 
2011-02-08 06:46:32 PM

140toesandfingers: MadCat221: 140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: 140toesandfingers: Once money is taxed it is destroyed

LOL wut?

Where do you think a dollar bill comes from? Money has to be borrowed into existance.

That paycheck that the DoT roadworker cashes in to pay for his living and discretionary expenses paid to entities other than the government says otherwise.

Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?

I don't know where you get your dollars but mine say it is a Federal Reserve Note aka an IOU.


Jesus Christ crapping on a cracker.
 
2011-02-08 06:47:09 PM

edlmco: stolen from
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Now ... let's do a quick Cliff Notes review of this man as it relates to commerce and the private markets.

Barack Obama is a man who has:

never derped a derp
never derped a derpy derp
never double derped a derpy derp derp
never derped a double derp.


Jimmy Carter ran a successful business. Maybe you wish Jimmy Carter was the President?
 
2011-02-08 06:50:06 PM

MadCat221: 140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: 140toesandfingers: Once money is taxed it is destroyed

LOL wut?

Where do you think a dollar bill comes from? Money has to be borrowed into existance.

That paycheck that the DoT roadworker cashes in to pay for his living and discretionary expenses paid to entities other than the government says otherwise.

Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?


Good story... although you missed my point. You show the dollar can be traded. I am talking about created.
 
2011-02-08 06:50:33 PM

blahpers: 140toesandfingers: MadCat221: 140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: 140toesandfingers:

Jesus Christ crapping on a cracker.


mmmmmm Crappy Christ Crackers.
 
2011-02-08 06:51:39 PM
Money can buy many peanuts.

EXPLAIN HOW!

Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
 
2011-02-08 06:58:30 PM
Companies don't care what they pay you. They care about what it costs to employ you. There is a huge difference between those two numbers. Taxes, benefits, and regulatory compliance all cost companies money whether or not the employee ever sees it. Over the years, the cost to employ workers in the U.S. has increased dramatically while other countries have not imposed those expenses. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant. Companies must make money in order to survive. They must compete with other companies that have the same global options. If Obama or the Congress wants to bring jobs into this country, they need to make the cost of employment competitive.
 
2011-02-08 07:02:53 PM

Mr. Right: If Obama or the Congress wants to bring jobs into this country, they need to make the cost of employment competitive.


And how exactly do you propose they do that?

And what about making it more expensive for companies to move production out of the country in the first place?
 
2011-02-08 07:04:42 PM

140toesandfingers: I don't know where you get your dollars but mine say it is a Federal Reserve Note aka an IOU.


A Treasury Bill or Treasury Note is borrowed money. A savings bond is borrowed money.

I am talking about created.

If you have the legal authority to print and circulate money it's a matter of it being accepted as valid currency. If party A agrees with party B that a quantity of this money is acceptable for a good or service, then the money has that value. In the days of the gold standard dollars were worth some fraction of an ounce of silver or gold, depending on denomination. All the same, it still depended on people accepting it as tender.

Mr. Right: . Over the years, the cost to employ workers in the U.S. has increased dramatically while other countries have not imposed those expenses.


And yet you don't see French or German companies running overseas to cut costs like you do American companies, all the while it's not notably cheaper in France or Germany to employ someone. Plus you have to deal with things like mandatory paid days off and the like.
 
2011-02-08 07:07:45 PM
MadCat221
This one likes to pretend he's high and mighty by referring to those he disparages in the third person despite his post having nothing of substance to the argument.

...I was referring to 140toesandfingers
 
2011-02-08 07:10:51 PM

Mr. Right: Companies don't care what they pay you. They care about what it costs to employ you. There is a huge difference between those two numbers. Taxes, benefits, and regulatory compliance all cost companies money whether or not the employee ever sees it. Over the years, the cost to employ workers in the U.S. has increased dramatically while other countries have not imposed those expenses. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant. Companies must make money in order to survive. They must compete with other companies that have the same global options. If Obama or the Congress wants to bring jobs into this country, they need to make the cost of employment competitive.


With China, for example? Good farkin' luck! I see that you have a big vision for our country's future. Mass poverty. Disaster. The new "American Dream".
 
2011-02-08 07:11:30 PM
Mr. Right
they need to make the cost of employment competitive.

Only a race to the bottom can save us!

The problems are that 1) not everyone can be an export-oriented economy and 2) the difference between what we were being paid and what we're not being paid is going to the rich.

Instead of racing to the bottom, we should be raising other countries' standards of living to our level. Rather than go on a crazy "free trade" binge, Congress should have put tariffs on countries that have lower labor rights and environmental protections than the US.
 
2011-02-08 07:15:49 PM

Pincy: Mr. Right: If Obama or the Congress wants to bring jobs into this country, they need to make the cost of employment competitive.

And how exactly do you propose they do that?

And what about making it more expensive for companies to move production out of the country in the first place?


There are literally thousands of regulations coming at companies from almost every branch of government and they all cost money to keep track and comply. The amount of paperwork - electronic or otherwise - that must be generated, filed, and maintained is the biggest single task of any HR department. A lot of it could be eliminated, nearly all of it could be streamlined. Large companies have whole departments just to insure diversity. Whether or not that fits in with your social goals, it is an enormous expense which adds no value to the customer. Mandates like ADA and FMLA sounded like a good idea at the time but they add costs that companies in other countries do not bear. Those are just a couple with which you are probably familiar. You may think they are fine ideas - that's OK. You just need to understand that they drive up the cost of employment and make moving jobs overseas more attractive.

How do you propose to make it more expensive to move production out of the country? Bear in mind that we are involved in a global economy. We can have a company based in this country with some jobs here and a lot overseas or we can have no company in this country and import those goods from a company based overseas. Until the U.S. government runs the entire world and impose their idea of fairness globally, they will have to let U.S. companies compete.
 
2011-02-08 07:19:53 PM
Private profit, socialized risk. It's the new American way.
 
2011-02-08 07:21:32 PM

Lando Lincoln: edlmco: In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business

George W. Bush ran a number of businesses into the ground. He really helped our country out of prosperity.


FTFY
 
2011-02-08 07:22:28 PM
Isn't it nice knowing how much of a stranglehold big business has on American politics...

And yet so many of you will vehemently defend this dysfunctional system where the most goes to the very few.

Lovely.
 
2011-02-08 07:28:00 PM
It's that poor old guy quoting Boortz that I feel sorry for.

"Obama has never written a business plan bla bla bla."

I mean, for fark's sake. If you can write you can write a farking business plan, but no Boortz thinks it is relevant so it must be.
 
2011-02-08 07:33:05 PM

Mr. Right: that must be generated, filed, and maintained is the biggest single task of any HR department.


HR departments are fairly new. How did stuff get handled before HR departments? And HR only deals with employee stuff, there are other regulations that have nothing to do with employees.

21-7-b: "Obama has never written a business plan bla bla bla."


Of my friends who run successful businesses, none has ever written a business plan either.
 
2011-02-08 07:35:14 PM
blah
blah
FREEDOM
blah
blah
SOCIALISM
blahblah
COMMUNIST
blahblah
HIPPIE
blah blah
LAZY

did I cover it all?
 
2011-02-08 07:40:07 PM
BRICK HOUSE

Obama to Bill O'Riley -- I do not believe in wealth redistribution>

Obama to Corp CEOs -- Company profits need to be shared with the employees.


I don't get your point? maybe just maybe the employees helped make the profits.

No I get it the CEO's did all the work....Just like where i work..
they run the machines sweep the floors make the sales calls while the employees just jerk off in the corner....Your parents should be proud of you. Did you eat lead paint growing up?
 
2011-02-08 07:46:25 PM

140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: Someone tell these CEO's that hiring people is its own tax break. Since corporations pay taxes on what's left after expenses have been paid, if you spend more on employees, you end up with a lower tax bill.

Corporations do not pay taxes. It is a cost of doing business and is passed on to the consumer.


Pretty much. Which is why as a lefty I would favor a compromise eliminating the corporate income tax, so long as we added a few extra income tax brackets. Say, 500k through 1M is taxed at 40%, 1M-5M is taxed at 50%, and everything over 5M is taxed at something nice and high like 60+%. Right now I believe it stops at ~370k and 35%? That way you have a structural arrangement that puts pressure on a more equitable distribution of a company's profits without directly affecting the consumer. Pretty much the way things were before Reagan castrated federal revenue by lowering the % taxed on the most high brackets.

/not holding my breath
//bad for the plutocracy
 
2011-02-08 07:54:12 PM
At some point, don't the rich stop and ask themselves, "How much is enough? How much of a greedy shiat can I be to my fellow man to fark him over so my profits can receive a .0001% increase? How much shiat do I REALLY need? How souless and inhumane can I REALLY get?"
 
2011-02-08 07:57:50 PM
TofuTheAlmighty - That CEOs during the post-war era considered themselves beneficent overlords is an historical aberration. That time is not coming back - shareholders no longer look at long-term profitability, only the quarterly balance sheet. The social contract was torn up by trickle-down economics and elevation of greed as good.


This.

Noblesse oblige died when businessmen were no longer constrained by geography and were free to live many states or even entire continents away from the people working for them.

Sure, when your daughter has to go to high school with the plant foreman's son, and everyone in town including all your employees knows exactly where your house is... you might consider how far you really want to go for a few extra bucks. Hell, if you have even the tiniest trace of a soul, you might even be moored to decency by having to see the ramifications of your decisions up close and personal... but when you can truly consign all those underlings to mere numeric abstractions far removed from you and your family... it's very easy indeed to strip your core operating philosophy to a bare and unrestrained cry of "mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!"
 
2011-02-08 07:58:56 PM

WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: that must be generated, filed, and maintained is the biggest single task of any HR department.

HR departments are fairly new. How did stuff get handled before HR departments? And HR only deals with employee stuff, there are other regulations that have nothing to do with employees.

21-7-b: "Obama has never written a business plan bla bla bla."

Of my friends who run successful businesses, none has ever written a business plan either.


They have their uses :)

What I don't get is what "mr right" is on about. In China, say, you've got a huge workforce, where the factoryworkers are motivated to an extent that is entirely foreign to their 21st Century American counterparts. If the boss doesn't want you looking up while you work, you don't look up or you don't have a job. That's the reality, quite apart from far cheaper wages. So how is trimming an hr department and relaxing a bit of paper-shuffling regulation going to even come within a million miles of balancing the equation? We can't compete with the Chinese wages, or the lack of regulation - because, tbh, we don't want to.
 
2011-02-08 08:01:01 PM
Rikyfree - At some point, don't the rich stop and ask themselves, "How much is enough? How much of a greedy shiat can I be to my fellow man to fark him over so my profits can receive a .0001% increase? How much shiat do I REALLY need? How souless and inhumane can I REALLY get?"


Yes, yes they do... and it is at those times that they get TWO chicks to pee on them and do blow off their cocks.
 
2011-02-08 08:02:39 PM
Rikyfree Quote 2011-02-08 07:54:12 PM
At some point, don't the rich stop and ask themselves, "How much is enough? How much of a greedy shiat can I be to my fellow man to fark him over so my profits can receive a .0001% increase? How much shiat do I REALLY need? How souless and inhumane can I REALLY get?"


>>>

Greed is an addiction, it's too bad they see this as a normal American. And it's dangerous to America.
 
2011-02-08 08:07:48 PM

21-7-b: We can't compete with the Chinese wages, or the lack of regulation - because, tbh, we don't want to.


Plus there's always the other side to the situation in China. You can only pollute your water and air so much before people start getting sick and can't work. Then what? Sure they have over a billion people, that doesn't mean they can just endlessly swap people around. When you have millions of people who don't have drinkable water that can't be fixed by boiling it, you're running headlong into a big problem. Plus as that water starts to seep into farm fields and such, you get whole new problems. At some point they're going to have to deal with the consequences of their actions. And then what?

Also labor doesn't stay cheap forever. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea used to be sources of cheap labor. Didn't stay that way for long. Granted the situation in China is different, but still, at some point labor stops being so cheap.
 
2011-02-08 08:08:38 PM

Rikyfree: At some point, don't the rich stop and ask themselves, "How much is enough? How much of a greedy shiat can I be to my fellow man to fark him over so my profits can receive a .0001% increase? How much shiat do I REALLY need? How souless and inhumane can I REALLY get?"


History would suggest that the rich are far more likely to end up in a guillotine than accepting some sort of benevolent obligation to society as a whole.
 
2011-02-08 08:12:33 PM
The only solution to the evils of globalization and crony capitalism

a global minimum wage
 
2011-02-08 08:16:49 PM
21-7-b - WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: that must be generated, filed, and maintained is the biggest single task of any HR department.

HR departments are fairly new. How did stuff get handled before HR departments? And HR only deals with employee stuff, there are other regulations that have nothing to do with employees.

21-7-b: "Obama has never written a business plan bla bla bla."

Of my friends who run successful businesses, none has ever written a business plan either.



They have their uses :)

What I don't get is what "mr right" is on about. In China, say, you've got a huge workforce, where the factoryworkers are motivated to an extent that is entirely foreign to their 21st Century American counterparts. If the boss doesn't want you looking up while you work, you don't look up or you don't have a job. That's the reality, quite apart from far cheaper wages. So how is trimming an hr department and relaxing a bit of paper-shuffling regulation going to even come within a million miles of balancing the equation? We can't compete with the Chinese wages, or the lack of regulation - because, tbh, we don't want to.



And damn straight we shouldn't... As much as conservatives and Randroids might like to view this country like a board game, "I win. You lose. Suck it!" it's not. It's a society, and needs buy-in from everyone involved to function properly, and thus it should serve everyone who works at it. Rich guys are rich because the rest of us agree to recognize all of that abstract representation of wealth.

I would douse as many rich people as I could with gasoline and set them ablaze laughing on my way to jail before I'd live like a farking Chinese serf in this goddamn country. Men, women, children... you name it. I would spread the farking pain, and distribute the farking cost. "You gonna make kids live in shiat? Fine, misery loves company." I would make it my life's mission to ensure that they could not rest easy with their ill-gotten gain.

/ITG
 
2011-02-08 08:25:08 PM
WhyteRaven74

all important factors - also add in things like non-party unionisation, etc. on the other side, though, quality control is improving and that could act to create a further drain in the near future.

I suppose one thing all this talk of "them" taking our jobs does is to hide that "them" includes machines. Those farkers never even think about looking up and their cost just keeps coming down.
 
2011-02-08 08:26:44 PM

btfoom: Weaver95

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane.

Wrong. You may want to think you are a capitalist, but when I read the rest of your drivel, you are spouting nothing more that the standard leftist/borderline conspiracy theorist explanations for 'corporations'


It never gets old to see Weaver called/likened to leftist-liberal-commies. Never.
 
2011-02-08 08:43:04 PM
technicolor-misfit

That sounds a little extreme! You really only need one rich person ablaze at any one time, so that they can light their cigars for you
 
2011-02-08 08:50:25 PM

vrax: Mr. Right: Companies don't care what they pay you. They care about what it costs to employ you. There is a huge difference between those two numbers. Taxes, benefits, and regulatory compliance all cost companies money whether or not the employee ever sees it. Over the years, the cost to employ workers in the U.S. has increased dramatically while other countries have not imposed those expenses. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant. Companies must make money in order to survive. They must compete with other companies that have the same global options. If Obama or the Congress wants to bring jobs into this country, they need to make the cost of employment competitive.

With China, for example? Good farkin' luck! I see that you have a big vision for our country's future. Mass poverty. Disaster. The new "American Dream".


yeah the south has been trying that for years...i don't recall mississippi exactly being in an economic boom anytime recently.

you can't compete with the low wages of the third world by lower wages in america. to think so is foolish. instead something else must be done.

and considering the increase the CEO to average worker income, i think there's a little money left in the tank for joe six-pack. if the pols weren't completely bought and sold by the plutocracy.
 
2011-02-08 09:21:48 PM

Philip J. Fry: I think Obama is doing it Wrong when it comes to dealing with business. On the other hand, there is a lot of simplified thought going into making decisions about business. Yes capitalism functions efficiently and it might be the right decision for a business to lay off workers, or stop hiring Americans and hire third world labor at near slave wages.

But there's only so far we as a nation can push that ideal. Sure, Bob down the street got laid off, but I'm a small business owner happily paying my bills! Go capitalism!

Then Jane gets laid off next door, then Tom across the street, then Steve a block over, then Joe on the corner. Suddenly my company manufacturing emergency raincoats is running nice and efficiently, but I have no business in America because no one can afford it, and I can't live in my own neighborhood anymore because everyone is poor and I don't feel safe.


What you're leaving out of that equation is that Jane, Tom, and Steve were all real estate brokers who were trying to sell $500K houses to Joe who worked in retail and only had $5,000 to put down.


Believe it or not, recessions do actually have a corrective purpose. Its purpose is to divert scarce resources from unproductive uses and reroute them to their highest and best use. It's painful, and it sucks to go through with it, but so is a hangover after a weekend bender of whiskey and strippers. There's no way to get around from having it, so we've got to put the bottle down at some point before we kill ourselves.


Capitalism's fark The Neighbors attitude works fine as long as the nation is growing as a whole, but free markets mean we're going to end up with a serious underclass here at home.

No, it doesn't. Free markets mean that those in the "underclass" have the best chance at ascending to a higher standard of living.

Free market being the operative word here because so many people fire right back at that by saying something like, "But the evil rich people are going to do everything they can to keep them down! They're going to pass laws that keep them from ascending higher!"

That is not a free market. That's a bastardization of the market using the force of the government to achieve it. The free market fails once the government steps in to subsidize, tax, promote, discourage, give tax breaks, make mandates, and a whole host of other ways of distorting the market.

If Ben Bernanke said he wanted to raise the fed funds rate by 100 basis points tomorrow, the market would be sent into a frenzy. A system in which a single man has power like that is not a free market.


ANd suddenly we're blaming poor people again for ruining the economy.

Don't know who you've been listening to, but I and people like me have been blaming central planning for ruining the economy for a while now.

It's not entirely Jane's, Tom's, Steve's, and Joe's faults that they got laid off. They weren't the ones keeping interest rates artificially low; they weren't the ones who tried to stimulate the economy in the aftermath of the tech bubble bust and 9/11; they weren't the ones mandating lower lending standards at loan originators; they weren't the ones requiring FNMA and FHLMC to buy huge amounts of subprime MBSs; they weren't the ones who protected the ratings agencies' oligopoly.

And finally, they weren't the ones who decided to bail out everyone and his brother when the shiat hit the fan.


TheJoeY: I have a hard time finding folks credible on capitalist economies while they completely ignore-if-not-dismiss the demand side of the market.


I have a hard time finding folks credible on capitalist economies while they completely ignore-if-not-dismiss unintended consequences, cause and effect, and long term effects.

People who think that aggregate demand of the economy can be "stimulated" by either taxing and spending or printing and spending without any consequences are ignoring history and empirical evidence.

Those taxes come from somewhere - under an income tax, they come from production. Production is the engine of an economy (can't employ people unless they actually produce something for the company they work for), so in a time when production is reduced, further reducing that production by increasing taxes will exacerbate our problems.

That printing causes inflation - sure, it's not directly taxing people's wallets, but they feel the effect when they have to pay higher prices for everything. That unemployment check will be able to buy less and less as inflation pushes prices higher. It's an invisible tax on the poorest among us.

Recessions happen when there is a distortion in the price system. Prices correct; markets correct. They can't do their job when the government starts getting in the way to prop up certain prices (such as housing prices) and keep others down (such as interest rates). THAT'S when a recession starts to turn into a depression.
 
2011-02-08 09:30:25 PM
Did RTFA. After a point, it simply began to sound like "Mwah mwah mwah Obama mwah mwah mwah mwah," as far as sybstantive content would go.

/The Peanuts' semi-mute schoolteacher is more intellectually stimulating than that article
//Sorry, subby, passing on this one
 
2011-02-08 09:42:50 PM

Shakin_Haitian: Obama wasn't elected to be a god damn CEO.


Well, in a way, that's exactly what he was elected.

Commander in Chief.

Head of the Executive branch.

Occupant of the Oval Office.

He's the CEO of the entire country. What the problem is is that the government has been co-opted by special interests and big business. Country's in a downward spiral, but what's the big issue? Whether gays can get marriage redefined to include them.
 
2011-02-08 09:45:49 PM

RembrandtQEinstein: solution:

remove limited liability from corporate owners and stockholders

the problem will fix itself

(also remove immunity from police, judges and prosecutors)


THIS!!!


/so much this


When the owners and shareholders are actually held personally responsible for their choices and actions, I can guarantee they will think twice before shiatting where they sleep.

CEOs need to start going to jail for their crimes (or they can drop dead like Ken Lay).
 
2011-02-08 09:48:53 PM

Weaver95: Speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the president urged the business community to help accelerate the slow economic recovery by increasing hiring and unleashing some of the $2 trillion piling up on their balance sheets.

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane. so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. they care about one thing: maximum profits. that's it. they don't care about jobs, they don't care about approval ratings, they don't care about morality or ethics. they care about money. they care about how much money they've got, how much they have to spend and how to make more money.

grind it into your skull - corporations do. not. care. they are a necessary evil, and they can do some really great things for you and your economy...but the moment the economic situation changes, they will abandon you to your fate. Use corporations to accomplish your goals. NEVER trust them. Always assume that a corporation will f*ck you over first chance they get. If they behave, hey - that's great! But you'll want a big stick handy just in case they turn against you.

so don't try appealing to the better side of a corporation - they don't have one. instead - focus your efforts on finding ways to get corporations to accomplish your goals. if you have to lie, manipulate and/or resort to outright thuggery in order to bring a corporation to heel then do so...because if situations were reversed, a corporation can and will do so to you and your country.

welcome to the machine.


You just made my favorites list.
 
2011-02-08 09:51:53 PM
Hydra
That is not a free market. That's a bastardization of the market using the force of the government to achieve it.

If there wasn't the government, then the rich would just hire gangs of armed thugs to intimidate competition. That's how government was invented in the first place! There is no such thing as the "free market".
 
2011-02-08 10:20:02 PM
RanDomino - Hydra - That is not a free market. That's a bastardization of the market using the force of the government to achieve it.

If there wasn't the government, then the rich would just hire gangs of armed thugs to intimidate competition. That's how government was invented in the first place! There is no such thing as the "free market".



This.

Even short of that extreme, the minute regulation was lifted collusion and price-fixing would explode. It is not in the best interest of businesses to engage in a race to the bottom with one another. Sure, if one business has an overwhelming advantage to exploit to eviscerate and rid himself of an opponent... He'll take it. But it does not serve his interests to nickel and dime a close competitor, because they're both just going to drive each other to the basement.

It makes far more sense for them to ring each other up and say "obviously, we're stuck splitting this market... I won't go lower than _____ if you won't."


We cannot DE-regulate, so it's far more important that we regulate intelligently and scrutinize the regulators relentlessly. Everybody always talks about regulatory capture, but no one ever talks about DE-regulatory capture... wherein we weaken the regulatory framework so much that it's a trivial matter for industry to come in and take it over completely and tailor make the regulations to their heart's content.


Look at Enron and their de-regulatory racket. "Oooh, we're opening energy up to competitive markets!" No they didn't... They seized the de-regulatory process and wrote the rules so that the new laws basically said "we gets all the moneys, no matter what happens!"

It's like inviting John Dillinger in to a bank to consult on the best ways to minimize security... Not only does he NOT fire everyone and make it a free-for-all and return the savings to the bank, He draws up a security plan that protects the money from everyone but him and then sells the security hardware and pockets the cash.
 
2011-02-08 10:27:40 PM
While capitalism has done a fair share of improving the human condition to this point, I do not believe it will be the best vehicle for that in perpetuity. At some point, we're either going to have to eradicate the existence of assholes who want power over others, or I believe our whole species will cave in on itself.

The idea that one must do almost nothing but work from the age of around 18 until the deterioration of the body is unacceptable to me. In my opinion, as technology increases, so should the work day decrease. We should be at 6 hours, 4 days and 40 weeks by now. But it will never happen so long as someone is greedier than you and willing to work more of their life away and hoard that extra opportunity.

Also, the idea that economic growth has no end is just silly. There aren't enough atoms in the solar system for Pepsi-Cola and Monsanto to grow infinitely.

There is such a word as "enough." And other than finding cures for diseases, I think we're there.
 
2011-02-08 10:31:18 PM

RanDomino: Hydra
That is not a free market. That's a bastardization of the market using the force of the government to achieve it.

If there wasn't the government, then the rich would just hire gangs of armed thugs to intimidate competition. That's how government was invented in the first place! There is no such thing as the "free market".


There's a difference between enforcing property and individual rights, enforcing contracts, providing a judicial system, and protecting against fraud and force among people in a society (things the government SHOULD do) and promoting/prohibiting certain behavior in markets or market sectors via the use of regulations, subsidies, and laws (things the government should NOT do).

The former allows the market to operate safely for the benefit of all parties involved with the ability for recourse against any party that defrauds or otherwise harms another.

The latter distorts the market - usually for the benefit of some favored party that has been able to buy influence over politicians to pass laws in order to create and perpetuate the distortion.

Example: The Agricultural Adjustment Act paid farmers not to grow certain crops and even to kill excess livestock. Let's follow the causal chain: government provides a subsidy not to grow crops and to kill cattle - fewer crops grown and fewer heads of livestock - less overall supply - result: higher prices.

Thanks to this law and the force of government to enforce it, farm prices were kept artifically higher than they would have, so more people were forced to pay higher prices for food at a time when unemployment was at an all-time high.

It's a common fallacy of anti-capitalists to think that anyone who favors free markets are arguing for anarchy. You don't need anarchy to have a free market - you need a government that is willing not to intervene into a market to protect a special interest. For that to happen, though, we'll need politicians who actually have spines, too.
 
2011-02-08 10:49:02 PM
Ow My Balls
The idea that one must do almost nothing but work from the age of around 18 until the deterioration of the body is unacceptable to me. In my opinion, as technology increases, so should the work day decrease. We should be at 6 hours, 4 days and 40 weeks by now. But it will never happen so long as someone is greedier than you and willing to work more of their life away and hoard that extra opportunity.

The mechanism of control is what's important. If we weren't wasting resources on things like yachts, jewelry, sports cars, and mansions, and if the product of society was divided evenly, we would only have to work a few hours per week to maintain a good standard of living, because of the technology we have that lets us do more in less time. Instead, those productivity gains have been captured by the owners of the factories, and reinvested in more productivity gains that, again, they themselves monopolize.

So the question is, why should providing the capital entitle a person or class to such a disproportionate amount of the benefits? Owners are paid by selling commodities; workers are paid by the hour. That's the fundamental source of the problem.


technicolor-misfit
We cannot DE-regulate, so it's far more important that we regulate intelligently and scrutinize the regulators relentlessly.

You say this as if the government's regulatory agencies haven't been captured by the corporations they were meant to regulate.


Hydra
There's a difference between enforcing property and individual rights, enforcing contracts, providing a judicial system, and protecting against fraud and force among people in a society (things the government SHOULD do) and promoting/prohibiting certain behavior in markets or market sectors via the use of regulations, subsidies, and laws (things the government should NOT do).

Then you get patches to plug loopholes, which create new loopholes, which require new patches, which create new loopholes... How do you think we got here?
 
2011-02-08 10:50:09 PM
Hydra - It's a common fallacy of anti-capitalists to think that anyone who favors free markets are arguing for anarchy.


...almost as common a fallacy as it is for Randroid libertarian dipwads to call anyone who doesn't share in their fanciful utopian laissez faire daydreams "anti-capitalists."


"Golly, we should have just enough government to protect the rich from the poor and nothing more! I know it's true because a bona fide think-tank funded by rich people told me so!"
 
2011-02-08 10:56:34 PM

technicolor-misfit: This.

Even short of that extreme, the minute regulation was lifted collusion and price-fixing would explode. It is not in the best interest of businesses to engage in a race to the bottom with one another. Sure, if one business has an overwhelming advantage to exploit to eviscerate and rid himself of an opponent... He'll take it. But it does not serve his interests to nickel and dime a close competitor, because they're both just going to drive each other to the basement.

It makes far more sense for them to ring each other up and say "obviously, we're stuck splitting this market... I won't go lower than _____ if you won't."


This is a fallacy that has been proven wrong time and again.

As production expands and firms grow, costs fall because of economies of scale. A firm that produces a good at a lower cost than its competitor will be able to grab some share of the market while attracting new customers who previously could not afford to buy it.

There's much more I can explain to you if you like, but you have to let me know if you have an open mind to an opposing viewpoint first before I spend my time doing it.


Ow My Balls: While capitalism has done a fair share of improving the human condition to this point, I do not believe it will be the best vehicle for that in perpetuity.


It's been almost four hundred years. We're still waiting for something better.


At some point, we're either going to have to eradicate the existence of assholes who want power over others, or I believe our whole species will cave in on itself.

This is a problem as old as civilization itself. It's what made Rome fall, and it's what will make our empire fall. The Constitution was supposed to limit exactly that - politicians' power over the people - but that's been supplanted over the years as an obstacle to "progress."


The idea that one must do almost nothing but work from the age of around 18 until the deterioration of the body is unacceptable to me.

Too bad it's unacceptable to you, but it's a harsh reality that must be confronted, and in comparison to 99% of all the civilizations that came before ours, it's a pretty cushy reality to have to face.

Not having to work until you're 18? The frontiersman who was working on his dad's farm when he was strong enough to work a hoe (heh) would GLADLY trade places with you. So would the Zimbabwean child who woke up today wondering if she'll have something to eat since she hasn't eaten in three days.


In my opinion, as technology increases, so should the work day decrease. We should be at 6 hours, 4 days and 40 weeks by now. But it will never happen so long as someone is greedier than you and willing to work more of their life away and hoard that extra opportunity.

Yup, that family in China that just moved from the countryside to Shanghai to work in a factory and earn a wage 10 times what he was earning as a subsistence farmer sure is greedy!


Also, the idea that economic growth has no end is just silly. There aren't enough atoms in the solar system for Pepsi-Cola and Monsanto to grow infinitely.

There is such a word as "enough." And other than finding cures for diseases, I think we're there.


Okay, I'll stop being facetious.

It won't be enough until poverty is a thing of the past. We in the industrialized world are a privileged bunch because we've enjoyed such a much higher standard of living for so long in comparison to the rest of the world. We've taken it all for granted and called anyone who dares to subvert our cushy lifestyles "greedy." We have no contemporary context or perspective, historical or otherwise, on just how good we've had it for so long.

And we only have the generations before us who built the foundations of it all to thank.
 
2011-02-08 10:58:28 PM
RanDomino - technicolor-misfit
We cannot DE-regulate, so it's far more important that we regulate intelligently and scrutinize the regulators relentlessly.

You say this as if the government's regulatory agencies haven't been captured by the corporations they were meant to regulate.



Yes, chiefly under the guise of deregulation.

The American people jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. It's like having a demon tied up and believing him when he says he can make all your dreams come true if you'll just loosen the rope a little bit.

"OMG, $50k toilet seat! Get government out of the way and private industry will treat you right!"

"Okay..."

.
.
.

"HAHAHA, now that we're done skullfarking you, where are your children? WHERE ARE YOUR CHILDREN?!?!?!?!"
 
2011-02-08 11:11:10 PM

Hydra: The idea that one must do almost nothing but work from the age of around 18 until the deterioration of the body is unacceptable to me.

Too bad it's unacceptable to you, but it's a harsh reality that must be confronted, and in comparison to 99% of all the civilizations that came before ours, it's a pretty cushy reality to have to face.

Not having to work until you're 18? The frontiersman who was working on his dad's farm when he was strong enough to work a hoe (heh) would GLADLY trade places with you. So would the Zimbabwean child who woke up today wondering if she'll have something to eat since she hasn't eaten in three days.


All three of us would gladly trade places with the lucky ones who'll live in my idea of an intelligent world. We're not there yet. I'm not satisfied until we are. And I'm pretty sure capitalism won't get us there, despite doing a decent job of getting us here.
 
2011-02-08 11:11:27 PM

RanDomino: The mechanism of control is what's important. If we weren't wasting resources on things like yachts, jewelry, sports cars, and mansions, and if the product of society was divided evenly, we would only have to work a few hours per week to maintain a good standard of living, because of the technology we have that lets us do more in less time. Instead, those productivity gains have been captured by the owners of the factories, and reinvested in more productivity gains that, again, they themselves monopolize.


For that to come even remotely close to working, we'd also have to spread losses evenly across society. How would you suggest we do that?


So the question is, why should providing the capital entitle a person or class to such a disproportionate amount of the benefits?

A) You'll have to define exactly what a "disproportionate" amount really is.

B) There is a risk of loss involved by providing that capital. There is a chance that a person who puts up capital to start a venture will fail and lose all of his capital that he invested, so he must be allowed to be compensated for this risk.

That's what a discount rate measures (please tell me you know what this is) - the riskiness of future cash flows.


You say this as if the government's regulatory agencies haven't been captured by the corporations they were meant to regulate.

Here's something upon which we agree: government regulatory agencies often get captured by the very industry they are supposed to be reglating. The Federal Reserve is a perfect example of this.


Then you get patches to plug loopholes, which create new loopholes, which require new patches, which create new loopholes... How do you think we got here?

The loopholes wouldn't exist in the first place if the government wouldn't grant special passes for lobbyists and special interests.


technicolor-misfit: ...almost as common a fallacy as it is for Randroid libertarian dipwads to call anyone who doesn't share in their fanciful utopian laissez faire daydreams "anti-capitalists."

"Golly, we should have just enough government to protect the rich from the poor and nothing more! I know it's true because a bona fide think-tank funded by rich people told me so!"


You seem to read a lot into my posts. Where did I call you, technicolor-misfit, an anti-capitalist? Also, where did I say that I subscribe to any of Ayn Rand's philosophies? Or that we need government simply to protect rich people from poor people? And that I got the idea from a think-tank funded by rich people?

Cite it, and I'll eat my words.
 
2011-02-08 11:12:49 PM
Hydra - technicolor-misfit: This.

Even short of that extreme, the minute regulation was lifted collusion and price-fixing would explode. It is not in the best interest of businesses to engage in a race to the bottom with one another. Sure, if one business has an overwhelming advantage to exploit to eviscerate and rid himself of an opponent... He'll take it. But it does not serve his interests to nickel and dime a close competitor, because they're both just going to drive each other to the basement.

It makes far more sense for them to ring each other up and say "obviously, we're stuck splitting this market... I won't go lower than _____ if you won't."




This is a fallacy that has been proven wrong time and again.

As production expands and firms grow, costs fall because of economies of scale. A firm that produces a good at a lower cost than its competitor will be able to grab some share of the market while attracting new customers who previously could not afford to buy it.



Then why do we have laws against collusion and price-fixing?

We have laws against murder because people murder. We have laws against burglary because burgle. We have laws against mugging because people mug.

Why do we have laws against collusion and price fixing?



There's much more I can explain to you if you like, but you have to let me know if you have an open mind to an opposing viewpoint first before I spend my time doing it.



I'm well aware of how the theory works. I'm just also aware of how the reality works.

Lots of things sound workable in theory, yet fail to unfold as expected.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2011-02-08 11:13:37 PM

Ow My Balls: All three of us would gladly trade places with the lucky ones who'll live in my idea of an intelligent world. We're not there yet. I'm not satisfied until we are. And I'm pretty sure capitalism won't get us there, despite doing a decent job of getting us here.


Why are you so sure of that? If it's done such a good job of getting us here, why can't it help us get there? Seriously. How do you think things can be done better?
 
2011-02-08 11:15:02 PM
Ow My Balls Quote 2011-02-08 11:11:10 PM

All three of us would gladly trade places with the lucky ones who'll live in my idea of an intelligent world. We're not there yet. I'm not satisfied until we are. And I'm pretty sure capitalism won't get us there, despite doing a decent job of getting us here.

>>>>

America just needs to get the mix of capitalism and socialism down right, they threw away the cooking instructions and thought they could just go full blast to the right. 20% of Americans are happy so who gives a fark about the rest right?
 
2011-02-08 11:17:12 PM

Hydra: The idea that one must do almost nothing but work from the age of around 18 until the deterioration of the body is unacceptable to me.

Too bad it's unacceptable to you, but it's a harsh reality that must be confronted, and in comparison to 99% of all the civilizations that came before ours, it's a pretty cushy reality to have to face.

Not having to work until you're 18? The frontiersman who was working on his dad's farm when he was strong enough to work a hoe (heh) would GLADLY trade places with you. So would the Zimbabwean child who woke up today wondering if she'll have something to eat since she hasn't eaten in three days.


Yeah, even though I posted a negative comment about capitalism, I was apparently a frontiersman's child. Did you know there are farmers, and even people who aren't farmers, right here in America who make their kids work? Barbaric, I know.

Then again, those of us from farmin' country tend to be fat, so we've got that over the average Zimbabwean. Maybe it has something to do with lower population density? Maybe continuing to treat vaginas like clown cars when there are people starving all over isn't the best idea ever?
 
2011-02-08 11:30:21 PM

technicolor-misfit: Then why do we have laws against collusion and price-fixing?

We have laws against murder because people murder. We have laws against burglary because burgle. We have laws against mugging because people mug.

Why do we have laws against collusion and price fixing?


Because many legal barriers raise the barriers to entry for many markets, so it's very hard - if downright impossible - for many new firms to enter certain markets and challenge older, more established firms with competition.

There's a reason the Goldman Sachs executives in the Obama administration approved of the regulations placed on them by Dodd-Frank - because they have the economies of scale to be able to afford to comply with them and pass the additional costs off to their clients.

Why would they be in favor of such a sweeping new regulatory change? Because they know their smaller competitors cannot afford the regulations nearly as much as they can. The result: Goldman becomes further entrenched and secures itself in a quasi-oligopoly while its competitors are forced out.


I'm well aware of how the theory works. I'm just also aware of how the reality works.

Lots of things sound workable in theory, yet fail to unfold as expected.


You've failed to disprove the logic of the theory or even to present a single citation for anything you've been ranting about. If none of what I'm talking about works out in reality, then it should be easy either to poke a hole in my logic or to provide a few links of support for what you say.
 
2011-02-08 11:32:39 PM
Big Al - Ow My Balls Quote 2011-02-08 11:11:10 PM

All three of us would gladly trade places with the lucky ones who'll live in my idea of an intelligent world. We're not there yet. I'm not satisfied until we are. And I'm pretty sure capitalism won't get us there, despite doing a decent job of getting us here.

>>>>

America just needs to get the mix of capitalism and socialism down right, they threw away the cooking instructions and thought they could just go full blast to the right. 20% of Americans are happy so who gives a fark about the rest right?



This.

We need to tell the doctrinaire ideologues and zealots to go screw. There's a reason nothing is ever as flawlessly executed as it should have been to work right.

The country got sold a bill of goods on Reaganomics and we keep doubling down on the promise that if we can just keep fine-tuning it a little bit more, the wealth is gonna trickle down a gusher any day now.

We need a healthy pragmatic balance between freedom to innovate, oversight to prevent eregious abuse, and strategic public investment to light our path into the future.

Anyone who says you need to throw the wheel all the way to the ________ and aim for absolute purity is engaging in religious faith.
 
2011-02-08 11:46:35 PM

Big Al: America just needs to get the mix of capitalism and socialism down right


We've seen what happens when you mix capitalism and socialism. You get a horde of lobbyists and special interest groups influencing politicians for favorable legislation.

Capitalism allows for economic progress from the bottom-up (i.e. people are given control over their own economic production).
Socialism only allows for economic progress from the top-down (economic production is controlled by central planners in the government who have authority over the masses).

It is a system incompatible with individual freedom, hence why it fails.


theMightyRegeya: Yeah, even though I posted a negative comment about capitalism, I was apparently a frontiersman's child. Did you know there are farmers, and even people who aren't farmers, right here in America who make their kids work? Barbaric, I know.


I actually meant to write "The frontiersman in 1850 who was working on his dad's farm" since we don't have too many frontiersmen still around (though I've met some people from north Georgia who could probably fit the bill).
 
2011-02-08 11:50:23 PM
Hydra - technicolor-misfit: Then why do we have laws against collusion and price-fixing?

We have laws against murder because people murder. We have laws against burglary because burgle. We have laws against mugging because people mug.

Why do we have laws against collusion and price fixing?



Because many legal barriers raise the barriers to entry for many markets, so it's very hard - if downright impossible - for many new firms to enter certain markets and challenge older, more established firms with competition.



What does that have to do with collusion and price fixing? Are you saying that the older established firms engage in collusion and price fixing? Why would they if it doesn't serve their interests?

Are you saying the barriers to entry encourage younger newer players to collude and/or engage in price fixing? Why would they if it's an unviable business practice that doesn't happen?

Or are you saying that the older established players enact regulations against price fixing and collusion to hamstring younger upstarts? And again, unless it's a successful tactic why would such regulations hamstring them? Outlawing murder doesn't hobble me unless murder serves my interests.


This is a fine example of how people aren't like academic models... Sure, in an academic model, a guy may always be willing to give 100% to win it all and eliminate all his competition... but in the real world, a guy is apt to say... "how about we both eliminate our risk, work half as hard, and take home 35% more income this year by working together and agreeing not to charge less than $X.

Why do people go in together on lottery tickets? The potential for loss greatly outweighs the potential for gain. You cut your potential winnings in half or more, in exchange for a tiny miniscule fraction of an increased chance of winning and/or a trivially-reduced initial investment.

For want of three dollars or .000000000000004% increased chance of winning $45 million dollars was lost!

It's totally irrational... So why do they do it? Because people are emotional. They can't bear the thought that one of their friends might hit it big and they'll be left out in the cold with nothing. So they're willing to risk sacrificing 50+% of tens of millions of dollars because they fear being the loser.

That's why people collude and price fix. They can play all or nothing and maybe win bigger or lose everything, or they can cooperate and virtually guarantee a win, albeit a smaller one.

The laws are on the books because people do it... A LOT. Enough to warrant laws.
 
2011-02-08 11:55:50 PM
Hydra Quote 2011-02-08 11:46:35 PM

We've seen what happens when you mix capitalism and socialism. You get a horde of lobbyists and special interest groups influencing politicians for favorable legislation.


What are you talking about? That is exactly what happens when you let corporations control government. They have an unfair advantage and have hijacked Democracy. That is what happens when blind crony capitalism puts all the power in the hands of those with money.


Capitalism allows for economic progress from the bottom-up (i.e. people are given control over their own economic production).
Socialism only allows for economic progress from the top-down (economic production is controlled by central planners in the government who have authority over the masses).


Is this a joke? If it wasn't for progressive ideals you'd still be slaving away in a steel furnace owned by Carnegie lucky to make $20 dollars a day.


It is a system incompatible with individual freedom, hence why it fails.


Without the New Deal, capitalism would have collapsed long ago. It was the New Deal era that showed America blind free market capitalism is not the answer. There needs to be regulation, and taxes, and protections of minorities rather than the government working for the corporation to smash labor. That is what free market capitalism does, Adam Smith warned against it and would never have agreed it would work. You are a delusional fanatic too caught up in the money chase.
 
2011-02-09 12:07:37 AM
Hydra
The loopholes wouldn't exist in the first place if the government wouldn't grant special passes for lobbyists and special interests.

Every loophole and patch is emergent from the government's role as protector of rights and property etc. You can't just go back to 'a simpler time' and expect things to turn out differently.


Big Al
America just needs to get the mix of capitalism and socialism down right

We had that, it was called "the 1960s". It's a situation of balancing on a knife's edge, in the middle of a tug-of-war between unequal strengths. It can't last, it didn't last, and if we try it again it will, again, not last.
 
2011-02-09 12:11:45 AM
Ridiculous, the problem was the spending by the military industrial complex and the righting of minorities at home. Every other social indicator was positive. If it wasn't for the military industrial complex, we wouldn't have had a war since WWII and could have properly funded a healthy society where the lowest class worker makes 50k and unemployment under 1%
 
2011-02-09 12:12:32 AM
-righting
+fighting
 
2011-02-09 12:36:24 AM

technicolor-misfit: What does that have to do with collusion and price fixing? Are you saying that the older established firms engage in collusion and price fixing? Why would they if it doesn't serve their interests?

Are you saying the barriers to entry encourage younger newer players to collude and/or engage in price fixing? Why would they if it's an unviable business practice that doesn't happen?

Or are you saying that the older established players enact regulations against price fixing and collusion to hamstring younger upstarts? And again, unless it's a successful tactic why would such regulations hamstring them? Outlawing murder doesn't hobble me unless murder serves my interests.


I'm thinking you may have missed my point.

Competition keeps prices down.

Let me try an example:

Firm A and Firm B are in direct competition with each other and have equal market share. We'll initially assume no barriers to entry for new firms.
Right now, they both sell gadgets (a commodity) for $10.00 each because that is the marginal cost of producing the good. They each sell 50 in one day.

Firm A came up with a more efficient way of making gadgets that reduces the cost by $1.00 without laying off any employees or cutting into any profits.

Now, instead of selling one gadget for $10.00, Firm A can offer gadgets for $9.00 each.

Ceteris paribus, consumers are going to buy their gadgets from Firm A because they can get the same product for a cheaper price. Unless Firm B can lower its costs as well to match the price reduction, it is forced out of the market.

Before the price reduction, both firms A and B were earning $500 each day. When A lowers its price to $9, those 50 gadgets that used to be bought from B will instead be bought at A, bringing A's total earnings to $900 instead of the original $500.

Firm A now has a monopoly (as a result of competition as opposed to chartered by law - this distinction is important) on the market and an incentive to maintain its control.

Enter Firm C which can produce gadgets more efficiently than A and can sell them for $8 each.

In a free market, Firm C would not have a legal barrier to entering that market and would be able to compete with Firm A.

Firm A doesn't like this, so it lobbies the government to impose a regulation that prevents new firms from entering the gadget market.

Now, Firm C cannot enter the market to challenge Firm A's monopoly. The result: the price for a gadget to a consumer is stuck at $9 instead of $8.


This, of course, is a crude example, but it demonstrates on a microeconomic level how firms in competition will always seek to lower their costs in order to drive out competitors and gain market share.

As for collusion, it fails for the same reason socialism fails: it's hard to coordinate the actions of many players in a market. If this example were to include 1,000 existing firms and 10,000 potential start-ups ready to enter the market, there would be almost no possible way to coordinate among so many individuals in order to keep prices at a higher level than their marginal cost of production.


This is a fine example of how people aren't like academic models... Sure, in an academic model, a guy may always be willing to give 100% to win it all and eliminate all his competition... but in the real world, a guy is apt to say... "how about we both eliminate our risk, work half as hard, and take home 35% more income this year by working together and agreeing not to charge less than $X.

Because there are 4.5 billion people who don't have what we have and are willing to die to get it. Just look at what's been going on in Egypt.


It's totally irrational... So why do they do it? Because people are emotional. They can't bear the thought that one of their friends might hit it big and they'll be left out in the cold with nothing. So they're willing to risk sacrificing 50+% of tens of millions of dollars because they fear being the loser.

I'll agree with you here that people act irrationally sometimes, and you're also correct in saying that assuming rationality is not always proper.

/did I surprise you there?


That's why people collude and price fix. They can play all or nothing and maybe win bigger or lose everything, or they can cooperate and virtually guarantee a win, albeit a smaller one.

Like I said before, cartels and collusion only works if there are a few players involved, and even then, there were no guarantees that any side would hold to their agreement.

Look at OPEC before the rioting. Nations routinely cheated on their quota numbers, and unless the others could get Saudi Arabia to go along with what the others wanted, there was little they could do to prevent the Saudis from just walking away from their agreements - which they sometimes did.

Let me ask you this: before there were laws against collusion, what kept producers from charging $10 million for a bushel of wheat?
 
2011-02-09 12:40:29 AM
Captain, we are taking a direct assault of derp...
there are too many words, we can't stop it sir!
None of them make sense, it's too powerful for our shields!
 
2011-02-09 12:41:23 AM

Weaver95: Speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the president urged the business community to help accelerate the slow economic recovery by increasing hiring and unleashing some of the $2 trillion piling up on their balance sheets.

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane. so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. they care about one thing: maximum profits. that's it. they don't care about jobs, they don't care about approval ratings, they don't care about morality or ethics. they care about money. they care about how much money they've got, how much they have to spend and how to make more money.

grind it into your skull - corporations do. not. care. they are a necessary evil, and they can do some really great things for you and your economy...but the moment the economic situation changes, they will abandon you to your fate. Use corporations to accomplish your goals. NEVER trust them. Always assume that a corporation will f*ck you over first chance they get. If they behave, hey - that's great! But you'll want a big stick handy just in case they turn against you.

so don't try appealing to the better side of a corporation - they don't have one. instead - focus your efforts on finding ways to get corporations to accomplish your goals. if you have to lie, manipulate and/or resort to outright thuggery in order to bring a corporation to heel then do so...because if situations were reversed, a corporation can and will do so to you and your country.

welcome to the machine.


That's the issue though, the useful idiots who can't stand a Attractive and Successful African American President and Yellow-dog Republicans and useful idiots actually believe that Corporate America is more moral and righteous than the president.
 
2011-02-09 12:42:54 AM

Shakin_Haitian: EatHam: Weaver95: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'.

Not only that, but if they do skew towards the "greater good", their shareholders will sue them, and win.

So you guys are for effective government regulation of businesses?


I would be. However, effective is more than just 'more'. Regulations should be, by definition, regular. This means consistent in both creation and enforcement, subject to modification only as conditions merit, not subject to whim or political favoritism and certainly not self-contradictory.
 
2011-02-09 12:47:14 AM

Weaver95: Speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the president urged the business community to help accelerate the slow economic recovery by increasing hiring and unleashing some of the $2 trillion piling up on their balance sheets.

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane. so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. they care about one thing: maximum profits. that's it. they don't care about jobs, they don't care about approval ratings, they don't care about morality or ethics. they care about money. they care about how much money they've got, how much they have to spend and how to make more money.

grind it into your skull - corporations do. not. care. they are a necessary evil, and they can do some really great things for you and your economy...but the moment the economic situation changes, they will abandon you to your fate. Use corporations to accomplish your goals. NEVER trust them. Always assume that a corporation will f*ck you over first chance they get. If they behave, hey - that's great! But you'll want a big stick handy just in case they turn against you.

so don't try appealing to the better side of a corporation - they don't have one. instead - focus your efforts on finding ways to get corporations to accomplish your goals. if you have to lie, manipulate and/or resort to outright thuggery in order to bring a corporation to heel then do so...because if situations were reversed, a corporation can and will do so to you and your country.

welcome to the machine.


THIS.
 
2011-02-09 12:55:07 AM

Big Al: What are you talking about? That is exactly what happens when you let corporations control government. They have an unfair advantage and have hijacked Democracy. That is what happens when blind crony capitalism puts all the power in the hands of those with money.


This will surprise you: you won't get any argument from me on that.

The problem is that interest groups (corporations are simply a subset of interest groups) will ALWAYS gain control over the government the moment it starts to influence the market for "socialist" ends.

Once people find out that the normal rules of the economic game can be changed by buying off the right person in Washington, they're going to flock there to try to jockey for the best outcome for themselves. Politicians only want to be re-elected, so they're going to give favor to 1) those with the most money to donate to their campaigns, and 2) those who can deliver the most votes. Hence why Democrats love the unions and why Republicans love oil companies.

The sad fact of the matter is that the crony capitalism is exactly what results when you mix socialism and capitalism together.


There needs to be regulation, and taxes, and protections of minorities rather than the government working for the corporation to smash labor.

You might be surprised to know that FDR's labor legislation to keep wages artificially high was to favor southern unions in order to keep black laborers from encroaching on their grip on southern manufacturing jobs. Poor, unemployed blacks were willing to work for much lower wages than the white unionists, so the unions wanted to keep their wages from going down.


That is what free market capitalism does, Adam Smith warned against it and would never have agreed it would work.

Okay, you're DEFINITELY going to need to cite Smith on this one.
 
2011-02-09 01:00:32 AM

Big Al: Captain, we are taking a direct assault of derp...
there are too many words, we can't stop it sir!
None of them make sense, it's too powerful for our shields!


It's called reading. Top-to-bottom, left-to-right. Group words together as a sentence!

/take Tylenol for any headaches
//Midol for any cramps
 
2011-02-09 01:08:45 AM
Hydra Quote 2011-02-09 12:55:07 AM

The problem is that interest groups (corporations are simply a subset of interest groups) will ALWAYS gain control over the government the moment it starts to influence the market for "socialist" ends.

>>>

It's kind of strange how you have formed this idea that letting the magic of capitalism ala corporations have free reign and control politicians, it's all because of socialism? Ummmmmmmm Lay off the meds.
 
2011-02-09 01:19:38 AM

edlmco: stolen from
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Now ... let's do a quick Cliff Notes review of this man as it relates to commerce and the private markets.

Obama hurp derp derr er derpity durr

In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business, yet there he is telling businesses that they have to go out there and figure out how they can hire more people.


You think that it's better that the government be co-opted by whatever business interest has the most influence. No thank you, but I don't want another Victorian Era.


Would you rather have him start channeling FDR and just giving up on any cooperation with an unwilling private sector? At this point, I'm not sure that it's entirely a bad idea. Businesses have a large disconnect with the reality of high unemployment, yet want to create more of it.

Businesses aren't hiring, but want to complain that they aren't being served as if they were the G-d Almighty. Well, if you're not going to create jobs willingly, perhaps it'd not be too much to presume non-cooperation on the part of business - and start making it harder to not hire, until the situation changes.

When you're at a gun fight, you don't try to appease the other parties into not shooting you. Yet you ask our government to do just that.
 
2011-02-09 01:25:25 AM

Big Al: It's kind of strange how you have formed this idea that letting the magic of capitalism ala corporations have free reign and control politicians, it's all because of socialism? Ummmmmmmm Lay off the meds.


Cite where I said that corporations should be allowed to control and buy off politicians. It's pretty obvious that I've been adamantly against that from the beginning.

As I've said before, when a corporation or another special interest (you do know that there are other influences on politicians aside from corporations, correct?) buys off a politician to tilt the outcome of the market toward its own favor, that is not free maket capitalism.

It's a distortion of the market and a mischaracterization of capitalism.

Socialism holds that the government should have complete control over the means of production and the allocation of resources - a.k.a. the market. Any degree of socialism that you try to mix with capitalism means that the government does not have complete control but influences the outcome in some way.

That's like opening Pandora's box - once you get the government involved in influencing the market to benefit, say, agricultural businesses with subsidies for destroying crops like I explained before, you're going to get a flood of other special interests begging for the politicians to tilt the market in their favor as well.

This so-called "magic mix" of socialism and capitalism that you keep saying we can find won't work. It only results in the broken crony "capitalist" system that isn't really capitalism that we have now.
 
2011-02-09 01:30:22 AM
Free market capitalism prevents corporations and the wealthy from having more influence? Really? Where? What government oversight prevents that? Your dream of free market capitalism lead to the Gilded Age and the 29 crash already, why do you want to keep repeating history?
 
2011-02-09 01:48:15 AM

Big Al: Free market capitalism prevents corporations and the wealthy from having more influence? Really? Where? What government oversight prevents that?


It was supposed to be the Constitution.

If the central government was kept small and only marginally powerful over both the states and the people, people would be free to conduct business in their states as they pleased.

Bribing George Washington wouldn't have gotten you very far if you were trying to get a bill passed to provide you with a subsidy not to grow crops because the government did not have that kind of power.

Of course, state governments were by no means immune to corruption, so if states decided to try to overregulate a certain market or engage in unfair practices to favor one group over another, people could "vote with their feet" and move to a more fair state.

This made states compete in an effort to have the most open and fairest markets among the various states to attract the most new business.


There weren't a dozen different federal agencies with which to comply in opening a new factory - any regulation of that kind was left to the states, and those with the harshest regs soon saw their manufacturing move South as with what happened to the textile industry.


The problem with top-down regulation from the federal government is that people can't "vote with their feet" to find the best place to do business - unless they leave the country, which thousands of people and businesses are doing in droves.

Federalism is a concept we've completely forgotten about in this country.
 
2011-02-09 02:33:08 AM

140toesandfingers: MadCat221: 140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: 140toesandfingers: Once money is taxed it is destroyed

LOL wut?

Where do you think a dollar bill comes from? Money has to be borrowed into existance.

That paycheck that the DoT roadworker cashes in to pay for his living and discretionary expenses paid to entities other than the government says otherwise.

Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?

Good story... although you missed my point. You show the dollar can be traded. I am talking about created.


Here's an interesting little tidbit: the Federal Reserve isn't technically part of the government. In fact, it's a private organization. The government doesn't actually have too much in the way of controlling its day-to-day operations and would have to create legislation to change it in any way.

Thus, even in your example, taxes are not "destroyed" money. The government isn't the one creating money, the Federal Reserve is.

And this isn't just semantics, the reason the Federal Reserve was made a private, separate organization was specifically to discourage the government from simply "creating more money" when it needed to. The Federal Reserve (ideally, although politics is always at play) is there to simply gauge the economy and how well it's doing and decide how much money there should be to represent the GDP.

Now credit on the other hand, is a whole farkload of evil that functions closer to what you described.
 
2011-02-09 02:39:28 AM

Mr. Right: Pincy: Mr. Right: If Obama or the Congress wants to bring jobs into this country, they need to make the cost of employment competitive.

And how exactly do you propose they do that?

And what about making it more expensive for companies to move production out of the country in the first place?

There are literally thousands of regulations coming at companies from almost every branch of government and they all cost money to keep track and comply. The amount of paperwork - electronic or otherwise - that must be generated, filed, and maintained is the biggest single task of any HR department. A lot of it could be eliminated, nearly all of it could be streamlined. Large companies have whole departments just to insure diversity. Whether or not that fits in with your social goals, it is an enormous expense which adds no value to the customer. Mandates like ADA and FMLA sounded like a good idea at the time but they add costs that companies in other countries do not bear. Those are just a couple with which you are probably familiar. You may think they are fine ideas - that's OK. You just need to understand that they drive up the cost of employment and make moving jobs overseas more attractive.

How do you propose to make it more expensive to move production out of the country? Bear in mind that we are involved in a global economy. We can have a company based in this country with some jobs here and a lot overseas or we can have no company in this country and import those goods from a company based overseas. Until the U.S. government runs the entire world and impose their idea of fairness globally, they will have to let U.S. companies compete.


The U.S. is still the single largest consuming force in the world. When you're the largest exporter, free trade is great. When you're the largest consumer, free trade is not.

Tariffs will allow a short-term barrier until other economies develop enough consuming power (this is quickly happening in China and India) to off-set their cheap-labor offerings.

The tariffs wouldn't need to last very long. I estimate we'd only need 10 years before China and India become incredibly large consumers in the world and are hungry for U.S. made goods.
 
2011-02-09 02:45:23 AM

Zeno-25: 140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: Someone tell these CEO's that hiring people is its own tax break. Since corporations pay taxes on what's left after expenses have been paid, if you spend more on employees, you end up with a lower tax bill.

Corporations do not pay taxes. It is a cost of doing business and is passed on to the consumer.

Pretty much. Which is why as a lefty I would favor a compromise eliminating the corporate income tax, so long as we added a few extra income tax brackets. Say, 500k through 1M is taxed at 40%, 1M-5M is taxed at 50%, and everything over 5M is taxed at something nice and high like 60+%. Right now I believe it stops at ~370k and 35%? That way you have a structural arrangement that puts pressure on a more equitable distribution of a company's profits without directly affecting the consumer. Pretty much the way things were before Reagan castrated federal revenue by lowering the % taxed on the most high brackets.

/not holding my breath
//bad for the plutocracy


The tax system is a bit fudgy. If you try to shift the corporate tax burden onto its investors and high earners, then corporations will simply stop paying dividends and accumulate wealth. A corporation is not bound in any way to stay in the U.S. (it can operate anywhere, after all) so it could very well then just move its headquarters to another country along with all of that wealth its accumulated.

The biggest problem currently is that it's far too easy to do this. There is almost no cost to a corporation for moving outside the U.S.

We are no longer the growing producers. Having trade policies (free trade) that treat us as if we were the major growing producers of the world does not make sense. We are the dominant consumers. Let it cost outsiders money to take ours.
 
2011-02-09 02:49:20 AM

Hydra: The problem with top-down regulation from the federal government is that people can't "vote with their feet" to find the best place to do business - unless they leave the country, which thousands of people and businesses are doing in droves.


...until they figure out that there really isn't anywhere to hide.
 
2011-02-09 02:51:31 AM

imgod2u: The tax system is a bit fudgy. If you try to shift the corporate tax burden onto its investors and high earners, then corporations will simply stop paying dividends and accumulate wealth. A corporation is not bound in any way to stay in the U.S. (it can operate anywhere, after all) so it could very well then just move its headquarters to another country along with all of that wealth its accumulated.


Not if the US really has a problem with that. If a company sufficiently offends the US Government enough, no country will be safe.
 
2011-02-09 03:11:59 AM
Hydra
It was supposed to be the Constitution.

So what magic or perhaps extraterrestrial force corrupted things? If things were so perfect originally (and they must have been, since The Founding Fathers were god-like seers and wizards), how did it get so bad? The Devil, perhaps?
 
2011-02-09 03:14:48 AM

Hydra: No, it doesn't. Free markets mean that those in the "underclass" have the best chance at ascending to a higher standard of living.


No, it doesn't. I'll point you to the Standard Oil days as historical proof. Or modern day China.

A truly free market is great at the beginning. Everyone is motivated to work and produce and the wealth is so plentiful, even the crumbs are great. A small percentage move up, but even at the bottom, it's not so bad.

But once you've consolidated all wealth and power into the hands of a few, the whole competition side of the free market dies. You then have an imbalance of power in which the consumer no longer have leverage over the producer.

This has happened over and over and over again in every single country that has employed a free market but didn't bother to regulate it at first. I'm afraid you're simply idealizing.

Free market being the operative word here because so many people fire right back at that by saying something like, "But the evil rich people are going to do everything they can to keep them down! They're going to pass laws that keep them from ascending higher!"

That is not a free market. That's a bastardization of the market using the force of the government to achieve it. The free market fails once the government steps in to subsidize, tax, promote, discourage, give tax breaks, make mandates, and a whole host of other ways of distorting the market.


Well see, here's the thing. I'm not going to disagree that it disrupts the efficiency of a free market to make mandates, promote through tax incentives, and set policies on trade. That's of course, true.

What I'm going to say is that as a person living in a civilized society, I would rather have those inefficiencies than have poison in my food, racial discrimination while hiring, unsafe working conditions, or short-sighted get-some-money-this-quarter business being the only game in town.

The free market is great at implementing and growing production. But it falls short when it comes to long-term planning and fairness for the whole. That's where government comes in.

Of course, I will give you that our current government doesn't step in on some areas where it perhaps should (say, actually taxing the rich) and steps in way too much in some areas it shouldn't (I view social security as a huge major over-step).

But that's not to say that government doesn't have a role in regulating the market. One simply has to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis and make a value judgement on whether it's worth the disruption to regulate some things.

I don't suppose you have a problem with the FDA and FCC?

Don't know who you've been listening to, but I and people like me have been blaming central planning for ruining the economy for a while now.

It's not entirely Jane's, Tom's, Steve's, and Joe's faults that they got laid off. They weren't the ones keeping interest rates artificially low; they weren't the ones who tried to stimulate the economy in the aftermath of the tech bubble bust and 9/11; they weren't the ones mandating lower lending standards at loan originators; they weren't the ones requiring FNMA and FHLMC to buy huge amounts of subprime MBSs; they weren't the ones who protected the ratings agencies' oligopoly.

And finally, they weren't the ones who decided to bail out everyone and his brother when the shiat hit the fan.


Of course not. But they are the ones being asked to pay more taxes. Whereas stock holders of AIG raked in cash while paying their 15% long-term capital gains or 15% qualified dividend tax.

We may pay lip service to the poor, but it doesn't change the fact that a secretary paying 25% of her income in taxes is being farked over backwards compared to a major investor paying 15% of his income in taxes.

I have a hard time finding folks credible on capitalist economies while they completely ignore-if-not-dismiss unintended consequences, cause and effect, and long term effects.

People who think that aggregate demand of the economy can be "stimulated" by either taxing and spending or printing and spending without any consequences are ignoring history and empirical evidence.

Those taxes come from somewhere - under an income tax, they come from production. Production is the engine of an economy (can't employ people unless they ...


Taxes don't halt production. It has never, in the history of the economy, made a dent in production. In fact, quite the opposite. I agree somewhat on the whole "stimulus package" thing but only so much as they're a temporary solution.

When income taxes were as high as 90% in the top bracket, the U.S. was booming to become the dominant power of the world. Industries were created and expanded and the standard of living for everyone (not just the top 1%) increased dramatically.

Income tax was lowered to it's all-time low because some laser-loving actor believed that if you gave the wealthy more money, they'd happily create jobs for no other reason than that they have so much money! Forgetting the demand side entirely.

The result is not only a slowdown of GDP growth, a massive increase in national debt, a devaluation of the dollar and a wealth gap that puts Rockefeller to shame; the worst thing of all is that it created Randian nutjobs that can absolutely, positively ignore history entirely and still claim this is in any way a good system.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: fark Reagan. He started the decline of this country and we're all suffering for it.
 
2011-02-09 03:22:43 AM

Hydra: For that to come even remotely close to working, we'd also have to spread losses evenly across society. How would you suggest we do that?


By using tax money to balance the books of the major pockets of wealth when they can't front the bill?
 
2011-02-09 03:23:39 AM

sethstorm: imgod2u: The tax system is a bit fudgy. If you try to shift the corporate tax burden onto its investors and high earners, then corporations will simply stop paying dividends and accumulate wealth. A corporation is not bound in any way to stay in the U.S. (it can operate anywhere, after all) so it could very well then just move its headquarters to another country along with all of that wealth its accumulated.

Not if the US really has a problem with that. If a company sufficiently offends the US Government enough, no country will be safe.


You might wanna tell them about Exxon, Intel, Microsoft, HP, Walmart, etc. etc. etc.
 
2011-02-09 04:15:47 AM

RembrandtQEinstein: solution:

remove limited liability from corporate owners and stockholders

the problem will fix itself

(also remove immunity from police, judges and prosecutors)


This is why liberals fail at economics.
 
2011-02-09 04:24:02 AM

Zeno-25: Again, the only reason they're not doing this in the first place is because business never looks past next quarter's profits; they lack the collective foresight and coordination necessary to make broad social and economic decisions even if it's something that would make more money for them in the future.


So, your point is that every business in the history of the world is wrong and Obama is right.
 
2011-02-09 04:32:39 AM

TheBigJerk: moral and righteous


Two words that do not describe Obama in the least. Don't even try to use them in the same paragraph. Obama is a slightly less smelly turd than a corporation, if the wind is just right.
 
2011-02-09 07:26:09 AM

Shakin_Haitian: So you guys are for effective government regulation of businesses?


Yes. Note that it should be both effective and regular. That doesn't mean that I would knee jerk support any regulation that comes up though, most of it is terrible.
 
2011-02-09 08:17:31 AM
All this talk and people forget that in order for free market principles to apply, the barrier to entry into that market must be low. The free market applies to things like plumbers and electricians, and small businesses.

Free market principles don't apply to the vast majority of big businesses.
 
2011-02-09 08:23:28 AM

ansius: Private profit, socialized risk. It's the new American way.


/This
//Fark Coporate America
///Death to Plutocracy
 
2011-02-09 10:54:38 AM
Look, a basic understanding of the problem isn't beyond our grasp. While complex, the underlying factors are fairly basic:

The Profit Motive is not inherently bad, in and of itself. It's a Motive. It Motivates people and corporate entities to get things done. Things getting done is generally beneficial, relative to nothing being done, all other things being equal.

Consequences, however, are another matter. If I hurt someone, there exists a body of law through which either the state or the wronged party can prosecute me or sue me to recover loss: the consequences of my destructive action.

Corporate entities were created to protect human entities from financial ruin in cases where lucrative business ventures could be undertaken, but were of such a size that failure would result in beyond-total-bankruptcy for all partners -- so nobody would invest, because the risk was too great. Corporations created an entity that could, functionally, go bankrupt FOR YOU, thus making investment in these super-large business opportunities possible.

Unfortunately, Corporate personhood is now beginning to shield the humans making the decisions from all kinds of broader, but still destructive consequences to society in general, instead of just managing financial risk. This is the part where psychologists will describe to you all the ways that Corporate decision making on the macro level is clinically Psychopathic, lacking in all empathy or concern for society or the individuals within it -- including other Corporate entities.

That way lies savagery. Without empathy, without consequences, all is barbarism. This is what we are seeing in our financial markets: barbarism. Some equivalent of "civilization" is going to have to evolve before things get any better. What most people call "regulation" was, essentially, the corporate/fiscal equivalent of Authoritarian rule. The King keeps order because it suits him to have a functioning kingdom instead of anarchy where people eat each other's children, that kind of thing.

The peasants (the corporations), meanwhile see this autocracy for what it is: something they hate because they feel it is unfair and disenfranchising. They want more freedom. Unfortunately, without replacing the Kingdom (regulation) with something better (?), you get anarchy (and the child-eating barbarism, fiscally speaking).

What I wonder is, does anyone, and I mean ANYONE, inside the Beltway get this?
 
2011-02-09 11:43:16 AM

TheOtherGuy: Look, a basic understanding of the problem isn't beyond our grasp. While complex, the underlying factors are fairly basic:

The Profit Motive is not inherently bad, in and of itself. It's a Motive. It Motivates people and corporate entities to get things done. Things getting done is generally beneficial, relative to nothing being done, all other things being equal.

Consequences, however, are another matter. If I hurt someone, there exists a body of law through which either the state or the wronged party can prosecute me or sue me to recover loss: the consequences of my destructive action.

Corporate entities were created to protect human entities from financial ruin in cases where lucrative business ventures could be undertaken, but were of such a size that failure would result in beyond-total-bankruptcy for all partners -- so nobody would invest, because the risk was too great. Corporations created an entity that could, functionally, go bankrupt FOR YOU, thus making investment in these super-large business opportunities possible.

Unfortunately, Corporate personhood is now beginning to shield the humans making the decisions from all kinds of broader, but still destructive consequences to society in general, instead of just managing financial risk. This is the part where psychologists will describe to you all the ways that Corporate decision making on the macro level is clinically Psychopathic, lacking in all empathy or concern for society or the individuals within it -- including other Corporate entities.

That way lies savagery. Without empathy, without consequences, all is barbarism. This is what we are seeing in our financial markets: barbarism. Some equivalent of "civilization" is going to have to evolve before things get any better. What most people call "regulation" was, essentially, the corporate/fiscal equivalent of Authoritarian rule. The King keeps order because it suits him to have a functioning kingdom instead of anarchy where people eat each other's children, that kind of thing.

The peasants (the corporations), meanwhile see this autocracy for what it is: something they hate because they feel it is unfair and disenfranchising. They want more freedom. Unfortunately, without replacing the Kingdom (regulation) with something better (?), you get anarchy (and the child-eating barbarism, fiscally speaking).

What I wonder is, does anyone, and I mean ANYONE, inside the Beltway get this?


It's not really authoritarian if it's enacted by a representative democracy now is it?

The investors and CEO vote just like any other person.
 
2011-02-09 12:07:06 PM
imgod2u: The investors and CEO vote just like any other person.

Dude, what version of the US are YOU living in, if at all? They vote like thousands upon thousands of people through their campaign contributions and lobbyists, not one-at-a-time with anything so plebeian as a voting machine, like the rest of us. How do you think they did away with that "authoritarian" regime they hated so much? They bought it out by going around and outside that representative democracy. We voted to put those restrictions in place so that society would function and we could all be comfortable, and they ripped it down because it was the difference between them making eleventy-billion or eleventy-billion-and-one dollars.

That said, I agree with you. It was only authoritarian from their perspective, since, technically, corporate entities themselves do not vote. I wonder if that thought leads to an interesting place...
 
2011-02-09 01:13:54 PM

Hoopido: RembrandtQEinstein: solution:

remove limited liability from corporate owners and stockholders

the problem will fix itself

(also remove immunity from police, judges and prosecutors)

This is why liberals fail at economics.


OK professor, explain why people shouldn't be held accountable for actions carried out under their orders and in their names?

Risk doesn't magically disappear when the law says some people aren't fully liable for the results of their actions. Instead that risk is transferred to every person dealing with those who are immune.
 
2011-02-09 01:53:02 PM
imgod2u [TotalFark] Quote 2011-02-09 11:43:16 AM

It's not really authoritarian if it's enacted by a representative democracy now is it?

The investors and CEO vote just like any other person.

>>>>

So the representative democracy that said women and minorities had no rights wasn't authoritarian because... it was enacted by the majority?

The investors and CEO vote and gain political influence with their money moreso that someone else. One dollar one vote is circumventing the political system and should be illegal in a true Republic/Democracy. The only reason it's legal is because we actually live in a corporate plutocracy. And you're just a gate keeper for the super rich.
 
2011-02-09 02:16:56 PM

Weaver95: Speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the president urged the business community to help accelerate the slow economic recovery by increasing hiring and unleashing some of the $2 trillion piling up on their balance sheets.

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane. so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. they care about one thing: maximum profits. that's it. they don't care about jobs, they don't care about approval ratings, they don't care about morality or ethics. they care about money. they care about how much money they've got, how much they have to spend and how to make more money.

grind it into your skull - corporations do. not. care. they are a necessary evil, and they can do some really great things for you and your economy...but the moment the economic situation changes, they will abandon you to your fate. Use corporations to accomplish your goals. NEVER trust them. Always assume that a corporation will f*ck you over first chance they get. If they behave, hey - that's great! But you'll want a big stick handy just in case they turn against you.

so don't try appealing to the better side of a corporation - they don't have one. instead - focus your efforts on finding ways to get corporations to accomplish your goals. if you have to lie, manipulate and/or resort to outright thuggery in order to bring a corporation to heel then do so...because if situations were reversed, a corporation can and will do so to you and your country.



And this is why any rational person will never, EVER, trust a libertarian.
 
2011-02-09 03:08:58 PM

imgod2u: sethstorm: imgod2u: The tax system is a bit fudgy. If you try to shift the corporate tax burden onto its investors and high earners, then corporations will simply stop paying dividends and accumulate wealth. A corporation is not bound in any way to stay in the U.S. (it can operate anywhere, after all) so it could very well then just move its headquarters to another country along with all of that wealth its accumulated.

Not if the US really has a problem with that. If a company sufficiently offends the US Government enough, no country will be safe.

You might wanna tell them about Exxon, Intel, Microsoft, HP, Walmart, etc. etc. etc.


That's because things have not changed from appeasement to enforcement. The next FDR we get, he'll have no problem going big and going global. It's only a matter of time before the next one gets elected.
 
2011-02-09 03:11:15 PM

imgod2u: I've said this before and I'll say it again: fark Reagan. He started the decline of this country and we're all suffering for it


Never mind that the politically charged PATCO firings rewrote how businesses treated their employees, across every industry.
 
2011-02-09 03:24:11 PM

sethstorm: imgod2u: I've said this before and I'll say it again: fark Reagan. He started the decline of this country and we're all suffering for it

Never mind that the politically charged PATCO firings rewrote how businesses treated their employees, across every industry.


What does a subway line in Philadelphia have to do with it?


/knows you actually meant the air traffic controllers' union
 
2011-02-09 04:33:56 PM
There are several issues here - several of which are in conflict with each other. First of which is the opinion that businesses are in place solely to provide a wage for the working class. Most businesses weren't created for the purpose of hiring people - they were created for the purpose of delivering a product or service to consumers. Employees are just a necessity of doing business for most companies - but employees aren't the reason those companies exist.

According to the SBA, small businesses employee over half of all non-governmental workers in the US. They represent 99.7% of all employer firms and generated over 65% of all new hires in the last 15 years. The owners are more typically the guy next door who owns the neighborhood hardware store or the construction firm that built the new school. These are the guys that are afraid of getting screwed over by new or "anticipated" employment regulations. These are the guys that aren't hiring - not because they don't want to, but because they don't need to (people aren't buying their goods right now, so why add more unnecessary mouths to feed).

On the flip side, when a company gets so large that their balance sheet looks more like the budget for a South American country, there needs to be some mandatory concessions given back to aid the general population. The problem is how to protect the small business owner working out of his garage, so he can grow into the massive employer that has the ability to build these social safety nets into their bottom line.
 
2011-02-09 05:52:42 PM

Tonka Truck: There are several issues here - several of which are in conflict with each other. First of which is the opinion that businesses are in place solely to provide a wage for the working class. Most businesses weren't created for the purpose of hiring people - they were created for the purpose of delivering a product or service to consumers. Employees are just a necessity of doing business for most companies - but employees aren't the reason those companies exist.

According to the SBA, small businesses employee over half of all non-governmental workers in the US. They represent 99.7% of all employer firms and generated over 65% of all new hires in the last 15 years. The owners are more typically the guy next door who owns the neighborhood hardware store or the construction firm that built the new school. These are the guys that are afraid of getting screwed over by new or "anticipated" employment regulations. These are the guys that aren't hiring - not because they don't want to, but because they don't need to (people aren't buying their goods right now, so why add more unnecessary mouths to feed).

On the flip side, when a company gets so large that their balance sheet looks more like the budget for a South American country, there needs to be some mandatory concessions given back to aid the general population. The problem is how to protect the small business owner working out of his garage, so he can grow into the massive employer that has the ability to build these social safety nets into their bottom line.


Progressive taxation at the corporate level kinda handles this already. The problem is that after a corporate gets sufficiently big, they have the resources to move to another country and shelter their income from taxes while still having a sales/distribution network in the U.S. to gain revenue.

It also doesn't help that the truly wealthy gain their money from dividends and investments, both of which allows them to be taxed at 15% of their gained income unless they're completely f*cking retarded.

Basically, the top 1% who owns a giant chunk of the wealth in this country doesn't even pay the most taxes as a percentage of their income. Add to this the growing cost of healthcare, food and certain goods on top of predatory credit card and loan practices and it's easy to see how we're devolving into serfdom.

But no. Raising taxes -- or hell, just making them proportional to income -- would be SOCIALISM!! And that's something only sekrit moslam fascists do.
 
2011-02-09 06:33:04 PM

imgod2u: Tonka Truck: There are several issues here - several of which are in conflict with each other. First of which is the opinion that businesses are in place solely to provide a wage for the working class. Most businesses weren't created for the purpose of hiring people - they were created for the purpose of delivering a product or service to consumers. Employees are just a necessity of doing business for most companies - but employees aren't the reason those companies exist.

According to the SBA, small businesses employee over half of all non-governmental workers in the US. They represent 99.7% of all employer firms and generated over 65% of all new hires in the last 15 years. The owners are more typically the guy next door who owns the neighborhood hardware store or the construction firm that built the new school. These are the guys that are afraid of getting screwed over by new or "anticipated" employment regulations. These are the guys that aren't hiring - not because they don't want to, but because they don't need to (people aren't buying their goods right now, so why add more unnecessary mouths to feed).

On the flip side, when a company gets so large that their balance sheet looks more like the budget for a South American country, there needs to be some mandatory concessions given back to aid the general population. The problem is how to protect the small business owner working out of his garage, so he can grow into the massive employer that has the ability to build these social safety nets into their bottom line.

Progressive taxation at the corporate level kinda handles this already. The problem is that after a corporate gets sufficiently big, they have the resources to move to another country and shelter their income from taxes while still having a sales/distribution network in the U.S. to gain revenue.

It also doesn't help that the truly wealthy gain their money from dividends and investments, both of which allows them to be taxed at 15% of their gained income unless they're completely f*cking retarded.

Basically, the top 1% who owns a giant chunk of the wealth in this country doesn't even pay the most taxes as a percentage of their income. Add to this the growing cost of healthcare, food and certain goods on top of predatory credit card and loan practices and it's easy to see how we're devolving into serfdom.

But no. Raising taxes -- or hell, just making them proportional to income -- would be SOCIALISM!! And that's something only sekrit moslam fascists do.


That's why I like the idea of either a consumption tax or something like the fair tax. Too many ways to hide income - both legally (like Steve Jobs being paid $1 per year and living off of his dividends at 15%) to illegal (like organized crime, drug dealers, etc. - all pretty good paying but with little or no "taxable" income)
 
2011-02-09 07:24:07 PM

RanDomino: Hydra
It was supposed to be the Constitution.

So what magic or perhaps extraterrestrial force corrupted things? If things were so perfect originally (and they must have been, since The Founding Fathers were god-like seers and wizards), how did it get so bad? The Devil, perhaps?


A good place to start is FDR. His threat to the courts to stack the bench in order to get his New Deal to pass constitutional muster. The courts narrowly allowed him to move forward in order to prevent a constitutional crisis and another potential US civil war or Egypt style uprising. This was the the original major breach of the Constitutional firewall from which all further expansion of government power has usurped the original intent. See Wickard v. Filburn for an example.
 
2011-02-09 07:30:18 PM
And that New Deal was horrible, allowing your family to enjoy a middle class life. What was FDR thinking when he threatened the right wing conservative aristocracy? Obviously if we just went back to white land owners as the basic foundation of society everything would be better again.
 
2011-02-09 08:59:52 PM
Tonka Truck
That's why I like the idea of either a consumption tax or something like the fair tax. Too many ways to hide income - both legally (like Steve Jobs being paid $1 per year and living off of his dividends at 15%) to illegal (like organized crime, drug dealers, etc. - all pretty good paying but with little or no "taxable" income)

I'm down with a "Fair Tax" as long as we also get rid of property tax. Then I'll just disconnect from capitalism entirely and all you'll see are my two middle fingers.


Rodddxl
A good place to start is FDR. His threat to the courts to stack the bench in order to get his New Deal to pass constitutional muster. The courts narrowly allowed him to move forward in order to prevent a constitutional crisis and another potential US civil war or Egypt style uprising. This was the the original major breach of the Constitutional firewall from which all further expansion of government power has usurped the original intent. See Wickard v. Filburn for an example.

The alternative to the New Deal was probably a Communist insurrection and the effective end of the United States (either from their success or the tyranny necessary to keep people from complaining when they can't eat). So the New Deal didn't cause the failure; it was a response.

Also, that was ~30 years after the trust-busting era, which was a response to, as I think I've said, a time when the most cunning and ruthless capitalists had gotten individually powerful enough to subvert the 'free market' system. But that still wasn't enough.

One way or another, capitalism leads invariably to oligarchy and/or collapse. Regulations can stave it off, but such a system has no stable equilibrium.
 
2011-02-09 09:02:43 PM
You summed up FDR nicely. No rational thought or reasoning on what the constitution says or the tyranny of his actions. Only emotional hand wringing. New Deal or Raw Deal. Try it. You might learn something. Nah. Scratch that. You lack the intellectual integrity for it to be any use.
 
2011-02-09 09:14:33 PM

RanDomino: Rodddxl
A good place to start is FDR. His threat to the courts to stack the bench in order to get his New Deal to pass constitutional muster. The courts narrowly allowed him to move forward in order to prevent a constitutional crisis and another potential US civil war or Egypt style uprising. This was the the original major breach of the Constitutional firewall from which all further expansion of government power has usurped the original intent. See Wickard v. Filburn for an example.

The alternative to the New Deal was probably a Communist insurrection and the effective end of the United States (either from their success or the tyranny necessary to keep people from complaining when they can't eat). So the New Deal didn't cause the failure; it was a response.


I wasn't referring to the New Deal per se. It was the precedent that the courts assumed they had the power to grant the government extraconstitutional powers.

A lot of experts point out that FDR's policies exacerbated a recession and made it into the Great Depression. The alternative to the New Deal was a rapid recovery.
 
2011-02-09 09:49:03 PM
Rodddxl
I wasn't referring to the New Deal per se. It was the precedent that the courts assumed they had the power to grant the government extraconstitutional powers.

So where did that corruption come from?

A lot of experts point out that FDR's policies exacerbated a recession and made it into the Great Depression. The alternative to the New Deal was a rapid recovery.

Not that I'm in pro-New Deal, but name one actual expert/study to that says that other than that UCLA study.
 
2011-02-10 06:17:41 PM

RanDomino: Rodddxl
I wasn't referring to the New Deal per se. It was the precedent that the courts assumed they had the power to grant the government extraconstitutional powers.

So where did that corruption come from?

A lot of experts point out that FDR's policies exacerbated a recession and made it into the Great Depression. The alternative to the New Deal was a rapid recovery.

Not that I'm in pro-New Deal, but name one actual expert/study to that says that other than that UCLA study.


You wanted to know how the Constitution was suverted. Now you know.

The "experts" that excuse FDR are generally historians. The experts in economics generally don't. That should tell you something. You want one? How about seven?
Melchior Palyi
Burton Folsom, Jr.
John T. Flynn
Robert Higgs
Lionel Robbins
David Lawrence
Murray N. Rothbard

Principles from:
Frédéric Bastiat
Henry Hazlitt
Ludwig Van Mises
 
2011-02-10 07:14:46 PM

Big Al: And that New Deal was horrible, allowing your family to enjoy a middle class life. What was FDR thinking when he threatened the right wing conservative aristocracy? Obviously if we just went back to land owners as the basic foundation of society everything would be better again.


THIS
 
2011-02-10 07:16:36 PM
(The previous THIS was for the point made behind the sarcasm)
 
2011-02-10 08:21:55 PM
Rodddxl
You wanted to know how the Constitution was suverted. Now you know.

My point is that if the Constitution was corrupted, what would prevent the same thing from happening by just returning to the original conditions?

The "experts" that excuse FDR are generally historians. The experts in economics generally don't. That should tell you something. You want one? How about seven?

So were you going to be showing any kind of actual studies or anything...?

Murray N. Rothbard
Ludwig Van Mises


Nope, no ideological baggage here...
 
2011-02-11 05:52:30 PM

RanDomino: Rodddxl
You wanted to know how the Constitution was suverted. Now you know.

My point is that if the Constitution was corrupted, what would prevent the same thing from happening by just returning to the original conditions?

The "experts" that excuse FDR are generally historians. The experts in economics generally don't. That should tell you something. You want one? How about seven?

So were you going to be showing any kind of actual studies or anything...?

Murray N. Rothbard
Ludwig Van Mises

Nope, no ideological baggage here...


THIS. Never mind that the UCLA paper is only proof that people are willing to make attempts at revising history.
 
2011-02-11 06:36:57 PM

RanDomino: Rodddxl
You wanted to know how the Constitution was suverted. Now you know.

My point is that if the Constitution was corrupted, what would prevent the same thing from happening by just returning to the original conditions?


The States and the people prevent it.

The "experts" that excuse FDR are generally historians. The experts in economics generally don't. That should tell you something. You want one? How about seven?

So were you going to be showing any kind of actual studies or anything...?


You asked for just one source. I pointed you in the direction of seven. If you want an education, you have to make an effort.

Murray N. Rothbard
Ludwig Van Mises

Nope, no ideological baggage here...


Baggage or not, you can't refute the principles.

sethstorm: THIS. Never mind that the UCLA paper is only proof that people are willing to make attempts at revising history.


So you rely on experts in history, rather than experts in economics, to make conclusions about economics. Interesting. Do you also ask your waitress how to replace the transmission on a car?

It's not so much "revising history" as it is correcting the record. You will never learn the lessons of history if the history is wrong.
 
Displayed 220 of 220 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report