quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Income made in the US should have taxes paid to the US. Income made outside the US, shouldn't have taxes paid to the US, imo.
Preventing businesses from reincorporating outside the US, imo, shouldn't be prevented by edict. Why are these companies reincorporating outside the US? And, why isn't that addressed?

I think it should be addressed, and I'm not arguing that anyone should be prevented from leaving the U.S. if they wish to leave. But if they want to have their cake and eat it, too, then that might be something worth questioning.

quote:

Have you ever stopped to consider just how absurd it all is? I mean, here we have people born into wealth and privilege, who have every luxury and comfort, who enjoy the protection of living under one of the most powerful governments and nations on the planet, and yet, they're still complaining that they're not getting enough.

quote:

I agree with you about the low information voters. I have to admit that I’m somewhat baffled at times, especially since our society overall has favored education and informed political activism. It’s not that the information isn’t available, so I don’t see any real excuse for anyone to be a low information voter nowadays. It may also be due to the quality of the information they have, not the quantity.
Politicians also have a way of playing on people’s fears. That’s why mud-slinging and negative advertising seems to be so effective at winning elections. The common voter’s logic might go like this: “Well, I don’t really like D that much, but I’ll vote for him just because I’m really afraid that R will get in there. I really like G and would rather see him win, but he has no chance of winning and I don’t want to waste my vote. So I’m voting for D.” I think it’s actually a greater waste of one’s vote by voting for the lesser of two evils when there might be more desirable candidates in the field who get all but ignored.

quote:

quote:

Taxing people at ever higher rates to subsidize more and more isn't knocking people down? I disagree.

Well, I think it would depend on how high the rate is. Taxation, in and of itself, is not designed to knock people down. It can certainly be used that way and abused to extreme proportions. We have a far from perfect track record in terms of governmental abuses in this country, but at least in my lifetime, I don’t think the taxes have really been that bad. Sure, they’re kind of a pain in the butt; I hate taxes, so it’s not that I’m unsympathetic.
I also find it especially galling to consider how much of the people’s money is wasted by the government. I don’t think that negates the necessity of taxation, but I agree that the government needs to come up with a better way of doing things.

quote:

quote:

My use of the phrase, "for the most part," indicates that working harder isn't always going to be indicative of your success levels, and there are people who get to add to what their forebears started, too. A person "paying it forward" to his/her children is a good thing. Even that is being attacked. You take two people who are generally equal, the one that works harder than the other will tend to be more successful. I'm never going to have income like Lebron, the Koch's, Bill Gates, etc., and I'm perfectly okay with that. I don't need it. I'm looking at competing with myself, though. I want to be better than I am. I know that the better I am, the more valuable an employee I'll be, and the more successful I'll be.

On a personal level, I’m much the same way, and in no way am I criticizing hard work, diligence, or even the success of the individuals you’re referring to. I just don’t think that it tells the whole story. In any case, noting individual success is more a credit to the talent, skills, hard work, and determination of those particular individuals. It doesn’t necessarily give credit to any particular system or political ideology. Hard work, talent, ambition, intelligence, and diligence will always tend to pay off on an individual level, regardless of whatever economic or political system one lives under.

quote:

quote:

quote:

But when those empty storefronts remain empty for what seems like an unusually long time, with no one stepping in to replace them, then it's time to start asking the hard questions.

Yes, it is. And, part of the problem could very easily be government putting hurdles in place, making it more and more difficult for entrepreneurs to enter the marketplace. The more difficult it is to form and run a company (from a government compliance aspect), the less competition there will be for those that are already there.
And, for the peanut gallery, that doesn't mean I don't want any regulations on start ups, or anything like that.

Whatever hurdles are put in place by government can be addressed and negotiated. I’ve seen a lot of businesses go under because their rent was too high and they couldn’t renegotiate their lease. Or maybe they can’t get any loans if the bank feels it’s not a good investment anymore. Whatever is squeezing small business these days, I can’t believe that it’s just government doing that through regulation and taxation. The big businesses play a pretty big role as well.
Maybe the government can put the hurdles and regulations on big business, while cutting small business a break and removing some of the hurdles. I don’t think anyone wants to knock down any of the hard-working small business owners, but I think most of the public’s anger these days is mainly directed at the fat cats and others at the top levels.

quote:

quote:


Indecision and gridlock can be limiting to real improvement, but it can also prevent further distortions of the economy. "Real improvement" and "distortions" will be defined by your political persuasion, of course.

I think there might be ways of measuring “real improvement” from a more objective and non-political point of view. After all, there are plenty of things that conservatives and liberals do agree upon, so they can always try to build upon that. I don’t think we need any distortions of the economy, but I always try to remember that any perceptions of the economy are tied in with political and cultural perceptions as well. I figure, as long as we don’t have any major shortages of vital goods, or no food riots or power outages, we’re still shooting par. They never promised us a rose garden.

quote:

Still, when there are more and more boarded up storefronts, more pawn shops, more panhandlers and homeless people, and other signs of misery out there, it’s hard to ignore. Or even if people aren’t materially deprived, there still seems to be some inexplicable level of insanity that I can’t quite fathom. I don’t blame capitalism directly for that, but I think capitalism advocates a system which allows for unscrupulous people to prey on the weak and vulnerable. So, part of the loathing of capitalism also rests in the idea of wanting to protect the weak, which is an honorable thing for Captain America to do.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You: "Fundamentally people like to work and do good work. So given the opportunity they will be productive and as technology advances they become more productive thus multiplying the Capitalists investment without him having to do anything."
The Capitalist still needs to invest in the technology advances (which could include the R & D of that technology). The Capitalist invests in technology, generally, to reduce costs. It's not the people doing the work that are taking on that risk. It's the Capitalist that is risking the money.
Yes, the company does need to provide the means of production, allowing the employee to provide the labor to create the products, but if an employee's productivity rises because the company invests in better technology, and the employee isn't providing more labor, that increase in productivity needn't be rewarded with greater pay. The increased productivity will tend to increase profits (a portion of which usually goes towards paying for the tech invested in, saving for future investments, and/or research into further tech advances). If an employee is more productive than the next employee, using the same means of production, the more productive employee should be compensated to a greater degree. Therein lies an incentive to improve one's productivity.

Another fallacious argument. Productivity gains that increase a company's profits that are not shared with the company's workforce are bad for the economy and therefore ultimately bad for that company. It is what is so constraining our economy today. Consider if the company's increased profits primarily go to executive compensation and stock dividends (the present model) then those productivity gains do not drive increases in demand throughout the economy since business executives already have more income than they spend and that is also true for the investment class that receives most of the stock dividends.
Rationally, increasing the pay of all workers when productivity increases, increases demand throughout the economy which helps the entire economy.

It is not bad for the economy and workforce to not share productivity gains with the workforce when it isn't an improvement in their input. Wouldn't it help the economy and workforce to reduce the price of the product? You know, lower the price to compete for higher sales?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
That we are talking about something that can be measured in numbers, we have a historical record in addition to the exhortation that rising productivity...raises standards of living. It once did, it does no more.
There are two main effects of rising productivity. When a worker produces more per hour, the unit cost is reduced thereby raising the return on capital. Historically out of every dollar of that increase, labor got 1/3...capital 2/3. Now labor gets 1/10...capital 9/10.
Also, as an example of technology increasing productivity, when the IBM 360 was introduced in 1960, it made obsolete...the ubiquitous IBM card. (mechanical tabulation tech.)
That advancement almost immediately put 7 million people...out of work thereby reducing the demand for labor which reduced the return on labor whose share of that increase...was zero. (also, women were just beginning to enter the workforce, vastly increasing the supply of labor) (also eliminated was IRD Internal Records Div. of IBM, 18th & E. St. NW Wash., DC where many of my friends started)
Thus looking at the entire history of the benefits of increasing productivity, by far, most has gone to capital.

quote:

System/360 monthly rentals will range from $2,700 for a basic configuration to $115,000 for a typical large multisystem configuration. Comparable purchase prices range from $133,000 to $5,500,000.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You: "Fundamentally people like to work and do good work. So given the opportunity they will be productive and as technology advances they become more productive thus multiplying the Capitalists investment without him having to do anything."
The Capitalist still needs to invest in the technology advances (which could include the R & D of that technology). The Capitalist invests in technology, generally, to reduce costs. It's not the people doing the work that are taking on that risk. It's the Capitalist that is risking the money.
Yes, the company does need to provide the means of production, allowing the employee to provide the labor to create the products, but if an employee's productivity rises because the company invests in better technology, and the employee isn't providing more labor, that increase in productivity needn't be rewarded with greater pay. The increased productivity will tend to increase profits (a portion of which usually goes towards paying for the tech invested in, saving for future investments, and/or research into further tech advances). If an employee is more productive than the next employee, using the same means of production, the more productive employee should be compensated to a greater degree. Therein lies an incentive to improve one's productivity.

Another fallacious argument. Productivity gains that increase a company's profits that are not shared with the company's workforce are bad for the economy and therefore ultimately bad for that company. It is what is so constraining our economy today. Consider if the company's increased profits primarily go to executive compensation and stock dividends (the present model) then those productivity gains do not drive increases in demand throughout the economy since business executives already have more income than they spend and that is also true for the investment class that receives most of the stock dividends.
Rationally, increasing the pay of all workers when productivity increases, increases demand throughout the economy which helps the entire economy.

It is not bad for the economy and workforce to not share productivity gains with the workforce when it isn't an improvement in their input. Wouldn't it help the economy and workforce to reduce the price of the product? You know, lower the price to compete for higher sales?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Unemployment doesn't reduce the demand for labor -- it increases the supply of labor, thereby lowering the market equilibrium point.


If the demand for labor is x and unemployment increases the supply of x to 2x labor. Now that the labor pool has been expanded the demand on that new pool is reduced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Unemployment doesn't reduce the demand for labor -- it increases the supply of labor, thereby lowering the market equilibrium point.

Increased productivity benefits capital initially perhaps, but depending on elasticity, benefits consumers as well; whether it benefits labor depends on whether the quantity demanded of the good increases more than the gains in productivity.

But it also re-allocates labor from where it is being used inefficiently to where labor is more appropriately applied.

You have a lot of labor saving devices in your home -- furnace, dish-washer, laundry machines, computer . . . but people still find plenty of work that needs their attention. Your productivity is greatly increased, and with it, the work you have to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Unemployment doesn't reduce the demand for labor -- it increases the supply of labor, thereby lowering the market equilibrium point.


If the demand for labor is x and unemployment increases the supply of x to 2x labor. Now that the labor pool has been expanded the demand on that new pool is reduced.

Not at all.

If you need 6 apples, and the store has 6, awesome. If the store has 12, you still need 6. Larger supply, same demand.

If the store has 12, and you now only need 5 (because you are more productive with apples), that's a decrease in quantity demanded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You: "Fundamentally people like to work and do good work. So given the opportunity they will be productive and as technology advances they become more productive thus multiplying the Capitalists investment without him having to do anything."
The Capitalist still needs to invest in the technology advances (which could include the R & D of that technology). The Capitalist invests in technology, generally, to reduce costs. It's not the people doing the work that are taking on that risk. It's the Capitalist that is risking the money.
Yes, the company does need to provide the means of production, allowing the employee to provide the labor to create the products, but if an employee's productivity rises because the company invests in better technology, and the employee isn't providing more labor, that increase in productivity needn't be rewarded with greater pay. The increased productivity will tend to increase profits (a portion of which usually goes towards paying for the tech invested in, saving for future investments, and/or research into further tech advances). If an employee is more productive than the next employee, using the same means of production, the more productive employee should be compensated to a greater degree. Therein lies an incentive to improve one's productivity.

Another fallacious argument. Productivity gains that increase a company's profits that are not shared with the company's workforce are bad for the economy and therefore ultimately bad for that company. It is what is so constraining our economy today. Consider if the company's increased profits primarily go to executive compensation and stock dividends (the present model) then those productivity gains do not drive increases in demand throughout the economy since business executives already have more income than they spend and that is also true for the investment class that receives most of the stock dividends.
Rationally, increasing the pay of all workers when productivity increases, increases demand throughout the economy which helps the entire economy.

It is not bad for the economy and workforce to not share productivity gains with the workforce when it isn't an improvement in their input. Wouldn't it help the economy and workforce to reduce the price of the product? You know, lower the price to compete for higher sales?

No. Like I just showed, if the higher profits simply goes into the pockets of the wealthy that does not drive demand and without demand the economy stagnates. What we need is lots of people spending money on stuff, preferably without it being borrowed money.

You need to stop thinking that supply side economic theory is right. Look around you. how many decades of economic calamity does it take to prove it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That's not what's happening currently -- it's that businesses and banks are sitting on large piles of cash, because of uncertainty and the very low interest rates that allow them to afford to do that. Otherwise, they'd be forced by economic interest to invest in something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You: "Fundamentally people like to work and do good work. So given the opportunity they will be productive and as technology advances they become more productive thus multiplying the Capitalists investment without him having to do anything."
The Capitalist still needs to invest in the technology advances (which could include the R & D of that technology). The Capitalist invests in technology, generally, to reduce costs. It's not the people doing the work that are taking on that risk. It's the Capitalist that is risking the money.
Yes, the company does need to provide the means of production, allowing the employee to provide the labor to create the products, but if an employee's productivity rises because the company invests in better technology, and the employee isn't providing more labor, that increase in productivity needn't be rewarded with greater pay. The increased productivity will tend to increase profits (a portion of which usually goes towards paying for the tech invested in, saving for future investments, and/or research into further tech advances). If an employee is more productive than the next employee, using the same means of production, the more productive employee should be compensated to a greater degree. Therein lies an incentive to improve one's productivity.

Another fallacious argument. Productivity gains that increase a company's profits that are not shared with the company's workforce are bad for the economy and therefore ultimately bad for that company. It is what is so constraining our economy today. Consider if the company's increased profits primarily go to executive compensation and stock dividends (the present model) then those productivity gains do not drive increases in demand throughout the economy since business executives already have more income than they spend and that is also true for the investment class that receives most of the stock dividends.
Rationally, increasing the pay of all workers when productivity increases, increases demand throughout the economy which helps the entire economy.

It is not bad for the economy and workforce to not share productivity gains with the workforce when it isn't an improvement in their input. Wouldn't it help the economy and workforce to reduce the price of the product? You know, lower the price to compete for higher sales?

No. Like I just showed, if the higher profits simply goes into the pockets of the wealthy that does not drive demand and without demand the economy stagnates. What we need is lots of people spending money on stuff, preferably without it being borrowed money.

You need to stop thinking that supply side economic theory is right. Look around you. how many decades of economic calamity does it take to prove it?

It's called dollar velocity, the higher the velocity, the more dollars in more hands and means...a growing economy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That's not what's happening currently -- it's that businesses and banks are sitting on large piles of cash, because of uncertainty and the very low interest rates that allow them to afford to do that. Otherwise, they'd be forced by economic interest to invest in something.

How do low interest rates make it easy to sit on "large piles of cash"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Unemployment doesn't reduce the demand for labor -- it increases the supply of labor, thereby lowering the market equilibrium point.
If the demand for labor is x and unemployment increases the supply of x to 2x labor. Now that the labor pool has been expanded the demand on that new pool is reduced.

Not at all.
If you need 6 apples, and the store has 6, awesome. If the store has 12, you still need 6. Larger supply, same demand.
If the store has 12, and you now only need 5 (because you are more productive with apples), that's a decrease in quantity demanded.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
No. Like I just showed, if the higher profits simply goes into the pockets of the wealthy that does not drive demand and without demand the economy stagnates. What we need is lots of people spending money on stuff, preferably without it being borrowed money.
You need to stop thinking that supply side economic theory is right. Look around you. how many decades of economic calamity does it take to prove it?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
That's not what's happening currently -- it's that businesses and banks are sitting on large piles of cash, because of uncertainty and the very low interest rates that allow them to afford to do that. Otherwise, they'd be forced by economic interest to invest in something.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)