[quote] unfortunately, you make a similar mistake... why 48 hrs and why 96 hrs ? [/quote] Huh? You just made that mistake, not me. The point isn't about 48 and 96 hours, the point is about both the proportion of increase in effort relative to wages, and also that there are other factors to bear
[quote] Read what you said again [/quote] I'm not normally too fussy over grammer etc., but could you re-read what you said and possibly even edit it? Having to read 100 ? and !'s really hurts my eyes. [quote] were all those trillions of dollars of losses "your money" or "their money" ? [/quote] Their money. [quote] we are talking about "
[quote] Raise those taxes and that business can no longer afford to grow, re-invest in itself, or hire more people. Yes, companies do reinvest much of their profits back into the company, AFTER those profits are taxed [/quote] Not entirely accurate - if you choose to reinvest profits into your business by incurring various expenditure that is allowable for tax purposes, then that will reduce your actual taxable profits, meaning you pay less tax, and the profit reinvested wasn't
JoeUser Forums
[quote] I trust you're not saying this is bad. ...so what? Institutional labor has as much right as corporations in the attempt to dictate, however unsuccessfully [/quote] Actually I am saying it is bad. Remove wage flexibility from companies, and it will have a negative impact on employment overall - if times are good, a company may well hold off on hiring the extra worker that would help them maximise profits because they know that if times then get hard they w
[quote] "business/investors know best" .... is a huge fallacy that is at the core of the current fanancial crises... there must be a reasonable set of regulations that prevents the greed and deceit from taking over the system [/quote] It's no fallacy. Let people spend their own money as they want. If they make foolish investments they will pay the cost. Greed is the eas
[quote] I could be wrong but I think we already do this [/quote] I'm not talking so much about what is actually done (since I think the US+western europe already go further than what I proposed here, and typically do feature a tax-free amount of income initially), but more about what quite a few people here seem to have said they'd want to be done. [quote] why are people so for taxes? Okay not taxes but raising them? [/quote] Not sure if that was directed at my post, b
JoeUser Forums
[quote] Pure, exaggerated myth--the epitome of union bashing in the war against public employees, teachers, truckers--only union free workers are responsible [/quote] Although some points did feel like saying the same thing in a slightly different way, how is it pure exaggerated myth? It's fairly well documented I think that if you have a strong union in a company, that company is far less likely to cut wages than if there was no union - i.e. you have less wage flexibility. Similarly
It's for investors and banks to decide what an appropriate level of gearing is really - if a company has massive levels of debts, then investors are unlikely to get any money back on their shares (there's a good chance the company could go under, in which case they get nothing, or the company just performs ok, and has all of it's profits sucked up by the interest on the debt). Meanwhile if the company looks to obtain more debt from banks, then the banks have to guage the chances of ever getti
[quote] Government taking money for the common good is just. Government robbing peter to pay paul is slavery. Learn the difference or you will never be able to discuss it intelligently. [/quote] Robbery is theft with force, and theft is illegally taking someone elses property. Taxation is legal, and hence is not robbery. However since you seem to be repeating the mantra that taxing for redistribution isn't taxation but is slavery, are you really saying that a government policy t
One argument in favour of the Citi bailout (not saying I support it, since I'm generally opposed to bail outs and don't know the full specifics of the situation), but it could well be that Citi has a sound business that can cope financially, but is vulnerable to people having poor expectations about it's future, with people believing it is in worse shape than it actually is. However the government is aware of Citi's true state, and so buys up pref shares in Citi since not only should they be
[quote] The market expects Obama to raise taxes, so it tanked. Simple economics. [/quote] Not as simple as it would first appear. Obama was quite clear in the run up to the election that he would raise taxes (e.g. Joe+redistribution of wealth), and it was already looking all but certain that he would win the election. Therefore it would have been expected back then that taxes would raise. This would have been further reinforced on his winning the election (although any negative
On this forum I think it's fair to say many people are against progressive taxes, that is, the idea of using the tax system in part to redistribute wealth (either directly by taking a higher % from the rich and giving it to the poor in the form of benefits, or the more indirect method of just taxing the rich at a higher % than the poor). Arguments such as the consideration of the poor's disposable income preventing them from being able to pay as much as taxes are typically dismissed, an
[quote] That is not the article nor the comments. Please reread and then repost [/quote] I didn't realise I'd need to spell out such an obvious thing, but since you're insisting issues are somehow off-topic, here you go: [quote] Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, [b]the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings?[/b] [/quote] Now what is the highl
[quote] Obama is already talking the usual rhetoric that the "rich" must pay their "fair" share so everyone else can get a break. I just love it when liberals call taking money from one person and giving it to another "fair". [/quote] Taxing people according to their ability to pay seems to have some fairness behind it to me. Are you suggesting having people on $10k income (needing say $10k to survive) get taxed $2k and then having to cut out some necessity (such as food) is fai
[quote] Flippancy does not erase the seriousness of losing the last line of defense in saving an industrial base. [/quote] So lose it. If it turns out in the future that circumstances change and it's needed, if you've made sure the market doesn't have any artificial barriers to entry then you'll see companies springing up again. No point throwing money down a drain just so you can say 'hey look - we produce cars!'. Better to focus on the industries you're best at than make all of thos
[quote] They were allowed to sweep in and make their own rules, get all kinds of subsidies from the home countries and immense tax incentives and union free assurance from the states [/quote] Well IMO it's quite simple: Make everyone play by the same rules for their operations in your country, and don't give any of them any help - i.e. no special loans or subisides to any company. The companies who can't cope will pack up shop and either close down for good or move elsewhere, and thos
[quote] No he just failed basic economics, assuming he bothered to study it at all. Only a total moron could actually believe that higher taxes is good for the economy [/quote] Actually in economics there are some scenarios where higher taxes can be good for the economy (assuming by economy you're just looking at GDP) [quote] his rhetoric sure has the markets thinking that. 2k drop in only 3 weeks. [/quote] So presumably bush's rhetoric towards the
[quote] More efficient competitors is a myth [/quote] Really? Just that I thought we were talking about 3 companies failing here, not every single company in the entire industry...
[quote] What to do with the 10,000 dealerships and their employees, the auto parts stores in every community, the hundreds of thousands on the assembly line? The stock answer too big too fail. [/quote] Ever think of letting some of them be employed by the more efficient competitiors, and the remainder transfer to a different industry where they will actually make money, instead of losing it? Too big to fail is a feeble excuse, and basically translates as 'we don't want to suff
1) share? They are separate companies! 2) So you're looking for a volunteer worker to run a company? That's sure to help turn them around, likely getting someone in who won't have a clue about how to manage a large company or about the car industry. If you want someone who can run/manage the company well, it won't come for free. 3) Why? What if big luxury cars are really profitable and can sell, why impose an arbitrary limit on them? What possible reason is there? You want the
[quote] Changing the subject again I see. Enslaving me for the benefit of another was outlawed 150 years ago in this country. If I am forced to work for you for no wages, that is called slavery. Period. Sugar coat it any way you want, but that is what it is. [/quote] Actually you were the one who brought up the issue of it being evil. Taxing someone is not slavery, no matter how you try and look at it, and that was what the quoted article appeared to be ref
[quote] when you take money from paul to pay peter without any benefit for paul just because the government has decreed it. That is where is becomes evil [/quote] Evil? You're seriously trying to argue that having the government help out the most vulnerable in society is evil? Out of interest is invading another country, overthrowing their leader, and having your actions result in the deaths of thousands evil? What about producing harmful gases etc. that will damage the world fo
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="24" id="1946751"] The government is the community. Problem identified in a nutshell right there. If you believe that, there's no point in debating. Lenin claimed the same thing.[/quote] I doubt Lenin was referring to an analogy in which an old woman and a local community were being talked about. In this example, yes, the community could be the government - there is such a thing as local government as well as national government you know!
[quote] Show me that person who worked 50years that way. The sad fact is that the person does not exist [/quote] A pretty bold statement, given how many million people there are in the US. You see, you'll need to prove that that isn't the case for every single person. Fratz just needs to find a single one to disprove you! On balance, I'm prepared to believe that there is at least one person out there who has worked as much as they've been able, with an average minimum wage income per
[quote] Because it's two different arguments. It would not be evil for the local community to come together to support this woman, that's called charity. It would be evil for the government to force you alone, not your neighbor, or your neighbor' neighbor to support this woman. You are singled out and I think that is the point of the article [/quote] No, you misunderstand. If the local community comes together a