(04-07-2015 08:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:06 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Shareholders are your neighbors. Shareholders are the guys working 15 years in thw same job with a 401k. Putting money in the shareholders hands is a good thing.

More than half of Americans are not in the stock market.

That's what it was at one point but not anymore.

People with no spare income don't play the market. It's part of the driving force behind the wealthy getting wealthier while the poor get poorer.

There is nothing wrong with making money for shareholders but it should not be an acceptable excuse for some of the rather unsavory things American corporations are doing.

Corporations exists to make a profit for their shareholders.

(04-07-2015 09:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:06 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Shareholders are your neighbors. Shareholders are the guys working 15 years in thw same job with a 401k. Putting money in the shareholders hands is a good thing.

More than half of Americans are not in the stock market.

That's what it was at one point but not anymore.

People with no spare income don't play the market. It's part of the driving force behind the wealthy getting wealthier while the poor get poorer.

There is nothing wrong with making money for shareholders but it should not be an acceptable excuse for some of the rather unsavory things American corporations are doing.

Corporations exists to make a profit for their shareholders.

Then why do they all pretend to care about being "good corporate citizens?"

(04-07-2015 09:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:06 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Shareholders are your neighbors. Shareholders are the guys working 15 years in thw same job with a 401k. Putting money in the shareholders hands is a good thing.

More than half of Americans are not in the stock market.

That's what it was at one point but not anymore.

People with no spare income don't play the market. It's part of the driving force behind the wealthy getting wealthier while the poor get poorer.

There is nothing wrong with making money for shareholders but it should not be an acceptable excuse for some of the rather unsavory things American corporations are doing.

Corporations exists to make a profit for their shareholders.

Then why do they all pretend to care about being "good corporate citizens?"

Being "good corporate citizens" is not only a moral choice, but one that shareholders and consumers place value in. Being such is inherently good for business which in turn increases profits for shareholders.

Any size business exists primarily to generate a profit.

(04-07-2015 10:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:06 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Shareholders are your neighbors. Shareholders are the guys working 15 years in thw same job with a 401k. Putting money in the shareholders hands is a good thing.

More than half of Americans are not in the stock market.

That's what it was at one point but not anymore.

People with no spare income don't play the market. It's part of the driving force behind the wealthy getting wealthier while the poor get poorer.

There is nothing wrong with making money for shareholders but it should not be an acceptable excuse for some of the rather unsavory things American corporations are doing.

Corporations exists to make a profit for their shareholders.

Then why do they all pretend to care about being "good corporate citizens?"

Being "good corporate citizens" is not only a moral choice, but one that shareholders and consumers place value in. Being such is inherently good for business which in turn increases profits for shareholders.

Any size business exists primarily to generate a profit.

Those are good talking points but at what point does the profit motive override a corporation's need to obey the law and treat individuals with some level of respect?

In other words, where is the line?

That very simplistic motive inevitably leads to situations where a corporation leaves all morality behind because it isn't about that.

Doesn't the fact a corporation serves no other purpose than to make money mean it is therefore an inherently immoral institution?

Now, would it surprise you to know that in the US a corporation used to have to prove a social good?

Obamacare's solution to the doctor shortage:



Thanks, Obama.

(04-07-2015 10:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  More than half of Americans are not in the stock market.

That's what it was at one point but not anymore.

People with no spare income don't play the market. It's part of the driving force behind the wealthy getting wealthier while the poor get poorer.

There is nothing wrong with making money for shareholders but it should not be an acceptable excuse for some of the rather unsavory things American corporations are doing.

Corporations exists to make a profit for their shareholders.

Then why do they all pretend to care about being "good corporate citizens?"

Being "good corporate citizens" is not only a moral choice, but one that shareholders and consumers place value in. Being such is inherently good for business which in turn increases profits for shareholders.

Any size business exists primarily to generate a profit.

Those are good talking points but at what point does the profit motive override a corporation's need to obey the law and treat individuals with some level of respect?

In other words, where is the line?

That very simplistic motive inevitably leads to situations where a corporation leaves all morality behind because it isn't about that.

Doesn't the fact a corporation serves no other purpose than to make money mean it is therefore an inherently immoral institution?

Now, would it surprise you to know that in the US a corporation used to have to prove a social good?

There's no point in continuing this line of discussion if you mind is already made up that corporations are inherently evil and at a given point will break the law or cross a line in the name of making a profit. Some inevitably do, but they pay a price.

Corporations that break the law or otherwise make poor moral decisions eventually pay a price which hurts profits. That is the motivation not to do so and only further reinforces my point that corporations are in business to make and protect profits. This isn't that complicated of a point to understand or to accept unless you believe that corporations are inherently evil. If you do believe that, then the only alternative is for corporations to become property of the State which could then "force" them to act in a moral manner as defined by said State. Hello comrade, welcome to Communist States of America.

I believe you will find that many, if not most corporations still prove a social good through not only the services or products they supply the public, but through charitable acts and sponsorship which creates good will and enhances the moral strength of the corporation.

(04-08-2015 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Corporations exists to make a profit for their shareholders.

Then why do they all pretend to care about being "good corporate citizens?"

Being "good corporate citizens" is not only a moral choice, but one that shareholders and consumers place value in. Being such is inherently good for business which in turn increases profits for shareholders.

Any size business exists primarily to generate a profit.

Those are good talking points but at what point does the profit motive override a corporation's need to obey the law and treat individuals with some level of respect?

In other words, where is the line?

That very simplistic motive inevitably leads to situations where a corporation leaves all morality behind because it isn't about that.

Doesn't the fact a corporation serves no other purpose than to make money mean it is therefore an inherently immoral institution?

Now, would it surprise you to know that in the US a corporation used to have to prove a social good?

There's no point in continuing this line of discussion if you mind is already made up that corporations are inherently evil and at a given point will break the law or cross a line in the name of making a profit. Some inevitably do, but they pay a price.

Corporations that break the law or otherwise make poor moral decisions eventually pay a price which hurts profits. That is the motivation not to do so and only further reinforces my point that corporations are in business to make and protect profits. This isn't that complicated of a point to understand or to accept unless you believe that corporations are inherently evil. If you do believe that, then the only alternative is for corporations to become property of the State which could then "force" them to act in a moral manner as defined by said State. Hello comrade, welcome to Communist States of America.

I believe you will find that many, if not most corporations still prove a social good through not only the services or products they supply the public, but through charitable acts and sponsorship which creates good will and enhances the moral strength of the corporation.

Indeed. "Most" corporations are Dad, Mom maybe a kid or two and 5-10 employees. Not some Monty Python style monolithic behemoth intent on sucking up and spitting out people, resources and otherwise "polite" society. It's the local hairdresser, pizza shop or car repair folks.

There are two ways to look at business transactions.

One is confrontational. There has to be a winner and a loser. Anybody who accumulates great wealth had to steal it from some poor person. There's a fixed amount of wealth and the only question is how to distribute it.

Two is constructive. People enter into transactions willingly and voluntarily, because each side receives something of great value than it gives up. I can make something for $50, it's worth $150 to you, if I sell it to you for $100, then we are each $50 better off.

The first view leads to trying to reduce income inequality by making rich people poorer. The second tries to make poor people richer. One is better than the other.

Yes there are companies that cheat people. But they are one-offs and not the norm.

(04-07-2015 06:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It appears that lots of corporations are making big profits as it is. They apparently don't need to hire anyone. Would a tax cut make them hire? I'm not convinced. I think it would just go toward the execs' pay and the stockholders.

What a tax cut would do is make it relatively more attractive to hire here in the US compared to overseas.

Exactly. You don't merely cut taxes. Cutting taxes is merely one tool in providing incentives to create jobs. It is the LONG TERM tool that makes them want to open a factory HERE to increase production rather than open it overseas or use incentives merely for things like share buybacks... which is primarily where all our cash went.

What other incentives, besides cutting taxes? Decreasing regulation? Allowing them to pollute more? What are we talking about?

I just wonder whether you cut taxes and lose a billion in tax revenues balanced by $100,000,000 in additional tax revenue due to increased business.

They may not be hiring simply because demand doesn't merit it. If people are doing as badly as most on this board say they are, then they aren't going to spend money for additional products, so why expand production?

(04-08-2015 01:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 06:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It appears that lots of corporations are making big profits as it is. They apparently don't need to hire anyone. Would a tax cut make them hire? I'm not convinced. I think it would just go toward the execs' pay and the stockholders.

What a tax cut would do is make it relatively more attractive to hire here in the US compared to overseas.

Exactly. You don't merely cut taxes. Cutting taxes is merely one tool in providing incentives to create jobs. It is the LONG TERM tool that makes them want to open a factory HERE to increase production rather than open it overseas or use incentives merely for things like share buybacks... which is primarily where all our cash went.

What other incentives, besides cutting taxes? Decreasing regulation? Allowing them to pollute more? What are we talking about?

I just wonder whether you cut taxes and lose a billion in tax revenues balanced by $100,000,000 in additional tax revenue due to increased business.

They may not be hiring simply because demand doesn't merit it. If people are doing as badly as most on this board say they are, then they aren't going to spend money for additional products, so why expand production?

Are you not understanding the point because you aren't capable of understanding it or because you are wilfully ignoring it?

Decreasing regulation does NOT mean increasing pollution. It means getting rid of regulations and streamlining processes that haive nothing to do with pollution or workplace safety or whatever. Case in point. Norway has much more stringent regulations on deep water oil drilling than we do. Norway has been drilling in deep water since the 1970s and has never had a Macondo incident. When there are problems they have a fleet of oil sucking ships that prevent a wide spread of pollution. Because of this, it costs maybe $10 million more to drill a well in the North Sea than in the Gulf. But you can get a well approved in about two months, whereas here it takes 18 months or more. That's the kind of change we CAN make.

As for your revenue impact of tax cuts comment, note that both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, who were both smarter and more objective than you, and working with better information than you are, concluded that the trade off you are belittling is exactly what should be done. And you need to run the numbers. You can't lower rates enough to lose $1 trillion in revenues, there aren't that many dollars coming from higher rates. And if you did lower rates and generate another $100 billion in revenues, that would translate into a 3-5% growth in GDP by itself, which blows away any results we got from "stimulus."

As for hiring, they are hiring, just overseas. Reducing tax rates may or may not mean more hiring in total, but it does mean that whatever hiring occurs takes place more here and less overseas than the alternative.

The left keeps hammering businesses for moving jobs overseas to get lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations. Their solution is higher costs, higher taxes, and more intrusive regulations. How and why does that work?

(04-08-2015 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Corporations exists to make a profit for their shareholders.

Then why do they all pretend to care about being "good corporate citizens?"

Being "good corporate citizens" is not only a moral choice, but one that shareholders and consumers place value in. Being such is inherently good for business which in turn increases profits for shareholders.

Any size business exists primarily to generate a profit.

Those are good talking points but at what point does the profit motive override a corporation's need to obey the law and treat individuals with some level of respect?

In other words, where is the line?

That very simplistic motive inevitably leads to situations where a corporation leaves all morality behind because it isn't about that.

Doesn't the fact a corporation serves no other purpose than to make money mean it is therefore an inherently immoral institution?

Now, would it surprise you to know that in the US a corporation used to have to prove a social good?

There's no point in continuing this line of discussion if you mind is already made up that corporations are inherently evil and at a given point will break the law or cross a line in the name of making a profit. Some inevitably do, but they pay a price.

Corporations that break the law or otherwise make poor moral decisions eventually pay a price which hurts profits. That is the motivation not to do so and only further reinforces my point that corporations are in business to make and protect profits. This isn't that complicated of a point to understand or to accept unless you believe that corporations are inherently evil. If you do believe that, then the only alternative is for corporations to become property of the State which could then "force" them to act in a moral manner as defined by said State. Hello comrade, welcome to Communist States of America.

I believe you will find that many, if not most corporations still prove a social good through not only the services or products they supply the public, but through charitable acts and sponsorship which creates good will and enhances the moral strength of the corporation.

I've said nothing of the sort. I am just pointing out that Henry Ford was right, "a business that makes nothing but money is a poor business."

A corporation that is driven by profit alone will however ultimately end up in situations where they will break the law and they will hurt society and people in order to turn a buck. There are more examples of that than you can shake a stick at. Breaking the law is often cheaper for some than following the rules, just pay the fine. A purely profit driven motive means that company will break the law and act in an immoral manner. It is only a matter of time.

There is nothing communist about demanding a corporation act in a responsible manner.

I take it you would be shocked to know that the "pure profit" outlook is a rather new creation and your very own founding fathers weren't on board with that.

(04-08-2015 01:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  What other incentives, besides cutting taxes? Decreasing regulation? Allowing them to pollute more? What are we talking about?

I just wonder whether you cut taxes and lose a billion in tax revenues balanced by $100,000,000 in additional tax revenue due to increased business.

They may not be hiring simply because demand doesn't merit it. If people are doing as badly as most on this board say they are, then they aren't going to spend money for additional products, so why expand production?

Your side continually makes these arguments in circles... adding one single element and then arguing about why that single element doesn't work. Well of course it doesn't, because that's not how business works.

Let me give you an example that I essentially gave 6 years ago when talking about Obama's plans and the two 'stimulus'...

The challenge with the stimulus... the reason it didn't work any better than it did and why it failed miserably to live up to the expectations is that it acted like this was 1980 where the ability to move capital and production and goods was far more limited. They gave massive amounts of money to big corporations expecting that this would lead to job creation... but then they ALSO said very openly that the money they were giving them was going to be 'repaid' by increases in taxes on the top earners... which almost by definition meant 'them'. That lead to them NOT investing that money in bricks and mortar HERE because they didn't know what the future tax liability for the earnings of that investment would be, other than 'more'. So to the extent that they invested, they either invested in things OTHER than bricks and mortar (because they take longer to yield results) such as buying other companies, buying back stock, leverage programs... OR they invested in overseas operations, because when you added the 'higher' to the payback math, those other places were more attractive.

I said 6 years ago that this was going to be the response, and this is what we got. I also said at the time, while I am experienced in this area, I don't hold any special knowledge that anyone else not skilled in the area would... so if I saw it, so did many of their economic advisers... which means they did it on purpose.

I don't say that to continue to point fingers... I had similar comments under Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan... but to simply put a 'large economic plan' with a proper application. Tax cuts could have and should have been part of that reform... but they weren't... because it is difficult to explain to low information voters/people who think like poor people how the wealthy and corporations think and react. It is far easier to assume that lower tax rates here means you collect less and higher tax rates here mean you collect more.... because MOST people can only BE 'here'.

The regulations could have simply been, limits on what they were allowed to do with the money... Incentives for 'brick and mortar' projects... Do as local governments so often do and offer tax incentives for companies relocating production from one area (overseas) to another (here). The sorts of regulations you are describing are not AT ALL the sorts of regulations that we are talking about, but they seem to be the only ones that 'the left' wants to talk about.

Using a simple example, if our corporate rate were zero, then many location decisions that currently land with other countries would start to land with us. That would include many companies who would produce here and then EXPORT overseas, and not merely produce here to sell here. I don't have enough information to put an actual proposal together to tell you what the appropriate rate is, but the idea that lower barriers would improve our attractiveness as a destination for capital and higher barriers would hurt them seems obvious... Even though we wouldn't be taking in any tax revenue from those corporations, we CERTAINLY would be taking in tax revenue from their employees... PLUS we would be paying out (billions?) less in 'aid' and general incomes would rise because the demand for our limited labor supply would force wages higher. I'm not arguing that we NEED to go to zero... Merely that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of money we need to collect to 'pay' for things like welfare and the amount of things like welfare that we need to 'pay for' if we have greater demand for labor.

Frankly, I think a decent argument could be made that we could effectively INCREASE things like 'clean energy' by reducing taxes on companies but raising the requirements rather than trying to collect taxes and have the government fund alternatives. Companies have an incentive to accomplish these sorts of regulations by the most efficient and inexpensive means possible because it , but government doesn't.... but that is another issue completely.

A simple example is the 'penalty' for not signing up for the ACA. When the 'tax' is $1,000, SOME people will find it better to pay the tax... If the penalty were $100,000, nobody would. You can't make the penalty unreasonable otherwise companies (unlike people) will not come here... but you don't have to make it 'nothing' either.

(04-08-2015 02:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 06:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It appears that lots of corporations are making big profits as it is. They apparently don't need to hire anyone. Would a tax cut make them hire? I'm not convinced. I think it would just go toward the execs' pay and the stockholders.

What a tax cut would do is make it relatively more attractive to hire here in the US compared to overseas.

Exactly. You don't merely cut taxes. Cutting taxes is merely one tool in providing incentives to create jobs. It is the LONG TERM tool that makes them want to open a factory HERE to increase production rather than open it overseas or use incentives merely for things like share buybacks... which is primarily where all our cash went.

What other incentives, besides cutting taxes? Decreasing regulation? Allowing them to pollute more? What are we talking about?

I just wonder whether you cut taxes and lose a billion in tax revenues balanced by $100,000,000 in additional tax revenue due to increased business.

They may not be hiring simply because demand doesn't merit it. If people are doing as badly as most on this board say they are, then they aren't going to spend money for additional products, so why expand production?

Are you not understanding the point because you aren't capable of understanding it or because you are wilfully ignoring it?

Decreasing regulation does NOT mean increasing pollution. It means getting rid of regulations and streamlining processes that haive nothing to do with pollution or workplace safety or whatever. Case in point. Norway has much more stringent regulations on deep water oil drilling than we do. Norway has been drilling in deep water since the 1970s and has never had a Macondo incident. When there are problems they have a fleet of oil sucking ships that prevent a wide spread of pollution. Because of this, it costs maybe $10 million more to drill a well in the North Sea than in the Gulf. But you can get a well approved in about two months, whereas here it takes 18 months or more. That's the kind of change we CAN make.

As for your revenue impact of tax cuts comment, note that both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, who were both smarter and more objective than you, and working with better information than you are, concluded that the trade off you are belittling is exactly what should be done. And you need to run the numbers. You can't lower rates enough to lose $1 trillion in revenues, there aren't that many dollars coming from higher rates. And if you did lower rates and generate another $100 billion in revenues, that would translate into a 3-5% growth in GDP by itself, which blows away any results we got from "stimulus."

As for hiring, they are hiring, just overseas. Reducing tax rates may or may not mean more hiring in total, but it does mean that whatever hiring occurs takes place more here and less overseas than the alternative.

The left keeps hammering businesses for moving jobs overseas to get lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations. Their solution is higher costs, higher taxes, and more intrusive regulations. How and why does that work?

When I said "removing regulations?" and "allowing them to increase pollution?" it was 2 separate questions, sorry I wasn't clear on that. Yes, you can reduce some regulations probably, that have nothing to do with pollution. And some that would have to do with pollution. Which regulations do you remove?

I am not being subjective here, I am asking the question. I'm cynical, and skeptical. The tradeoff is not one I'm belittling - I'm asking - how do you know what the results are going to be? You can try it, but you don't really know. It's hard to get economists to agree on much. Otherwise they'd all be rich.

(04-08-2015 04:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I am not being subjective here, I am asking the question. I'm cynical, and skeptical. The tradeoff is not one I'm belittling - I'm asking - how do you know what the results are going to be? You can try it, but you don't really know. It's hard to get economists to agree on much. Otherwise they'd all be rich.

Except that we DO know certain things. We know that ROI is the key driver of most corporate decisions and that taxes, labor, transportation and the cost of compliance are key components in business decisions and we know that limited supply and increased demand drive wages higher. No, you can't predict that (as an example) a 10% drop in taxes or the cost of compliance (the only things government can control) will result in a 10% rise in wages or an increase in business... but WHATEVER that number is, it will be MORE than if we did nothing. Maybe all it does is substitute for layoffs or decreases in quality... but those are still net positives for society.

The bottom line is that there are reasons people/businesses do what they do... and they are generally driven by the best decision they can reach at the time. Encourage them to make the decisions you want and things will generally go well... just avoid the obvious pratfalls... like telling people how you're going to fund spending but never actually doing it. That's the worst of ALL outcomes, but that is what happened.

(04-08-2015 02:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Then why do they all pretend to care about being "good corporate citizens?"

Being "good corporate citizens" is not only a moral choice, but one that shareholders and consumers place value in. Being such is inherently good for business which in turn increases profits for shareholders.

Any size business exists primarily to generate a profit.

Those are good talking points but at what point does the profit motive override a corporation's need to obey the law and treat individuals with some level of respect?

In other words, where is the line?

That very simplistic motive inevitably leads to situations where a corporation leaves all morality behind because it isn't about that.

Doesn't the fact a corporation serves no other purpose than to make money mean it is therefore an inherently immoral institution?

Now, would it surprise you to know that in the US a corporation used to have to prove a social good?

There's no point in continuing this line of discussion if you mind is already made up that corporations are inherently evil and at a given point will break the law or cross a line in the name of making a profit. Some inevitably do, but they pay a price.

Corporations that break the law or otherwise make poor moral decisions eventually pay a price which hurts profits. That is the motivation not to do so and only further reinforces my point that corporations are in business to make and protect profits. This isn't that complicated of a point to understand or to accept unless you believe that corporations are inherently evil. If you do believe that, then the only alternative is for corporations to become property of the State which could then "force" them to act in a moral manner as defined by said State. Hello comrade, welcome to Communist States of America.

I believe you will find that many, if not most corporations still prove a social good through not only the services or products they supply the public, but through charitable acts and sponsorship which creates good will and enhances the moral strength of the corporation.

I've said nothing of the sort. I am just pointing out that Henry Ford was right, "a business that makes nothing but money is a poor business."

A corporation that is driven by profit alone will however ultimately end up in situations where they will break the law and they will hurt society and people in order to turn a buck. There are more examples of that than you can shake a stick at. Breaking the law is often cheaper for some than following the rules, just pay the fine. A purely profit driven motive means that company will break the law and act in an immoral manner. It is only a matter of time.

There is nothing communist about demanding a corporation act in a responsible manner.

I take it you would be shocked to know that the "pure profit" outlook is a rather new creation and your very own founding fathers weren't on board with that.

Again, you are assuming that corporations are inherently evil and will act in an immoral manner to make profits.

Making a profit is not an immoral act, nor does it mean that a corporation will act against the law to increase profits. Your line of thought is filled with assumptions that are exceptions to the rule instead of the norm.

Profits are good for everybody, not just the corporation.

(04-08-2015 04:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 02:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 06:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What a tax cut would do is make it relatively more attractive to hire here in the US compared to overseas.

Exactly. You don't merely cut taxes. Cutting taxes is merely one tool in providing incentives to create jobs. It is the LONG TERM tool that makes them want to open a factory HERE to increase production rather than open it overseas or use incentives merely for things like share buybacks... which is primarily where all our cash went.

What other incentives, besides cutting taxes? Decreasing regulation? Allowing them to pollute more? What are we talking about?

I just wonder whether you cut taxes and lose a billion in tax revenues balanced by $100,000,000 in additional tax revenue due to increased business.

They may not be hiring simply because demand doesn't merit it. If people are doing as badly as most on this board say they are, then they aren't going to spend money for additional products, so why expand production?

Are you not understanding the point because you aren't capable of understanding it or because you are wilfully ignoring it?

Decreasing regulation does NOT mean increasing pollution. It means getting rid of regulations and streamlining processes that haive nothing to do with pollution or workplace safety or whatever. Case in point. Norway has much more stringent regulations on deep water oil drilling than we do. Norway has been drilling in deep water since the 1970s and has never had a Macondo incident. When there are problems they have a fleet of oil sucking ships that prevent a wide spread of pollution. Because of this, it costs maybe $10 million more to drill a well in the North Sea than in the Gulf. But you can get a well approved in about two months, whereas here it takes 18 months or more. That's the kind of change we CAN make.

As for your revenue impact of tax cuts comment, note that both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, who were both smarter and more objective than you, and working with better information than you are, concluded that the trade off you are belittling is exactly what should be done. And you need to run the numbers. You can't lower rates enough to lose $1 trillion in revenues, there aren't that many dollars coming from higher rates. And if you did lower rates and generate another $100 billion in revenues, that would translate into a 3-5% growth in GDP by itself, which blows away any results we got from "stimulus."

As for hiring, they are hiring, just overseas. Reducing tax rates may or may not mean more hiring in total, but it does mean that whatever hiring occurs takes place more here and less overseas than the alternative.

The left keeps hammering businesses for moving jobs overseas to get lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations. Their solution is higher costs, higher taxes, and more intrusive regulations. How and why does that work?

When I said "removing regulations?" and "allowing them to increase pollution?" it was 2 separate questions, sorry I wasn't clear on that. Yes, you can reduce some regulations probably, that have nothing to do with pollution. And some that would have to do with pollution. Which regulations do you remove?

I am not being subjective here, I am asking the question. I'm cynical, and skeptical. The tradeoff is not one I'm belittling - I'm asking - how do you know what the results are going to be? You can try it, but you don't really know. It's hard to get economists to agree on much. Otherwise they'd all be rich.

Quote:There's no guarantee of anything in this world, but certain things can make certain outcomes more likely. What we're doing now and have been doing for more than half a decade hasn't worked, why continue to do stupid things?

(04-08-2015 04:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  When I said "removing regulations?" and "allowing them to increase pollution?" it was 2 separate questions, sorry I wasn't clear on that. Yes, you can reduce some regulations probably, that have nothing to do with pollution. And some that would have to do with pollution. Which regulations do you remove?

You remove the ones that are counterproductive, of which there are many. There is a huge distinction between substantive regulations and procedural regulations. Substantive regulations are aimed at reducing pollution or increasing job safety; if they do a poor job, at least their heart is in the right place. Procedural regulations are aimed at ensuring there's enough busy work to keep all our bureaucrats on the payroll. Making the process ten times as complicated as it needs to be doesn't do a thing for the environment or safety, but it does keep eight bureaucrats employed. The Norwegian deep water drilling example I mentioned earlier illustrates the point. Norway has more stringent rules, and has had nothing even remotely approaching the Macondo blowout in a much longer history of deep water drilling. But you get your approvals much faster, which is what oil companies really want when offshore drilling rig day rates are in six figures. To be fair, there's a bit of a game going on here. The oil company asks the US regulators for an exception that will save them $10 million off the cost of the well. The regulators say we need to study this, so they put two people on it for 6 months--good for maintaining headcount. The approval gets delayed and delayed. The Norwegian regulator says no, drill it the right way, and by the way, here is your drilling permit. I much prefer the latter.

(04-08-2015 05:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 04:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I am not being subjective here, I am asking the question. I'm cynical, and skeptical. The tradeoff is not one I'm belittling - I'm asking - how do you know what the results are going to be? You can try it, but you don't really know. It's hard to get economists to agree on much. Otherwise they'd all be rich.

Except that we DO know certain things. We know that ROI is the key driver of most corporate decisions and that taxes, labor, transportation and the cost of compliance are key components in business decisions and we know that limited supply and increased demand drive wages higher. No, you can't predict that (as an example) a 10% drop in taxes or the cost of compliance (the only things government can control) will result in a 10% rise in wages or an increase in business... but WHATEVER that number is, it will be MORE than if we did nothing. Maybe all it does is substitute for layoffs or decreases in quality... but those are still net positives for society.
The bottom line is that there are reasons people/businesses do what they do... and they are generally driven by the best decision they can reach at the time. Encourage them to make the decisions you want and things will generally go well... just avoid the obvious pratfalls... like telling people how you're going to fund spending but never actually doing it. That's the worst of ALL outcomes, but that is what happened.

The reason that one can be quite certain it will work is because that's the way things are working now. Again, to repeat my question(s), the left keeps hammering businesses for moving jobs overseas to get lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations. Their solution is higher costs, higher taxes, and more intrusive regulations. How and why does that work?