(01-05-2018 08:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 06:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess I missed the posts where we decided who the business friendly Democrats were, by name. Can somebody bring me up to date on that?

I can. Here is the list.

Did you get that?

I think we are having a discussion if the term 'business friendly Democrat' is even viable as reality in the first place.

Thanks. Yeah, that is pretty much the list I expected.

(01-05-2018 08:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 06:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not quite sure why you didn't understand the "on par" comment. I pretty much spelled out all the details. I do the same with my undergraduate international business law students, and they seem to grasp it pretty clearly. We're better in some areas than other countries, worse in others. On balance, it's about par, depending on what factors are most important to a particular investment decision. I take the position that more investment, growth, and jobs are good things, and tend to improve the lot of the middle class, in particular. If you disagree with that basic position, then perhaps that is the reason for our differences.
So if we start at about a par overall with other countries, and we do something to make it relatively worse here than it was before, then we have made it worse than it is in other countries as well. That will drive investment, growth, and jobs to those other countries, to the extent that whatever we have made worse impacts a decision.
So if we start out at A (us) = B (them), and we change A to A-1, then A-1<B and we have to add a +1 to get back to equal with B. That -1 could be more leave and vacation or cap and trade (things which you have proposed and I actually think are good), so we have to come up with a +1 to offset it to get us back to a push. I would actually favor a +2 or +3 so the field clearly swings our way. And then maybe we could look at some of the other things you want to get us back down to par or slightly better. So I'm open to your social issues, but there clearly has to be a quid pro quo, which is what we have lacked all too often.
Here's how I would go after it. Regulatory reform would be huge for me. Europe generally has tougher, or at least as tough, regulations in most areas. But their regulatory process provide more reasonable and speedy and predictable results. And businesses prefer certainty and speed, and are willing to pay more to get them. I would go for increasing regulation of some areas that matter, in exchange for reducing or removing regulations in areas that don't matter, and going to procedures that had more due process protections. I'd do three things--subject rule making to congressional review, put in sunset review for all agencies and regulations every 10 years, and move adjudication of disputes from captive ALJs within the agencies to a separate article III administrative law court. Under that setup, jurisdiction and venue for all disputes would be in the district where the cause of action arose, rather than in the DC Circuit.
Then I would do a consumption tax and use the funds to 1) balance the budget, freeing up capital markets, 2) fund Bismarck universal private health insurance/care, removing a large cost from employers, 3) implement a guaranteed basic income, and 4) lower and flatten income tax rate structures (we could possibly eliminate the individual income tax altogether). With lower operating costs and increased availability of capital, plus the protective aspects of a consumption tax, this would make US businesses much better off.
In exchange for these, we could look at the reforms you want. We could end up far more attractive an investment destination than today, at the same time as we add some of the worker and social protections you want. That looks like a win-win to me. How about you?
The relevance of this to the original question is that this is how I would expect a business-friendly politician to think and act. Come to think of it, I can't think of many democrats or republicans who think that way, which is probably why I don't support either one.

Bump. Lad?

Geeze, I don't get much time to respond...

Will get to this when I have a chance - probably tomorrow. Don't have enough time right now to actually digest that and respond.

(01-05-2018 09:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 08:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 06:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess I missed the posts where we decided who the business friendly Democrats were, by name. Can somebody bring me up to date on that?

I can. Here is the list.

Did you get that?

I think we are having a discussion if the term 'business friendly Democrat' is even viable as reality in the first place.

Thanks. Yeah, that is pretty much the list I expected.

How about the 13 Dems that voted for the TPP?

(01-05-2018 09:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 08:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 06:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not quite sure why you didn't understand the "on par" comment. I pretty much spelled out all the details. I do the same with my undergraduate international business law students, and they seem to grasp it pretty clearly. We're better in some areas than other countries, worse in others. On balance, it's about par, depending on what factors are most important to a particular investment decision. I take the position that more investment, growth, and jobs are good things, and tend to improve the lot of the middle class, in particular. If you disagree with that basic position, then perhaps that is the reason for our differences.
So if we start at about a par overall with other countries, and we do something to make it relatively worse here than it was before, then we have made it worse than it is in other countries as well. That will drive investment, growth, and jobs to those other countries, to the extent that whatever we have made worse impacts a decision.
So if we start out at A (us) = B (them), and we change A to A-1, then A-1<B and we have to add a +1 to get back to equal with B. That -1 could be more leave and vacation or cap and trade (things which you have proposed and I actually think are good), so we have to come up with a +1 to offset it to get us back to a push. I would actually favor a +2 or +3 so the field clearly swings our way. And then maybe we could look at some of the other things you want to get us back down to par or slightly better. So I'm open to your social issues, but there clearly has to be a quid pro quo, which is what we have lacked all too often.
Here's how I would go after it. Regulatory reform would be huge for me. Europe generally has tougher, or at least as tough, regulations in most areas. But their regulatory process provide more reasonable and speedy and predictable results. And businesses prefer certainty and speed, and are willing to pay more to get them. I would go for increasing regulation of some areas that matter, in exchange for reducing or removing regulations in areas that don't matter, and going to procedures that had more due process protections. I'd do three things--subject rule making to congressional review, put in sunset review for all agencies and regulations every 10 years, and move adjudication of disputes from captive ALJs within the agencies to a separate article III administrative law court. Under that setup, jurisdiction and venue for all disputes would be in the district where the cause of action arose, rather than in the DC Circuit.
Then I would do a consumption tax and use the funds to 1) balance the budget, freeing up capital markets, 2) fund Bismarck universal private health insurance/care, removing a large cost from employers, 3) implement a guaranteed basic income, and 4) lower and flatten income tax rate structures (we could possibly eliminate the individual income tax altogether). With lower operating costs and increased availability of capital, plus the protective aspects of a consumption tax, this would make US businesses much better off.
In exchange for these, we could look at the reforms you want. We could end up far more attractive an investment destination than today, at the same time as we add some of the worker and social protections you want. That looks like a win-win to me. How about you?
The relevance of this to the original question is that this is how I would expect a business-friendly politician to think and act. Come to think of it, I can't think of many democrats or republicans who think that way, which is probably why I don't support either one.

Bump. Lad?

Geeze, I don't get much time to respond...
Will get to this when I have a chance - probably tomorrow. Don't have enough time right now to actually digest that and respond.

Fair enough. God forbid you'd have to respond to such a difficult question without enough time.

(01-05-2018 10:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 08:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 06:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not quite sure why you didn't understand the "on par" comment. I pretty much spelled out all the details. I do the same with my undergraduate international business law students, and they seem to grasp it pretty clearly. We're better in some areas than other countries, worse in others. On balance, it's about par, depending on what factors are most important to a particular investment decision. I take the position that more investment, growth, and jobs are good things, and tend to improve the lot of the middle class, in particular. If you disagree with that basic position, then perhaps that is the reason for our differences.
So if we start at about a par overall with other countries, and we do something to make it relatively worse here than it was before, then we have made it worse than it is in other countries as well. That will drive investment, growth, and jobs to those other countries, to the extent that whatever we have made worse impacts a decision.
So if we start out at A (us) = B (them), and we change A to A-1, then A-1<B and we have to add a +1 to get back to equal with B. That -1 could be more leave and vacation or cap and trade (things which you have proposed and I actually think are good), so we have to come up with a +1 to offset it to get us back to a push. I would actually favor a +2 or +3 so the field clearly swings our way. And then maybe we could look at some of the other things you want to get us back down to par or slightly better. So I'm open to your social issues, but there clearly has to be a quid pro quo, which is what we have lacked all too often.
Here's how I would go after it. Regulatory reform would be huge for me. Europe generally has tougher, or at least as tough, regulations in most areas. But their regulatory process provide more reasonable and speedy and predictable results. And businesses prefer certainty and speed, and are willing to pay more to get them. I would go for increasing regulation of some areas that matter, in exchange for reducing or removing regulations in areas that don't matter, and going to procedures that had more due process protections. I'd do three things--subject rule making to congressional review, put in sunset review for all agencies and regulations every 10 years, and move adjudication of disputes from captive ALJs within the agencies to a separate article III administrative law court. Under that setup, jurisdiction and venue for all disputes would be in the district where the cause of action arose, rather than in the DC Circuit.
Then I would do a consumption tax and use the funds to 1) balance the budget, freeing up capital markets, 2) fund Bismarck universal private health insurance/care, removing a large cost from employers, 3) implement a guaranteed basic income, and 4) lower and flatten income tax rate structures (we could possibly eliminate the individual income tax altogether). With lower operating costs and increased availability of capital, plus the protective aspects of a consumption tax, this would make US businesses much better off.
In exchange for these, we could look at the reforms you want. We could end up far more attractive an investment destination than today, at the same time as we add some of the worker and social protections you want. That looks like a win-win to me. How about you?
The relevance of this to the original question is that this is how I would expect a business-friendly politician to think and act. Come to think of it, I can't think of many democrats or republicans who think that way, which is probably why I don't support either one.

Bump. Lad?

Geeze, I don't get much time to respond...
Will get to this when I have a chance - probably tomorrow. Don't have enough time right now to actually digest that and respond.

Fair enough. God forbid you'd have to respond to such a difficult question without enough time.

Well, you're being a condescending a** at the moment for me misunderstanding your posts, which I have generally been reading inbetween little tasks at work, so I figured that if I actually focused a bit more, perhaps you wouldn't be such a condescending a** because I wouldn't misunderstand your posts.

Looks like that's unlikely to happen, based on that response, though.

(01-05-2018 10:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 08:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 06:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not quite sure why you didn't understand the "on par" comment. I pretty much spelled out all the details. I do the same with my undergraduate international business law students, and they seem to grasp it pretty clearly. We're better in some areas than other countries, worse in others. On balance, it's about par, depending on what factors are most important to a particular investment decision. I take the position that more investment, growth, and jobs are good things, and tend to improve the lot of the middle class, in particular. If you disagree with that basic position, then perhaps that is the reason for our differences.
So if we start at about a par overall with other countries, and we do something to make it relatively worse here than it was before, then we have made it worse than it is in other countries as well. That will drive investment, growth, and jobs to those other countries, to the extent that whatever we have made worse impacts a decision.
So if we start out at A (us) = B (them), and we change A to A-1, then A-1<B and we have to add a +1 to get back to equal with B. That -1 could be more leave and vacation or cap and trade (things which you have proposed and I actually think are good), so we have to come up with a +1 to offset it to get us back to a push. I would actually favor a +2 or +3 so the field clearly swings our way. And then maybe we could look at some of the other things you want to get us back down to par or slightly better. So I'm open to your social issues, but there clearly has to be a quid pro quo, which is what we have lacked all too often.
Here's how I would go after it. Regulatory reform would be huge for me. Europe generally has tougher, or at least as tough, regulations in most areas. But their regulatory process provide more reasonable and speedy and predictable results. And businesses prefer certainty and speed, and are willing to pay more to get them. I would go for increasing regulation of some areas that matter, in exchange for reducing or removing regulations in areas that don't matter, and going to procedures that had more due process protections. I'd do three things--subject rule making to congressional review, put in sunset review for all agencies and regulations every 10 years, and move adjudication of disputes from captive ALJs within the agencies to a separate article III administrative law court. Under that setup, jurisdiction and venue for all disputes would be in the district where the cause of action arose, rather than in the DC Circuit.
Then I would do a consumption tax and use the funds to 1) balance the budget, freeing up capital markets, 2) fund Bismarck universal private health insurance/care, removing a large cost from employers, 3) implement a guaranteed basic income, and 4) lower and flatten income tax rate structures (we could possibly eliminate the individual income tax altogether). With lower operating costs and increased availability of capital, plus the protective aspects of a consumption tax, this would make US businesses much better off.
In exchange for these, we could look at the reforms you want. We could end up far more attractive an investment destination than today, at the same time as we add some of the worker and social protections you want. That looks like a win-win to me. How about you?
The relevance of this to the original question is that this is how I would expect a business-friendly politician to think and act. Come to think of it, I can't think of many democrats or republicans who think that way, which is probably why I don't support either one.

Bump. Lad?

Geeze, I don't get much time to respond...
Will get to this when I have a chance - probably tomorrow. Don't have enough time right now to actually digest that and respond.

Fair enough. God forbid you'd have to respond to such a difficult question without enough time.

Well, you're being a condescending a** at the moment for me misunderstanding your posts, which I have generally been reading inbetween little tasks at work, so I figured that if I actually focused a bit more, perhaps you wouldn't be such a condescending a** because I wouldn't misunderstand your posts.
Looks like that's unlikely to happen, based on that response, though.

Sorry if you got upset. I was actually having a hard time believing that you were truly failing to comprehend, and was getting pretty perturbed at what looked like willful ignorance on your part. I will accept your excuse that you were distracted by work. So when you are not working, take the time to read what I wrote carefully, and I'd be interested in your reaction.

(01-05-2018 09:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 08:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 06:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess I missed the posts where we decided who the business friendly Democrats were, by name. Can somebody bring me up to date on that?

I can. Here is the list.

Did you get that?

I think we are having a discussion if the term 'business friendly Democrat' is even viable as reality in the first place.

Thanks. Yeah, that is pretty much the list I expected.

How about the 13 Dems that voted for the TPP?

Good start, but we need more data points before we can call them business friendly.

Was Manchin one?

(01-05-2018 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 02:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 12:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

I think it was "Why did it take so #$%^ing long for them to finish the Mopac express lanes?"

Took them a long time but they work like a charm, imo.

My commute is situated such that the construction wreaked havoc on my commute times but the toll lane doesn't actually help me now.

However, as a progressive, I am of course elated that they help the greater good. In a grumpy sort of way.

I take it you live south of 2222 (if you work city center). For anyone north of that divide the end result rocks.

And I think the construction process clobbered *everyone's" commute during that time, not just yours.

Even if you live just south of 2222 it's great - get off at the first toll lane exit, take Steck over to Shoal Creek. Save 20 -45 minutes heading from downtown, anytime after 4 pm.

(01-05-2018 10:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 08:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bump. Lad?

Geeze, I don't get much time to respond...
Will get to this when I have a chance - probably tomorrow. Don't have enough time right now to actually digest that and respond.

Fair enough. God forbid you'd have to respond to such a difficult question without enough time.

Well, you're being a condescending a** at the moment for me misunderstanding your posts, which I have generally been reading inbetween little tasks at work, so I figured that if I actually focused a bit more, perhaps you wouldn't be such a condescending a** because I wouldn't misunderstand your posts.
Looks like that's unlikely to happen, based on that response, though.

Sorry if you got upset. I was actually having a hard time believing that you were truly failing to comprehend, and was getting pretty perturbed at what looked like willful ignorance on your part. I will accept your excuse that you were distracted by work. So when you are not working, take the time to read what I wrote carefully, and I'd be interested in your reaction.

Bump. Was hoping Lad would reply, but it looks like not. Any others who lean left care to respond?

(01-05-2018 05:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 05:19 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 04:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We should always remember that there are ostriches that want to put their head in the sands or want to try and fight against the truth in order to save their own skin. Dupont did it initially with CFCs. Big tobacco did it with cancer. And so on.

Leftists have done it with social policy for generations.

I'm intrigued by what you mean.

Social issues like advocating for/against gay marriage? Or for/against the legalization of marijuana? What about things like the War on Drugs?

I'm guessing you're mainly talking about the welfare trap?

Welfare policy in various forms is a well-known example, but others include protectionism, much of educational policy, much of immigration policy, appeasement (though not really a social policy), and perhaps most telling (because most persistent and most inexcusable) the century-long refusal to recognize Marxism for the tyranny that it is.

Of course head-in-sand-burial is a bipartisan posture, as a couple of your examples illustrate.

By the way, good points here -- nice discussion.

Former Mayor Bill White. US Sen Tom Carper. Hillary Clinton?

(01-09-2018 08:29 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Former Mayor Bill White. US Sen Tom Carper. Hillary Clinton?

White yes.
Carper not really, but at least not as anti-business as most democrat leaders
Hillary, no way.

Donald Trump was the quintessential business-friendly Democrat until about 15 minutes ago, relatively speaking, and as a fiscal AND social conservative, I fear he'll eventually revert and show his true character before his time is up.

As long as he is business friendly, I don’t care about the label.

One of the things that I was trying to get at here is that I don’t think true leftists really understand what business-friendly means, because I don’t think they understand how business people look at things. Their economic focus is totally consumer/demand focused, so they don’t really see things from a producer/supply point of view. When they do things supposedly to help businesses, they usually turn out to hurt more than they help. I remember when George McGovern left the senate and became a small businessman, he remarked that he had no idea how difficult all the government regulations made things. Bernie’s ideas about how he was going to help small businesses and bring new businesses and jobs were mainly things that would drive businesses away. I just don’t think they understand what they are doing with respect to businesses.

With all respect, is that an overlook? I mean, along with racists, sexists, and bigots, the Democratic Party for the last 15 years has made it its stock tradename to revile business and all the inequalities that it (by definition of the fundamental definition of the use of capital that it brings) 'promotes'. Fits right into the identity politics to make business the counterpoint and target.

Democrats have known for 100 years that the best driver to vote is the ability to deliver class or racial identity rift voters. Make them mad about the inequities and sic them on the polls. Interesting to see them see a bit of a payback with Trump using the same MO...

And it also helps that for the last 40+ years, the Democrats have used big business as the never-ending goose laying the golden egg for their programs. I mean, the most fundamental change in social programs in the last generation was Obamacare; the indirect payor for the vast majority of the program was by definition 'any business with 50 or more man-equivalents'. (sorry about the sexist 'man-equivalent', but this is the terminology that every one of the businesses I have been involved in uses...)

But since business is one of the major evil phantasms who will swoop down at night and steal your kids and drain your spouses of their blood, of course their message and actions will be predicated against business.

While there may be one or two outliers that actually might fit under the name 'business friendly Democrat', that is a pretty tenuous position to be in ever since the advent of Samuel Gompers.

(01-11-2018 09:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One of the things that I was trying to get at here is that I don’t think true leftists really understand what business-friendly means, because I don’t think they understand how business people look at things.

Damn straight.

when I was a young leftist, I saw business as just an exploiter of the worker. The, as I moved further and further in business management and business ownership and being a capitalist, I moved further and further right.

I see the same blind spots in some of the leftists here.

(01-05-2018 09:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 08:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 06:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not quite sure why you didn't understand the "on par" comment. I pretty much spelled out all the details. I do the same with my undergraduate international business law students, and they seem to grasp it pretty clearly. We're better in some areas than other countries, worse in others. On balance, it's about par, depending on what factors are most important to a particular investment decision. I take the position that more investment, growth, and jobs are good things, and tend to improve the lot of the middle class, in particular. If you disagree with that basic position, then perhaps that is the reason for our differences.
So if we start at about a par overall with other countries, and we do something to make it relatively worse here than it was before, then we have made it worse than it is in other countries as well. That will drive investment, growth, and jobs to those other countries, to the extent that whatever we have made worse impacts a decision.
So if we start out at A (us) = B (them), and we change A to A-1, then A-1<B and we have to add a +1 to get back to equal with B. That -1 could be more leave and vacation or cap and trade (things which you have proposed and I actually think are good), so we have to come up with a +1 to offset it to get us back to a push. I would actually favor a +2 or +3 so the field clearly swings our way. And then maybe we could look at some of the other things you want to get us back down to par or slightly better. So I'm open to your social issues, but there clearly has to be a quid pro quo, which is what we have lacked all too often.
Here's how I would go after it. Regulatory reform would be huge for me. Europe generally has tougher, or at least as tough, regulations in most areas. But their regulatory process provide more reasonable and speedy and predictable results. And businesses prefer certainty and speed, and are willing to pay more to get them. I would go for increasing regulation of some areas that matter, in exchange for reducing or removing regulations in areas that don't matter, and going to procedures that had more due process protections. I'd do three things--subject rule making to congressional review, put in sunset review for all agencies and regulations every 10 years, and move adjudication of disputes from captive ALJs within the agencies to a separate article III administrative law court. Under that setup, jurisdiction and venue for all disputes would be in the district where the cause of action arose, rather than in the DC Circuit.
Then I would do a consumption tax and use the funds to 1) balance the budget, freeing up capital markets, 2) fund Bismarck universal private health insurance/care, removing a large cost from employers, 3) implement a guaranteed basic income, and 4) lower and flatten income tax rate structures (we could possibly eliminate the individual income tax altogether). With lower operating costs and increased availability of capital, plus the protective aspects of a consumption tax, this would make US businesses much better off.
In exchange for these, we could look at the reforms you want. We could end up far more attractive an investment destination than today, at the same time as we add some of the worker and social protections you want. That looks like a win-win to me. How about you?
The relevance of this to the original question is that this is how I would expect a business-friendly politician to think and act. Come to think of it, I can't think of many democrats or republicans who think that way, which is probably why I don't support either one.

Bump. Lad?

Geeze, I don't get much time to respond...

Will get to this when I have a chance - probably tomorrow. Don't have enough time right now to actually digest that and respond.

Owl - I think your position seems pretty reasonable, and obviously relies on an honest give and take. I’m not a huge fan of moving almost completely away from a progressive tax system, but I’ve read a few articles recently about the merits of moving to a VAT system, and that is one change I can get behind, for sure.

Connecting this back to the original topic, and how you ended your response, I think the reason you don’t see either party filling this role is that neither party can really act in a nuanced way. They seem to be, on the whole, unable to message that they have multiple outcomes in mind. Dems are currently stuck on messaging about paying their fair share, while Reps are stuck on messaging about how lowering taxes across the board will basically bring the second coming. Because neither of those are absolutely correct, the opposition digs their heels in because they believe their team’s main message is more important than the other’s.

I think there is a place for politicians with “radical” views such as yours (radical meaning that it is a departure from our current views), because of how successful Bernie and Trump were. People recognize that our current system isn’t really working well and that we probably need dynamic and bold changes, as opposed to just a simple tweak of the tax code, to get things moving in the right direction for the majority of the country. I mean, it’s great that the market is doing so well, but the majority of Americans do not benefit directly from that because they don’t own stocks, so something appears to need to change in order to put more money in their pockets.

(01-11-2018 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 09:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One of the things that I was trying to get at here is that I don’t think true leftists really understand what business-friendly means, because I don’t think they understand how business people look at things.

Damn straight.

when I was a young leftist, I saw business as just an exploiter of the worker. The, as I moved further and further in business management and business ownership and being a capitalist, I moved further and further right.

I see the same blind spots in some of the leftists here.

I think that’s a general mischaracterization. Perhaps it’s just that they (I) don’t believe that being hyper-business friendly is the most important thing our government can do? That businesses, in pursuit of profits, must also be held to a standard that provides for its employees, protects the public (e.g. environment), doesn’t defraud the public, and so on? The more efficiently that this can be done, the better. Just because someone wants to install regulations that are more protective of workers doesn’t mean they are anti-business, it just means they want to focus on ensuring that workers are treated as fairly as possible, because exploitation does still happen, and people need jobs to stay off welfare.

I grew up in a family that relied upon the small business my mother built for income and I saw first hand some of the issues that policies I support caused. For example, when my mother complained about how her employee wanted to take a few weeks for maternity leave and how she wouldn't allow it because of the impact it would have to her business, I couldn’t believe that this was allowed. That we allow an employer to tell a new mother to come back to work ASAP or you’re fired is awful, and I personally believe that we should have laws in place that are sometimes not business friendly and force businesses to adjust their practices to account for things like the lives of the employees they rely upon.

Also, it seems to me that leftists may truly understands how business people look at things, which is why they want to make laws thatbis often give workers benefits at the detriment to profitability. Many business leaders are unable to look past the immediate hits to the books for things like extended vacation, maternity/paternity leave, higher wages, etc that can help reduce turnover and actually save money in the long run.

(01-12-2018 08:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 09:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One of the things that I was trying to get at here is that I don’t think true leftists really understand what business-friendly means, because I don’t think they understand how business people look at things.

Damn straight.

when I was a young leftist, I saw business as just an exploiter of the worker. The, as I moved further and further in business management and business ownership and being a capitalist, I moved further and further right.

I see the same blind spots in some of the leftists here.

I think that’s a general mischaracterization. Perhaps it’s just that they (I) don’t believe that being hyper-business friendly is the most important thing our government can do? That businesses, in pursuit of profits, must also be held to a standard that provides for its employees, protects the public (e.g. environment), doesn’t defraud the public, and so on? The more efficiently that this can be done, the better. Just because someone wants to install regulations that are more protective of workers doesn’t mean they are anti-business, it just means they want to focus on ensuring that workers are treated as fairly as possible, because exploitation does still happen, and people need jobs to stay off welfare.

I grew up in a family that relied upon the small business my mother built for income and I saw first hand some of the issues that policies I support caused. For example, when my mother complained about how her employee wanted to take a few weeks for maternity leave and how she wouldn't allow it because of the impact it would have to her business, I couldn’t believe that this was allowed. That we allow an employer to tell a new mother to come back to work ASAP or you’re fired is awful, and I personally believe that we should have laws in place that are sometimes not business friendly and force businesses to adjust their practices to account for things like the lives of the employees they rely upon.

Also, it seems to me that leftists may truly understands how business people look at things, which is why they want to make laws thatbis often give workers benefits at the detriment to profitability. Many business leaders are unable to look past the immediate hits to the books for things like extended vacation, maternity/paternity leave, higher wages, etc that can help reduce turnover and actually save money in the long run.

There is a difference between a light touch on the reins, no reins at all, and loading the poor horse with a ton of burden.

I advocate the light rains. I get accused of supporting the no-reins policy, by those who think the horse will always perform well regardless of the burdens placed on him.