Welcome To A New America!!!!! (For the better even)

[Neddaf]

Politicians are poor at doing what they do, and they do it constantly. Would you trust a random person on the street with your money? What's the difference with politicians in D.C.? I challenge anyone LOL AMIRITE

 

[Zur]

From the US perspective: Just what is it that you think people and businesses do with their money? Hide it in their freezer? Louisiana Congressmen aside, they do not. They spend it, pay down debt, or invest it.

Here is something a little closer to home for you :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/02/tax-gap-avoidance

The veil of confidentiality that covers these tax avoidance schemes is so difficult to penetrate that nobody knows exactly how much tax goes missing each year. But HM Revenue & Customs estimated that the size of the tax gap could be anything between £3.7bn and £13bn. The Commons public accounts committee put it at a possible £8.5bn and the TUC said £12bn.

Those are wild estimates, probably due to banking secrecy but they are still in the billions. Now I'm prepared to believe that a good number of average businesses are all about activity and investment. But I'm going to have a hard believing tax-evasion isn't being practised on your side of the fence.

Here's another link to show that this isn't isolated :

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,535768,00.html

Steinbrück, the Social Democratic Finance Minister, told the online version of the weekly Die Zeit: "It is the elites who are threatening to cause the system to collapse."

Oh dear, he doesn't sound happy. And this map explains why people are anxious for the situation to improve :
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2160480.ece

P.S: That will be a nice reference for me in future. Those exclamation marks point out which countries I should probably avoid.

Ah, and here's the sort of article I was looking for :
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2008-11-12-ubs-exec-tax-evasion-charge_N.htm

Swiss bank but american money.

"Every American who pays his or her taxes should be offended that a select few use anonymous offshore accounts to avoid paying their fair share," said R. Alexander Acosta, the U.S. Attorney in Florida's southern federal district.

And so they should. And this is an interesting piece of information on the way taxes are handled :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance_and_tax_evasion

Country of residence

One way a person or company may lower their taxes due is by changing one's tax residence to a tax haven, such as Monaco, or by becoming a perpetual traveler; however, some countries, such as the U.S., tax their citizens, permanent residents, and companies on all their worldwide income. In these cases, taxation cannot be avoided by simply transferring assets or moving abroad.

The United States is unlike almost all other countries in that its citizens, and legal permanent residents, are subject to U.S. tax on their worldwide income even if they reside temporarily or permanently outside the United States. U.S. citizens therefore cannot avoid U.S. taxes simply by emigrating. According to Forbes magazine some nationals choose to give up their United States citizenship rather than be subject to the U.S. tax system;[1] however, U.S. citizens who reside (or spend long periods of time) outside the U.S. may be able to exclude some salaried income earned overseas (but not other types of income) from U.S. tax. The 2007 limit on the amount that can be excluded was US$85,700.

I don't know what kind of company you work for, but I can't think of ANY that would purposefully JUST NOT HIRE PEOPLE if they thought they would see a return on their investment. Just what do you think investors want to see? Squandered opportunity? No - profits. Who are the investors? ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BUY STOCK in a publically traded company. You have a weird idea of how business works - or again... maybe that's the way business is run in Subsidizedland?

I don't work (pratically full time student if you must know). And as unrealistic a point of view that may sound, I'm far from an idiot even if my opinions sometime come accross as provocation . The only reason I'm getting involved in this discussion is because the lengthening of this crisis might make things ugly to the point where it's going to hurt a change in career next year when I finish. Plus, I can't help facepalming when reading the republicans that and the democrats this when part of the problem is essentially apolitical.

To answer your question, Subsidizedland's economy relies mainly on small and medium businesses. Which means the rest is composed of multinationals some of which originate from ... you guessed it. And, on a sidenote, the banking system is mostly advantageous for the top fortunes (Albert Frère's fortune for example is estimated at 3.1 billion euros). Socialist country, my ass.

The problem isn't exactly about not hiring people but hiring people and then getting rid of them after a relatively short period of time. That's what restructuration is all about. I don't know what the workforce at Caterpillar is but there's still something like 600 temporary positions are set to go with the crisis at the Gosselies site. That's quite a number and I'm willing to bet they're all full-time and should be permanent contracts really. Plus, it's really sad to see management take a backseat to investors in some cases when there is no sense of responsability towards employees or partnerships.

Also, I have no problem with small investors. They happen to be the ones that have had a lot to lose with what's happening right now and the ones that probably got fleeced the most. I'm pointing my finger at systematic tax evasion which has become a trend among big fortunes. I'm also pointing my finger at companies like inBev who seem to like raising prices of their products just for the heck of it (it's a difficult exercice finding a beer that isn't made by them). Of course, it's more the likes of sharks like Bernard Madoff that are responsable for what's happening now. It's insane to think that a handful of people could cause a slump in economic activity to the point where it touches everyone in the western world.

News flash: Mister and Misses average DO NOT IN ANY WAY support the brunt of running the country by themselves. The top 5% pay 50% of the tax burden. The bottom 40% pay nothing.

What do you mean by nothing ? Peanuts ? What is that in proportional terms with respect to earnings ? Would I be incorrect in saying that a shift in that top 5% mean trouble ? Is that what you and others are worried about; that these big fortunes are less giving or decide to go elsewhere ?

P.S: It's funny being accused of stereotyping with people running around the forum putting socialism accross as some sort of watered-down version of communism and the antithesis of the "american way". Do you always leave people to die in the streets if they have nothing to eat ? Of course not. So, yeah, I may exagerate too ^^.

 

[hal]

Here is something a little closer to home for you :

To answer your question, Subsidizedland's economy relies mainly on small and medium businesses...

The problem isn't exactly about not hiring people but hiring people and then getting rid of them after a relatively short period of time...

I'm pointing my finger at systematic tax evasion which has become a trend among big fortunes.

What do you mean by nothing ?

P.S: It's funny being accused of stereotyping with people running around the forum putting socialism accross as some sort of watered-down version of communism and the antithesis of the "american way". Do you always leave people to die in the streets if they have nothing to eat ? Of course not. So, yeah, I may exagerate too ^^.

To address your many links... interesting that you've changed the discussion from people spending their money the marketplace to taxes due the government not being paid.

FYI - I have no idea where you live and was not commenting on it. I was just refering to your stated location in your profile.

Big companies aren't alone in their attempts to avoid paying taxes. That's a characteristic of most of mankind, is it not? Simplify the tax code and you eliminate the loopholes.

By nothing, I mean no income tax. It is refunded for that percentage of people.

Yes, socialism is widely considered to be a branch of communism and is the antithesis of the "American Way" as you put it. Socialism removes responsibility and choice from the individual, and individual rights are what this country was founded on.

 

[kiff]

Would you trust a random person on the street with your money? What's the difference with politicians in D.C.?

lol, yea I would probably trust some bum in the street more. these clowns in DC are just insane these days, both parties. it's been bad for a long time, but they're just piling bricks on the gas pedal.

 

[Zur]

To address your many links... interesting that you've changed the discussion from people spending their money the marketplace to taxes due the government not being paid.

FYI - I have no idea where you live and was not commenting on it. I was just refering to your stated location in your profile.

Big companies aren't alone in their attempts to avoid paying taxes. That's a characteristic of most of mankind, is it not? Simplify the tax code and you eliminate the loopholes.

By nothing, I mean no income tax. It is refunded for that percentage of people.

Yes, socialism is widely considered to be a branch of communism and is the antithesis of the "American Way" as you put it. Socialism removes responsibility and choice from the individual, and individual rights are what this country was founded on.

I'm not a big fan of socialism either. What's certain is that it has this general idea of helping out the "weaker" members of the society and making sure everyone gets a bare minimum.

Where it gets out of hand is where responsability is taken away as you point out and every excuse under the sun is used to fund yet another so-called social project. That's where politics has completely transformed the idea and made it into something meaningless.

I mean, when you're helping someone out, the least that can be done is to make sure they are able to fend for themselves afterwards. Otherwise there's no point. And the more projects are piled on to replace things like private insurance and health care, the less spending power a population has. And, in these times of recession, it just means increasing tax pressure when it is already strong.

So, yes, I may have a faint idea of how things work in the USA but the question on both sides of the fence seems to be how much individuals have to spend how and, more importantly, how they are going to spend it. And from a human being's perspective, spending power practically equates to security which is one of the most basic needs. People need to have money in their pockets to feel safer about themselves and their future.

Consumption in itself doesn't solve problems though. It might help to kickstart activity but, imo, isn't able to sustain it. I mean, everyone knows that far too many cars were being produced so a decrease in sales was bound to happen some day. You can't expect people to continuously buy stuff to the point where everyone is using up their savings and taking out loans.

In an ideal world, the driving force should be a healthy economy. This produces riches that can benefit everyone in the long run making everyone happy. A succesful company not only benefits it's founders and employees but it can also benefit partners, suppliers, the surroundings and, of course, the administration. It's a win-win situation since the money spent outside benefits the company in some way or another.

Now, where things seem to have gone wrong today is that a company is no longer bound to the soil of one nation. You could have a handful of offices in one place and a gigantic factory in some third world country. That means less job opportunities and less activity overall.

This is where tax evasion comes into the picture. A widespread pratice of placing money into offshore accounts is nothing short of siphoning riches from the economy that generated them. It's ironic to think that mister and misses average are asked to spend money when this equates to the complete opposite. No wonder administrations are worried about deficit. The direct result of such a practise means that the local economy has shrunk in it's potential while huge seas of money float around in financial limbo.

So to put things simply, don't you think tax evasion and similar practises are going to end up putting pressure on those more honest people in the 5% you mentionned. And if they can't carry all the weight, won't that ultimately put a dent in public spending power and force administrations to impose heavier taxes on everyone ?

That's what worries me a lot. For historic reasons, other local economies are tied to the USA since the dollar replaced gold as a reference value. So, everyone has something to lose if the recession keeps up. This could also start a period of regression when it comes to international trade and an even sharper decline in activity. Obama seems to have opted for protectionism with his buy american catchphrase. That usually mans that certain goods end up being more expensive depending on what part of the world you're in.

Behind this, the people high up in finance have recently shown they can act in an irresponsable fashion in a way that can hurt economies badly. Finance as a word seems to have lost it's meaning as you're supposed to "finance" something and not kill it or feed off it. There's the human factor and the fact that mentalities are hard to change. If nothing changes, there might as well be safeguards put in place to make sure tens of thousands of people aren't put out of job in one day. That seems to be the message coming accross from some leaders. This whole shakeup was foreseable when banks started to get directly involed in loans and insurance a few years ago. That's when the frontiers between the financial and banking world started to blur and where savings money suddenly started to be injected into shares.

In the meantime, the money spent and partially borrowed to bailout banks and businesses will hinder any potential to set things right. That's public spending money wasted on a problem that largely concerns the private sector. That's normally a big no-no unless the administration is certain that the situation can be turned into an advantage.

I can tell you one thing. I don't feel very comfortable about the idea of the administration here in Belgium holding onto a bank that used to be able to generate a sizeable fraction of the gross national product (Fortis owned ABN Amro and went tits up at the end of last year). Taxes are pretty high already as it is and they're probably one of the reasons I've been having trouble finding a decent job with the equivalent of a high-school certificate.

By nothing, I mean no income tax. It is refunded for that percentage of people.

I didn't know that. From what you're saying, it sounds like the administration is simply borrowing your money, albeit without repaying interest.

 

[Grobut]

Yes, socialism is widely considered to be a branch of communism and is the antithesis of the "American Way" as you put it. Socialism removes responsibility and choice from the individual, and individual rights are what this country was founded on.

You coulden't be more wrong even if you tried.

Socialism is branch of Communism? then so is Capitalism, you see, they are both an important part of Marx "3 stage rocket twords Communism", and if one is to be considdered guildty by association, then so is the other, you dirty Commie Capitalist!

Obviously this is BS, they have different names because they are different things, and they work very differently.


And Socialism does not remove personal responsibility, infact it demands that you contribute, and holds you accountable, thats the whole point of the system, that everyone contributes.

It does afford us creature compforts like a welfare system, but it is no handout, unlike in the USA where it seems any idiot can claim welfare and food stamps just because, here you have to prove you are entitled to it, and that you are actively seeking gainfull employment as fast as possible, or it will be taken away from you because you are obviously not trying to contribute to society.

A system in which you must contribute is certainly not one in which you have no responsibilities, quite the opposite.


Also, Socialism is an economic system, not a form of Government, the USSR used it togeather with an Authoritarian Dictatorship, and that sucked for choice, but in Scandinavia we use it togeather with Democracy, so we have the same amount of choice as any other Democracy in the world, including yours.

 

[Zur]

Also, Socialism is an economic system

That's another way to describe it. Again, I'm not a big fan because my experience of it here is largely negative. Let's just say that there's a big difference between someone who is trying to be "social" and supportive and someone who's simply telling you what you want to hear so they can harvest your vote.

P.S: Scandinavia probably got it right. However, I can't help notice that unemployment is relatively high too. That's an average of 6.2 versus 7.2% here (the real figure is probably higher), compared to the UK's 5.8%. Sweden and Finland seem to have a healthy budget though (-5% here, -4% in the UK vs 1.6-3.2% budget surplus).

 

[SlayerDragon]

Well we already get enough of the latter here. That's what career politicians do, anyway.

 

[hal]

Consumption in itself doesn't solve problems though. It might help to kickstart activity but, imo, isn't able to sustain it. I mean, everyone knows that far too many cars were being produced so a decrease in sales was bound to happen some day. You can't expect people to continuously buy stuff to the point where everyone is using up their savings and taking out loans.


I didn't know that. From what you're saying, it sounds like the administration is simply borrowing your money, albeit without repaying interest.

Capitalism is supposed to have ebbs and flows. That's what makes it healthy. The market corrects itself. That works fine until government interferes with the market.

Yes, they are doing that.

You coulden't be more wrong even if you tried.

Socialism is branch of Communism?

Whoops - I meant to say Communism branches from Socialism.

 

[Zur]

Well we already get enough of the latter here. That's what career politicians do, anyway.

That doesn't surprise me. At least someone pretends they're going to "change" something. The guys in red shirts here are like a cult that promises things you can't refuse unless you want to end up living worse (it wasn't so long ago you needed to be a member to get a job). They've been the dominant party for 50 years. Thankfully, they lost the last elections last year .

Capitalism is supposed to have ebbs and flows. That's what makes it healthy. The market corrects itself. That works fine until government interferes with the market.

Yes, they are doing that.

I don't know about this magical force that is supposed to correct problems along the way. If you consider the market as some sort of stomach, there's bound to be something that can cause it serious indigestion. I guess the government shouldn't interfere but maybe that should go both ways. Why should thousands of people end up jobless for the whims of a select few ? Where's that sweet spot where economy and finance can get along ?

Whoops - I meant to say Communism branches from Socialism.

Whatever. We're not going to discuss philosophies when neither of us has experienced more than one. Let's just be happy that variety exists so everyone can find the system that suits them.

 

[hal]

I don't know about this magical force that is supposed to correct problems along the way. If you consider the market as some sort of stomach, there's bound to be something that can cause it serious indigestion. I guess the government shouldn't interfere but maybe that should go both ways. Why should thousands of people end up jobless for the whims of a select few ? Where's that sweet spot where economy and finance can get along ?

Whatever. We're not going to discuss philosophies when neither of us has experienced more than one.

The magical force is called the free market and it has healthy ups and downs that help weed out the bad and allow the good to flourish.

Thousands of people end up jobless at the whims of the few? Are they helpless? They can go work somewhere else better or start their own business. You make it sound as though there is an untouchable class of "business owners" that delight in their own greed and making others miserable.

I don't have to experience something first hand to understand it? Do you? I understand that socialism removes choice from the individual and I prefer a different system. I'm very happy you enjoy yours.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761572241

The idea of a society based on common ownership of property and wealth stretches far back in Western thought. In its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist movement of 19th-century Europe (see Socialism). But whereas some reformers favored peaceful, longer-term social transformation, Marx and Engels believed that violent revolution was all but inevitable; in fact, they thought it was predicted by the scientific laws of history. They called their theory “scientific socialism,” or communism. In the last half of the 19th century the terms socialism and communism were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels came to see socialism as merely an intermediate stage of society in which most industry and property were owned in common but some class differences remained. They reserved the term communism for a final stage of society in which class differences had disappeared, people lived in harmony, and government was no longer needed.

Grobut, regarding the "responsibility" part... I was mainly refering to the responsibility of the individual to choose. I do understand that in a social system, contribution - on whatever minimal level - is required.

 

[kiff]

And Socialism does not remove personal responsibility, infact it demands that you contribute, and holds you accountable, thats the whole point of the system, that everyone contributes.

It does afford us creature compforts like a welfare system, but it is no handout, unlike in the USA where it seems any idiot can claim welfare and food stamps just because, here you have to prove you are entitled to it, and that you are actively seeking gainfull employment as fast as possible, or it will be taken away from you because you are obviously not trying to contribute to society.

you make a good point. I was talking to a friend that lived in Germany (in the 70's iirc) and he was saying that the general attitude was a lot different. Yea, they had social programs and used it appropriately. That's not the case here.

The problem is, our system design is much different and counts on greed (yea, generic I know). The systems don't mix well. You can't take BMW parts and put them in a Chevy and expect it to function (assuming the parts fit).

 

[Iron Archer]

Kiff, I think what you're saying though is that Americans are used to searching for the better deal for their hard earned dollar--in every aspect of life, whereas in socialist countries you can wait for the "free" handout and it may not be the best ever (be it healthcare or pension, etc) but to you it's all you have.

I would also like to chime in and remind everyone that the US' population is one of the most charitable in the world. I'm not talking about government payouts to countries, I'm talking about the charitable donations of individuals. On the other hand the US Government, yes the one ran by good ole politicians, is one of the least giving. How's that for greed?

 

[Grobut]

That's another way to describe it. Again, I'm not a big fan because my experience of it here is largely negative. Let's just say that there's a big difference between someone who is trying to be "social" and supportive and someone who's simply telling you what you want to hear so they can harvest your vote.

Thats the sad reality of Democracy, and it happens in every country where people get to vote, and will continue to do so.. unless we come up with some system where politicians have to keep their promises or be flogged to death in public, now that has potential!

P.S: Scandinavia probably got it right. However, I can't help notice that unemployment is relatively high too. That's an average of 6.2 versus 7.2% here (the real figure is probably higher), compared to the UK's 5.8%. Sweden and Finland seem to have a healthy budget though (-5% here, -4% in the UK vs 1.6-3.2% budget surplus).

Eh, we're hit by the the economic crisis just as everyone else, and that means higher unemployment as companies cut back or even fold.

Our economy works much the same as everyone elses, you are not garuenteed a job here, its not like East Germany by any means, where they would invent stupid jobs just to be able to say "everyone has a job here", and that means we have unemployment just as everyone else.

The only real difference is that we have a fairly smart welfare system (it has its flaws and loopholes like anything else, but its quite good on the whole), it's not easy to abuse because to claim welfare, you must be seeking a job (and you must take any job that you are offered, or you lose your welfare), or failing that, you must pursue an education that will give you access to better job oppertunities.

 

[Grobut]

Grobut, regarding the "responsibility" part... I was mainly refering to the responsibility of the individual to choose. I do understand that in a social system, contribution - on whatever minimal level - is required.

And what is it, exactly, that i don't get to choose? Denmark is a modern Democratic nation just like any other, we vote and do all the other stuff every other Democracy does, we even have a constitution that is not all that different to your own with exception of the second ammendment (ours is called the "base law" instead of "constitution" though), the only choice i can't make is that i cannot choose to not pay any taxes.. but in what country can you do that anyway? and don't say "USA" because i know the IRS will rape you horribly if you refuse to pay taxes.

Our welfare system does pay for alot of things, like free healthcare, retirement and education, that i am free to use, but i am not forced by anyone to use thease things, if i want to and can afford it, i can pay for private schooling, or getting treated at a private Hospital, we also have many private pension companies, we have a private sector just as everyone else, and i can choose to pay for their services if i want to and it is within my means.


I think you need to wrap your head around the fact that "Socialism" does not have to work like it did in the old USSR, which was Socialism taken to absurd extremes (yes, Socialism, they where never Communists) and coupled with an Authoritarian regime, it can and does work in other forms, which the Scandinavian nations are a testiment to, probably because we don't take it to absurd extremes but stick to what actually works in the real world, and ours is a Democratic system not a Authoritarian one (just like Democracies aren't taken to extremes, imagine if we had to vote every single day for every single little thing that is considdered in the world of politics).

 

[Wail of Suicide]

And what is it, exactly, that i don't get to choose? Denmark is a modern Democratic nation just like any other, we vote and do all the other stuff every other Democracy does, we even have a constitution that is not all that different to your own with exception of the second ammendment (ours is called the "base law" instead of "constitution" though), the only choice i can't make is that i cannot choose to not pay any taxes.. but in what country can you do that anyway? and don't say "USA" because i know the IRS will rape you horribly if you refuse to pay taxes.

Our welfare system does pay for alot of things, like free healthcare, retirement and education, that i am free to use, but i am not forced by anyone to use thease things, if i want to and can afford it, i can pay for private schooling, or getting treated at a private Hospital, we also have many private pension companies, we have a private sector just as everyone else, and i can choose to pay for their services if i want to and it is within my means.

I think you need to wrap your head around the fact that "Socialism" does not have to work like it did in the old USSR, which was Socialism taken to absurd extremes (yes, Socialism, they where never Communists) and coupled with an Authoritarian regime, it can and does work in other forms, which the Scandinavian nations are a testiment to, probably because we don't take it to absurd extremes but stick to what actually works in the real world, and ours is a Democratic system not a Authoritarian one (just like Democracies aren't taken to extremes, imagine if we had to vote every single day for every single little thing that is considdered in the world of politics).

Here's the problem (to me): Sweden and Denmark are nations ... That are smaller than a good number of US states.

There's no reason why states themselves couldn't implement statewide programs of the sort that are being discussed. But I think it's a very poor idea [not to mention unconstitutional] to try and scale say, nationwide health care coverage over the entire United States.

An anecdote: I have a friend who called me up the other day to tell me how happy he was that Obama's spending bill was going to pass. Why? Because he was going to receive a check in the mail. He receives disability checks from the government, and one of the items in there will give him some kind of tax refund, even though he doesn't work and doesn't pay taxes.
In fact, he collects disability money from the government every month, even though he has an above-average IQ and is fully capable of working, but simply doesn't want to. Perversely, even if he actually wanted to contribute something worthwhile to society and got a job, he would lose the monthly benefits he is collecting. So there is an incentive for him to be a net drain on society.

 

[Grobut]

Here's the problem (to me): Sweden and Denmark are nations ... That are smaller than a good number of US states.

I never claimed the Scandinavian model would work in the USA, because i dont think it would, the size difference of the countries alone makes it extremely unlikely, and perhabs more so, the differences in our cultures.

I'm just trying to make hal (and anyone else who might be confused) understand that "Socialism" does not have to be anything like the missery we saw in the USSR, nor does it have to trample all over individual freedom of choice, there are other ways it can, and has been implimented in various countries that has been benificial to the population.

It cannot be viewed through a "good or evil" filter, because it can be both a benifit to, or a blight on a society, depending on how it is implimented (Denmark versus East Germany beeing good examples of how different it can work out).

An anecdote: I have a friend who called me up the other day to tell me how happy he was that Obama's spending bill was going to pass. Why? Because he was going to receive a check in the mail. He receives disability checks from the government, and one of the items in there will give him some kind of tax refund, even though he doesn't work and doesn't pay taxes.
In fact, he collects disability money from the government every month, even though he has an above-average IQ and is fully capable of working, but simply doesn't want to. Perversely, even if he actually wanted to contribute something worthwhile to society and got a job, he would lose the monthly benefits he is collecting. So there is an incentive for him to be a net drain on society.

I have just one question then, why, if he can work, is he on disability?

That's what i dont like about the US welfare system, it seems to be a free handout to anyone who's just plain lazy, and can tell a good wives tale to the welfare office about why they shoulden't have to work.


That woulden't fly here, you have to prove you truely cannot work, you either need a diagnosis grim enough that it proves you are badly damaged goods, or you need to undergo job training (or maybe i should call it "trials") that will determine if you can work, and if so, in what capacity (IE, you might be able to hold a part-time job, and then qualify for partial welfare whilst working what you can for the rest of your pay).
If we did free handouts like this, we'd be bankrupt plenty quick (though some do find ways to exploit the system, it does happen).

 

[ilkman]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/obamas_busted_budget.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569611695588763.html

 

[Larkin]

That is mostly true for businesses. Selfish b*. Yay for people-responsable liberalism, nay to rip-everyone-off capitalism (yes the two philosophies are different).

Capitalism works because it takes into account human nature. People are naturally greedy and the reason you get into business and start selling a product is to make money. You don't get into making medicine for example because you want everyone to be healthy, you get into it to be rich. On the other hand the reason socialism fails is because it ignores human nature and needs everyone to play nice for it to work and that is just not realistic. Sure you can try to make it work with a bunch of rules and regulations, but then its not really working on its own is it? It will always be one of those pain in the ass kinda of things that takes huge amounts of cash just so it continues to work.

Kerry is a huge supporter of the nanny state ideals and preaches those ideals on a regular basis. What he was doing there was saying that people can't be trusted and the somehow the government can do better what the free market and people fail to do. Maybe he doesn't realize this but companies invest money into themselves first and foremost and so do people and at the same time will use that money to invest in other things and all the while making everything stronger. What he also fails to realize is that government doesn't have the mechanics to do what the free market does nor is it even constitutional. Although I imagine he realizes both of those things but doesn't want anyone to notice it.

I am ofcourse only talking about fundamental ideas though.

Taxes should really aim for the sweet spot where the state gets enough money in to support itself and it's inhabitants while leaving enough breathing space for companies to flourish and create jobs.

You know I agree with that from another discussion with you and you know what I meant both times. You damn well know that the stock market is weak and raising taxes on stocks is a very bad idea and you damn well know that a increase in corporate tax by the amount he wants is horrible idea. What's the deal with you playing dumb?

And for jobs, it's been a growing trend for a few years now to not employ people even when some extra hands would be needed simply because of investor pressure. Some firms are running on minimum personnel or in constant restructuration (it's so politicially correct to be out of a job because of this) on top of classical money-saving measures like logistics. Imo, there should be sanctions if it's obvious that the personnel turnover doesn't correspond with profit figures. Some of the big multinationals should also be sanctionned for piping money out of countries into tax-safe havens. There is no way that Mister and Misses average are going to support the brunt of running a country by themselves while some fat wallets get even fatter.

Globalization. What a stupid idea it turned out to be.

No business I can think of runs their business on purpose low on people or for that manner high. Sometimes things happen and companies have to few or too many people or sometimes business just not enough people get hired for whatever reason. Companies that do it all the time are not the norm.

How many times do I have to tell you this...sigh. You are blowing the tax haven thing out of proportion and you damn well know that its only a minority of business men that can even do that and only a select few of those even do it. Realize you are talking about a very small group already.


The rest of your post seems to be just you ranting and the good parts I went over already so I won't respond to it.

 

[Zur]

The magical force is called the free market and it has healthy ups and downs that help weed out the bad and allow the good to flourish.

It sounds like the modern world equivalent of the survival of the fittest. But is there really a free market, or markets ?

Let's take software for example. It's being inundated with patents by the likes of Microsoft, IBM, Apple and other big gorillas. There was an attempt to push software patents in Europe and it would have nearly suceeded if it weren't for the EU Parliament giving a stiff no to the Commission. I guess the open-source movement has something to do with that.

What is the objective of these patents ? To create more innovation ? To stimulate competition ? Or simply to lock out competitors ?

I could draw parallels with biotech technology but I'll leave it at that.

Thousands of people end up jobless at the whims of the few? Are they helpless? They can go work somewhere else better or start their own business. You make it sound as though there is an untouchable class of "business owners" that delight in their own greed and making others miserable.

I was referring to what's happened with the financial crisis. I don't think there are any of these evil business owners. I do however think there is a problem in the way the management of some companies are hard pressed to make a maximum of profit. It totally undermines the activity whether it's making cheese, cars or whatever.

Again, I will mention the example of inBev who far from taking delight in anything still thinks it's ok to boost the prices of popular beverages. They're all about acquisitions and have nothing to offer when it comes to cultivating brands. All they offer is a simple "product" instead of the super-traditional beer made following an ages old recipe my monks in the 1600s of which the simple mention would make anyone want to have at least a taste.

I don't have to experience something first hand to understand it? Do you? I understand that socialism removes choice from the individual and I prefer a different system. I'm very happy you enjoy yours.

Dipping into different cultures helps to understand different viewpoints. I must admit that I have trouble understanding some people here but my English-Belgian origins give me insights into, even three (counting France), different systems. Far from the impression I may be giving, I don't think my future is here. My plan is to go to the UK, Canada or even the USA if I have to.

Who cares about politics or economics as long as it's possible to work hard and get something in return ? Hire me, I will become the terminator of software development .