TMat184 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND WATCH THIS VIDEO IN ITS ENTIRETY!!! (all six parts)Then if you need more watch this... Greed? OK Corruption? NOT OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsonian Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Here's an interesting commentary: http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090120105037.aspx "Dear WSJ: Obama Calls for Responsibility, While Acting Irresponsibly 'No one can spend $1.5 billion of other people's money responsibly.' By Donald J. Boudreaux Business & Media Institute 1/20/2009 10:52:07 AM Send this page to a friend! (click here) Editor, The Wall Street Journal 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 To the Editor: You report that Barack Obama will call for "a new era of responsibility" ("Obama to Call for a New Era of Responsibility," Jan. 20). His actions belie his words. By seeking an extra $800 billion for "stimulus," Mr. Obama will generate a typhoon of irresponsibility. Consider what Arnold Kling says at the blog EconLog: "How many people will have meaningful input in determining the overall allocation of the billion stimulus? 10? 20? It won't be more than 1000. These people - let's say that in the end 500 technocrats will play a meaningful role in writing the bill - will have unimaginable power. Remember that what they are doing is taking our money and deciding for us how to spend it. Presumably, that is because they are wiser at spending our money than we are at spending it ourselves. "The arithmetic is mind-boggling. If 500 people have meaningful input, and the stimulus is almost $800 billion, then on average each person is responsible for taking more than $1.5 billion of our money and trying to spend it more wisely than we would spend it ourselves." Absolutely no one can spend $1.5 billion of other people's money responsibly. Sincerely, Donald J. Boudreaux Don Boudreaux is the Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University and a Business & Media Institute adviser." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailskinz1991 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Bwahahahaha! If you're an economist, then I'm an NFL Quarterback. Have you ever run a company? Have you paid corporate taxes? What are those taxes based on? What is the best way to avoid them? My point is, lower taxes don't make people reinvest in their business. The fact that the business is profitable is what makes people reinvest. If you don't have the capital, take a loan. If your company lays you off, it's not going to be due to a tax increase. I guess it needs to be put it more simple terms, CASH = CAPITAL, a company with capital is a company that should invest. Why sit on your cash/capital? A wise entreprenuer is always looking for ways to make more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Agreed, and I bet that private company would beat their price to mail a letter too!!! Are you kidding? How much does FEDEX or DHL charge to send a letter across the country? Seriously, why don't you go to their websites and get a quote Mr. Economist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I guess it needs to be put it more simple terms, CASH = CAPITAL, a company with capital is a company that should invest. Why sit on your cash/capital? A wise entreprenuer is always looking for ways to make more money. Not in a major downturn. Businesses hoard their cash to ride out the bad times - just like the banks are doing right now. Sometimes the "more simple" analysis isn't accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailskinz1991 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Greed? OK Corruption? NOT OK Look at this Stimulus package...looks like corruption to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I guess it needs to be put it more simple terms, CASH = CAPITAL, a company with capital is a company that should invest. Why sit on your cash/capital? A wise entreprenuer is always looking for ways to make more money. Yeah, they are hoarding cash and looking to make acquisitions or stand pat to be more attractive to investors, not create jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailskinz1991 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 No. I'd be all for tax cut incentives for jobs created, not for just giving them the tax cuts and then trusting them to create jobs with it. With all the corruption and mismanagement that has been uncovered, I don't see how anyone, with a straight face, can advocate a free market approach in this environment. The free market has the best solution to corruption and mismanagement...the company will fail, it will go out of business, and never be heard from again. It will clear the path for a new and better company to sprout. The government should not be deciding which companies will and will not go out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 Hailskinz1991, What are some strategies companies can employ to hedge against risk in an uncertain economic environment? Thank You. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Hailskinz1991,What are some strategies companies can employ to hedge against risk in an uncertain economic environment? Thank You. Insider trading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailskinz1991 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Hailskinz1991,What are some strategies companies can employ to hedge against risk in an uncertain economic environment? Thank You. Control costs while keeping innovation and ingenuity in high gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailskinz1991 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yeah, they are hoarding cash and looking to make acquisitions or stand pat to be more attractive to investors, not create jobs. What sector are these companies from....certainly not all companies are doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 Control costs while keeping innovation and ingenuity in high gear. You forgot to add "ensure zero fail." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailskinz1991 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 ???It has been proven that the spending multiplier is greater in effect than the tax multiplier. That is my gist. But only in an efficient govt. I don't agree with this notion. I will tell you why. Once the tax rebate reaches its destination how can you accurately measure its impact. Even if the money gets spent on paying bills, there is then a trickle up effect. Where cash makes its way to someone who is willing to invest it, whether that is a person or a company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Control costs while keeping innovation and ingenuity in high gear. You know what the best way to control costs is? Cut jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yep, compensation accounts for much of the TCO of any manufacturer or firm. Our compensation requirements are much to high in this land. Because our cost of living is way to high. That compensation is killing American jobs because the requirements to fullfill the compensation is out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yep, compensation accounts for much of the TCO of any manufacturer or firm. Our compensation requirements are much to high in this land. Because our cost of living is way to high.That compensation is killing American jobs because the requirements to fullfill the compensation is out of control. The most obvious example of this is the weird idea we have in America that employers should be the ones funding healthcare as an employment benefit. It's a huge cost, unrelated to employment issues that makes our companies less competitive, and allows for the creation of a huge and inefficient insurance industry that leeches half of the money off the off the top yet can't control rising costs at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 The most obvious example of this is the weird idea we have in America that employers should be the ones funding healthcare as an employment benefit. It's a huge cost, unrelated to employment issues that makes our companies less competitive, and allows for the creation of a huge and inefficient insurance industry that leeches half of the money off the off the top yet can't control rising costs at all. Absolutley, the example can be directly fitted to Detriot's ills. However, I don't think the answer is to have the Government run it. Unfortunately, at the moment do not have a solution. I will concede that our current method needs to be tossed away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailskinz1991 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 You know what the best way to control costs is?Cut jobs. Agreed, and it is a smart move for those companies. But don't forget that these folks who lost their jobs will recycle their labor into more productive and better paying jobs. Look at the case with the steel industry and all of the fear when it collapsed. The creation of new and exciting industries has spurned ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Absolutley, the example can be directly fitted to Detriot's ills. However, I don't think the answer is to have the Government run it. Unfortunately, at the moment do not have a solution. I will concede that our current method needs to be tossed away. I think the only possible answer is to have the Government control it. Maybe not run it directly (no single payer system), but set standards and regulations for competing health care insurers and mandate coverage for all. It's one of the few things that the French do right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailskinz1991 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think the only possible answer is to have the Government control it. Maybe not run it directly (no single payer system), but set standards and regulations for competing health care insurers and mandate coverage for all. It's one of the few things that the French do right. The French don't do it right. They have cut off innovation. Their richest and most elite including their Leaders come here to America to get the most advanced care in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Agreed, and it is a smart move for those companies. But don't forget that these folks who lost their jobs will recycle their labor into more productive and better paying jobs. Look at the case with the steel industry and all of the fear when it collapsed. The creation of new and exciting industries has spurned ever since. This discussion is bizarre. Everytime anyone says anything, you respond with a mantra that looks like it was taken from the Classics Comics version of "The Wealth of Nations" filtered through Glen Beck. Of course people who lose their jobs get new jobs. Eventually. Most of them, anyway. And of course some industries die out while new ones rise up. Eventually. We are discussing the stimulus idea here, and debating the idea that the government can (or cannot) have a beneficial effect on moderating business cycles and avoiding depressions (or panics, as they used to be called) by spending money to spark a multiplier of economic activity during a downturn. You know - JM Keynes. You seem to be having a different conversation, with other people, in which those other people are attacking the basic concepts of capitalism and you are bravely defending it. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think the only possible answer is to have the Government control it. Maybe not run it directly (no single payer system), but set standards and regulations for competing health care insurers and mandate coverage for all. It's one of the few things that the French do right. But it's the entire industry that needs to be reformed. From the patients to the nurse to the doctor to the chief resident to the chief of medicine to the clerk calling in the insurance, to the clerk taking the claim, to the management of said insurance balking back to the drug makers who control both of them. And this is just one part of compensation, albeit a large portion of it all. Our entire way of life has flaws from top to bottom. These flaws are just too heavy and they must be corrected or the floors going to come out from under us. I don't think any thing we are considering with regards to our economy is going to work. I'd rather just batten down the hatches and ride out the storm. I want a truly comprehensive post mortem done on what got us in this mess and a complete collective understanding of why it happened. Hopefully, the world can prove me wrong about our current possible entrance into a "dark age". I just have lost faith. We simply aren't ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailskinz1991 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 We are discussing the stimulus idea here, and debating the idea that the government can (or cannot) have a beneficial effect on moderating business cycles and avoiding depressions (or panics, as they used to be called) by spending money to spark a multiplier of economic activity during a downturn. You know - JM Keynes. Go back to the first post, I am defending the notion that tax cuts will have a faster, more efficient, longer lasting, more impactful, outcome on economic growth than this proposed government spending bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 The French don't do it right. They have cut off innovation. Their richest and most elite including their Leaders come here to America to get the most advanced care in the world. I think a lot of people would disagree with you. They have universal coverage, lower costs, better preventive care, better prenatal care, longer lifespans, no exclusions for preexisting conditions, they can choose their doctors and change their plans, and are the highest rated nation in the world for health care according to the World Health Organization. I'm sure that there are a few small areas where the US system is superior, and I'm sure you can find a few anedotal examples to demonstrate that. We ought to be better in - we pay twice as much per capita than they do and only 2/3ds of us even get coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.