That's about all the understanding we can expect from you, I guess.
Should Mitt release his tax returns?
- Thread starter northeast
- Start date
That's about all the understanding we can expect from you, I guess.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Interesting graphs. The first two are not adjusted for inflation, so I think they're misleading. It makes the first graph pretty much useless.
The second graph speaks to the advent of automation.
The third graph is interesting indeed, and makes a good point. One minor note, the top 1% is not the only bracket that has experienced significant gains.
And it should be noted that it only shows from 1979 on... if it showed from the 50's, it would be a different story.
Coincidentally, the 80's is when Reagan went nuts on military spending and drove budget deficits to crazy person levels. Economically speaking, that HAS to have a dampening affect on growth and by extension wage increases.
This is a fine balance.
Entitlement breeds apathy and dependency.
They should be temporary assistance measures, and right now the way the system is set up, it's not temporary. It's a way of life for many.
There are many other things that are causing the deficit to baloon... including bailouts when the free market should have corrected the issue... military spending... foreign aide... etc.
I don't think it's fair to blame the budget deficits on social programs, but the inefficiencies of social programs and the fact that they are a lifestyle for many is concerning.
Seeing as how "who" the company has a responsibility to was never defined it is a valid question. The company is already there so one could argue that they are now part of that economy and have a "resposibility" as you put it to that economy.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
This extraction game is sure fun!
What kind of changes in budget does the 40% reflect?
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
I'm not so much interested in explaining why the charts are the way they are, as much as what we can do to fix them. Bringing the jobs back to the USA would fix all of the issues raised by those charts, plus it would also fix the issues raised by the social programs and becoming dependent on them. It's just good all around.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
If Apple thinks their responsibility is to China, then let them hand over all of their patents to the Chinese government and ask them to enforce them globally the way the USA currently does. And while they're at it, put all their money in Chinese banks and ask them to protect it and guarantee it.
You are living in a fantasy world, hard to choose where to start, its all delusion.
Yea i exaggerated a bit for effect, but I am much more in line with the real world than you.
So would that be your deffinition of to who they should be loyal? Who holds their money and patents? So in todays world what happens to the jobs already overseas? Do they get yanked out of that economy to appease America and risk the backlash from all those countries? Or are they given a free pass for past decisions? What if current decisions need to be based off thos past decisions? Like not wanting to open a new factory but exapnd an existing one? What if that factory is in China? Should that company be S.O.L and have to build a brand new factory in America and split their production locations?
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Salty, I wish you would take a class in economic theory. Nothing is as simple as you make it out to be.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Yes, I would require American companies to bring their jobs back to this country or pay a heavy tax penalty if they refuse. If China gets upset, so be it, deal with the consequences.
Keep in mind, these companies used to have these jobs in America. They decided to take them out of this country and move them to China. So bringing them back to the USA is not doing anything to China that we haven't already dealt with ourselves.
First wouldn't places like China and the Phillipines be mad at the US for forcing the companies to comply? That would stop/decrease foreign investment in the US. That is a very bad thing.
Second not all those jobs were always in America. Some of them sure but not all of them. Such as expansions oversease instead of relocating the jobs.
Do we then penalize the companies for the penaties China puts into effect?
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Throw theories out the window at this point. All we have to do is look at our current situation, the policies that got us here, and make the needed changes. Those theories would come into play if we were starting frm scratch here and didn't have anything else to base our decisions on.
The facts speak for themselves. The middle class is on life support (if not totally dead), we have the highest income inequality in the world, unemployment is sky high, and all of this is happening while corporate profits are at an all time high and the stock market is doing fine.
Sending jobs to China may look good in theory, but our current state of the economy says otherwise. Putting money in the pockets of job creators is only beneficial to us if the jobs they create are in the USA. Apple making another pile of money isn't helping us at this point. If they only had $50 billion in the bank instead of $100 billion it wouldn't change anything about the way they operate. But the thousands of jobs in the USA would make a world of difference for us in the USA.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
If the Phillipines gets mad at the US, so be it. There are far more middle class people who would benefit from thousands of jobs coming to this country than there are who would be hurt by the Phillipines not "investing" in the US.
And yes, I would require all USA companies to bring their jobs back to the USA or else pay a heavy tax penalty.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Ya, small time consequences like incredible hyper-inflation, reduced cost of living that impacts the lower income brackets the most, lack of some specific goods and parts due to the fact we don't have the manufacturing infrastructure in the United States any more...
There are reasons the jobs left the United States. Americans benefit from those reasons - specifically, products were able to be produced at a lower cost, thus making it so more Americans could afford them.
I know it's a pipe dream, but I wish we would spend less budget money trying to keep low-skill, low-wage jobs in the United States, and spend more money on re-education and re-skilling to higher-income jobs. In other words... government facilitated creative destruction.
What a novel concept.
Then you are looking at pissing off more than the Phillipines. Add Singapore, India, China, Canada, Mexico, France, Britian, Germany amoung others to that list. What if they do the same? Alot of people just got screwed. How do you accomodate for that? Are you thinking that the amount of jobs brought back will equal that amount lost? What if they take other steps such as cancelling agreements and treaties in other ares such a military cooperation and research?
I see your idea as creating 20 problems where only one existed before.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Think about what you are saying. These would not be middle class jobs you'd be bringing back.
And so what would companies do? Incorporate in other countries, enter into joint ventures here in the United States, and do business with the parent company being sheltered by another government's regulations. It's not that hard to do.
The answer to economic recovery through creative destruction is not to try to hold on to what's on its way out.
The answer is to make the transition easier.
Why don't you tell us about all of the board of directors you have chosen as a small stockholder in a publicly traded company, and how they all cared about your opinion and the opinion of all the other shareholders about the compensation packages you recommended, and how the many bad performing executives suffered severely due to your oversight , and how you studied all of the performance records and compensation packages because you had more expertise on these matters than all the directors and executives and they cared so much about your opinion.
This should be entertaining. Hop to it.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
I vote in picking board members in the companies i hold individual stocks in. If I don't like the board members that are elected, I sell my shares. Pretty simple, really.
Why would I do that? Well, I'm trusting those board members with the oversight you say I should do. If I don't have faith in their abilities to oversee, I sell my stock.
If more people did that and were less trusting with their money, there'd be a lot less bubble activity in the economy.
I don't care about anybody else's money. I care about my own. If others want to stay invested in a company that's not set up for success, that's their problem.