What's new
By:

Occupy Wall Street

  • Thread starter Thread starter Agoxlea
  • Start date Start date
trigg3r said:
I would like to argue that the government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers in the private sector. Nobody should be getting loans from the government. If even Bush's advisers thought that the government shouldn't give them this loan then why was Obama and company so fast to give it? Obviously it was an attempt to prop up a green company. The problem is that going green for many people is not financially viable.
Click to expand...

And in many cases doesn't actually make anything better.
 
trigg3r said:
I would like to argue that the government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers in the private sector.
Click to expand...

That's a great way to fall behind in scientific and technological development. One of the principal reasons that the Chinese can produce solar power more cheaply is significant government investment.

trigg3r said:
Nobody should be getting loans from the government.
Click to expand...

That would put this country at an ecnomic and educaitonal disadvantage.

trigg3r said:
If even Bush's advisers thought that the government shouldn't give them this loan then why was Obama and company so fast to give it? Obviously it was an attempt to prop up a green company.
Click to expand...

Actually, there were a well over a dozen companies, most of which are still doing fine.

trigg3r said:
The problem is that going green for many people is not financially viable.
Click to expand...

If we allow other countries to make it financially viable, we will become dependent on them to supply the technology, at least initially.
 
There is no way that government should be out there giving money for an idea that is not viable at this point in time. Look at Spain and how well it worked there. The Chinese are able to produce many products at a cheaper rate which is obvious due to the amount of money they don't pay their workforce. This country is already at an educational disadvantage due to the public school system. Many people get jobs and go to college. A green economy is not yet financially viable. Maybe down the road it will be. But not now. But hey, it's just taxpayer money, right?
 
trigg3r said:
There is no way that government should be out there giving money for an idea that is not viable at this point in time. Look at Spain and how well it worked there. The Chinese are able to produce many products at a cheaper rate which is obvious due to the amount of money they don't pay their workforce. This country is already at an educational disadvantage due to the public school system. Many people get jobs and go to college. A green economy is not yet financially viable. Maybe down the road it will be. But not now. But hey, it's just taxpayer money, right?
Click to expand...

If an idea is viable, why would it need government money? Are you going to respond to the points about falling behing technologically, at all?

The cheaper rate of the Chinese workforce is a reason they can make large numbers of technologically unsophisticated goods inexpensively. With tachnoligically sophisticated goods, an inexpensive workforce is not a paramount consideration.

While we should be better, our children are better educated than those in India and China. We should not be ceding technological advancements to those countries.

Vaccination research was "just taxpayer money". Defense is "just taxpayer money". Something being "just taxpayer money" is not a reason to avoid spending it when it hwlps the country as a whole. I think the USA is more than the just a bunch of individuals.
 
One Brow said:
If an idea is viable, why would it need government money? Are you going to respond to the points about falling behing technologically, at all?

The cheaper rate of the Chinese workforce is a reason they can make large numbers of technologically unsophisticated goods inexpensively. With tachnoligically sophisticated goods, an inexpensive workforce is not a paramount consideration.

While we should be better, our children are better educated than those in India and China. We should not be ceding technological advancements to those countries.

Vaccination research was "just taxpayer money". Defense is "just taxpayer money". Something being "just taxpayer money" is not a reason to avoid spending it when it hwlps the country as a whole. I think the USA is more than the just a bunch of individuals.
Click to expand...

It's not helping the country as a whole because the majority can't afford it. So when you get those prices down, which you won't in the near future then we can talk. Right now government shouldn't be spending money on things that are not essential. They should be cutting spending to pay down our enormous ever growing debt. Especially in the defense budget. End all wars and bring the troops back home. Simple as that.
 
trigg3r said:
It's not helping the country as a whole because the majority can't afford it.
Click to expand...

Yet. Innovation is an expensive process.

trigg3r said:
So when you get those prices down, which you won't in the near future then we can talk.
Click to expand...

You mean, we can talk about how the Chinese are dominating the produciton of solar cells, and you'll blame public school education for it?

trigg3r said:
Right now government shouldn't be spending money on things that are not essential. They should be cutting spending to pay down our enormous ever growing debt.
Click to expand...

You don't eat your seed corn because you're unhappy with your ration size.
 
What I don't understand is how we plan to keep a middle class in the economic conditions we are currently in. Previous to the 1929 economic collapse that led to the great depression, the top one percent held around 20 percent of the total US wealth. Then from 1929 to 1945 a reconfiguration of wealth distribution occurred out of necessity, where the top 1% then held about 9% of the total US wealth. Between the 1950's to 1980's the wealth distribution was at 65% held by the bottom 90 percent of the population, 35% held by the top 10 percent of the population, and 9% held by the top 1 percent of the US population. The stagnation of the economy in the late 70's to early 80's coupled with ideal conditions prompted Reagan to deregulate and lower taxes. This stimulated economic growth and successfully pulled us out of a recession. However, I personally don't think it was sustainable as the US has become burdened by an enormous debt. The only way we can get out of it without raising taxes or cutting entitlements is by inflating the dollar which devalues yours and my personal savings.

Furthermore, I'm not a big fan of "trickle down theory" as I'm not so sure there is a strong correlation between lowering taxes for business and creating jobs for the middle class. As I stated before, before Reagan deregulated business practices and lowered taxes the wealth distribution in the US was 65% held by the bottom 90%, 35% held by the top 10%, and 9% held by the top 1% of the US population. Currently, it is 52% to the bottom 90%, 48% to the top 10%, and 21% to the top 1% of the US population.

As it currently stands I think the economic system in the US is strongly tilted for the wealthy and the middle class is getting the squeeze. Just my 2 cents.
 
One Brow said:
The cheaper rate of the Chinese workforce is a reason they can make large numbers of technologically unsophisticated goods inexpensively. With tachnoligically sophisticated goods, an inexpensive workforce is not a paramount consideration.

While we should be better, our children are better educated than those in India and China. We should not be ceding technological advancements to those countries.
Click to expand...

That's like saying I don't have to worry about the car in my rear view mirror because I'm farther down the road than they are.

I used to take comfort in the fact that China was just big and dumb. I don't think they're half as dumb as they used to be. I used to take comfort in the fact that China was communist and therefore would always be at a technical and industrial disadvantage. I don't think they're half as communist as they used to be.

As wealth grows, as individuals begin to worry about their own wants and desires, as thoughts open to a wider world, as momentum builds...we're going to be dealing with 1,000,000,000 people ready to bust loose. I think it's going to happen in my lifetime and I think it's going to be impressive. China is already a superpower in my opinion, but they haven't even started flexing their muscle yet.
 
One Brow said:
A long, detailed look at OWS:

https://erratasec.blogspot.com/2011/10/independent-reporting-of.html
Click to expand...

Thanks to One Brow for supplying an actually thoughtful, observant, and informative link on OWS.

I've been in here shooting at Wall Street quite a bit, but let me just admit that these folks are indeed "organized", and this movement will not just go away when the weather turns. With people on the ground forming a "self-governing" organization, and claiming to represent almost all of us, they're not far from dumping the concepts of the Constitution altogether. It's literally a constitutional convention in the park, with a new set of "insiders".
 
trigg3r said:
First Solyndra and now SunPower Corp. Ah, it's just another billion plus dollars wasted.
Click to expand...

Do you also track loan guarantees for college students? They've been going on for years, and they do get defaulted upon occasionally. Do you expect every loan guarantee will go to a successful enterprise? Are you opposed to loan guarantees in general? Do you think our economy would be better off without them?
 
Thoughts?

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700187660/Cains-9-9-9-would-be-a-taxing-disaster.html

Sure, he would shrink the tax code from its more-than-Biblical proportions to a series of taxes just one short of the 10 Commandments, but it has one fatal flaw. Americans do not go to polls every four years to elect a dictator.

President Cain would have to deal with a Congress. His plan is to reduce income tax rates to a flat 9 percent for individuals and 9 percent for businesses and then, drum-roll please, add a 9 percent national sales tax. The details are still sketchy, but Cain would remove all deductions except for charitable contributions.
Click to expand...
 
Not to mention that if it's absurdly regressive (if reported correctly by Deseret News).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top