or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Do We Fix The Economy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Do We Fix The Economy? - Page 3

post #81 of 96
I tell you ignoring certain posters makes the forum read MUCH cleaner.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #82 of 96
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And he's not saying anything he hasn't said a zillion times before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I tell you ignoring certain posters makes the forum read MUCH cleaner.


For many years I sparred with him. I hoped that if he was demonstrably defeated in nearly every argument, he might change his behavior. I had recently tried finding issues on which we agreed. No dice. I would agree with 2/3 of what he wrote, and then disagree with 1/3 of it. He'd respond by saying I was polarized and partisan. Then he's take statements I made and use them on his own, pretending they were his thoughts. He became fond of the phrase "rehtorical nonsense" and tried using it against me, for example.

The biggest frustration I had with him was his refusal to answer simple questions, such as "which Bush Admin policies contributed to the economic crisis?" He'd obfuscate for post upon post. Then, he'd turn around and accuse me of "dodging questions."

I've finally given up. He's hopeless. Reading the forums is so much nicer now.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #83 of 96
Unless the government does something artificial (stimulus, TARP), the economy will "fix" itself.
post #84 of 96
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealsmith View Post

Unless the government does something artificial (stimulus, TARP), the economy will "fix" itself.

You have one post, some it's either "welcome" or "go away future spammer." For now, I'll go with the first.

If you mean government intervention with spending, then I agree. But we need real tax reform to stimulate consumer spending. And we need to address the deficit and debt with long term reforms and huge cuts to government agencies.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #85 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But we need real tax reform to stimulate consumer spending.

You are partly correct.

We need tax reform that will release (I dare not give credit to the government for actually "stimulating" anything...the best they can do is just get out of the way and let the economy grow)...investment. The tax (and monetary) reform should stop punishing income earning, productivity, success, savings and investment.

With all due respect: The emphasis on the consumer spending (demand) side of things is a Keynesian idea and it comes from only a superficial understanding. In essence it puts the cart before the horse.

Production always comes first. Production comes from investment capital. Capital comes from savings. Savings comes from forgoing current consumption and consuming less than you produce.

Here is a great, well-written primer: "Consumption vs. Production, or...The Anatomy of a Stimulus" and a longer one: "Production versus Consumption"

From this perspective (and other perspectives also) the best, most efficient and most economically freeing and "stimulative" tax structure would be:

- no income tax (personal or corporate)
- no capital gain or other investment tax
- no tax on saving or earnings from savings
- no property tax

- Single, simple, end-transation sales (consumption) tax on all or most non-private party sales...(after massive government spending cuts of course*).

*Even if you didn't massively cut spending, this will still be the best tax structure...the rate would just be much higher.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And we need to address the deficit and debt with long term reforms and huge cuts to government agencies.

Definitely.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #86 of 96

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #87 of 96
(getting on soapbox)

Here's my suggestion for fixing the economy once and for all:

1. Audit every governmental agency at the Federal, state and local level to find bureaucratic overlap and agency bloat and use the results to cut the size of government by at minimum 30%, with an eventual goal of 50-60%.

2. Completely overhaul our national taxation system to drastically reduce complexity, cut compliance costs and make it more business-friendly. This is why I favor going to the Steve Forbes flat income tax plan right now and four years afterward completely phase out the income tax by repealing the 16th Amendment and replace the income tax with a consumption tax like FairTax (H.R. 25/S. 13).

3. Simplify pollution regulations so all 50 states comply with a single standard for things like water cleanliness, clean-burning gasoline and diesel fuels, exhaust emissions, and so on.

4. Aggressively overhaul financial system regulations with the following changes:

a. Reimpose the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act to protect bank assets.
b. Strictly regulate hedge funds, derivatives, credit default swaps, and other "exotic" investments by requiring real liquidity backing or just ban them outright as too financially risky.
c. Increase the minimum margin requirements (MMR) for futures trading to 15% minimum, with a 25% MMR for crude oil, certain petroleum products (natural gas, unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel), certain foodstuffs (corn, rice, soybeans and wheat especially), certain industrial metals (aluminum, copper, iron, nickel and titanium), and precious metals (gold, palladium, platinum, and silver).
d. Overhaul the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to allow for more corporate IPO's.
e. Begin a ten-year phaseout plan of the Federal Reserve Note fiat currency and replace it with a new US dollar backed by copper, gold, nickel, palladium, platinum, and silver (the most common metals used for coins and bullion blocks used in monetary exchange).

(getting off soapbox)
post #88 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually, Wal-Mart does pay above minimum wage. That's why they supported an increase in the minimum wage...to force their competitors to pay higher wages.

P.S. The purpose of a company is not to create jobs. It creates jobs as a function of other things it is trying to do.

WalMart pays above minimum wage. Nice example.

The fact that you're ignoring is that WalMart pays the vast majority of their workers, and all of their new entry-level retail hires... you got it... minimum wage. If they could pay these people less, believe me, they would.

In fact, if WalMart had 1,000,000 employees and paid 999,999 of them minimum wage, and one of them one dollar over minimum wage, they would be paying on average more than minimum wage. So to say:

"Actually, Wal-Mart does pay above minimum wage."

...and pretend that very true statement actually makes any point whatsoever, shows a very high level of either stupidity or dishonesty.
post #89 of 96


Found this. Highly appropriate.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #90 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Wal•Mart pays above minimum wage. Nice example.

The fact that you're ignoring is that Wal•Mart pays the vast majority of their workers, and all of their new entry-level retail hires... you got it... minimum wage. If they could pay these people less, believe me, they would.

Then why did they lobby for an support an increase in the minimum wage?

Wal-Mart backs hike to minimum wage

Wal-Mart: Boost Minimum Wage:

Quote:
Scott said Wal-Mart would support an increase in the federal minimum wage from the current $5.15 an hour. On average, the company says, it pays full-time U.S. associates $9.68, so a higher minimum wage would have a much tougher effect on Wal-Mart's smaller rivals.

Wal-Mart calls for minimum wage hike

Why Companies Like Wal-Mart Support The Minimum Wage:

Quote:
CEO’s who support higher minimum wages are not, as the media often casts them, renegade heros speaking truth to power because their inner moral voice bids them be silent no more. They are by and large, like Mr Sinegal, the heads of companies that pay well above the minimum wage. Forcing up the labour costs of their competitors, while simultaneously collecting good PR for “daring” to support a higher minimum, is a terrific business move. But it is not altruistic, nor does it make him a “maverick”. Costco’s biggest competitor, Wal-Mart, also supports a higher minimum wage, and for the same reason. Wal-Mart’s average wage is already above the new minimum; it will cost the company little, while possibly forcing mom-and-pop stores that compete with Wal-Mart out of business.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

In fact, if Wal•Mart had 1,000,000 employees and paid 999,999 of them minimum wage, and one of them one dollar over minimum wage, they would be paying on average more than minimum wage. So to say:

"Actually, Wal-Mart does pay above minimum wage."

...and pretend that very true statement actually makes any point whatsoever, shows a very high level of either stupidity or dishonesty.

Instead of my alleged stupidity or dishonesty (thanks for the insults though) why don't we focus on your ignorance of facts instead:

Hourly Rate for Employer: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc
Wal-Mart Hourly Pay

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #91 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

[/img]

Found this. Highly appropriate.

I wish I could think of caricatured reasoning as real reasoning. It would make it so much easier to be a mean asshole to everyone when I declare they are stupid.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #92 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Then why did they lobby for an support an increase in the minimum wage?

Wal-Mart backs hike to minimum wage

Wal-Mart: Boost Minimum Wage:



Wal-Mart calls for minimum wage hike

Why Companies Like Wal-Mart Support The Minimum Wage:






Instead of my alleged stupidity or dishonesty (thanks for the insults though) why don't we focus on your ignorance of facts instead:

Hourly Rate for Employer: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc
Wal-Mart Hourly Pay

What WalMart pays full-time workers is irrelevant when the vast majority of their staff is part-time.
post #93 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What Wal•Mart pays full-time workers is irrelevant when the vast majority of their staff is part-time.

I'd ask for you to provide some actual facts to support this statement and, far more importantly, that Wal-Mart is paying "the vast majority of their staff" minimum wage (which is what you're clearly implying) and that without this government mandated minimum wage would be paying them less...as well an explanation for why they supported raising the minimum wage...but I suspect you won't provide any.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #94 of 96
Stop trading oil in USD and start using Euros or gold. That will fix things in a jiffy. On second thought, probably not. The US will take over the oil fields in the middle east with trillions of I.O.U.s to Hamilton and the rest.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #95 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'd ask for you to provide some actual facts to support this statement...

That's easy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/bu...02walmart.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052502162.html
Quote:
and, far more importantly, that Wal-Mart is paying "the vast majority of their staff" minimum wage (which is what you're clearly implying)

I am implying that, but apparently I could be wrong about that...
Quote:
and that without this government mandated minimum wage would be paying them less...

That is without a doubt.
Quote:
as well an explanation for why they supported raising the minimum wage...but I suspect you won't provide any.

Provided here.
Try this.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...t_and_the.html
Some factual numbers (yes, it's old):
http://www.counterpunch.org/cox04202004.html
post #96 of 96
This is just hilarious!


I'm trying to figure out how either of those articles support your claims.

The first articles says:

Quote:
Investment analysts and store managers say Wal-Mart executives have told them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time from 20 percent. Wal-Mart denies it has a goal of 40 percent part-time workers, although company officials say that part-timers now make up 25 percent to 30 percent of workers, up from 20 percent last October.

The 2nd one says: "The majority of Wal-Mart jobs are currently full time."

Neither article supports your claim that "the vast majority of their staff is part-time," quite the opposite in fact. Neither article is claiming that those who work part-time are paid the minimum wage (which was your implication).

You'll also note that these articles point out Wal-Mart's efforts to provide inexpensive medical insurance plans for full and part time employees.

You'll also note that when wages do rise (whether by market conditions or law) employers have other tactics at their disposal that doesn't mean everyone will automatically get paid more. Sometimes hours will be reduced, etc. Certainly people who, because of their current skill and experience levels, are not employable at the higher wages will not be employed at all. This is something I've been trying to get you to see all along. In fact in this post, I specifically asked you about this and you never answered.

Finally these articles give some insight, that is often overlooked, into the fact that employers do (and everyone else should) look at the total compensation paid (wages + benefits) not just wages.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I am implying that, but apparently I could be wrong about that...

Apparently.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That is without a doubt.

In you mind, yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Provided here.
Try this.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...t_and_the.html

Quote:
A different, and perhaps more realistic way to look at this Wal-mart initiative is as a bald move to get government to sit on their competition. After all, as its wage rates creep up, as is typical in more established companies, they are vulnerable to competitors gaining advantage over them by paying lower wages. If Wal-mart gets the government to set the minimum wage closer to the wage rates it pays, it eliminates the possibility of this competitor strategy. Besides, a higher minimum wage would surely put more low-skilled people out of work, increasing the pool of people Wal-mart can hire

That is exactly the reasoning I've already given. I've even posted other articles that point out this same reasoning. P.S. I read this blog post 2-3 years ago.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Some factual numbers (yes, it's old):
http://www.counterpunch.org/cox04202004.html

Quote:
$8.00: Approximate nationwide average hourly wage for Wal-Mart employees

And that was from 7 years ago, well before the minimum wage was raise to its current level of $7.25. So 7 years ago, on average, Wal-Mart was paying more than the minimum wage is today. Note this one also:

Quote:
$6.25: Starting wage for a cashier at the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Salina, Kansas, 2003

This was 7-8 years ago also when the minimum wage was $5.15.

All of this seems to cast a great deal of doubt on your claims that Wal-Mart would automatically pay everyone less absent a minimum wage law.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Do We Fix The Economy?