PDA

View Full Version : Spending cuts. Easy peasy.



Awryly
01-12-2013, 11:34 PM
1. Cut your silly military.
2. Income and asset test Medicare and Social Security
3. Raise the age of eligibility for government pensions.
4. Stop subsidising failing industries and industries that don't need subsidies.
5. Close the silly tax loopholes that advantage only the rich.
6. Penalise those who ship jobs and cash offshore.

Solved.

Spend the savings on education. You need it.

zelmo1234
01-12-2013, 11:54 PM
see you and I agree on almost everything. Except the last one as we have free trade agreements in place, that would need to be Changed first.

I would add no corporate bailouts

And like in your country no benifits for illegal immigrants

Chris
01-13-2013, 10:33 AM
Awryly, why don't you tell us what spending cuts NZ should implement?

According to the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom, NZ, GB and US are neck and neck:

http://i.snag.gy/ZQymh.jpg

Chloe
01-13-2013, 10:51 AM
1. Cut your silly military.2. Income and asset test Medicare and Social Security3. Raise the age of eligibility for government pensions.4. Stop subsidising failing industries and industries that don't need subsidies.5. Close the silly tax loopholes that advantage only the rich.6. Penalise those who ship jobs and cash offshore.Solved.Spend the savings on education. You need it.You could also add in extra harsh taxes on companies and industries that create excessive pollution which will add in some extra money as well

Chris
01-13-2013, 11:06 AM
You could also add in extra harsh taxes on companies and industries that create excessive pollution which will add in some extra money as well

You do know, Chloe, that those companies will just pass the extra taxes onto consumers like you and me.

Uncle Slam
01-13-2013, 11:09 AM
1. Cut your silly military.
2. Income and asset test Medicare and Social Security
3. Raise the age of eligibility for government pensions.
4. Stop subsidising failing industries and industries that don't need subsidies.
5. Close the silly tax loopholes that advantage only the rich.
6. Penalise those who ship jobs and cash offshore.

Solved.

Spend the savings on education. You need it.

Dude, they'll continue to slash education until Honey Boo Bool looks like Harvard prep material! They don't want people smart enough to know how badly they're getting fucked. Believe that.

Chloe
01-13-2013, 11:22 AM
You do know, Chloe, that those companies will just pass the extra taxes onto consumers like you and me.We'd just have to make sure that they don't and if try to do that then there should be some form of punishment

Chris
01-13-2013, 11:28 AM
We'd just have to make sure that they don't and if try to do that then there should be some form of punishment

How will you do that?

Chloe
01-13-2013, 11:39 AM
How will you do that?That would have to be worked out I guess. But say if a company raised prices on something then they'd only be hurting themselves since people will look to someone else for a cheaper price most likely.

GrassrootsConservative
01-13-2013, 11:52 AM
1. Cut your silly military.
2. Income and asset test Medicare and Social Security
3. Raise the age of eligibility for government pensions.
4. Stop subsidising failing industries and industries that don't need subsidies.
5. Close the silly tax loopholes that advantage only the rich.
6. Penalise those who ship jobs and cash offshore.

Solved.

Spend the savings on education. You need it.

Bitch you need an education. Guarantee you I'd trounce your ass in any test of wits.

Chris
01-13-2013, 11:53 AM
That would have to be worked out I guess. But say if a company raised prices on something then they'd only be hurting themselves since people will look to someone else for a cheaper price most likely.

As long as there are alternatives in a free market, true. But what about oil companies? All produce a product that pollutes. Higher taxes would mean higher prices at the pump with little choice for consumers.

A less maternalistic (dictated by government) solution, more paternalistic (guided choices) might be to charge consumers a mileage tax. --Not saying I support, see for example Oregon's Mileage Tax: A Truly Bad Idea (http://economics.about.com/od/taxesandeconomicgrowth/a/mileage_tax.htm), just throwing out there for discussion.

Peter1469
01-13-2013, 12:24 PM
The Orc Slayer is on the right track, although he must consider the ~$1.3T delta to overcome in revenue / spending.

Chloe needs to get a job, get taxed heavily, in order to realize her world view is just crazy-talk.

GrassrootsConservative
01-13-2013, 01:03 PM
The Orc Slayer is on the right track, although he must consider the ~$1.3T delta to overcome in revenue / spending.

Chloe needs to get a job, get taxed heavily, in order to realize her world view is just crazy-talk.

You should read the Red Lobster thread. I like Chloe, she's nice and everything, but man would I like to still be on here when she wakes up.

Chloe
01-13-2013, 01:49 PM
The Orc Slayer is on the right track, although he must consider the ~$1.3T delta to overcome in revenue / spending.Chloe needs to get a job, get taxed heavily, in order to realize her world view is just crazy-talk.Just because my world view may be different from the typical point of view or how it used to be in the past when you were growing up or something doesn't necessarily mean that it's crazy. Maybe it takes some new ways of looking at things and some cultural changes to help make the country better. We'll never know if we automatically assume it will fail or that it's crazy.

Chris
01-13-2013, 02:17 PM
Just because my world view may be different from the typical point of view or how it used to be in the past when you were growing up or something doesn't necessarily mean that it's crazy. Maybe it takes some new ways of looking at things and some cultural changes to help make the country better. We'll never know if we automatically assume it will fail or that it's crazy.

Agree. Even if I disagree with your views, stick to your guns and defend them.

GrassrootsConservative
01-13-2013, 02:32 PM
Just because my world view may be different from the typical point of view or how it used to be in the past when you were growing up or something doesn't necessarily mean that it's crazy. Maybe it takes some new ways of looking at things and some cultural changes to help make the country better. We'll never know if we automatically assume it will fail or that it's crazy.

Everyone has at least one view that somebody else would think is crazy. I'm sure of it. That's what makes us human.

Chris
01-13-2013, 03:02 PM
It's better to be wrong than right for by discovering you're wrong you learn something.

zelmo1234
01-13-2013, 03:44 PM
You could also add in extra harsh taxes on companies and industries that create excessive pollution which will add in some extra money as well

What if they choose to shut down and / or move to another country where the standards are much lower. Then you have lots of people on unemployment, and no revenue?

Would it not be better to keep working with industries to keep cutting polution. Remember the in the USA we have very strick Vietnam.

So if they move, and we have no way to stop them from moving. Remember they have to compete with there products or they will go out of business.

Chloe
01-13-2013, 05:48 PM
What if they choose to shut down and / or move to another country where the standards are much lower. Then you have lots of people on unemployment, and no revenue?Would it not be better to keep working with industries to keep cutting polution. Remember the in the USA we have very strick Vietnam. So if they move, and we have no way to stop them from moving. Remember they have to compete with there products or they will go out of business.Honestly if they pack up and leave just so they can pollute without conscience then im sorry but good riddance. Hopefully the country they move to treats them the same way. Also if a company is willing to leave the country in order to avoid cutting pollution or face extreme fines and taxes then they aren't serious about cutting pollution anyway.

Peter1469
01-13-2013, 05:50 PM
Honestly if they pack up and leave just so they can pollute without conscience then im sorry but good riddance. Hopefully the country they move to treats them the same way. Also if a company is willing to leave the country in order to avoid cutting pollution or face extreme fines and taxes then they aren't serious about cutting pollution anyway.

Where are you in that pitcture? Going to bash in baby seal heads in Canada?

Chloe
01-13-2013, 05:51 PM
Where are you in that pitcture? Going to bash in baby seal heads in Canada?Huh?

Chloe
01-13-2013, 05:58 PM
Oh my picture. When you quoted my other response I thought you were talking about that in some weird way. Sorry about that. It's not Canada it's just a beach about and hour and half away from Portland. It was a beach cleanup and the shoe was gross and I thought it was funny.

Chris
01-13-2013, 06:02 PM
Oh my picture. When you quoted my other response I thought you were talking about that in some weird way. Sorry about that. It's not Canada it's just a beach about and hour and half away from Portland. It was a beach cleanup and the shoe was gross and I thought it was funny.

Well, now, there's something you can do about pollution, help clean it up. Another is to stop purchasing polluter products--don't drive, ride a bike. Another is to convince others to do similar.

Chloe
01-13-2013, 06:04 PM
Well, now, there's something you can do about pollution, help clean it up. Another is to stop purchasing polluter products--don't drive, ride a bike. Another is to convince others to do similar.Yep I try to do that as much as I can

Uncle Slam
01-13-2013, 06:11 PM
1. Cut your silly military - Ha! In America, the military is our "balls!" You touch the military, your anti-American and not a patriot! Ask Bill Clinton. Hell, channel JFK and ask him!
2. Income and asset test Medicare and Social Security - No No NO! That's sacred ground for the Tea Party - takes are just peachy keen for that.
3. Raise the age of eligibility for government pensions - wish granted! I'll now meet my "retirement goals" when I'm about 92 and a half years old.
4. Stop subsidising failing industries and industries that don't need subsidies.
5. Close the silly tax loopholes that advantage only the rich - Dude, you don't get to this country often, do you? That's about as likely to happen as Snooki attending Yale.
6. Penalise those who ship jobs and cash offshore - see #5

Solved.

Spend the savings on education. You need it.

Hard to see my replies, but they are there after your suggestions. Sorry.

Awryly
01-13-2013, 06:15 PM
Just because my world view may be different from the typical point of view or how it used to be in the past when you were growing up or something doesn't necessarily mean that it's crazy. Maybe it takes some new ways of looking at things and some cultural changes to help make the country better. We'll never know if we automatically assume it will fail or that it's crazy.

Chloe is actually right. It is possibly to construct workable policies that punitively tax polluters and/or force them to become more competitive pollution-wise.

The Australian government recently introduced a carbon tax on large-scale emitters of carbon gasses, mainly electricity producers, though there are also others.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-explained-20110709-1h7tg.html

The first thing the emitters did, of course, was to pass the surcharge on to consumers. But the government compensated consumers by reducing taxes proportionately.

The financial effect was, of course, neutral except for the government which has to foot a higher tax bill. They regard it as a social as well as industry investment. The industry effect is intended to encourage the search for alternative energy sources by making them more competitive; and to encourage the adoption of cleaner coal technology. (Australia's main source of energy is coal, unlike NZ where it is hydro.)

Obama is said to be interested.

In NZ, methane and waste from livestock are the major sources of pollution. What the threat of penalties is doing here is to hasten the pace of scientific research into ways of converting methane to innocuous gases inside the animals as well as more mundane measures like fencing rivers and lakes. And since NZ dairy products are sold largely in highly-competitive overseas markets, the producers have little come-back on local consumers.

So penalties on polluters can be made to work for a social good.

Chris
01-13-2013, 06:22 PM
Chloe is actually right. It is possibly to construct workable policies that punitively tax polluters.

The Australian government recently introduced a carbon tax on large-scale emitters of carbon gasses, mainly electricity producers, though there are also others.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-explained-20110709-1h7tg.html

The first thing the emitters did, of course, was to pass the surcharge on to consumers. But the government compensated consumers by reducing taxes proportionately.

The financial effect was, of course, neutral except for the government which has to foot a higher tax bill. But the industry effect is intended to encourage the search for alternative energy sources by making them more competitive; and to encourage the adoption of cleaner coal technology. (Australia's main source of energy is coal, unlike NZ where it is hydro.)

Obama is said to be interested.

In NZ, methane and waste from livestock are the major sources of pollution. What the threat of penalties is doing here is to hasten the pace of scientific research into ways of converting methane to innocuous gases inside the animals as well as more mundane measures like fencing rivers and lakes. And since NZ dairy products are sold largely in highly-competitive overseas markets, the producers have little come-back on local consumers.

So penalties on polluters can be made to work for a social good.

Except that those so taxed simply pass the cost onto consumers. So the policies social do-gooders intend to do good do harm.

Peter1469
01-13-2013, 06:23 PM
Oh my picture. When you quoted my other response I thought you were talking about that in some weird way. Sorry about that. It's not Canada it's just a beach about and hour and half away from Portland. It was a beach cleanup and the shoe was gross and I thought it was funny.

Is it that cold in Portland? You are wearing a coat (with no holes it at least).

I was just making a stupid joke about baby seal hunts. Of course I know you would have nothing to do with that.

Chloe
01-13-2013, 06:24 PM
Is it that cold in Portland? You are wearing a coat (with no holes it at least). I was just making a stupid joke about baby seal hunts. Of course I know you would have nothing to do with that.Well it's not like Alaska cold but it gets cold. 40 degrees with wind is kindof cold to people without much body insulation :)

Awryly
01-13-2013, 06:27 PM
Except that those so taxed simply pass the cost onto consumers. So the policies social do-gooders intend to do good do harm.

I thought you might say that which is why, exceptionally, I bothered to look at what you had to say.

Unsurprisingly, you completely missed the point. You have absolutely no ability to concede dogma for reality.

Chris
01-13-2013, 06:29 PM
I thought you might say that which is why, exceptionally, I bothered to look at what you had to say.

Unsurprisingly, you completely missed the point.

No, your point is simplistic, it looks only at immediate intent to do good, and fails to look at natural consequences of doing harm.

And I see you have no argument to counter it.

Peter1469
01-13-2013, 06:32 PM
Chloe is actually right. It is possibly to construct workable policies that punitively tax polluters and/or force them to become more competitive pollution-wise.

The Australian government recently introduced a carbon tax on large-scale emitters of carbon gasses, mainly electricity producers, though there are also others.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-explained-20110709-1h7tg.html

The first thing the emitters did, of course, was to pass the surcharge on to consumers. But the government compensated consumers by reducing taxes proportionately.

The financial effect was, of course, neutral except for the government which has to foot a higher tax bill. But the industry effect is intended to encourage the search for alternative energy sources by making them more competitive; and to encourage the adoption of cleaner coal technology. (Australia's main source of energy is coal, unlike NZ where it is hydro.)

Obama is said to be interested.

In NZ, methane and waste from livestock are the major sources of pollution. What the threat of penalties is doing here is to hasten the pace of scientific research into ways of converting methane to innocuous gases inside the animals as well as more mundane measures like fencing rivers and lakes. And since NZ dairy products are sold largely in highly-competitive overseas markets, the producers have little come-back on local consumers.

So penalties on polluters can be made to work for a social good.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15219871/ns/us_news-environment/t/foe-fuel-mesquite-trees-tested/

Mesquite trees can be planted in semi-arid land unsuitable for food crops, largely ignored until harvest, and then turned into alcohol fuel. They would in the meantime prevent erosion.

Chloe
01-13-2013, 06:34 PM
No, your point is simplistic, it looks only at immediate intent to do good, and fails to look at natural consequences of doing harm.And I see you have no argument to counter it.How would an oil company for example pass on those taxes and fines onto consumers?

Awryly
01-13-2013, 06:37 PM
No, your point is simplistic, it looks only at immediate intent to do good, and fails to look at natural consequences of doing harm.

And I see you have no argument to counter it.

I am sure the Australian government will be happy to entertain your fanciful notions. But I am not.

Give them a ring. Tell them how wrong they are.:undecided:

Chris
01-13-2013, 06:38 PM
How would an oil company for example pass on those taxes and fines onto consumers?

By simply raising prices.

Chris
01-13-2013, 06:40 PM
I am sure the Australian government will be happy to entertain your fanciful ideas. But I am not.

Give them a ring.

Two posts in a row that contribute zilch to the discussion nor counter what I've said. It's not my idea to begin with, but simply fact, corporations pass the cost of taxation and regulation onto consumers.

Chloe
01-13-2013, 06:40 PM
By simply raising prices.Higher gas prices would also mean more driver frustration, with more frustration comes more demand for fuel efficient cars, and with that means less oil being used and oil companies losing money.

Chris
01-13-2013, 06:47 PM
Higher gas prices would also mean more driver frustration, with more frustration comes more demand for fuel efficient cars, and with that means less oil being used and oil companies losing money.

Good counter. And that is happening now, visit any oil corporation and they are implementing R&D into alternative fuels. But they are passing the cost of that onto consumers. They won't lose money because they will provide the alternative fuels as your expense. Now, in the long run that could be a good thing, provided consumers can bear the extra burden. But what if they get further frustrated and decide for lower prices they will accept the pollution? Or that the extra cost should go instead to develop products that allow us to deal with the pollution, like better filters, cleaner air conditioning.

Great idea, but think it out a couple few causal links down the chain of consequences.

Awryly
01-13-2013, 06:48 PM
Two posts in a row that contribute zilch to the discussion nor counter what I've said. It's not my idea to begin with, but simply fact, corporations pass the cost of taxation and regulation onto consumers.

I would suggest you read what is written before you pass your silly judgments.

Chris
01-13-2013, 07:00 PM
I would suggest you read what is written before you pass your silly judgments.

I read what you posted. It said nothing, it was not informative, no facts, no logic. It was emotional, you did not like what I said. Oh, well. At lease Chloe was able to continue the discussion rationally. Try it sometime. Better yet put me back on ignore so you don;t have to get so emotional.

zelmo1234
01-13-2013, 07:19 PM
How would an oil company for example pass on those taxes and fines onto consumers?

Raise the price of there products. And if other companies are making the changes that allow them to be in compliance, then they might have to raise prices even higher.

Your post in response to me you basically said good if a company did not want to submit to the fines or regulations on polution!

Keep in mind a few things?

#1 our enviromental standards are among the highest in the world, so if believe that polution is a global problem, then moving a company out of the US into Mexico, central American or China means that they are going to then build plants that meet those standards, which are in fact very low compared to ours.

Next in the case of refining or mining, or fossil fuel drilling. this would maen that hundreds of people maybe thousands of people that once had good high paying jobs will now be on unemployment. As the debt continues to grow less and less money will be available for enviromental contorls,

Eventually leading to laws with no possibility of enforcement.

I beleive that it would be much better to try and work with these companies to make the improvements.

As the best case of punitive taxation and fines is the inocent people pay more to cover the sins of the poluter.

While we all want cleaner energy and manufactureing, we must weigh this progress with the need for companies to compete on a globalj Scale, and prvide high paying jobs that bring revenue into the government.

Taxation and fines that are designed to be opressive or inflict punitive damages often backfire and cause more of the problem they are trying to prevent.

Remember you are dealing with the super rich in many cases, They have more oppertunities to move or just quit.

So it has to be balanced, which sucks when you have high ideals, and refuse to compromise. just look at our current government, neither side is willing to go against there ideals, and nothing is getting done and the poor and middle class are footing the bill, while the rich get richer.

zelmo1234
01-13-2013, 07:20 PM
By the way, just courious how did you like my idea of the sick person switching shifts to solve the problem.

Awryly
01-13-2013, 07:26 PM
I read what you posted. It said nothing, it was not informative, no facts, no logic. It was emotional, you did not like what I said. Oh, well. At lease Chloe was able to continue the discussion rationally. Try it sometime. Better yet put me back on ignore so you don;t have to get so emotional.

You are back on ignore. But not because I get emotional.

Rather because you are seemingly constitutionally irrational.

zelmo1234
01-13-2013, 07:30 PM
Chris try not to loose sleep over the Subject from NZ putting you back on hold!

In the words of Grumpy old Men: "Lucky Bastard" :evil6:

Awryly
01-13-2013, 08:02 PM
Chris try not to loose sleep over the Subject from NZ putting you back on hold!

In the words of Grumpy old Men: "Lucky Bastard" :evil6:

I have been tempted for some time to bestow his luck upon you.

But you, unlike him, are happily ignorant of your stupidity.

One must make allowances.

zelmo1234
01-13-2013, 08:05 PM
:kermit:
I have been tempted for some time to bestow his luck upon you.

If you feel froggy??? JUMP!

Awryly
01-13-2013, 08:08 PM
:kermit:

If you feel froggy??? JUMP!

You have an amusement quotient I have not quite exhausted.

zelmo1234
01-13-2013, 08:23 PM
You have an amusement quotient I have not quite exhausted.

Well laughter is the best medicine! :flag:

Awryly
01-13-2013, 08:24 PM
Well laughter is the best medicine! :flag:

See?

Chloe
01-13-2013, 09:22 PM
You should read the Red Lobster thread. I like Chloe, she's nice and everything, but man would I like to still be on here when she wakes up.

What's so wrong with my comments on the red lobster thread? All I was basically saying on there was that businesses shouldn't just be about profits. I understand that profits are necessary but that is not all it has to be about.

Peter1469
01-13-2013, 09:35 PM
What's so wrong with my comments on the red lobster thread? All I was basically saying on there was that businesses shouldn't just be about profits. I understand that profits are necessary but that is not all it has to be about.

If a business focuses on profits, it will end up providing what people want and the best price.

Read Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations. I know it is boring; do it for me. There are free pdf versions online.

Chloe
01-13-2013, 09:42 PM
If a business focuses on profits, it will end up providing what people want and the best price.

Read Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations. I know it is boring; do it for me. There are free pdf versions online.

I know that but ok say for example you have a business with three employees and you made $100 in profit (random number). And you as the business owner could either take all $100 and put it all back into the business or keep it for yourself as the CEO. Now on the other hand you could instead take $80 and reinvest it in the company but spread the extra $20 out to your three employees to show your appreciation.

Same goes for red lobster. If the company made $1 billion dollars in profits and took just a fraction of that and said you know what, our employees are great, let's give each of our part time employees a week's worth of sick time per year. That would go a long way in my opinion and wouldn't destroy the company.

Peter1469
01-13-2013, 10:03 PM
I know that but ok say for example you have a business with three employees and you made $100 in profit (random number). And you as the business owner could either take all $100 and put it all back into the business or keep it for yourself as the CEO. Now on the other hand you could instead take $80 and reinvest it in the company but spread the extra $20 out to your three employees to show your appreciation.

Same goes for red lobster. If the company made $1 billion dollars in profits and took just a fraction of that and said you know what, our employees are great, let's give each of our part time employees a week's worth of sick time per year. That would go a long way in my opinion and wouldn't destroy the company.

I think that you have stumbled onto something I get slammed on a lot about.

Really large companies, like the owner of Red Lobster are not creatures of the free market. Free market principles don't affect them.

Now go back to a mom and pop restaurant. Just a man and wife with some staff. Their incentive is to make the best product for their customers possible. They aren't going to give their food away for free..., but they are going to do their best while making a profit.

You go to Red Lobster, and your dinner is a frozen mess warmed up in a microwave....

Agravan
01-13-2013, 11:32 PM
I know that but ok say for example you have a business with three employees and you made $100 in profit (random number). And you as the business owner could either take all $100 and put it all back into the business or keep it for yourself as the CEO. Now on the other hand you could instead take $80 and reinvest it in the company but spread the extra $20 out to your three employees to show your appreciation.

Same goes for red lobster. If the company made $1 billion dollars in profits and took just a fraction of that and said you know what, our employees are great, let's give each of our part time employees a week's worth of sick time per year. That would go a long way in my opinion and wouldn't destroy the company.
So what happens when they use that week for personal time and not sick days? Do you give them more and more?

Carygrant
01-14-2013, 03:20 AM
If a business focuses on profits, it will end up providing what people want and the best price.



Only where you predetermine that end result as your initial preference or main target .
The difficulties arise when forward looking people argue that they better know what people need long term or SHOULD need . Equally , others are concerned about national and cultural aims which are unlikely to coincide with assumed short term individual person or company needs .
For example , some might suggest that it is America's obsessive concern with profit that has been a major factor -- or , even the main reason --- for it's imminent economic and moral demise .
Long term overall aims and targets which might be the most important of all measures , can be lost in the immediacy of achieving short term financial goals .
How does Adam grapple with that?

Chris
01-14-2013, 06:55 AM
I know that but ok say for example you have a business with three employees and you made $100 in profit (random number). And you as the business owner could either take all $100 and put it all back into the business or keep it for yourself as the CEO. Now on the other hand you could instead take $80 and reinvest it in the company but spread the extra $20 out to your three employees to show your appreciation.

Same goes for red lobster. If the company made $1 billion dollars in profits and took just a fraction of that and said you know what, our employees are great, let's give each of our part time employees a week's worth of sick time per year. That would go a long way in my opinion and wouldn't destroy the company.

How do you know they don't already do that? If you go to their web site, look around, you will find a long list of employee benefits.

Is that enough would be a good question. OK, but who decides that? If government decides, they will get it wrong because they cannot possibly know what is distributed among employer and employees, knowledge that is dynamic day to day. Leave it to the free market I say. That way if the employer pays to little the better employees will go elsewhere. If he pays too much, it may attract more qualified employees, who will put less qualified employees out on the street. Paying too much may also result in not enough being put back into the business, and too little profits to make running the business attractive, and if the company goes out of business, everyone suffers. How all these causes and effects play out are unpredictable.

BTW, unless the profits are hidden under a mattress they are either invested by the CEO or by the banks who hold his money.

Chris
01-14-2013, 06:58 AM
I think that you have stumbled onto something I get slammed on a lot about.

Really large companies, like the owner of Red Lobster are not creatures of the free market. Free market principles don't affect them.

Now go back to a mom and pop restaurant. Just a man and wife with some staff. Their incentive is to make the best product for their customers possible. They aren't going to give their food away for free..., but they are going to do their best while making a profit.

You go to Red Lobster, and your dinner is a frozen mess warmed up in a microwave....


Really large companies, like the owner of Red Lobster are not creatures of the free market. Free market principles don't affect them.

As a result of government interference.

Chris
01-14-2013, 07:00 AM
Only where you predetermine that end result as your initial preference or main target .
The difficulties arise when forward looking people argue that they better know what people need long term or SHOULD need . Equally , others are concerned about national and cultural aims which are unlikely to coincide with assumed short term individual person or company needs .
For example , some might suggest that it is America's obsessive concern with profit that has been a major factor -- or , even the main reason --- for it's imminent economic and moral demise .
Long term overall aims and targets which might be the most important of all measures , can be lost in the immediacy of achieving short term financial goals .
How does Adam grapple with that?

Adam Smith would argue focus on long term profits and growth.

Our government--with the agendas you speak of in your post--insists on focus on short term profits.

zelmo1234
01-14-2013, 08:18 AM
I know that but ok say for example you have a business with three employees and you made $100 in profit (random number). And you as the business owner could either take all $100 and put it all back into the business or keep it for yourself as the CEO. Now on the other hand you could instead take $80 and reinvest it in the company but spread the extra $20 out to your three employees to show your appreciation.

Same goes for red lobster. If the company made $1 billion dollars in profits and took just a fraction of that and said you know what, our employees are great, let's give each of our part time employees a week's worth of sick time per year. That would go a long way in my opinion and wouldn't destroy the company.

First I do not know if Red Lobster has benifits and profit sharing for full time employee's or not.

Here is how we worked things up until next year as some regulations and taxations are gong to gut into things.

Everyone including myself takes a paycheck from the company. myself and the 2 vp's also have trasnportation by the company, of course we pay all employees if they ahve to use there cars for work at a rate of 55 cents a mile.

Actually. both of my VP's have a higher salary than I do and they deserve it.

We offer healthcare, until the end of the year. we pay 75% and the worker pays 25% and will allow then to add optical and dental at the same rates

We offer a 401K plan with matching funds up to 5%

We offer vacation and personel leave time to all employee's and they earn 1 day of vacation for every 2 weeks and 1/2 day of personel leave, that can be used as sick time. This actually increases as you build senority.

We also close at noon on Christmas Eve and are not open again until the first Monday after the new year, and employees redceive 3/4's pay for this period as well, and can use vacation time to make it full pay, remember 1 day of vacation or personel leave will get you 4 eays a full pay.

At the end of our year. October 1. We determine all profits and losses. We then have a company meeting with every employee. on or about Nov 1

The profits are broken down in 4 ways.

5% of the net profits are put into a cash bonus! this is distributed equally among all employee's even if you are a new hire just past your 90 day promotion. We actualy tax this for our employee;s at the highest rate to insure that they will not owe the federal government in april of the following year. If there are no profits we give out $500.00 bonuses. This only happened in 2009! this year employee's took home over 3000 dollars. this is paid Thanksgiving week.

15% is put into profit shareing and your percentage is effected by the amount of time you spent with the compay but profit sharing is put into there 401K plans, not given as cash bonus.

50% is re-invested back into the company and employee;s are given the areas that we are planing to invest.

And 30% is mine! and they know exactly how much that is.

But I have a few that each and every year want to know why I get a bigger share of the profits? my answer is always the same. In years when we have losses? are you willing to work for nothing? CEO's are incharge of profits for the stock holders, and owners have there own money on the line.

Employee's get less of the rewards because they are not exposed to the risk!

And if you look at all of these benifits above the are not because I like my employee's and am a nice guy, it is because the company is concerned about one thing and one thing only and that is profit. all of the other is a side effect of those profits.

And by the way, the reason that I do take 30% is my charitable giving comes out of that, instead of the company funds. which would reduce profits. and therefore the amount that my employee's earn.

Peter1469
01-14-2013, 09:11 AM
Only where you predetermine that end result as your initial preference or main target .
The difficulties arise when forward looking people argue that they better know what people need long term or SHOULD need . Equally , others are concerned about national and cultural aims which are unlikely to coincide with assumed short term individual person or company needs .
For example , some might suggest that it is America's obsessive concern with profit that has been a major factor -- or , even the main reason --- for it's imminent economic and moral demise .
Long term overall aims and targets which might be the most important of all measures , can be lost in the immediacy of achieving short term financial goals .
How does Adam grapple with that?

I do agree that the focus on profits must be long term, not short term.

Peter1469
01-14-2013, 09:12 AM
As a result of government interference.

You are half right. You keep forgetting the other side of the coin.

zelmo1234
01-14-2013, 10:25 AM
I do agree that the focus on profits must be long term, not short term.

In a major corporation that can sell stock to finance itself this is more correct than in a small business like mine.

in my case a few years of loosing money is the death nail and the business and everything I own would be gone.

So while we plan for growth long tern, and I have the benifit of being debt free, the business must in fact turn a profit each and every year, unless we have made a one year plan for investment, and even that need much risk assesment

Chris
01-14-2013, 10:46 AM
I do agree that the focus on profits must be long term, not short term.

Right, but our government imposes shortsightedness through The misguided practice of earnings guidance (http://www.uic.edu/classes/actg/actg516rtr/Readings/Markets/Earnings-Guidance-1-McKinsey-Full.pdf) (.pdf).

Chris
01-14-2013, 10:47 AM
You are half right. You keep forgetting the other side of the coin.

OK, I've given, just above, the government side of the coin.

Nemo
01-14-2013, 10:50 AM
It is not for you are I to determine the validity of the decisions of the Supreme Court. The judicial power is exercised by the Judicial Branch, which under the Constitution is vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress may ordain and establish. Const., Art. III, sec. 1. In this, it must be recognized that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution; and whether you consider the court’s decisions good or bad, they are binding as law until overruled by the court or amendment. That said, it is certainly possible - humans being fallible - for the Supreme Court to err in its judgment; but neither you nor I have the last word. As Mr. Justice Jackson put it: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, Concurring Opinion in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953).

Chris
01-14-2013, 11:15 AM
It is not for you are I to determine the validity of the decisions of the Supreme Court. The judicial power is exercised by the Judicial Branch, which under the Constitution is vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress may ordain and establish. Const., Art. III, sec. 1. In this, it must be recognized that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution; and whether you consider the court’s decisions good or bad, they are binding as law until overruled by the court or amendment. That said, it is certainly possible - humans being fallible - for the Supreme Court to err in its judgment; but neither you nor I have the last word. As Mr. Justice Jackson put it: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, Concurring Opinion in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953).

Wrong thread. The people hold the power, the people created the government, and they can replace it.

Awryly
01-14-2013, 08:09 PM
It is not for you are I to determine the validity of the decisions of the Supreme Court. The judicial power is exercised by the Judicial Branch, which under the Constitution is vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress may ordain and establish. Const., Art. III, sec. 1. In this, it must be recognized that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution; and whether you consider the court’s decisions good or bad, they are binding as law until overruled by the court or amendment. That said, it is certainly possible - humans being fallible - for the Supreme Court to err in its judgment; but neither you nor I have the last word. As Mr. Justice Jackson put it: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, Concurring Opinion in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953).

That constitution of yours is a real minefield. Or is it a society deeply divided on how to conveniently interpret it in ways that suit its various protagonists that lay the explosives?

We have one too. But it has been mislaid in some dusty cupboard somewhere. And no-one ever mentions it.

We've pretty much forgotten it exists. Because we have no need to remember.

Peter1469
01-14-2013, 08:44 PM
That constitution of yours is a real minefield. Or is it a society deeply divided on how to conveniently interpret it in ways that suit its various protagonists that lays the explosives?

We have one too. But it has been mislaid in some dusty cupboard somewhere. And no-one ever mentions it.

It is a simple question: does the government exist to serve the people, or the other way around. ????

Awryly
01-14-2013, 09:00 PM
It is a simple question: does the government exist to serve the people, or the other way around. ????

Indeed. But you seem to have a hundred answers. All somehow justified by your constitution.

Peter1469
01-14-2013, 09:14 PM
Indeed. But you seem to have a hundred answers. All somehow justified by your constitution.

No. It is really that simple. There is one answer.

Unfortunately the majority of Americans have abandoned the dream. The American experiment is over.

Chris
01-14-2013, 09:18 PM
No. It is really that simple. There is one answer.

Unfortunately the majority of Americans have abandoned the dream. The American experiment is over.

Indeed, that dream "has been mislaid in some dusty cupboard somewhere. And no-one ever mentions it." Now who said that? :thinking:

Chris
01-14-2013, 09:27 PM
How can one argue liberty to one who doesn't accept it and thereby embraces slavery?

Peter1469
01-14-2013, 09:32 PM
How can one argue liberty to one who doesn't accept it and thereby embraces slavery?

You can't. That is why much of the world doesn't understand America.

Awryly
01-14-2013, 09:36 PM
You can't. That is why much of the world doesn't understand America.

So, according to you (and Chris), the rest of the world lives in slavery?

Do you know where the rest of the world even is?

Peter1469
01-14-2013, 09:52 PM
So, according to you (and Chris), the rest of the world lives in slavery?

Do you know where the rest of the world even is?

Yes. I have been to much of it. Not NZ.

Chris
01-14-2013, 09:56 PM
So, according to you (and Chris), the rest of the world lives in slavery?

Do you know where the rest of the world even is?

You criticize liberty and in so doing embrace slavery, awryly.

Or is this going to turn into another one of those arguments where you first claim Friedman-like policies drove NZ to povery in one post and then insist NZ is wealthy in the next?

Awryly
01-14-2013, 09:56 PM
Yes. I have been to much of it. Not NZ.

And you saw slavery everywhere you went?

Peter1469
01-14-2013, 09:59 PM
And you saw slavery everywhere you went?

I saw governments who provide for their people as best as they can.

Awryly
01-14-2013, 10:02 PM
I saw governments who provide for their people as best as they can.

The question was about slavery. According to you and Chris everyone else has it. But you don't.

Chris
01-14-2013, 10:03 PM
And you saw slavery everywhere you went?

You embrace it day after day in your posts criticizing liberty.

Chris
01-14-2013, 10:05 PM
The question was about slavery. According to you and Chris everyone else has it. But you don't.

You don't read much other than your troll threads here do you. The US is embracing slavery more and more everyday as it embraces democracy and dependence on government--the very things you advocate, the very things we discuss day after day.

Awryly
01-14-2013, 10:11 PM
A rare look at your nonsense. Which I immediately regretted.

So why are you peddling "democracy" to the Chinese, Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans, Iranians, North Koreans, Somalians, Sudanese et al?

According to you, they should be teaching you.

Peter1469
01-14-2013, 10:12 PM
The question was about slavery. According to you and Chris everyone else has it. But you don't.

I did not use that term.

Awryly
01-14-2013, 10:16 PM
I did not use that term.

You concurred in its use.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chris http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=215763#post215763)
How can one argue liberty to one who doesn't accept it and thereby embraces slavery?



You can't. That is why much of the world doesn't understand America.