Ok. . . This is terrifying.

[Gaspar]

Maybe I'm just too dense. What you're saying is pretty meaningless to me. If you mean that the simple answer is that we reduce risk and increase returns to get the economy back in gear, that is pretty slight on specifics. What, protect the bankers from exposure to their past high risk gambles? Ignore the basic premises laid out above?

You're not dense at all.  I think you've got it.  The details are what the government can currently control.  The details are what is stagnating the economy.  The details are what drives perception.

Here are the details.

First of all, businesses/wealthy perceive higher risk because the administration has shown uncertainty in how it desires to regulate various industries.  They perceive more risk because they understand that some sectors are getting propped up while others are being allowed to fail.  This creates the unnatural market forces that make forecasting returns very difficult.  I call it "Blowing Bubbles."

Second, businesses/wealthy perceive lower returns because of the unwillingness to engage in risk (exactly as you said).  They also see lower returns based on decreased demand as a result of unemployment.  They can forecast lower returns because their taxes are increasing in January.  They understand that this not only affects them, but the other companies they rely on, and the consumers that drive their sales.  The administration could easily turn off this flag by extending the current tax structure, or enabling additional tax cuts capable of increasing returns.  Unfortunately, even the very budget that President Obama promised would save the middle-class from increased tax burden in January has now been tabled.

So this is what businesses/wealthy are left with.  Our investment in new business will be risky (increased cost to sales). Our operating expenses will go up.  It will be harder to do business. 

You get it. 

You, as a liberal, just like to put the blame on business/wealthy.  You can if you wish. That's your prerogative.   You should be happy that all of those evil rich people and big-businesses are feeling Obama's boot-heel.  Unfortunate for you, you can't force businesses/wealthy to spend.  All you can do is create an atmosphere where commerce is attractive. 

[Conan71]

You're not dense at all.  I think you've got it.  The details are what the government can currently control.  The details are what is stagnating the economy.  The details are what drives perception.

Here are the details.

First of all, businesses/wealthy perceive higher risk because the administration has shown uncertainty in how it desires to regulate various industries.  They perceive more risk because they understand that some sectors are getting propped up while others are being allowed to fail.  This creates the unnatural market forces that make forecasting returns very difficult.  I call it "Blowing Bubbles."

Second, businesses/wealthy perceive lower returns because of the unwillingness to engage in risk (exactly as you said).  They also see lower returns based on decreased demand as a result of unemployment.  They can forecast lower returns because their taxes are increasing in January.  They understand that this not only affects them, but the other companies they rely on, and the consumers that drive their sales.  The administration could easily turn off this flag by extending the current tax structure, or enabling additional tax cuts capable of increasing returns.  Unfortunately, even the very budget that President Obama promised would save the middle-class from increased tax burden in January has now been tabled.

So this is what businesses/wealthy are left with.  Our investment in new business will be risky (increased cost to sales). Our operating expenses will go up.  It will be harder to do business. 

You get it. 

You, as a liberal, just like to put the blame on business/wealthy.  You can if you wish. That's your prerogative.   You should be happy that all of those evil rich people and big-businesses are feeling Obama's boot-heel.  Unfortunate for you, you can't force businesses/wealthy to spend.  All you can do is create an atmosphere where commerce is attractive. 

Or the government imposes a draconian "savings" tax for people being too stingy so the government can confiscate the money and pump it into the economy.  But they really don't need to do that since they can simply print currency at will and devalue the dollar or borrow even more money that we don't know when we will pay back.

[Gaspar]

Or the government imposes a draconian "savings" tax for people being too stingy so the government can confiscate the money and pump it into the economy.  But they really don't need to do that since they can simply print currency at will and devalue the dollar or borrow even more money that we don't know when we will pay back.

I have a feeling we will be printing and borrowing "like there's no tomorrow." Literally.

The Ten "Cannots" of Political Economy:
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-payer.
You cannot further the brotherhood of mankind by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative.
You cannot help man permanently by doing for them what they could do and should do for themselves.

[waterboy]

That's quite a little world you've devised. I hope it works out for you! Sounds like a web site is providing you some tasty brew.

As for me, how many times, and in how many ways must I say and prove.....I do not begrudge the wealthy their status, and their money, nor do I blame them for hard times. I have been a wage earner, a wage payer, an over paid executive and an overworked entrepreneur. I have befriended and enjoyed the company of almost all demographics and job titles as the Bible suggests I do. Currently, I am practically semi-retired and a wage slave once again. It sucks big time. I am more aware now than ever before the unjustifiable and growing separation between haves and have nots.

To however suggest that the above categories of people are blameless for their arrogance, risky behavior, greed, sloth, selfishness and bullying is naive. This recession was brought to us on the backs of bankers, financiers, politicians and corporations who lived too well. And they want to blame it on our credit habits!! They dumped into the laps of the common man and now expect us all to beg for their guidance with "cannot" platitudes like the ones you listed. I especially like the one in red. It reminds me of Polonius' advice in Shakespeare, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be."

But listen, I am surprised at your thought process. It sounds to me like you want to favor a slice of population that has been particularly guilty of bad ethics, poor management of resources, poor management of risk and shortsighted leadership. You think they should be rewarded with a bailout of sorts by lowering their tax burden, lowering the regulation of their businesses and generally bowing to their profit making abilities. Profits that would soar and be redistributed if we would just let them be. That sounds like a load to me. Its a cure worse than the disease. It sounds....liberal.

Note: after re-reading my post I find it needs a refinement. I do not blame the wealthy as a class for our difficult times. THat encompasses a large population, many of whom had nothing to do with it. And, I believe we all had some contribution. I do however find fault with the business community who steadfastly clings to a mantra of lower taxes, lower wages, less regulation and high executive compensation as some sort of miracle religion. They rolled the dice and failed the consumer. Now they want to blame government and the consumer.

[Gaspar]

That's quite a little world you've devised. I hope it works out for you! Sounds like a web site is providing you some tasty brew.



To however suggest that the above categories of people are blameless for their arrogance, risky behavior, greed, sloth, selfishness and bullying is naive. This recession was brought to us on the backs of bankers, financiers, politicians and corporations who lived too well. And they want to blame it on our credit habits!! They dumped into the laps of the common man and now expect us all to beg for their guidance with "cannot" platitudes like the ones you listed. I especially like the one in red. It reminds me of Polonius' advice in Shakespeare, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be."

Exactly as I was saying.  You should rejoice. In one breath you say you harbor no ill towards the wealthy, and then spend a paragraph condemning them. They are getting what you feel they deserve.  Turn that frown upside-down.   Your message is exactly the same as President Obama's.  This is exactly what they are hearing.  Praise and condemnation in a single stanza. 

But listen, I am surprised at your thought process. It sounds to me like you want to favor a slice of population that has been particularly guilty of bad ethics, poor management of resources, poor management of risk and shortsighted leadership. You think they should be rewarded with a bailout of sorts by lowering their tax burden, lowering the regulation of their businesses and generally bowing to their profit making abilities. Profits that would soar and be redistributed if we would just let them be. That sounds like a load to me. Its a cure worse than the disease. It sounds....liberal.

I wish to favor no one!!  I also wish to punish no one!!

That is the difference.  You still hunger for some kind of retribution.  Well, you are getting it.  I'm sorry if the war on business leaves civilian casualties, but that is the nature of the battle.


[/quote]

[waterboy]

Well, you're wrong. No other way to put it. Businessmen always ask for these things, but they never really expect to get them and would be fearful if they did. Most would be glad to get a fraction of what they beg for and ecstatic if they got bennies and their competitors didn't. Don't glorify the business world. BTW, I am the owner of a BBA and I AM angry at what passes as management leadership these days. Know that you are but an infinitesimal part of a huge barnyard of blindered animals all moving around in herds.

But, I ran your ideas past a couple of my friends in case I am suffering early onset dementia. One a recent PoliSci grad who works for an oil company. They've seen these rants on Libertarian websites and in their e-mailsa and are just as nonplussed as I am. Of course, I may still be fading away.

Its weird really. The more cogent arguments, facts, logic and reality presented to you folks, the more intractable you become.  That ability to commit to unsupportable dogma in the face of contrary evidence is something I lack. I suppose that is why much of the religious right is turned off by Libertarians. It is a conflict of dogma.

Worship your corporate, conformist masters but don't expect me to be a part of it.

[Conan71]

How can anyone say: "overpaid executive"?

There's no objective method the government and envious individuals can use to devise what an executive is worth.  Why would anyone want the responsibilty and headache of running a multi-national company with 50,000 employees for a pay grade that's 10% more than the production staff?

The company board determines what an executive's services are worth to a company and grant a bonus or some other source of income commiserate with performance. 

I've worked on a commission or nominal salary/bonus basis for years as a rep and as a sales manager.  I appear to earn exactly what I'm worth to the companies I work for as they've never griped about what I'm being paid nor tried to cut my compensation.

[Gaspar]

Well, you're wrong. No other way to put it. Businessmen always ask for these things, but they never really expect to get them and would be fearful if they did. Most would be glad to get a fraction of what they beg for and ecstatic if they got bennies and their competitors didn't. Don't glorify the business world. BTW, I am the owner of a BBA and I AM angry at what passes as management leadership these days. Know that you are but an infinitesimal part of a huge barnyard of blindered animals all moving around in herds.

But, I ran your ideas past a couple of my friends in case I am suffering early onset dementia. One a recent PoliSci grad who works for an oil company. They've seen these rants on Libertarian websites and in their e-mailsa and are just as nonplussed as I am. Of course, I may still be fading away.

Its weird really. The more cogent arguments, facts, logic and reality presented to you folks, the more intractable you become.  That ability to commit to unsupportable dogma in the face of contrary evidence is something I lack. I suppose that is why much of the religious right is turned off by Libertarians. It is a conflict of dogma.

Worship your corporate, conformist masters but don't expect me to be a part of it.

Ok.  You are very clear.

[Red Arrow]

I don't have too much problem with an over paid  executive leading a successful company.  I do have a problem with them leading a failing company, getting a platinum parachute and getting a government bailout.  Freedom to succeed includes freedom to fail.  There should be no big reward for failure.

[nathanm]

Gaspar, your central premise is simply incorrect. Business is not expanding because there is already too much capacity chasing too little demand. It has nothing to do with possible regulation except in the minds of CNBC talking heads. Why should I hire someone to help me install computers when few people are buying new ones anyway?

[Red Arrow]

Gaspar, your central premise is simply incorrect. Business is not expanding because there is already too much capacity chasing too little demand. It has nothing to do with possible regulation except in the minds of CNBC talking heads. Why should I hire someone to help me install computers when few people are buying new ones anyway?

No, no, no...You are supposed to blame FOX, not CNBC.  (Or, if you can't blame FOX, blame Bush.)

[we vs us]

Since we seem to want to incessantly beat the tax drum as the one and only solution to everything, I wanted to include this little nugget from an excellent article in the Washington Post about the Bush tax cuts:

One of the most common objections to letting the cuts expire for those in the highest tax brackets is that it would hurt small businesses. As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently put it, allowing the cuts to lapse would amount to "a job-killing tax hike on small business during tough economic times."

This claim is misleading. If, as proposed, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the highest earners, the vast majority of small businesses will be unaffected. Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets -- individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year.

And just as most small businesses aren't owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income: According to the Tax Policy Center, such proceeds make up a majority of income for about 40 percent of households in the top income bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go -- it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don't make most of their money off those businesses.

[Red Arrow]

Since we seem to want to incessantly beat the tax drum as the one and only solution to everything, I wanted to include this little nugget from an excellent article in the Washington Post about the Bush tax cuts:

They're just swinging back to the left now that we have a D President.

[we vs us]

They're just swinging back to the left now that we have a D President.

How about Greenspan?

Who would you believe?

[Hoss]

How about Greenspan?

Who would you believe?

Certainly not Boehner

I smell burnt toast...