Stunned

#51
#51
lawgator1 said:
Closely run?

No, I want stronger SEC or banking regulation of how boards of directors and executives compensate one another.

Basically, all I'm asking for is better oversight to make sure that the execs earning $20 million in bonuses are acting in the best fiduciary interests of their employers, rather than in their own selfish interests, in concert with their respective boards of directors.
Click to expand...

Nobody likes fraud, but making the fox head of security over the hen house is not gonna do much for that.
 
#52
#52
HSVol said:
I can understand both sides of the argument. However, I'm not convinced corporate tax breaks would equal new jobs. We need an increase in consumer demand before there's a need to hire new workers, or else there's no need to ramp up production. If there's no increase in quantity demanded, there's no need to increase the supply.
Click to expand...
The domestic job creation engine is mid-size/small business. They need cuts and those cuts need to be permanent. Large corporations are already getting sweetheart deals in the tax code. Obama is pretty cozy with them as are Dems generally and establishment Republicans.

This is why those people and groups oppose lower rates and eliminating corporate deductions, write offs, and credits. Many of them are targeted to specifically advantage large corporations over smaller companies and foreign competition.

My question is would a tax break equal more jobs? Why would a company hire new workers to produce goods and services for which there is no demand? It seems to me, and this is only my opinion, that a tax break would equal more cash hoarded. Actually a good thing for corporate survivability in a downturn, but I'm not sure it would benefit the jobless.
Click to expand...

You make labor decisions based on future as well as current needs. If you think business levels will continue or rise in the future then you hire. If you think business levels may fall in the future then you work OT, use temps, or out source. That's the micro level answer that's repeated thousands of times... business by business.
 
#53
#53
lawgator1 said:
Your assumption is that the people at the bottom of that company, or its shareholders, are being given proper, correct, and usable knowledge and information.

I, for one, am not a big fan of hiding behind the mantra of playing in a "free market" when the cards are marked, i.e. the guys you argue have an equal chance are intentionally deceived as to what is happening with the company they own, or work at.

The assumption behind your argument is that the information that everyone acts on is the same, at least in the critical areas, and not manipulated. That's a huge part of fiduciary duty and is a prime area in which they constantly prove that they cannot be trusted and must be policed.
Click to expand...
The answer keeps smacking you in the nose but you refuse to see it... and become a libertarian.

The kind of deceit you are talking about should NOT be economically sustainable for a company. Accountants should be rooting that stuff out rather than trying to figure out how to get tax advantages. It IS sustainable because big gov't protects and gives breaks and bail outs to big business. In return, big business keeps the same establishment characters of BOTH PARTIES in charge.

You despise and hate on the TP... but their ideas and ideals ARE the prescription for what you lament here.

Get gov't out of the game and back to being a very small, efficient "referree" that enforces the rules rather than trying to pick winners and losers.
 
#54
#54
sjt18 said:
The domestic job creation engine is mid-size/small business. They need cuts and those cuts need to be permanent. Large corporations are already getting sweetheart deals in the tax code. Obama is pretty cozy with them as are Dems generally and establishment Republicans.

This is why those people and groups oppose lower rates and eliminating corporate deductions, write offs, and credits. Many of them are targeted to specifically advantage large corporations over smaller companies and foreign competition.



You make labor decisions based on future as well as current needs. If you think business levels will continue or rise in the future then you hire. If you think business levels may fall in the future then you work OT, use temps, or out source. That's the micro level answer that's repeated thousands of times... business by business.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your responses as they are educated and well thought-out.

However, I still contend that job creation will not occur if there is no increase in consumer demand, regardless if businesses receive tax cuts. I don't think many businesses will hire new workers in hopes that it will create demand, especially at the small- and mid-size business level. Hiring en masse would inherently be required to be coordinated and premeditated in order for there to be an appreciable bump in consumer demand. As long as real unemployment persists at these levels, it's hard to envision an increase in demand. Why would consumer confidence and demand for goods increase because of a corporate tax cut? In my opinion, no small business would hire people unless it felt there would be more customers buying their goods or services in the future. I'm just skeptical that a corporate tax cut would have a significant impact on employment and, at this point, a cut in revenue would be highly detrimental to our deficits. IF a corporate tax cut were to be effective in improving the employment environment, I would be supportive of it.

Thanks for your response.
 
#55
#55
I agree that the key is increased demand.

Tax cuts for big business will not generate demand.

Continuing tax cuts for the wealthy will not generate demand and will not "free up" capital to be used to hire. We know this because the wealthiest and big business have plenty of freed up capital and they are not investing it.

The way to increase demand is to put in place significant tax breaks for the middle class and pay for those breaks by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and close loopholes for big business (no tax rate reduction for big business) such that gross revenues from corporations goes up.
 
#56
#56
Wow, I've painted myself into a bad corner here. LG agrees with something I said. Here comes the label. Sort of the scarlett letter of the Politics forum. I better start to differentiate myself in a hurry. :lol:

No offense, LG. :)
 
#58
#58
HSVol said:
Wow, I've painted myself into a bad corner here. LG agrees with something I said. Here comes the label. Sort of the scarlett letter of the Politics forum. I better start to differentiate myself in a hurry. :lol:

No offense, LG. :)
Click to expand...


Don't worry. A ton of folks on here agree with a lot of what I say but can't bring themselves to utter the words "increase taxes" because they feel like they are betraying the mindless droning on of Cantor & Crew or Fox & Friends.
 
#59
#59
Increasing taxes would do wonders for the money Im saving up for the inevitable heart attack I'm going to have at age 35. Amurrika!
 
#62
#62
lawgator1 said:
THAT'S EXACTLY IT !

In a regular and ideal economic model, where the executives of these companies do what is in the combined optimum short and long term interests of these companies, they would spend the money when it made sense to do so in order to maximize future profits.

But we aren't in a regular and ideal economic model. Instead, we are in one in which Wall Street and company execs are in bed with one another, raping these companies and their shareholders for all they can get short term.

That is what is so twisted right now about our economy. The greed of those at the top of these corporations. They personally earn infinitely more if they shore up the cash balance sheet and drive up enormous overnight profits for the members of the boards of directors, who then reward the execs with salaries and bonuses in one year that are more than the entire multi-billion dollar company pays in taxes.

What is needed is a much, much stronger regulatory environment to prevent executives and the boards from hoarding like they are now.
Click to expand...

Hoarding money does not create profit. All that does is keep money from previous years. Any dolt can do that. The idea is to use the money to create more money. The evil greedy people want to create more money for themselves. Hoarding contradicts that. Think it through, man. Why is capitalism called capitalism?
 
#63
#63
lawgator1 said:
Your assumption is that the people at the bottom of that company, or its shareholders, are being given proper, correct, and usable knowledge and information.

I, for one, am not a big fan of hiding behind the mantra of playing in a "free market" when the cards are marked, i.e. the guys you argue have an equal chance are intentionally deceived as to what is happening with the company they own, or work at.

The assumption behind your argument is that the information that everyone acts on is the same, at least in the critical areas, and not manipulated. That's a huge part of fiduciary duty and is a prime area in which they constantly prove that they cannot be trusted and must be policed.
Click to expand...

Your assumption is that you have enough information to determine what these boards are doing. Aren't you? Otherwise, what is the point of any of your assertations? If you know what is going on, why don't the people at the bottom or the shareholders? Can it be that you are just talking out your piehole and have no information?
 
#64
#64
You are correct that I base my impression on the fact that average compensation for these execs is $16 million/yr and that in the meantime their cash balances and profits are at record levels.

There us nothing inherently wrong with record profits or cash balances. But there is a disconnect between that and saying, "gosh, if we just had lower taxes we'd hire more people."
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#65
#65
John Deere has posted record highs this year, yet they are exporting more and more jobs to India (including my mom's former job, which was already outside contracted). CEO's getting raises all over the place for not really doing much but exporting jobs.
 
#66
#66
VOLatile said:
John Deere has posted record highs this year, yet they are exporting more and more jobs to India (including my mom's former job, which was already outside contracted). CEO's getting raises all over the place for not really doing much but exporting jobs.
Click to expand...

If exporting jobs is the more profitable answer, what the hell would we have them do?

Funny that a guy in your spot would be commenting upon how little CEOs are doing these days.
 
#67
#67
If Obama doesn't get his cronies on the NLRB to cease and desist against Boeing, those jobs are going to go overseas as well.
 
#68
#68
BigPapaVol said:
If exporting jobs is the more profitable answer, what the hell would we have them do?

Funny that a guy in your spot would be commenting upon how little CEOs are doing these days.
Click to expand...

More profitable. Who does that help but the guy at the top? Oh, that's right... that's all it's meant to do is fatten the pockets of the rich. I'm all for people getting rich, but to do so at the expense of others is stupid.
 
#69
#69
VOLatile said:
More profitable. Who does that help but the guy at the top? Oh, that's right... that's all it's meant to do is fatten the pockets of the rich. I'm all for people getting rich, but to do so at the expense of others is stupid.
Click to expand...

I sympathize with you and your mother, however, the jobs belong to the company, not the employee.
 
#70
#70
MG1968 said:
I sympathize with you and your mother, however, the jobs belong to the company, not the employee.
Click to expand...

I get it, but Americans reserve no right to complain about products being made overseas when the American companies they love are just chasing a dollar at the expense of the American people. Kinda makes me sick.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#71
#71
VOLatile said:
I get it, but Americans reserve no right to complain about products being made overseas when the American companies they love are just chasing a dollar at the expense of the American people. Kinda makes me sick.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

thank things like the minimum wage for that. No one here wants a return to child labor or 100 hour work weeks, but between labor unions (particularly their modern incarnation) and government regulations/tax codes, the cost of American labor has reached a point where companies have no other choice but to relocate overseas.

Things like the NLRB's lawsuit against Boeing don't help. The federal government never should have taken a side in the business vs. labor dispute and the Obama administration's troubling relationship with unions is going to result in more jobs going overseas.
 
#72
#72
VOLatile said:
More profitable. Who does that help but the guy at the top? Oh, that's right... that's all it's meant to do is fatten the pockets of the rich. I'm all for people getting rich, but to do so at the expense of others is stupid.
Click to expand...

You understand the Deere is part of hundreds (thousands) of pension plans, 401Ks, IRAs etc. right?

More profitability and long-term viability helps millions of people who are saving for retirement - not just the rich.

You want to punish companies like Deere? Do so and you screw Joe Sixpack's retirement.
 
#73
#73
VOLatile said:
More profitable. Who does that help but the guy at the top? Oh, that's right... that's all it's meant to do is fatten the pockets of the rich. I'm all for people getting rich, but to do so at the expense of others is stupid.
Click to expand...

at the expense of others? He's getting richer because someone else is getting poorer?

Should they give their products away? At what point do you draw the line in your view that corporations should be built around welfare?
 
#74
#74
BigPapaVol said:
Good grief. This is right out of the hardcore left lunatic fringe playbook on economics.
Click to expand...

Just when I'm impressed you have been stealing my riffs through most of this thread (Simple, transparent, progressive) you throw out this softball to be hit out of the ballpark.

Obviously, I think we must go several steps farther in our own historic time, but LG is right on the money for an initial political step. We need tighter regulation and salary caps. It's a good first step towards a better economy.

This is hardly loony - it created the greatest expansion of wealth in the history of human endeavor.
 
#75
#75
volinbham said:
You understand the Deere is part of hundreds (thousands) of pension plans, 401Ks, IRAs etc. right?

More profitability and long-term viability helps millions of people who are saving for retirement - not just the rich.

You want to punish companies like Deere? Do so and you screw Joe Sixpack's retirement.
Click to expand...

This is not necessarily true; it is a canard almost unworthy of comment. It is true only if you believe Capital is more important than human beings.

Admittedly, many of you do believe this.

In addition, in our own historic time, we have seen how more profitability HAS ABSOLUTELY NOT helped Jane Schmo and her retirement package. It is a base canard repeated by the ultra-disciplined.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top