Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipline?

[Guest]

What polocies specifically did Obama put in place to allow you to do this and what specific things would Romnery do that would so dramtically cause you to close your doorrs and head home?

It appears that you misunderstood my post. I stated that our two choices would be:

1) Stay overseas where, while far behind the US in environmental policy (where we are), they are beginning to invest substantial amounts of money in catching up. (They have no choice. As people are educated, they demand a cleaner environment.)
2) Return to the US, scale back and return to zero sum in energy and environmental management.

Without getting into to much detail (or turning this post into an ad), our technology is more valuable where there is a premium on renewable and clean thermally generated energy. The Obama administration’s emphasis on clean energy and on leveling the playing field so that dirty (large carbon footprint) thermal technologies are forced to pay the entire cost of their energy production enterprise (including cleaning up the environment that they have damaged] has (slowly) had the effect of making clean energy technologies more valuable.

If Republicans get back in office, they (say they will) get back to their task of gutting the EPA and letting high carbon footprint energy producers get back to business as usual. If this happens, we will be back to where we were under GWB, and 30 year old polluting energy plants (which have been paid for and therefore can produce power more cheaply) will get to go on polluting for another 20 years while the clean technologies battle for remaining market share.

If your goal is simply capital preservation, then Romney might be your man. But if you are into using capital to create jobs in the working and middle classes, cleaning up the environment, giving all an opportunity for a better life (rather than just those with wealth to preserve) and using technology in beneficial ways, then Romney is (or should be) your worst nightmare.

Romney’s stated policies on tax would favor the rich, and his stated policies on healthcare would well also favor the rich. What Romney believes in terms of business is best reflected in what he has done in business.

How does universal healthy care impact the setting up or the closing down of your businesses overseas?

The government provides a basic level of security and a mandate for a national (living} minimum wage. However, I did not intend to imply that universal health care had an effect our business here other than to remove one component from our HR paperwork.

[_Kishkumen]

But I wonder. Is Joey really a weak-kneed wimp, or is he just being dishonest with us (and possibly with himself)? After all, if folks like Joey think government borrowing can lead to hyper-inflation, keeping his money on the sideline is risky too--the best way to mitigate that risk would be to invest it in a business where the profits would rise with CPI. Plus, he'd be making a great return in the meantime.

So does he really have great ideas for how he could invest his money and make a great return, or is he just making excuses for not having any ideas he's willing to bet on?

Who knows? I think the whole spiel wherein a Joey says, "Darn it, I would love to create jobs, but, aw shucks, mean ole Obama won't let me, because he makes the world too uncertain," is a lie on multiple levels.

1) Profits are maximized by lowering overhead, of which labor is a part, so Joey wants to create as few jobs as he can get away with. Why? Because that means more money for him. The creation of jobs is just a necessary expenditure to getting the job done; it is not an end in itself. OK, so, theoretically he realizes that someone has to employ the people so they can afford to buy the stuff he is selling, but that has to be someone else, and ideally not him.

2) In times of record profits and low taxes, moaning about the uncertainty Obama creates is basically saying, "I have been spoiled thus far, and if you don't keep me set up in the style to which I have become accustomed (like a mistress in a high-rent apartment), I will bail." Question: where to? China? So, in other words, money is the only thing. I am not blaming these guys for believing that money is the only thing; that is what our culture has taught them. But they need to be told, very clearly, that money is not the only thing.

My conclusion: many holier-than-though free-market capitalists love to moralize about the value of adversity for everyone else other than themselves. What this is, essentially, is a gospel of money and success as salvation. Once I have made my money, I have shown myself to be saved, and so the adversity that makes others scrape to get where I am is an unfair burden upon me and my kids, for we have proven our worthiness for salvation already. You should continue to reward me for my success by making my success into an eternal sinecure for me and my descendants. Once I have made my money, God (in whatever form) says I should keep it forever, and my kids should keep it forever. That is my right, and you had better not question it, otherwise, I threaten to withhold the blessing of my presence to the rest of you mere mortals.

[_Jason Bourne]

We've had historically low taxes for the wealthy for quite a while now, since W. So where are all the jobs? Or is it time to admit that "trickle down" just doesn't work?

I do not know if trickle down works on a macro scale or not. It is interesting that many more liberal here argue it does not work and point to the Bush years. I think though there were many other factors at play then like two wars, a housing bubble, a global economy that is competing for resources at a much higher level than ever before and so on. The Reagen years were fairly succsful and he argued trickle down. If the 80s were succesful do you think trickle down worked then?

But looking at it on a micro level I think trickle down is a fact of life. If my business has customers that are suffering financially they may pay us, less, find a less expensive service provider, cut back services. We in turn make less, may lay off employees, etc. If I make less I put off a purchase and the seller of that product suffers. I have a fruit farming and processor of their fruit and the fruit of many other farmers in the area. There was a hard freeze that obliterated their crop this year. They have no cherried this summer. They did not hire about 100 people that they normally do. Two mini mart in their area are suffering becuase these 100 employees that often went there for lunch, gas and other things have fewer customers this time of year. They have layed people off....and it goes on and on.

This all seems to me like trickle down. If not what is it?

[_Jason Bourne]

Dr W

Thanks for the explanation. Did not realize your business was impacted so much by enviromental policy. Interesting stuff.

[_palerobber]

I do not know if trickle down works on a macro scale or not. It is interesting that many more liberal here argue it does not work and point to the Bush years. I think though there were many other factors at play then like two wars, a housing bubble, a global economy that is competing for resources at a much higher level than ever before and so on. The Reagen years were fairly succsful and he argued trickle down. If the 80s were succesful do you think trickle down worked then?

Jason, just because liberals say that the Bush years show "trickle down" won't create a more "successful" economy, that doesn't mean they're also forced to defend the position that it causes a less successful economy. in fact, the two are just uncorrelated. this is obvious to anyone who's ever looked at a graph of top marginal income / corporate / captital gains tax rates on the one hand, and a graph of GDP growth, employment, or even corporate profits on the other hand.

the areas where the effects of "trickle down" are clear is in median household income and of course the federal budget deficit (since we've yet to see a republican administration in our lifetimes willing to actually offset their upper income tax breaks -- instead they say the cuts will pay for themselves, even though that's never come close to happening).

[_Analytics]

But looking at it on a micro level I think trickle down is a fact of life. If my business has customers that are suffering financially they may pay us, less, find a less expensive service provider, cut back services. We in turn make less, may lay off employees, etc. If I make less I put off a purchase and the seller of that product suffers. I have a fruit farming and processor of their fruit and the fruit of many other farmers in the area. There was a hard freeze that obliterated their crop this year. They have no cherried this summer. They did not hire about 100 people that they normally do. Two mini mart in their area are suffering becuase these 100 employees that often went there for lunch, gas and other things have fewer customers this time of year. They have layed people off....and it goes on and on.

This all seems to me like trickle down. If not what is it?

What you are describing sounds more like the "multiplier effect." If you lower anybody's taxes by $1,000, they'll have more money to spend, the businesses they patronize will make more profit and will have more money to spend, and the effect continues to ripple out.

In contrast, "trickle down" implies that lowering the taxes of the rich helps the economy more than lowering the taxes of the middle class, because the rich are "job creators."

I just posted a short video in the off-topic forum under "Ultra-Successful Entrepreneur Explains Job Creation." I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, just because liberals say that the Bush years show "trickle down" won't create a more "successful" economy, that doesn't mean they're also forced to defend the position that it causes a less successful economy. in fact, the two are just uncorrelated. this is obvious to anyone who's ever looked at a graph of top marginal income / corporate / captital gains tax rates on the one hand, and a graph of GDP growth, employment, or even corporate profits on the other hand.

the areas where the effects of "trickle down" are clear is in median household income and of course the federal budget deficit (since we've yet to see a republican administration in our lifetimes willing to actually offset their upper income tax breaks -- instead they say the cuts will pay for themselves, even though that's never come close to happening).

Good points. And yes both Reagen and Bush ran large defecits. Reagan faced a recession that was in some ways deeper than the one we had as Bush headed out and Obama headed in. Though I think the factors that caused it were much simpler and easire to recover from .

I wonder if Reagen's defecit spending was more a factor in the recovery than trickle down. From 1986 forward there were tax rates that were very low-15% and 28% and that is it. No cap gains rates that were lower, no lower rates for dividends. Many former loop holes were closed down.

Anway it is all very complex and the working parts are certianly not totally predictable.

[_Cicero]

Good points. And yes both Reagen and Bush ran large defecits. Reagan faced a recession that was in some ways deeper than the one we had as Bush headed out and Obama headed in. Though I think the factors that caused it were much simpler and easire to recover from .

I wonder if Reagen's defecit spending was more a factor in the recovery than trickle down. From 1986 forward there were tax rates that were very low-15% and 28% and that is it. No cap gains rates that were lower, no lower rates for dividends. Many former loop holes were closed down.

Anway it is all very complex and the working parts are certianly not totally predictable.

I think we desparately need a Reagenesque grand compromise on tax policy. The 1986 Code has ballooned into a monster riddled with special breaks and loopholes that make no sense.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I think we desparately need a Reagenesque grand compromise on tax policy. The 1986 Code has ballooned into a monster riddled with special breaks and loopholes that make no sense.

Yep, but the parties are so polarized it won't happen. It seems they'd rather see the country's economy go down the toilet than compromise.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think we desparately need a Reagenesque grand compromise on tax policy. The 1986 Code has ballooned into a monster riddled with special breaks and loopholes that make no sense.

Before 1986 the tax code was referred to as the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The 86 law made so many revisions it is now called the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. What started out as tax simplification as later caller tax reform.

The 1986 act actually closed down many loop holes, deductions, etc. and then simlified rates to two only. This was particularly true for real estate and oil and gas partnernships. But in closing down loop holes it created many other complexities that have been exploited in many ways. Since then there have been dozens of tax acts that have modified and changed much of the 1986 law and added further complexities. One area that has become extremely complex is tax law as it is applied to international business and offshore issues. Very complex and confusing with lots of traps and problems especially for foreign businesses or business men setting up shop in the US.