The Forum › Everything Else FileCabi.net Forum (2007–2008)

Should the gov't intervene more in businesses?

Salvaged from archive These posts were salvaged from the web archive of the original FileCabi forum (2007–2008). Usernames are as they were then and aren’t linked to today’s accounts.

__BLAK__Salvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 07:58
Before I had this epiphany, well more like a shocking look into the future, I was a strong proponent of free market economics. Since I am pursuing my self interests, and I don't want the gov't impeding me in any way, I felt that it shouldn't interfere with others, including corporations..... But this economic slump changed that.. We're seeing corporations adapt to the downturn. Just because there isn't as much business, it definitely doesn't mean that they aren't trying to maximize profit. To do so, corps limit or lower their fixed costs and sell their greatest assets: PEOPLE... Or just hire cheaper people overseas. What does that mean for America? More people without jobs. The unemployment rate is already 10% nationally, and 50% in some cities like Detroit. What happens when more corporations decide to imitate this new corporate model of automation, outsourcing, and temp workers? (sure all of these things have been going on for years, but the recent collapse made them more widespread).. Should the government be allowed to tell these corporations, by imposing some law or tax or whatever the hell it is it does these days, to keep companies from sending american jobs overseas, or replacing people with robots, or hiring more temp workers so they don't have give them benefits? If not, will the incerase in unemployment lead to an increase in crime? people on welfare? what about a decrease in consumer spending? gdp? Is not in the government's self interest to protect its self from being even more drained by a welfare state, and protect its people it was created to serve?
TillySalvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 08:09
In short, my opinions in government involvement in businesses are: Limited power to tell corporations what they can and can't do... However, increase taxes on those who send jobs overseas, and provide rewarding incentive for those that keep jobs here. Instead of forcing them to comply to conditions that will benefit America, create an environment in which benefitting America would be more profitable for them...that's much easier said than done, of course, but I believe that's the key to better national prosperity.
rubicksSalvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 08:14
In short, my opinions in government involvement in businesses are: Limited power to tell corporations what they can and can't do... However, increase taxes on those who send jobs overseas, and provide rewarding incentive for those that keep jobs here. Instead of forcing them to comply to conditions that will benefit America, create an environment in which benefitting America would be more profitable for them...that's much easier said than done, of course, but I believe that's the key to better national prosperity. and guess what?this could be implemented in any country(so why are i phones and Blackberries not being built in the country of origin?)
__BLAK__Salvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 08:15
In short, my opinions in government involvement in businesses are: Limited power to tell corporations what they can and can't do... However, increase taxes on those who send jobs overseas, and provide rewarding incentive for those that keep jobs here. Instead of forcing them to comply to conditions that will benefit America, create an environment in which benefitting America would be more profitable for them...that's much easier said than done, of course, but I believe that's the key to better national prosperity. Good stuff... Very good :thumb:
JACKASS2010Salvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 08:18
where u been hidin, blak?
boo_cockySalvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 08:19
Prison. hahahahahaha
JACKASS2010Salvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 08:26
eh...srsly?
MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 08:30
In short, my opinions in government involvement in businesses are: Limited power to tell corporations what they can and can't do... However, increase taxes on those who send jobs overseas, and provide rewarding incentive for those that keep jobs here. Instead of forcing them to comply to conditions that will benefit America, create an environment in which benefitting America would be more profitable for them...that's much easier said than done, of course, but I believe that's the key to better national prosperity.Oh, you mean level the playing field between the USA and China re. wages? That's a good idea- in all seriousness, the best thing for job prospects (near and long term) of developed world manufacturing workers would be equitable OHS working conditions and PPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity) equity of wages. Of course, all that stuff in Wal-Mart would become more expensive as a result so here's your cake: Would you like to have it or eat it? :D [edit] Subsidies, tariffs, no anti-pollution regulations or enforcement thereof which requires systematic corruption. Both sides have insidious and undesirable weapons in their arsenal... "How can we compete with these tariffs except by cutting corners on environmental protection?" Not to mention the unfathomably profitable area of artificial currency controls and long term sovereign debt...
HeyBuddySalvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 08:42
The government is already too involved in business. Try starting your own business, and you'll see what I mean. You'll spend more jumping through legal hoops, and hiring people to make sure that you're in compliance, then you will on capital in many cases. The government's role should only be to make sure that I don't do harm to others. Right now the government is already taking a controlling interest in banking, and automotive. The end result is that there is nobody higher to make sure that things are done ethically. When businesses are owned and run privately, we can ensure that businesses follow the rules. Some will overstep their boundaries, but that's when it is up to the government to punish them (if the market doesn't do it). How are GM an Chrysler doing? How are Fanny and Freddie doing? Businesses send jobs overseas because the US government has made it more difficult to operate here in the US. Could we increase taxes on companies that send jobs overseas? Sure we could, but that's protectionism and it has consequences. First, the company could decide to ship the entire operation overseas, in which case you wouldn't collect ANY taxes from them. If you institute a tariff for the imports, other countries can retaliate with like tariffs on US imports. Should we start increasing taxes on companies that send just some jobs overseas, then other countries could do the same. Companies like Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. The other option is that companies would pass the burden on to US citizens. Maybe the cost of your tech support goes up, or it is completely eliminated. Hell, maybe they just charge more for electronics up front. Things of that nature. The solution is to make the US more business friendly. I don't think that the majority of the population realizes how non-business friendly the US climate has become. I had more own business for 5 years, and it was insane. In my first year, I was the only employee. Half of my profit went to the government, or hiring someone to help me deal with the government. My first year's salary was widdled down to $10,000. You tell me how someone is supposed to live, and maintain a business on $10,000. An individual making $10,000 wouldn't pay any taxes. Because I was trying to run a business I got nailed with ridiculous taxes such as "self-employment" taxes. In the end, my domestic suppliers started raising prices and I started going through importers. I had to make a fortune to be able to keep a reasonable amount.
TillySalvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 09:47
Oh, you mean level the playing field between the USA and China re. wages? That's a good idea- in all seriousness, the best thing for job prospects (near and long term) of developed world manufacturing workers would be equitable OHS working conditions and PPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity) equity of wages. Not really, unless the cost of living goes down to compensate. I wouldn't suggest the majority of the US be reduced to cheap labor. I know what I'm suggesting cannot be that simple, there are just way too many moving and conflicting parts. I do believe that there have to be some steps that can be taken to move towards that kind of resolution.
TillySalvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 09:50
The government is already too involved in business. Try starting your own business, and you'll see what I mean. You'll spend more jumping through legal hoops, and hiring people to make sure that you're in compliance, then you will on capital in many cases. The government's role should only be to make sure that I don't do harm to others. Right now the government is already taking a controlling interest in banking, and automotive. The end result is that there is nobody higher to make sure that things are done ethically. When businesses are owned and run privately, we can ensure that businesses follow the rules. Some will overstep their boundaries, but that's when it is up to the government to punish them (if the market doesn't do it). How are GM an Chrysler doing? How are Fanny and Freddie doing? Businesses send jobs overseas because the US government has made it more difficult to operate here in the US. Could we increase taxes on companies that send jobs overseas? Sure we could, but that's protectionism and it has consequences. First, the company could decide to ship the entire operation overseas, in which case you wouldn't collect ANY taxes from them. If you institute a tariff for the imports, other countries can retaliate with like tariffs on US imports. Should we start increasing taxes on companies that send just some jobs overseas, then other countries could do the same. Companies like Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. The other option is that companies would pass the burden on to US citizens. Maybe the cost of your tech support goes up, or it is completely eliminated. Hell, maybe they just charge more for electronics up front. Things of that nature. The solution is to make the US more business friendly. I don't think that the majority of the population realizes how non-business friendly the US climate has become. I had more own business for 5 years, and it was insane. In my first year, I was the only employee. Half of my profit went to the government, or hiring someone to help me deal with the government. My first year's salary was widdled down to $10,000. You tell me how someone is supposed to live, and maintain a business on $10,000. An individual making $10,000 wouldn't pay any taxes. Because I was trying to run a business I got nailed with ridiculous taxes such as "self-employment" taxes. In the end, my domestic suppliers started raising prices and I started going through importers. I had to make a fortune to be able to keep a reasonable amount. Insightful stuff, I did not know all that personally. That is why I'm a proponent of limiting government involvement in business. I think someone mentioned that Hong Kong is the epitome of capitalism, and is why the city is so successful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_non-interventionism
__BLAK__Salvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 10:17
where u been hidin, blak? g-bay, until i gotta relocated.. i gotta be more careful about what i post online
HeyBuddySalvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 10:21
Insightful stuff, I did not know all that personally. That is why I'm a proponent of limiting government involvement in business. I think someone mentioned that Hong Kong is the epitome of capitalism, and is why the city is so successful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_non-interventionism Yes. John Stossell went to Hong Kong about ten years ago, and was showing how easy it was to set up a business. He filled out one paper, and got his license right then and there. He rented a space, bought inventory and started selling. It took him a matter of hours. I think people need to quit buying the political spin, and look at things a little differently. When I hear "business", I also hear "employer". How about we quit talking about "big business", we start hearing the words, "big employers". In 2008, unemployment was still under 5%, which is pretty close to the definition of full employment in economic terms. Yet, people were still rallying against big business, and jobs going overseas. Politicians promised to put a stop to it, and tax the rich (small business owners). Now, one of the biggest problems we are facing is unemployment over 10%.
__BLAK__Salvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 11:03
ok ok guys, I completely agree with heybudy(for the first time) and tilly about making a better business environment, but the big question is, how does the gov't make this country more business friendly, but at the same time protect the people? when i think of "business friendly", i think of a hands off approach.... I don't know how to say this without coming off as a socialist or communist (i'm neither), BUT haven't we seen what happens when there is too much growth allowed? Take the debt to capital ratio for instance.. at one point it was 12 to 1, then i think in 04 the limit changed and some firms went as high 35-45 to one... sure they grew like crazy, but look at the aftermath and the effect on the world.... i'm all for growth and opportunities, but when companies get to the point where their mistakes can cripple the world economy, then that's too much.. i know its a double edged sword b/c their growth does allow prosperity, mainly for those receiving million dollar bonuses, but is it worth it when the bubble bursts? Now all that was directed towards the financial markets, but it can be applied to others. People mistakenly blame freddy and fannie for the subprime mortgage debacle. But: Federal Reserve Board data show that: * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics old article but still good: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html So if the private firms were subjected to the same restrictions as freddie and fannie, their wouldn't been as many subprime loans made... Now gm and Chrysler are crippled by unions and their inferior products in the marketplace.. (alan greenspan agrees), and not necessarily because of gov't restrictions in the two cases of the financial markets and the subprime housing market, gov't interference would've been good. sure a couple of fat cats wouldn't have made millions and billions of dollars that they were just going lose anyway, (then get back b/c of good ole uncle same), and sure millions of people wouldn't have lived the american dream (living in a house you can not afford), for a couple of years until their homes were foreclosed, but it would've prevented what's going on now...
HeyBuddySalvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 12:32
Well, the government just has to enforce simple legislation that already exists. Some of this legislation is civil, and some is criminal. If we're talking about the subprime situation, the banks that made poor decisions should have suffered the consequences. I know that people don't like to admit it, but there were some financial institutions that had made good decisions and were doing just fine. I don't believe that they needed to be bailed out, YET I felt that the government owed it to them. They were the ones that encouraged the sub prime lending. They actually encouraged it to the point that they not only guaranteed the loans, they threatened some with charges of discrimination if they did make these risky loans. You're right about GM and Chrysler being slaves to the labor unions. They've also been misdirected by the government. Remember the funding for the hydrogen powered cars? They funded it, and then cut the funding just as they were starting to get working prototypes. It's weird, because the hybrids and electric cars have come a llllooooonnngggg way since the government quit steering them toward hydrogen. To top it off, the government gave a huge portion of ownership in GM and Chrysler to the labor unions. This puts them under the union thumb even more. That's not even the worst part in my opinion. During the bankruptcy, the government decided to ignore the contract between bond holders and the car manufacturers. The bond holders didn't get the compensation that they had coming to them, which now means that nobody wants to lend money to the auto giants. Ford on the other hand didn't accept the bailout, and they're doing better than GM or Chrysler. My personal opinion is that we just need more accountability. If your business fails due to poor performance, than you need to go through a conventional bankruptcy. Donald Trump has had to file several times. You can come back from bankruptcy, and people in Washington need to understand that. George W. Bush said that he had to abandon free market principals to save the free market, and it surely didn't save the free market. It's done nothing but get worse, and we keep getting further and further from free market principles.
mousewallratSalvaged from archive23 Jan 2010, 12:46
ok ok guys, I completely agree with heybudy(for the first time) and tilly about making a better business environment, but the big question is, how does the gov't make this country more business friendly, but at the same time protect the people? when i think of "business friendly", i think of a hands off approach.... I don't know how to say this without coming off as a socialist or communist (i'm neither), BUT haven't we seen what happens when there is too much growth allowed? Take the debt to capital ratio for instance.. at one point it was 12 to 1, then i think in 04 the limit changed and some firms went as high 35-45 to one... sure they grew like crazy, but look at the aftermath and the effect on the world.... i'm all for growth and opportunities, but when companies get to the point where their mistakes can cripple the world economy, then that's too much.. i know its a double edged sword b/c their growth does allow prosperity, mainly for those receiving million dollar bonuses, but is it worth it when the bubble bursts? Now all that was directed towards the financial markets, but it can be applied to others. People mistakenly blame freddy and fannie for the subprime mortgage debacle. But: old article but still good: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html So if the private firms were subjected to the same restrictions as freddie and fannie, their wouldn't been as many subprime loans made... Now gm and Chrysler are crippled by unions and their inferior products in the marketplace.. (alan greenspan agrees), and not necessarily because of gov't restrictions in the two cases of the financial markets and the subprime housing market, gov't interference would've been good. sure a couple of fat cats wouldn't have made millions and billions of dollars that they were just going lose anyway, (then get back b/c of good ole uncle same), and sure millions of people wouldn't have lived the american dream (living in a house you can not afford), for a couple of years until their homes were foreclosed, but it would've prevented what's going on now... It shouldn't be Governments job to monitor debt/capitalization ratios. The CEO's and stockholders should do that. But, then if they stick their necks out too far and fail it's 'tough shit' for you. A failed company leaves room for a more efficient company to arise. No bailouts. Capitalism is about taking risks, and making rewards. TO help businesses now, Obama and the Socialists could cut taxes on them. In short order, they would begin to borrow, reinvest, and make money. Lower taxes increase revenues to the Government. Why don't they get that?
HeyBuddySalvaged from archive25 Jan 2010, 14:03
It's weird. They lost the Kennedy seat, and now tax cuts are all the talk in Washington.
boo_cockySalvaged from archive25 Jan 2010, 14:05
It's weird. They lost the Kennedy seat, and now tax cuts are all the talk in Washington. It's not weird...it's January...a new year just started. :thumb:

Reply

Want your old post taken down? Get in touch.