I’m more concerned about the Creationist Economists among us than the Creationist Biologists.
I still don’t see why they should be rewarded with tax cuts, when they don’t create jobs here. If the tax code is made more favorable, it just makes it more profitable to be based here. That does not necessarily translate into more jobs for Americans. I think any tax cuts should be tied to new American jobs; if companies create no new American jobs, they lose the tax cut. If that is protectionism, then I am for it.
I’m sorry, but I’m having a little trouble with the inconsistencies and irrationalities in your argument.
By “corporations” I assume you mean “big business”. IOW, you are probably talking about Fortune 1000 companies. I’m not sure if you are also talking about services firms like Big-4 accounting firms and law firms too. Those tend to not be “corporations” in the legal sense of the word (they are usually LLPs, not S-corporations), but they are big, influential and make a lot of money.
You throw around a lot of “theys”. They should do this. They should stop that. As if Corporate America is some monolithic entity. “They” just don’t get together to decide how to do things.
I’m not sure how driving an entire company out of the US for outsourcing some of their labor helps anyone. You seem to be forgetting that companies create jobs, which people need for going to in the morning and working at. Microsoft has about 80,000. GE 300,000. Walmart 1.9 million jobs. Microsoft has created more millionares than anyone.
And I assume your reference to Gates and Buffet was meant to be ironic as their vast fortunes were created by their corporations (Microsoft and Berkeshire Hathaway respectively).
Are corporations altruistic? Not really. They seek to make money by providing a service or product that people want. Do layoffs and downsizing suck? Of course. No one wants to lose their job. But it happens. If a company can’t be profitable, it needs to reliquish those resources (people and capital) back into the economy so that they can be used somewhere else.
I will agree that there does seem to be something inherently “unfair” about CEO compensation. All the employees get paid a wage set by the market while the executives get paid the rest.
Right because we’re extrapolating an entire system of economics from one sentence.
Seriously, I think we should get off our high horses around here. Attempting to lord over everyone after a long day gets downright crippling.
Well, if you look at that FactCheck link, the consensus is that the tax code is only a minor factor in deciding where to locate factories. If you’re competing with China, with a tax rate of 11%, and you go from 35% in the US to 32.5%, I’m still going to go to China if the tax code is driving my decision. How much of a tax break are you willing to give? And then what happens when a Canadian firm builds it’s factories in China, then tries to sell competing products, at a lower cost, in the US markets? Are you going to tax those imports? And then Canada decides it will tax imports from the US… and down the protectionist spiral you go.
I know I’m irrational on this subject. Economics seems like it’s especially designed to screw over the little people. I’m a little people person. All the sympathy and devotion that economists show for the rich doesn’t make half an impression on me. I know a lot of Americans subscribe to the Republican economic view even though it’s against their own best interests, because they think that they have a chance to be one of those rich people who the Republican economic view so favors and they want that for themselves when they are wallowing in their money.
But they’re not going to be. If I have one thing going for me, it’s the clear-headed realization that I’m NEVER GOING TO BE RICH. I’m not going to pick the winning scratch-off, I’m not going to pick the Lotto numbers, I’m not going to have a rich uncle die and give me all his money (I don’t have any rich uncles), I’m never going to own my own business and I’m never going to make enough money, even with four jobs, to actually be considered wealthy. The highest I’m ever going to be is lower-middle-class, MAYBE. Upper working class, most likely, though. My boat never got lifted by Reaganomics. I think the Republicans were throwing rocks into it.
I know I’m never going to be rich. I don’t expect the government to make me rich. I don’t really know what the hell I expect or what the hell I want to happen with the economy, to tell the truth. All I see is things getting worse for me and probably a couple hundred million people like me in this country, and it’s damn scary.
Our government is bought and paid for and doesn’t really give a damn about people like me if it’s not an election year. My freedom of speech is apparently worth a fraction of Rupert Murdoch’s, for example, since the new standard seems to have gone from one man, one vote to one dollar, one vote. I’m just overwhelmed and not seeing any way out of what’s going on right now. I’m scared. I’m angry.
What is “all this sympathy and devotion that economists show for the rich” of which you speak?
Free trade is not a Republican idea just as evolution isn’t a Democratic idea.
Why are you never going to own your own business? You’re obviously a smart guy, and I know guys a lot less smart than you who own their own businesses. I think you sell yourself short.
The truth of the matter is that some guy over in China wants your job, if you’re in the business of making things. The government can protect you from that, but only by screwing the rest of us over by making us buy from you instead of that guy in China. (I oversimplify here, of course.)
Serious question here…why not make it $100/hour? How about $1000/hour? Think it through. What effect do you think this would have on minimum wage type jobs? What effect would it have on goods and services? Would there be more jobs created if you hiked up minimum wage to $100/hour or less? Why? How about the price of goods and services? Would they rise, fall or stay the same?
-XT
There might be some places in the US where a min wage of $15/hour could be sustained, but I doubt there are many. You need to look at how many jobs currently pay between the min wage as it is now and $15. If it’s a significant number, then you’re going to get significant unemployment as a result.
And here I thought people were interested in keeping jobs in the US. Apparently not.
Yeah, me to. It’s funny…on this board if you go into a thread on Evolution or Global Warming you are going to get a chorus of voices saying that the majority of experts in the field pretty much are convinced of A…and therefore A is the correct answer because it’s what the consensus of experts think it is. If we are talking economics however it’s like the expert consensus is tossed out the window because it runs contrary to the world view of (what seems like) the majority of 'dopers.
-XT
Economics is simply the study of how people behave. It’s not “designed” any more than the biology is designed. It’s like saying that gravity is designed to screw fat people.
I’m not sure what you think the “Republican economic view” is. There is a lot of debate in the party about what is good economics. Some favor limiting imports and immigration, others want open borders and minimal trade barriers. Some are supply-siders who believe that cutting taxes will produce enough revenue to offset any increases in federal spending and others are more budget hawks who believe in cutting spending as well as cutting taxes. You’ll even find a few in the party who want to see taxes increased.
Generally, the GOP believes that low taxes and less regulation are good for people, rich or poor. But the details of the economic thinking is pretty diverse within the party.
“One dollar, one vote,” huh? I’d like to see some evidence that votes are bought.
And your freedom of speech is worth as much as anyone’s. Just because some people can run a news organization has nothing to do with your freedom of speech. Yes, they can spend their money to spread their views through different media. So can you.
I see. So if we only had your clarity of vision and perfectly unbiased objectivity, we would never disagree with you. Oddly, I have a very similar opinion. Well, sort of similar. Identical, but opposite.
I think the U.S. Congress should funnel hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of their friends in the private sector. This unprecedented move would surely satisfy everyone and have no negative consequences.
No, what I think he’s saying is that there are certain things that are widely accepted as true among economists:
Wait, are you saying, through all the sarcasm, that because you have a different opinion, then there must not be an objective truth? Because I’m sure the creationists have a strongly held opinion as well.
I missed the edit window before, but I was trying to make a joke.
Well, both really. Economics as objective science is an ugly sister (didn’t I read about some guy trying to have economics drummed out of the “science” academy altogether?) I mean, if this is so scientific and objective, how come a firm consensus on any economic topic is so elusive?
I am suspicious anytime someone says the consensus of economic experts is clear about anything. I will certainly agree that trade is good, and likely, the more the better. But does everybody mean precisely the same thing when they say “free trade”? How many economists signed on to the “Laffer Curve”, which purports that lowering taxes increases government revenue because the economy booms? Were they drummed out?
For a few issues, it’s not. Read the link I provided.
For other issues, there is a lot of disagreement, sure, but the effects of trade barriers is not one of them.
I never advocated new taxes on imports. I am in favor of targeting any tax *cuts * at companies that actually create jobs in this country. Anything less is just lining the pockets of the investor class without growing the domestic economy very much.
No, just a mild thrust at the notion that some posters are not as objective and unbiased as others, which can be properly measured by a standard of objectivity, usually oneself, whomsoever one happens to be.
Clearly, were it not for XT’s inherent biases, he would quickly come round in agreement with me, as mine are the objective views. If his mileagle varies, he should adjust accordingly.