Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5081  
Old 11-16-12, 00:47
Cobber's Avatar
Cobber Cobber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
I agree. Private employers should not be able to make personnel decisions. They should have to prove to the labor dept that they can't afford employees they need to let go.

Also, CEO's should not be allowed to be wealthy. That's just wrong.

Does it ever occur to people that perhaps the government can do with less?
Just so we're clear, do you believe that a CEO should be able to fire people based on an election result because of something the elected person MIGHT do?
Reply With Quote
  #5082  
Old 11-16-12, 01:08
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 2,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
You realize Clinton reduced spending as a percentage of GDP? How about we try that again?
I'm all for it! How about we start with this obscenity, our 'defense' budget?

__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #5083  
Old 11-16-12, 01:09
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobber View Post
Just so we're clear, do you believe that a CEO should be able to fire people based on an election result because of something the elected person MIGHT do?
I believe a CEO should be allowed to do what's in the best interests of the company. I believe most CEO's do exactly that.

That's not to say there aren't crap CEO's.

Not all companies are multinational conglomerates.

I read a stat yesterday that so far in 2012, small to very small business's had hired something like 711,000 new positions. So why the F did BO have the same old re-treads (wealthy CEO's)at the White House yesterday?

Our President just does not get it and that is a huge problem. He's got an opportunity, albeit small, to be probably more revered than Bill Clinton... but this guy just does not understand what to do. He just doesn't.

It's either ideology or incompetence. I don't know which but it may be plenty of both.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5084  
Old 11-16-12, 01:40
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,855
Default

I like how "conservatives" are always so concerned about the deficit during recessions, the time when government spending to maintain demand keeps the economy from spiraling into a depression. When times are good--you know, the times when improved government revenue should be used to pay down the debt and prepare for the next recession--they are like, "Hey, let's borrow money to fund a couple of wars or let's cut taxes." Then they get angry when deficits balloon during the next recession.

Doh! Try practicing what you preach during the good times instead of spreading the fear, uncertainty, and doubt during the bad times.

They practice a bizarro form of anti-Keynesian economics.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #5085  
Old 11-16-12, 02:41
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 2,924
Default

At its very simplest.

__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #5086  
Old 11-16-12, 02:56
Cobber's Avatar
Cobber Cobber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
I like how "conservatives" are always so concerned about the deficit during recessions, the time when government spending to maintain demand keeps the economy from spiraling into a depression. When times are good--you know, the times when improved government revenue should be used to pay down the debt and prepare for the next recession--they are like, "Hey, let's borrow money to fund a couple of wars or let's cut taxes." Then they get angry when deficits balloon during the next recession.

Doh! Try practicing what you preach during the good times instead of spreading the fear, uncertainty, and doubt during the bad times.

They practice a bizarro form of anti-Keynesian economics.
Well said! And with any luck, they won't have any influence on those decisions for quite a while......
Reply With Quote
  #5087  
Old 11-16-12, 04:47
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,763
Default

Giving very wealthy people more money to invest off shore does not grow our economy one tiny little bit. Bet on it.
Why should the money people take the extra that you want to give them and invest it anywhere except off shore where there is no risk and a very high return?
So, you can say, why not give them tax breaks so they can "afford" to invest it here, and I can say why let them keep it in the first place? Make them invest it here.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Proud member of the Clinic 1200
Reply With Quote
  #5088  
Old 11-16-12, 04:55
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Januss View Post
Giving very wealthy people more money to invest off shore does not grow our economy one tiny little bit. Bet on it.
Why should the money people take the extra that you want to give them and invest it anywhere except off shore where there is no risk and a very high return?
So, you can say, why not give them tax breaks so they can "afford" to invest it here, and I can say why let them keep it in the first place? Make them invest it here.

I say take all the extra. Extra is just that,... Extra. I don't know how much that is, but it sure sounds like a lot.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5089  
Old 11-16-12, 06:14
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,034
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
I agree. Private employers should not be able to make personnel decisions. They should have to prove to the labor dept that they can't afford employees they need to let go.

Also, CEO's should not be allowed to be wealthy. That's just wrong.

Does it ever occur to people that perhaps the government can do with less?
The problem, though, Scott, is that the system has become so horribly imbalanced, for which a very small minority have undue wealth, privileges and power; whereas the overwhelming majority has a paltry voice in democracy today. This is statistically true since Reagan. In other words, the famous "trickle-down effect" has been proven a false and deliberately beguiling ideology. There are $2 trillion deposited in the Cayman Is. alone. Other than a trickle-down effect. While it is estimated that a total of $21 trillion is stowed away at the various fiscal paradises around the globe, most of which will never be reinvested to create jobs and hence income. 10,000 hedge funds, 2/3 of all speculative funds, are located at the Caribbean off-shore haven, which produces duty-free profit that can be reinvested in scams like inflating receipts of Mediatrade that got Berlusconi recently condemned in a Milan court; or falsifying receipts a là Enron or Parmalat. Yet nothing is being done to change anything: to the contrary, everything is being done to keep the same system in place by both parties.

So you think it is healthy that a CEO earns a year-end bonus that amounts to probably more than an average worker will earn in his entire life to then, perhaps, invest some in the stock market and only has to pay 15% on capital gains, instead of the normal 35% as with regular worker's income?

You think that the excesses of corporate finance and hedge funds, which had caused the 08 meltdown, not being made to pay the price for their excesses is just? To the contrary: its private losses were simply publicly offloaded by the State’s intervention through taxes to then keep the same party going unchecked. Is this even remotely fair, or even sane?

You think its ok that the governments always come in to defend the markets, but never the people that elected them? That is always discipline labor, never the markets. Cut social welfare programs to pay for the excesses of finance and fund the military.

You think thus austerity economics, which cut programs that many rely upon to survive, debilitate the public schools, make necessary reparations of infrastructures unaffordable, keep medical costs beyond the means of many; while military spending continues to rise unchecked and the rich don't get asked to make a more significant contribution is a healthy way to "manage" a society, to organize best the financial resources of the state?

Do you think any of this is a good way to quell the social discontent?

Perhaps we need to cut spending, fine. But lets start with the military, then we can talk about other spending. Then maybe we can build some schools and hire some teachers. Medical care is too expensive to nationalize, military spending notwithstanding? How about the insurance business and litigation in terms of the exorbitantly expensive costs of healthcare in the US? This, too, is the market. Although, I know, socialized healthcare is unamerican and evil. Oh, and by the way, under such circumstances the corporate lobbying in Washington simply becomes an intollerable state of affairs. In short, what are we to do when capital has transformed democracy under the leadership of so-called centrist politics, into the most radical form of extremism?

Oh, I forgot, why don't we just do away with the State altogether, privatize everything, let the markets take over and we can all just live happily ever after. They have been doing such a smashing job so far! That is let capital finally assert its eternal hegemony over humanity. A win for individual liberty and freedom no doubt.

Last edited by rhubroma; 11-16-12 at 09:11.
Reply With Quote
  #5090  
Old 11-16-12, 09:14
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Okay,you got me. Anybody know who Aphro is talking about here?



Nope. I'm saying Obama enjoys unprecedented insulation. He really is a King, or at least Christi Parsons of Chicago Trib thinks so;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPGYW_BJzNo

Should Michelle be worried? Just sayin'
Unprecedented! I'm not even going to get into the chorus of "the economy is Bushs fault", but are you going to sit there and tell me that after 9/11 he didn't enjoy unprecedented insulation from all quarters (with the exception of the hard left; and by that I don't mean Democrats or boutique liberals) right up until the very last year of his term. Virtually no one was talking about the economy until it came home on them--that includes Democrats as much as R's.

Really? I don't think it's the case that Obama enjoys unprecedented insulation.

As to who I was talking about, you moan and kvetch about national debt, but debt is not the problem that the US or any other country faces in the long term. Debt is a fiction for managers and sideline spectators who like to think that they have political investment. It's also a non-fiction for the generations behind me (and you) but in most places other than the US, they still have the conceptual horizon to argue that "debt" is not their primary obstacle.

What I find most striking is that you consistently blame Obama rather than the people of the US for the situation the country is in. If it's a democracy, why then is the economy not democratic? You claim to have all the answers, the gumption and the moxie that the "leader" lacks and yet if you have those qualities, why don't others? In politics and without? And why is it then, that the economy is in the situation it's in. Poor decision making on the part of the junior senator from Chicago.

Right Scott.

Last edited by aphronesis; 11-16-12 at 12:12.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:11.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.