OP
OP
pknox
Guest
Sweet. 
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
You're trusting POLITICIANS for the facts? I recommend going to the Legislature website. They are required to keep records.
I was glad to see, though, that you opposed Pete Wilson's bill on car tax as well as Davis'.
I was glad to see, though, that you opposed Pete Wilson's bill on car tax as well as Davis'.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Your leaving out some points on both accounts. Sure, increasing stake-holders wealth is the main concern of a business. But this increase is not proportionate. The "owners" will rake in a ton more of a profit then employees with fixed wages. This is not exactly my problem, as an Owner with more "at stake" should make more profit. My problem is that it is often so out of porportion that the Workers are often not making a living wage, or at least not getting the wages and benefits that they should, while upper management and owners walk away with Way more then what should be comparitively acceptable. And sure, money is spent to add value for their customers, but I wouldn't throw them in the mix as an expense, because the customers are paying for the value eventually, and often an excess if it is in an industry where there is limited competition to drive prices down. The customers $$ is driving profits, as you know.
Plus, they are spending $$ to buy up stock, and to drive their own stock prices up. This still benefits the owners and upper-management far more, because they are the ones who own large positions in stock of their own company. So when money is spent here rather then on raises for employees (for example) the arguement is used that everyone benefits. Although this may be true, the worker only benefits minutely, when the reality is they need a higher wage, and the insiders of the company benefits tremendously. Plus owners and upper management are basically allowed to legally (or illegally) insider trade on their own stock, and stock of related companies, because they know when ups and downs are going to occur. This further locks in profits for the owners and insiders at the mercy of workers who don't have that kind of control.
Also, it is true that Insurance and Financial Firms facilitate the loaning of money to the states (Municipal Bonds) so projects can get accomplished. What you are leaving out is the fact that investors (usually the people of that state) are the ones buying the bonds, of which the insurance company/financial institutions directly profit. So, in reality, the state is borrowing from it's own people (investors), not the insurance companies. This is not a bad thing, but you made it sound as if Insurance Co. have been charitably giving to the states, which couldn't be further from the truth. Besides, when most people complain about insurance companies, it is on either the health side, or the property and causualty side. Health, and property and casualty are completely seperate from the financial/lending side, and one doesn't rely on the other, for one. For two, right now the health and property and causalty insurance co. have the unfair advantage over consumers due to the way our system is designed, and due to their lobbying power on both the state and federal sides.
Just thought I'd balance out what you've said, because it seemed a bit one sided.
Now here are some of my political views, as I am sure you are curious...
I don't fit well with either Conservatives or Liberals...I would be thrown out of both camps. Here are 2 issues I'd like to give my opinion on (which will look 'liberal' due to the nature of the issues).
Mutual Gain: This idea of mutual gain has got to go. We use it both in trade, and in business. The idea works like this: We make a decision where both you and I gain. Pretty simple eh? And...it sounds good. The problem this idea of "everybody gains" is that not everybody wins. For instance, I'll use my stock example for business. Let's say that the owner(s) decide that they aren't going to give out bonuses this year, but are instead going to give out stock options. This may sound like a win-win situation, but it isn't. A stock option will mostly benefit those with large stock positions, as the price of the stock drives upward, while the average employee really needed that bonus for Christmass money for their family. Not everybody won.
Or how about this, Let's issue a tax cut for everyone. That will help the economy. Problem is, the people who drive the economy are the lower to upper middle class. They only recieved a few hundred dollars worth of a cut...hardly enough to make an impact. Meanwhile the wealthy 1 percent recieved a much larger cut. These people in the working class still need better schools, better healthcare, etc. Money that these tax dollars could have went towards. Meanwhile the uber-wealthy got a big fat tax cut, and they don't need the things that the working class needs. And...there is only so much the wealthy 1 percent can consume, and the numbers are miniscule compared to the lower to upper middle class consumption. Therefore, it is clear that the lower-upper working class drives the economy, not the wealthy 1 percent. Therefore, the tax cut has failed, and will continue to fail, to drive the economy anywhere. Besides that....everyone benefited from the cut...right? Everyone benefited, but not everyone won.
Here is the idea of Mutual Gain applied to "free trade."
"Hey..India! We (the U.S.) will trade with you, no problem. We make computers and cars. Now...don't you make computers and cars! We, and a select few other countries, have a world wide patton on computers and cars, so you aren't allowed to make them for yourself, so don't even try it. But...you are good at making rice. So...we'll trade you, rice for our computers and cars. Everybody gains this way, right?"
Right....problem is, how many tons of rice, labor, etc. do you think it takes to buy a car? Exactly...sure we both gain, but a third world country will never go beyond their status with this idea of mutual gain. They will never gain "enough" comparitively.
Same with this idea applied to business; the consumer/worker will never gain "enough" compared to the owner, thus the worker is in danger of always being in debt, behind the 8 ball, and enslaved. The "owner" depending on what they "own" of course, will always get wealthier, and usually at someone elses expense.
So...this idea of Mutual gain has got to go.
How to treat "Big Business":
Business has one purpose in mind...to make money. I say, that there is nothing wrong with this. They should be allowed to make money. This drives the economy. Every decision by big business is related to how they can make $$. Compenies will only spend $$ on labor, environmental cleanliness, safety/quality of work environment and product, etc., when they absolutely have too. This is fine. A business should be working hard to make money, and should not be expected to be socially conscience unless it effects their ability to turn a profit.
The above, many would consider, is a very conservative view. However, where I differ from most conservatives is my feeling about the governments role in business. Most conservatives believe in the above, whether they say so or not. But when asked about governments role they say 'leisse Fair' (sp?), and 'deregulation'; basically they say "let businesses take care of themselves." I couldn't disagree with this more.
Governments role: I think that to say that Businesses should only worry about making $$, and then to say that Government should let Bussiness regulate themselves, because they will do what is socially/environmentally/economically conscience due to consumer pressure is a great falicy. This idea has been failing us on different levels. Business is there to make $$, not to do what is socially conscience, so to say that they will regulate themselves is a contradiction. They will only regulate themselves as far as they need to to turn a profit, which is not always the best thing for the environment, the consumers, or for the populus. Consumers aren't there to research the hell out of every product they need just to make socially conscience decisions. They are their to raise families, work, and buy what they NEED to do so.
The Government is basically an entity who we, the people, 'hire' to keep us safe and protected. So, our Government should be allowed to keep us safe and protected from Bussiness. They should be allowed to have a more active role in the regulation of our businesses to ensure that workers make a decent wage, that environment is protected, and that products are safe. This, I feel will adequetly check and balance out the way we do business in our country.
So...those are some fo my views. They are not really open for arguement, but are there for you to read about.
Have fun.
Ender
Black Belt
And you are also leaving out some important facts. first market forces determine wages as it should. the more skills and/or knowledge a worker has the more valuable he will be. A fork lift driver should not be paid the same as a doctor for instance. The doctor has invested alot of time, money, and training where a forklift driver has not. the same goes for electricians, carpenters, etc. they are paid more in different sectors because they are worth more.
no one should be GIVEN a living wage. we are all responsible for rewards on our own merits. many times people will just skate by in school, drop out to have a boat load of kids, or simply do nothing to further themselves. I see no reason to provide them with a living and rewarding poor choices and bad behavior. I also have no problem with owners of companies reaping big rewards because many of them risked everything they had to create a business. they put up their homes and bank accounts as collateral. so if they hit it big, i say good for them.
next, buying up one's own stock does not tranlate into a higher stock price. it only lowers the debt the company has. a stock price is only a price that investors will pay in HOPES that the stock price will go up or will pay dividends. even then, it does nothing to benefit management unless they have stock in the company and SELL their stock. the worker and management only benefit by having a stable company and when growth occurs, can have incresaes in wages. remember that most businesses only yield about 3% profit.
the insurance companies do not make huge profits as many suppose. if they did everyone would just invest in these insuance companies. the point i was making is that without the insurance companies, capital would not be available to municipalities to undertake these projects.
now, for taxes. the top 3% pay about 40% of ALL taxes. the top 50% pay 95% of the tax bill (the rich). you can look at the tax tables if you like. the poor (under around $25K) pay NO federal taxes. so you are considered rich if you make over $36k a year. But putting that aside, for every $25k a person earns, that puts 4 people to work. the more income people receive, the more jobs are created.
and to refute the argument that what the rich spend are miniscule in the economy is flat out wrong. the economy is driven by cash, plain and simple. The more cash that flows in the ecomoy the better. no matter who spends it. but, there are 3 components to the cash in the economy. 45% consumers, 35% business, and the rest is the government. So you see the government can only do a small bit to help the economy with "Tax dollars" couple that with the fact that the US government is only around 60% efficient, we can see that almost half the money from tax dollars are wasted. So the best tactic is to put the money in the hands of the the consumers and business. tax cuts do just that. in fact, many very prominent economists credit the tax cut for softening the blow of the recession. if fact many are calling it a maqrket adjustment and slowdown and not a real recession. You can look at "the economist", forbes, money magazine etc.
Laizze Faire went out with the horse and buggy. No one subscribes to that theory anymore. Business today recognizes that government needs to be involved but in a very limited capacity. one very good example is the pharmaceutical industry. It does not make good business sense to spend huge amounts of time and money on diseaes that are rare. That should be the role of government, to fill in the gaps and regulate when NEEDED. the problem is government over regulates and chokes off risk and innovation.
no one should be GIVEN a living wage. we are all responsible for rewards on our own merits. many times people will just skate by in school, drop out to have a boat load of kids, or simply do nothing to further themselves. I see no reason to provide them with a living and rewarding poor choices and bad behavior. I also have no problem with owners of companies reaping big rewards because many of them risked everything they had to create a business. they put up their homes and bank accounts as collateral. so if they hit it big, i say good for them.
next, buying up one's own stock does not tranlate into a higher stock price. it only lowers the debt the company has. a stock price is only a price that investors will pay in HOPES that the stock price will go up or will pay dividends. even then, it does nothing to benefit management unless they have stock in the company and SELL their stock. the worker and management only benefit by having a stable company and when growth occurs, can have incresaes in wages. remember that most businesses only yield about 3% profit.
the insurance companies do not make huge profits as many suppose. if they did everyone would just invest in these insuance companies. the point i was making is that without the insurance companies, capital would not be available to municipalities to undertake these projects.
now, for taxes. the top 3% pay about 40% of ALL taxes. the top 50% pay 95% of the tax bill (the rich). you can look at the tax tables if you like. the poor (under around $25K) pay NO federal taxes. so you are considered rich if you make over $36k a year. But putting that aside, for every $25k a person earns, that puts 4 people to work. the more income people receive, the more jobs are created.
and to refute the argument that what the rich spend are miniscule in the economy is flat out wrong. the economy is driven by cash, plain and simple. The more cash that flows in the ecomoy the better. no matter who spends it. but, there are 3 components to the cash in the economy. 45% consumers, 35% business, and the rest is the government. So you see the government can only do a small bit to help the economy with "Tax dollars" couple that with the fact that the US government is only around 60% efficient, we can see that almost half the money from tax dollars are wasted. So the best tactic is to put the money in the hands of the the consumers and business. tax cuts do just that. in fact, many very prominent economists credit the tax cut for softening the blow of the recession. if fact many are calling it a maqrket adjustment and slowdown and not a real recession. You can look at "the economist", forbes, money magazine etc.
Laizze Faire went out with the horse and buggy. No one subscribes to that theory anymore. Business today recognizes that government needs to be involved but in a very limited capacity. one very good example is the pharmaceutical industry. It does not make good business sense to spend huge amounts of time and money on diseaes that are rare. That should be the role of government, to fill in the gaps and regulate when NEEDED. the problem is government over regulates and chokes off risk and innovation.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
I agree...no one should be given a wage, and people should be paid according to their job. The Doctor shouldn't make the same as the forklift driver. However, the forklift driver should still be able to earn an adequete living. I just feel that we don't have the balance that we need right now, and that too many people are undervalued.
Buying ones own stock often does translate into higher prices, even though not always. And...management often does sell their own stock, or short their own stock accordingly. To say it doesn't benefit management is wrong, in my opinion.
Understood...although profits are higher then we think, but often legally "hidden." But that's another arguement. I understand your point, though, and I agree that insurance companies do have their place.
I highly doubt these stat's. I don't know where you get the idea that people under 25K a year pay no federal taxes, because I know when I was in college and I made under 25K a year, I certainly did have to pay federal taxes. I am not an accountant, but when did this change? Plus, the idea that every 25K puts 4 people to work is a debatable formula.
Again, your statistics are very debatable, which I really don'e have the time to deal with right now.
However, the Wealthy 1 percent has too much cash to put back into the economy. Most of it gets banked or invested. If I am worth, lets say, 50 million liquid, and I get a tax cut for a few thousand dollars, do you really think that it is going to increase my spending? It doesn't. There are only so many cars, houses, food products, entertainment, etc., that one family can buy, regardless of their net worth. And...if you have millions....a few grand extra isn't going to change your spending habits.
However, a lower middle class family who is fighting to be upper middle class, and spending money on starter homes, second homes, new stuff, food for the new baby, etc. These people are more in #'s then the wealthy 1 percent, and they are the ones driving the economy because as a whole, the lower-upper working and executive class are consumers, and are much higher in #'s then the uber-wealthy.
I say that my point still stands. Also...I read all the financial news. It is part of my Job. And Trust me...when you know too much it changes your views. But, there are plenty of economists who say that the tax cut will not help the economy, as much as there are who say that it will. I trust my research, not the financial media in either case.
At least we agree with this. However...I think a lot of people subscribe to the old view still, and many of them are in our government. I also agree that over-regulation could be a problem. I don't think it has been a problem yet, though. I think the problem has been "miss-regulation" if anything. In other words, regulating one aspect that doesn't need it, while other area's run rampent.
All good points, though.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Quote: "market forces determine wages as it should. the more skills and/or knowledge a worker has the more valuable he will be."
I quite agree that market forces determine wages (as well as the value of things) in a capitalist economy. However, this utterly contradicts the statement about skills and knowledge determining how valuable workers are--and, regrettably, how much a worker makes is a different issue still.
Why? Well, because market forces are fundamentally indifferent to anything other than what Marx called, "exchange value," (i.e, a thing is worth the amount you can sell it for) and are interested in what Marx called, "use value," (i.e., a thing is worth the cost of its raw materials, plus what it takes to turn the raw materials into a sellable object) only to the extent that the basic logic of capitalism says, buy low, sell high.
Let's compare me and--oh, say, Kobe Bryant. I teach; I have an advanced degree. I am paid decently, and I have good benefits. Kobe Bryant makes roughly what...100 to 200 times what I do a year. Why? Well, it's not social usefulness. Sorry, I think teaching is at worst, half as valuable as basketball...so why don't I make 3 mil a year or more? Well, it's not skill altogether...without flattering myself, I think it's fair to say that I am...oh, let's say at least half as good at what I do as Mr. Bryant is at what he does. So why don't I make a mil and a half? It's not knowledge at all, I guarantee, since the degree and the fact that I've been teaching since Mr. Bryant was...ah, three.
So what makes the diff? Exchange value. In our society, basketball is valued far more than teaching. How do we know? Easy...it pays way more.
Market forces encourage meritocracy ONLY in the sense that they help define the most meritable as, "whatever you get paid most for."
Capitalism does not value people. It values capital.
I quite agree that market forces determine wages (as well as the value of things) in a capitalist economy. However, this utterly contradicts the statement about skills and knowledge determining how valuable workers are--and, regrettably, how much a worker makes is a different issue still.
Why? Well, because market forces are fundamentally indifferent to anything other than what Marx called, "exchange value," (i.e, a thing is worth the amount you can sell it for) and are interested in what Marx called, "use value," (i.e., a thing is worth the cost of its raw materials, plus what it takes to turn the raw materials into a sellable object) only to the extent that the basic logic of capitalism says, buy low, sell high.
Let's compare me and--oh, say, Kobe Bryant. I teach; I have an advanced degree. I am paid decently, and I have good benefits. Kobe Bryant makes roughly what...100 to 200 times what I do a year. Why? Well, it's not social usefulness. Sorry, I think teaching is at worst, half as valuable as basketball...so why don't I make 3 mil a year or more? Well, it's not skill altogether...without flattering myself, I think it's fair to say that I am...oh, let's say at least half as good at what I do as Mr. Bryant is at what he does. So why don't I make a mil and a half? It's not knowledge at all, I guarantee, since the degree and the fact that I've been teaching since Mr. Bryant was...ah, three.
So what makes the diff? Exchange value. In our society, basketball is valued far more than teaching. How do we know? Easy...it pays way more.
Market forces encourage meritocracy ONLY in the sense that they help define the most meritable as, "whatever you get paid most for."
Capitalism does not value people. It values capital.
Ender
Black Belt
businesses sell stock for capital to invest in growth and machinery for the company. buying back one 's own stock costs the company money but gives it more control over it's operations. there is no gaurantee for the stock price to go up.
you can check that tax tables anytime you like. and don't forget the $1500 income tax credit. which is really just a hand out to those at the low end.
and even if these "rich" people didn't spend their extra thousands they get on from a tax cut. At least they put it in the bank, which in turn has more equity now to loan. which goes out to consumers and business to borrow. which in turn puts more cash into the economy.
the statistics I quoted came to fruition during the calif financial crisis. the taxes are skewed so the "rich" pay a higher percentage than the rest (the top 3% pay 40% of the taxes). the trouble came when the dotcom bubble burst and many of these "rich" people lost a ton of money (mostly in silicon valley). that translated into alot less revenues in taxes from them. calif is more dependent on "rich" taxes than non-rich taxes. therefore any losses are amplified thru the economy and in the budget.
you can check that tax tables anytime you like. and don't forget the $1500 income tax credit. which is really just a hand out to those at the low end.
and even if these "rich" people didn't spend their extra thousands they get on from a tax cut. At least they put it in the bank, which in turn has more equity now to loan. which goes out to consumers and business to borrow. which in turn puts more cash into the economy.
the statistics I quoted came to fruition during the calif financial crisis. the taxes are skewed so the "rich" pay a higher percentage than the rest (the top 3% pay 40% of the taxes). the trouble came when the dotcom bubble burst and many of these "rich" people lost a ton of money (mostly in silicon valley). that translated into alot less revenues in taxes from them. calif is more dependent on "rich" taxes than non-rich taxes. therefore any losses are amplified thru the economy and in the budget.
OP
OP
pknox
Guest
taken from http://www.redding.com/news/apstate/past/20031007apbrk092.shtml
The 56-year-old Austrian immigrant—husband of television journalist Maria Shriver—finds himself in charge of the nation's most populated state with an economy surpassed by only five countries. He takes office as soon as the election results are certified, no later than Nov. 15.
The 56-year-old Austrian immigrant—husband of television journalist Maria Shriver—finds himself in charge of the nation's most populated state with an economy surpassed by only five countries. He takes office as soon as the election results are certified, no later than Nov. 15.
E
Elfan
Guest
OP
OP
pknox
Guest
Kind of a shame that President Reagan wasn't able to attend. That would have been one very interesting photo op.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
He must be a liberal Republican--he immediately repealed the car tax, and started floating a 15-20 billion loan to balance the State's budget.
Is there an Internet symbol or acronym for explosive derisive laughter?
Is there an Internet symbol or acronym for explosive derisive laughter?
