billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
chasteh 0
No, you did not say 'or even a law that regulates employment numbers and wages would make sense here' as the statement was in parentheses, and the statement is finishe with 'would make sense here.'
>You said that higher taxes end up in the cost of the product.
That is what you were saying.
'or even a law that regulates employment numbers and wages would make sense here' makes sense because if you were to hold the employment level constant and add a tax, it would force the price of something to increase. (or force the firm to reduce the cost of other inputs like capital or raw materials)
edit: Thus making consumers pay the tax as part of the product's price.
>You said that higher taxes end up in the cost of the product.
That is what you were saying.
'or even a law that regulates employment numbers and wages would make sense here' makes sense because if you were to hold the employment level constant and add a tax, it would force the price of something to increase. (or force the firm to reduce the cost of other inputs like capital or raw materials)
edit: Thus making consumers pay the tax as part of the product's price.
Bolas 5
QuoteExample, wind farms. There is one reason they are being built. Corp welfare (to steal your term) If not for that and the green political world we are in, no corp would build them.
Thanks for helping me with my point
That is such a load and such the mistake all "greenies" seem to make.
It is possible to do the right thing for the earth and have it make fiscal sense. Hell, renewable clean energy? That's a potential gold mine. Recycling? Same deal. Not to mention the positive PR.
But instead of letting consumers vote with their dollars or trying to show companies how it could make sense they went whining to the gov't. So now the gov't is telling them they have to do something, they of course want something in return.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Quote"corp welfare"
A buzzword concocted to give a negative connotation to job producing business incentives. See "NEWSPEAK"
There-that should clear that up.
You are only as strong as the prey you devour
Bolas 5
QuoteYes, I think corporate welfare is an absolute disaster. Just like I think it is a disaster that we have handed out over 2 trillion dollars in bailout money to failing corporations. Why reward these people for digging the holes they got into?
That all depends. How much of that hole was caused by forced government regulations and how much by mismanagement?
Personally I think we shouldn't bail them out but at the same time realize that they aren't the only ones responsible.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
chasteh 0
>A buzzword concocted to give a negative connotation to job producing business incentives.
Nevertheless, the "buzzword" also represents a major flaw. The government, here, acts as a provider of "incentives," if you want to call them that, which removes traditional market forces as threats to the survival of the firm. In other words, it is a form of socialism, which removes power from the hands of the people to the hands of government officials - who dictate how, where, and why government funds get spent, and who has to pay them.
>job producing
Yea, they do end up producing more jobs. However, it removes the economy as a force that supplies that job.
>business incentives
Unfortunately, businesses in a free market have to market themselves to persons to maintain their customer base. Removing that from the equation results in businesses that "cheat" at the process.
Nevertheless, the "buzzword" also represents a major flaw. The government, here, acts as a provider of "incentives," if you want to call them that, which removes traditional market forces as threats to the survival of the firm. In other words, it is a form of socialism, which removes power from the hands of the people to the hands of government officials - who dictate how, where, and why government funds get spent, and who has to pay them.
>job producing
Yea, they do end up producing more jobs. However, it removes the economy as a force that supplies that job.
>business incentives
Unfortunately, businesses in a free market have to market themselves to persons to maintain their customer base. Removing that from the equation results in businesses that "cheat" at the process.
chasteh 0
>That all depends. How much of that hole was caused by forced government regulations and how much by mismanagement?
You are saying the holes were caused by regulations? I could have sworn, and catch me if I am wrong here, that this financial mess was caused by the fact that Americans by and large were getting loans that they could not pay, overloading their credit cards, and ended up foreclosing on their homes. Isn't that actually a combination of mismanagement of loan lenders, consumers, and the lack of loan regulations that allowed this?
>they aren't the only ones responsible
Sure. But at the same time it can be quite easily said that they conducted their busnesses irresponsibly - and according to any anti-welfare clone, giving them billions of dollars in tax payer dollars is unacceptable.
You are saying the holes were caused by regulations? I could have sworn, and catch me if I am wrong here, that this financial mess was caused by the fact that Americans by and large were getting loans that they could not pay, overloading their credit cards, and ended up foreclosing on their homes. Isn't that actually a combination of mismanagement of loan lenders, consumers, and the lack of loan regulations that allowed this?
>they aren't the only ones responsible
Sure. But at the same time it can be quite easily said that they conducted their busnesses irresponsibly - and according to any anti-welfare clone, giving them billions of dollars in tax payer dollars is unacceptable.
Quote
You are saying the holes were caused by regulations? I could have sworn, and catch me if I am wrong here, that this financial mess was caused by the fact that Americans by and large were getting loans that they could not pay,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae
or just the highlights
QuoteIn 1977, the Carter Administration and the United States Congress passed and signed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA , designed to boost lending in inner cities with areas of extreme blight by forcing area banks to open new branches in these areas and to have a certain percentage of their lending portfolio of small business loans and home mortgages located in these areas. Failure to maintain this ratio would result in the banks being prevented from opening branches in other areas that were not distressed.
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.[10] Due to the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.[10]
I should get bonus points for not highlighting "Carter" and "Clinton"
You are only as strong as the prey you devour
chasteh 0
Why stop there?
"In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals"
""Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us. Borrowers were offered a range of loans that layered teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization and payment options and low-documentation requirements on top of floating-rate loans. In early 2005 we began sounding our concerns about this "layered-risk" lending. For example, Tom Lund, the head of our single-family mortgage business, publicly stated, "One of the things we don't feel good about right now as we look into this marketplace is more homebuyers being put into programs that have more risk. Those products are for more sophisticated buyers. Does it make sense for borrowers to take on risk they may not be aware of? Are we setting them up for failure? As a result, we gave up significant market share to our competitors."
Sounds like irresponsibility, too.
"In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals"
""Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us. Borrowers were offered a range of loans that layered teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization and payment options and low-documentation requirements on top of floating-rate loans. In early 2005 we began sounding our concerns about this "layered-risk" lending. For example, Tom Lund, the head of our single-family mortgage business, publicly stated, "One of the things we don't feel good about right now as we look into this marketplace is more homebuyers being put into programs that have more risk. Those products are for more sophisticated buyers. Does it make sense for borrowers to take on risk they may not be aware of? Are we setting them up for failure? As a result, we gave up significant market share to our competitors."
Sounds like irresponsibility, too.
Quote
Yea, they do end up producing more jobs. However, it removes the economy as a force that supplies that job.
Except it doesn't product more jobs, it just moves jobs that were supported by consumer spending to ones supported by government spending. There's no net gain, and probably a loss due to the overhead of government programs, etc..
Quote
You are saying the holes were caused by regulations? I could have sworn, and catch me if I am wrong here, that this financial mess was caused by the fact that Americans by and large were getting loans that they could not pay, overloading their credit cards, and ended up foreclosing on their homes. Isn't that actually a combination of mismanagement of loan lenders, consumers, and the lack of loan regulations that allowed this?
None of that forced financial companies to so grossly leverage themselves that even a fairly moderate number of foreclosures threatened to destroy the entire financial system. That can't be blamed on home 'owners.'
The dotcom bust along with 9/11 should have been rough, but none of the big financials collapsed that time around.
Quote>I'm curious what level of compensation you believe would be "fair" for
>top level government employees?
The minimum needed to get the talent required.
If we could hire a NASA director that could cut NASA costs by $5 billion a year without damaging any research or development they are doing? Heck, pay him $100 million a year. You still come out WAY ahead. And if someone else shows up who will do it for $10 million a year, either cut the first guy's pay or fire him and hire the second one - although having a track record like that is a powerful argument for keeping your job _and_ your salary.
> Then again, I don't think anybody gets compensated for the difficulty of what they do.
You are correct. They get compensated at or slightly less than it would cost to replace them. If someone else could do the same job for a bit less, pay for that job will flatten or go down.
>Just because a CEO takes home a half billion dollars in a year does NOT
>mean he's actually worth that much to the people that invested in the
>company. It may just mean he's a big fuckin' crook.
Right. And the guy making $20,000 a year working as an intern may be a big fucking crook as well. But in both cases people pay them what they are believed to be worth.
+1 and it's not often that Billyawn and I agree.
QuoteJust because a CEO takes home a half billion dollars in a year does NOT mean he's actually worth that much to the people that invested in the company.
Yea but he is. If he's a crook then he will most likely be found out. If he is making the shareholders money then he is worth whatever they are willing to pay him.
This cracks me up like people saying "My house is worth x because of this that and the other.." In reality your house is worth the most that you can sell it for.
So tell me what exactly a CEO should be paid?
quade 4
Quote
Yea but he is. If he's a crook then he will most likely be found out.
Your naivety is showing.
Please, oh please tell me; how much money has the entire Star Wars movie franchise made in profits?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
TomAiello 26
Quote>passing a law that forces every American to purchase their product.
Is this what is being proposed by Obama?
Yes, it's in the bill. The relevant section was linked and quoted in a separate thread by Gawain. When I have more time this afternoon I'll dig it up for you again.
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Well we just disagree. I happen to believe that a viable company is not going to pay any employee more than they're worth, including the CEO. Then again I can't believe Jim Brickman sells CD's.
QuoteWhy stop there?
OK, a smidge more-with highlights
***On September 11, 2003, the Bush Administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set capital-reserve requirements for the company and to determine whether the company is adequately managing the risks of its ballooning portfolios. The New York Times reported that the plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is broken. The Times also reported Democratic opposition to Bush's plan: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." [16]
I know, being wiki-lazy but pointing out the obvious to those who will still deny it isn't worth a lot of time
You are only as strong as the prey you devour
chasteh 0
Then what happened to the part of the bill that said persons not interested in the social program will be able to buy their own policies?
chasteh 0
So what are you trying to say? That the banks didn't get themselves into their financial problems alone? Where does that become incompatible what what I said?
>top level government employees?
The minimum needed to get the talent required.
If we could hire a NASA director that could cut NASA costs by $5 billion a year without damaging any research or development they are doing? Heck, pay him $100 million a year. You still come out WAY ahead. And if someone else shows up who will do it for $10 million a year, either cut the first guy's pay or fire him and hire the second one - although having a track record like that is a powerful argument for keeping your job _and_ your salary.
> Then again, I don't think anybody gets compensated for the difficulty of what they do.
You are correct. They get compensated at or slightly less than it would cost to replace them. If someone else could do the same job for a bit less, pay for that job will flatten or go down.
>Just because a CEO takes home a half billion dollars in a year does NOT
>mean he's actually worth that much to the people that invested in the
>company. It may just mean he's a big fuckin' crook.
Right. And the guy making $20,000 a year working as an intern may be a big fucking crook as well. But in both cases people pay them what they are believed to be worth.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites