Americans favor GOP on budget - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29522228]No, but you can't detach it from him and explain away budget problems by saying "oh well there was a war"[/QUOTE] particularly when he lowers taxes at the same time

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29522228]No, but you can't detach it from him and explain away budget problems by saying "oh well there was a war"[/QUOTE] There wasn't just a war. There was also a mini recession due to the de-regulation of major industries by Ronald Reagan. It lasted six months, but the unemployment rate jumped up to 7.2% and the debt increased in order to deal with keeping these industries afloat. (Assuming we're talking about H.W. Bush)

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29522228]No, but you can't detach it from him and explain away budget problems by saying "oh well there was a war"[/QUOTE] presidents don't just get up and say "Oh golly gee it's time for a war kiddies" a lot of things culminated into the gulf war (the iraq war, not so much). if the us just stood there i can guarantee you we would be doubly fucked [editline]30th April 2011[/editline] but yeah that's a good point [editline]30th April 2011[/editline] my point is though, it's not just republican presidents that cause financial crises the economy goes a lot deeper than that

[QUOTE=Mon;29522274]presidents don't just get up and say "Oh golly gee it's time for a war kiddies" a lot of things culminated into the gulf war (the iraq war, not so much). if the us just stood there i can guarantee you we would be doubly fucked [editline]30th April 2011[/editline] but yeah that's a good point [editline]30th April 2011[/editline] my point is though, it's not just republican presidents that cause financial crises the economy goes a lot deeper than that[/QUOTE] Well yes obviously the whims of the market, investors, industries, world situation, and a bunch of other stuff goes into it, but the point people are trying to make here is that taking those into account, the GOP economic philosophy does not make for a sustainable, workable economy and society.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29522316]Well yes obviously the whims of the market, investors, industries, world situation, and a bunch of other stuff goes into it, but the point people are trying to make here is that taking those into account, the GOP economic philosophy does not make for a sustainable, workable economy and society.[/QUOTE] absolutely. i just really wanted to set the record straight with that graph

[QUOTE=Lambeth;29511939]All the republicans I see are social conservatives. All they seem to be doing is cutting essential things like planned parenthood. I think the democrats are more business friendly because they're more people friendly.[/QUOTE] How is Planned Parenthood essential? DOJ absolutely, DOE, sure. DOT yes. But why is planned parenthood essential?

[QUOTE=Ridge;29522346]How is Planned Parenthood essential? DOJ absolutely, DOE, sure. DOT yes. But why is planned parenthood essential?[/QUOTE] Because it helps to keep the population educated about responsible sex, how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, how to deal with them, and basically just helps educate people in areas that school are sorely lacking in. e: Planned Parenthood wouldn't be essential if we had a government organization similar to it, but we don't, so it is. ee: Oh hey I just realized, I missed my 4000th post. Oh well, yay for wasted time.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29522370]Because it helps to keep the population educated about responsible sex, how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, how to deal with them, and basically just helps educate people in areas that school are sorely lacking in.[/QUOTE] This.

[QUOTE=Ridge;29522346]How is Planned Parenthood essential? DOJ absolutely, DOE, sure. DOT yes. But why is planned parenthood essential?[/QUOTE] It provides cheap check ups for pregnant women and their children. They also help to educate women on everything that is involved in getting pregnant. If you want to alienate 51% of the United States population, cutting Planned Parenthood is the way to go.

[QUOTE=Ridge;29522346]How is Planned Parenthood essential? DOJ absolutely, DOE, sure. DOT yes. But why is planned parenthood essential?[/QUOTE] guys, why is education on practicing safe sex, abortions, etc. important? please answer this puzzling question

[QUOTE=JDK721;29522414]guys, why is education on practicing safe sex, abortions, etc. important? please answer this puzzling question[/QUOTE] So we don't have to pay child support for someone too stupid to get an abortion?

[QUOTE=JDK721;29522414]guys, why is education on practicing safe sex, abortions, etc. important? please answer this puzzling question[/QUOTE] so people like you arent born

[QUOTE=Ridge;29522346]How is Planned Parenthood essential? DOJ absolutely, DOE, sure. DOT yes. But why is planned parenthood essential?[/QUOTE] Because it saves lives.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;29517764]Cheaper products. You do realize that the average chinese worker works for 80 cents an hour. You like your iPhone? You like how it was only 100-200$? If Americans built the iPhone, it would cost over 1200$. [editline]29th April 2011[/editline] And Democrats are why we spend all our taxes on increasing debt. Keynesian economics, ftw.[/QUOTE] Cheaper luxury products, perhaps. In a difficult economic situation, the best course of action would be to focus on giving more spending power to the consumer, even if it would drive the price of certain items up a little. Almost all the necessities in terms of food and clothing are made here.

[QUOTE=Mon;29522499]so people like you arent born[/QUOTE] If the joke were a dartboard, the dart would have slipped from your hand and murdered the man behind you.

[QUOTE=Mon;29522499]so people like you arent born[/QUOTE] very naise!

[QUOTE=archangel125;29513851]Conservative economic policies in both the US and Canada can be summed up like this: Give rich corporations MORE tax breaks and MORE money while regulating them less, hoping that out of the goodness of their hearts (Ha, ha.) they'll use the money to make their products cheaper, and not to outsource their businesses to other countries or give their senior executives massive bonuses.[/quote] Fair enough but you must also understand that it isn't a very conservative thing to do, and that giving breaks to bigger companies is actually more detrimental to society at large than giving across the board lowering or raising taxes for [all] companies. Giving people who might maintain a lower quality of service because they're being propped up by the government i wouldn't consider a 'conservative' problem at all. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29514219]He's not doing so great as of late, but he's the best we've got I'm afraid.[/QUOTE] The hell he is, there is plenty of greater Democrats than Obama - by either of our standards. [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29517035]I have yet to receive my trickle. Is it coming in the mail or am I supposed to go outside with a cup? Also Why do people say liberals suck at economics? Conservatives are why we spend half are taxes on war.[/QUOTE] While not exactly true the point should be made that if the Democrats lack knowledge on economics (and they do, big time) the Republicans aren't any better. They just want a society where instead of the Democrat vision of the 'great' state, they have their own. It isn't really conservative at all. Just another giant government with a different set of goals to call their own, if you consider this a conservative problem then perhaps your definition of the word should be reevaluated. (Or maybe we should call them by their real name) [QUOTE=joes33431;29520142]stuff[/quote] While i agree with you on some things your view of other things are simplistic and inaccurate. [QUOTE=joes33431;29520142]In theory, to have low taxes and low regulation would benefit businesses. However, most of the money saved from lower taxes goes into CEO paychecks. Low amounts of regulation allows this to happen to an extreme, and can cause unsafe working conditions.[/quote] Well, one could argue it doesn't just benefit business. People always think of business and consumers (everyone) as two separate entities and i never really understood this concept. Businessmen are consumers just as consumers are businessmen, everyone is looking out for their interests. Some guy wants a game console and has some money, he trades with the gaming corporation to obtain a game console, the gaming corporation wants money, the consumer wanted a console, they both 'profit' from the transaction because value of goods or services is subjective. Therefore when you raise taxes you are artificially causing the subjective value of goods to be elevated, which means businesses don't just feel the hurt, so do consumers and workers just as you said. Next, I don't really buy the premise that money saved from lower taxes "goes into CEO paychecks", this couldn't possibly be true if people wanted to remain competitive. If company A saves 200K in taxes in 2008 and sends all that money directly to their CEO, company B instead reinvests that money and is able to expand their business (by hiring more workers or buying machinery to produce more, thus allowing them to lower their prices) who do you think the winner in this situation is, exactly? Does company A with no economic growth benefit more than company B with a healthy growth? Do the stockholders of company A like that their money is being squandered? We could also argue about health standards but really, that's a conversation for another time. I'll just concede at this moment that a bare-minimum amount of regulation is hardly harmful as long as all companies abide by the same rules and as long as they aren't absurd. (and can remain competitive with other nations) [QUOTE=joes33431;29520142]The conclusion to be made is either high taxes and low regulation or low taxes and high regulation. While both look good on paper, the best solution in recession low taxes and high regulation.[/quote] I don't know how you plan on supporting that system exactly. It's every politician's wet dream to provide massive benefit for low cost, it just doesn't work. [QUOTE=joes33431;29520142]That way, the government controls which way the money saved from low taxes goes to. That money then goes back to the employees, and stimulates economic growth with more money being circulated.[/quote] Uh, what?

During Reagan's era, Reagan continued Nixon's Detante style of diplomacy: as in, instead of fighting, make friends. Nixon made good relations with China and the USSR (albeit to attempt to usurp the NV). Reagan's first term was meant to be hostile to the USSR, as in, make up phony shit like Star Wars and build up military spending so that the USSR would increase theirs, and go bankrupt. Why other Republican presidents increase military spending? Well, at the end of WW2, National Security Conference 68 was held, and a provision of that meeting was not only the creation of the CIA, but also to spend as much as it took to defeat the Soviets. Then Reagan became best friends with Gorby, who he pressured into instituting Perestroika and Glasnost,which eventually brought down the USSR. It was lucky that Gorby was already a moderate, leaning toward more capitalist ideals.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29528781]I don't know how you plan on supporting that system exactly. It's every politician's wet dream to provide massive benefit for low cost, it just doesn't work.[/QUOTE] Ever taken an economics course? It's a matter of the money flow. In a recession, too little money is being circulated within the economy, and the best way to get money flowing again is to support the consumer. When the government requires that the money is given to increased paychecks and investors, consumers are given more money to spend. People spend the money, and we have circulation again. And, if the "A company vs B company" argument were true, then why do corporate executive officers receive salaries anywhere from 750 grand to 11 million dollars? In fact, they may hire new workers, but most of them are overseas. Take China for example. They're paid less than a dollar an hour, 20 hours a day to manufacture U.S. goods. They also save money by making wages as low as possible, using cheaper yet more dangerous methods of production and distribution, and cutting employee benefits. Money also goes into buying out Company B, since they're under-cutted by these cheaper methods of production. Then they use that money to lobby in Congress so they have the ability to continue this process. Investors, quite frankly, don't give much of a shit of how the company makes money, they only know (and want to know) that the company is earning money. Of course, this is all about big business. Small business and the bottom 90 consumers are raped by this "cost cutting".

[QUOTE=joes33431;29530401]Ever taken an economics course? It's a matter of the money flow. In a recession, too little money is being circulated within the economy, and the best way to get money flowing again is to support the consumer. When the government requires that the money is given to increased paychecks and investors, consumers are given more money to spend. People spend the money, and we have circulation again.[/quote] Here's what people have failed to tell you, the reason why this recession exists and the reason why the .COM bubble existed was because of bad investment. Everyone KNEW the internet was a solid investment in the 90s and everyone KNEW housing was a good investment up until 2006-2007. The economy doesn't live or die on job creation and it doesn't live or die because of money circulation, it lives or dies based on economic growth. You don't just spend money because you can, investing into bullshit make-work projects or allowing people to borrow more money more easily. Not only are you wasting precious resources by sinking money into frivolous projects but in the case of money borrowing specifically, you're telling people, at all times, the economy is rosy when it isn't. People borrowed more in housing and borrowed more to create housing because interest rates were low, because those rates were low (when they shouldn't have been low) more people took out loans than would have in a sound economy, because more people borrowed to obtain houses the housing market was also propped up, artificially making it seem like the market was booming causing businessmen to build houses that would never have paid for themselves. What you do to fix this problem is irrelevant (and extremely stupid if you're just going to start the cycle over again) because the problem shouldn't have existed in the first place. [QUOTE=joes33431;29530401]And, if the "A company vs B company" argument were true, then why do corporate executive officers receive salaries anywhere from 750 grand to 11 million dollars?[/quote] I'm not saying it's a wise move or that they deserve it, but the company saving 10 million to invest in new projects will always have the upper hand if that's the only factor involved. Investors don't like CEOs being paid largely either, unless of course they think they're actually doing a good job. Even then i'd argue as an investor its way too much, but then I'm not an investor in those types of companies. [QUOTE=joes33431;29530401] In fact, they may hire new workers, but most of them are overseas. Take China for example. They're paid less than a dollar an hour, 20 hours a day to manufacture U.S. goods.[/quote] How is this bad? That's like being mad about people losing jobs in the automotive market because they introduced machinery to automate the process, cutting out the labor. Yes people lost jobs but because they lost jobs people are able to cheaply buy those products, those workers can then go on to more relevant local projects. It's the same thing liberals talk about when they say illegal immigration doesn't hurt the economy, and it doesn't. (To expand upon this, it IS a bad thing when exports and imports aren't stable - this can be solved by making it profitable to make exports at home. Gee i wonder how that could be accomplished) [QUOTE=joes33431;29530401]They also save money by making wages as low as possible, using cheaper yet more dangerous methods of production and distribution, and cutting employee benefits.[/quote] This is actually, mostly untrue. People work at those companies in China because relative to their alternatives, it's a pretty sweet deal. I don't like the conditions they have and they should be better, but then that's why the Chinese economy getting richer is a good thing. They used to work in FAR WORSE conditions before they had this new money. The more money they get and the more they spend on machinery to automate the process, the less labor intensive jobs are circulating. People won't need to work in sweat shops anymore if the company invests in machines to do the labor for them, new jobs will open up. Relative to US those conditions are horrible but relative to US is irrelevant, we have the [i]means[/i] to treat our workers better. [QUOTE=joes33431;29530401]Money also goes into buying out Company B, since they're under-cutted by these cheaper methods of production.[/quote] If company A is undercutting B then obviously the only factor isn't CEO paychecks. [QUOTE=joes33431;29530401] Then they use that money to lobby in Congress so they have the ability to continue this process. Investors, quite frankly, don't give much of a shit of how the company makes money, they only know (and want to know) that the company is earning money. Of course, this is all about big business. Small business and the bottom 90 consumers are raped by this "cost cutting".[/QUOTE] The real question is did [b]you[/b] ever take an economics course? With your general hatred of the market and all players involved, i feel that you've wasted a lot of money if you have. Lobbying money is a government problem, there should be no partnership of any businessmen and government, no breaks for certain businesses and no exemptions for certain businesses, but then, that's a conservative thing.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29530993]Here's what people have failed to tell you, the reason why this recession exists and the reason why the .COM bubble existed was because of bad investment. Everyone KNEW the internet was a solid investment in the 90s and everyone KNEW housing was a good investment up until 2006-2007. The economy doesn't live or die on job creation and it doesn't live or die because of money circulation, it lives or dies based on economic growth. You don't just spend money because you can, investing into bullshit make-work projects or allowing people to borrow more money more easily. Not only are you wasting precious resources by sinking money into frivolous projects but in the case of money borrowing specifically, you're telling people, at all times, the economy is rosy when it isn't. People borrowed more in housing and borrowed more to create housing because interest rates were low, because those rates were low (when they shouldn't have been low) more people took out loans than would have in a sound economy, because more people borrowed to obtain houses the housing market was also propped up, artificially making it seem like the market was booming causing businessmen to build houses that would never have paid for themselves.[/QUOTE] Yes, then banks ran out of money to loan and closed. People couldn't afford to buy things anymore, no money was being spent, and thus recession. [QUOTE]What you do to fix this problem is irrelevant (and extremely stupid if you're just going to start the cycle over again) because the problem shouldn't have existed in the first place.[/QUOTE] "my car broke down so i shouldnt fix it because it shouldnt have broken down in the first place lol" Economies will always go up and down in a wave. It's unavoidable. [QUOTE]How is this bad? That's like being mad about people losing jobs in the automotive market because they introduced machinery to automate the process, cutting out the labor. Yes people lost jobs but because they lost jobs people are able to cheaply buy those products, those workers can then go on to more relevant local projects. It's the same thing liberals talk about when they say illegal immigration doesn't hurt the economy, and it doesn't.[/QUOTE] Because overseas jobs kill businesses which can't afford to do so (pretty much all small business). [QUOTE]This is actually, mostly untrue. People work at those companies in China because relative to their alternatives, it's a pretty sweet deal. I don't like the conditions they have and they should be better, but then that's why the Chinese economy getting richer is a good thing. They used to work in FAR WORSE conditions before they had this new money. The more money they get and the more they spend on machinery to automate the process, the less labor intensive jobs are circulating. People won't need to work in sweat shops anymore if the company invests in machines to do the labor for them, new jobs will open up. Relative to US those conditions are horrible but relative to US is irrelevant, we have the [i]means[/i] to treat our workers better.[/QUOTE] I was speaking of conditions in the United States. For the largest economy in the world, we shouldn't have to deal with asbestos in our buildings, or work poor wages. Though, you do raise a good point [QUOTE]If company A is undercutting B then obviously the only factor isn't CEO paychecks.[/QUOTE] It was exaggeration on my part. It still seems excessive to have salaries in the tens of millions though, doesn't it? [QUOTE]The real question is did [b]you[/b] ever take an economics course? With your general hatred of the market and all players involved, i feel that you've wasted a lot of money if you have.[/QUOTE] I hate it when high-level businessmen shove small businesses and everything else down under it just to get rich quick. Greed is what we call it.

[QUOTE=joes33431;29532486]Yes, then banks ran out of money to loan and closed. People couldn't afford to buy things anymore, no money was being spent, and thus recession.[/quote] The problem is though that banks shouldn't have been making those loans to begin with. I'll follow up on this in the next quote. [QUOTE=joes33431;29532486]"my car broke down so i shouldnt fix it because it shouldnt have broken down in the first place lol" Economies will always go up and down in a wave. It's unavoidable.[/quote] Yes markets will always go up and down and it's a natural, good thing. However, when intervention in the process tells you that everything is fine and good, malinvestments take hold and make the process much, much more painful. Housing should have grown for a while and stopped, some people would have lost meager investment but interest rates would have risen, people would have stopped borrowing to obtain homes and people would have stopped making homes that never needed to be built. It could have been such a small blip on the radar when compared to the disaster that exists today. Recessions are a symptom that you should stop spending and start saving, they shouldn't be an indicator for the government to start consuming. Then you're just perpetuating bad spending and investing money into sectors of the market that shouldn't be thriving. Housing should have gotten cheaper AND interest rates should have risen, then when housing is cheap and interest rates become low, that's when you invest in housing. [QUOTE=joes33431;29532486]Because overseas jobs kill businesses which can't afford to do so (pretty much all small business).[/quote] Who can't afford to buy products overseas? If it's a supply problem then we should be picking up the slack here in the United States (if supply of Chinese goods can't meet our demand for Chinese goods, prices should be rising although they are also notorious for distorting their market they do it at their own expense since it's not really a healthy economic policy) but if it isn't I'm fairly sure even small businesses could afford it. [QUOTE=joes33431;29532486]I was speaking of conditions in the United States. For the largest economy in the world, we shouldn't have to deal with asbestos in our buildings, or work poor wages. Though, you do raise a good point[/quote] "work poor wages", i hope you don't mean minimum wage. As an economics person you must understand that the minimum wage is only effective when it reflects market prices. I dislike the minimum wage personally, mostly because politicians tend to override market prices by a wide margin (it's been proven almost conclusively that exceeding the market price for employment actually destroys jobs). As for asbestos, that's a good thing but even if it wasn't enforced by law people wouldn't use them in their buildings. Do you know what the property value of an asbestos riddled home would look like? Not good. [QUOTE=joes33431;29532486]It was exaggeration on my part. It still seems excessive to have salaries in the tens of millions though, doesn't it?[/quote] Sure it does to me and you, I'm not sure about them. If it was my company and i was an investor or CEO i would use those gains to expand my company, to those that don't they're doing so at their own expense. It isn't a good thing. [QUOTE=joes33431;29532486]I hate it when high-level businessmen shove small businesses and everything else down under it just to get rich quick. Greed is what we call it.[/QUOTE] Greed, as you well know, isn't such a bad thing. It's never us that is greedy it is only somebody else, usually the person with more money (the irony). If big business can shove down small business than one of two things is happening. 1) They're being assisted by the government and it must be stopped at any cost, it isn't a healthy thing and corporations often lobby for government regulation just so they can destroy competitors. Taxes, regulation are only good things for gigantic companies who can afford it. For smaller starting companies it only provides barrier to entry and burdens and will only hurt them financially. 2) They're doing a good thing, if they can outbid the competition without government assistance then they're making cheaper products for everyone. The market tells us that given the technology it couldn't possibly be done more efficiently, if they're overcharging for their products somebody will underbid them.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29533366]Greed, as you well know, isn't such a bad thing. It's never us that is greedy it is only somebody else, usually the person with more money (the irony). If big business can shove down small business than one of two things is happening. 1) They're being assisted by the government and it must be stopped at any cost, it isn't a healthy thing and corporations often lobby for government regulation just so they can destroy competitors. Taxes, regulation are only good things for gigantic companies who can afford it. For smaller starting companies it only provides barrier to entry and burdens and will only hurt them financially.[/quote] What about when a company constantly buys out their competition, and the government sits on its ass and does nothing about it? That is still constantly happening. [Quote]2) They're doing a good thing, if they can outbid the competition without government assistance then they're making cheaper products for everyone. The market tells us that given the technology it couldn't possibly be done more efficiently, if they're overcharging for their products somebody will underbid them.[/QUOTE] Larger companies have more money to spend on advertising and infrastructure. People aren't going to always buy the cheapest product no matter what. And, again, they can just buy out competition.

[QUOTE=analrapist;29514047]Too bad Obama is doing such a terrible job and making everyone hate Democrats.[/QUOTE] Only because the rest of his country won't let him do what he wants. I mean, the man is doing everything he can to fix the place, but somehow a large part of the population is retarded enough to actively work against him in doing that.

[QUOTE=Chrille;29534252]Only because the rest of his country won't let him do what he wants. I mean, the man is doing everything he can to fix the place, but somehow a large part of the population is retarded enough to actively work against him in doing that.[/QUOTE] If Obama could do what he wanted, America would find itself in a much better position, many people do not like change though....

[QUOTE=s0beit;29528781]giving breaks to bigger companies is actually more detrimental to society at large than giving across the board lowering or raising taxes for [all] companies.[/QUOTE] [img]http://rlv.zcache.com/citation_needed_sticker-p217764849217500866qjcl_400.jpg[/img] [QUOTE=s0beit;29528781]Therefore when you raise taxes you are artificially causing the subjective value of goods to be elevated, which means businesses don't just feel the hurt, so do consumers and workers just as you said.[/QUOTE] While I applaud you for actually knowing what a factor and product market are, I challenge your claim on the grounds that you cannot find a publicly traded company whose past financial statements and investor relations releases show any explicit instances in which our minor tax increases played a major factor in their changing the price or quality of a standard consumer product or in some other way played a large factor in their strategies for that time period. This is the exact kind of naive bullshit that leads to people dismissing graduated individual income tax rates because they don't know what "marginal propensity to consume" means and think all entities which are taxed behave exactly the same. [QUOTE=s0beit;29528781]Next, I don't really buy the premise that money saved from lower taxes "goes into CEO paychecks", this couldn't possibly be true if people wanted to remain competitive.[/QUOTE] Oh, that explains why [url=http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/26/executive-pay-ceo-leadership-compensation-best-boss-10-bosses_chart.html]Forbes' historical CEO compensation database[/url] shows it happening in swing with the Bush cuts, right?

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29533500]What about when a company constantly buys out their competition, and the government sits on its ass and does nothing about it? That is still constantly happening.[/quote] Buying out competition only works if the competition considers the very realistic view that they'll lose. If somebody is underbidding their competition and they try to buy them out, why would they sell? They stand to make so much more money if they don't. If they can't underbid them then there's no reason they should exist, realistically. Buying companies out, especially companies who couldn't compete or never had any intention of competing is a loss for the corporation buying them up. They gained nothing of value, you might argue they've bought out the competition thus stand to make more money or retain existing customers but: A) If they charge more than the competition they just bought, people will switch one way or another. Either there is already existing companies that can compete or more will come up which can compete. This isn't really debatable, if a company is gouging people with inefficiency (unless they're protected in some way by the government) companies will come along who won't gouge their customers and they'll be in seriously deep trouble. B) If they charge the same or less than the company they obtained, everyone is better off because of it. [QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29533500]Larger companies have more money to spend on advertising and infrastructure. People aren't going to always buy the cheapest product no matter what. And, again, they can just buy out competition.[/QUOTE] Advertising as i explained in some other topic floating around here, doesn't matter. I could put commercials up for solid human waste and i wouldn't get many takers because it isn't really competitive against an iPod, computer or vehicle for example. Infrastructure does matter but that's where investment comes from. There is rich people out there who can afford infrastructure. If they genuinely believe they can break into a market where the future competition is overcharging, that is to say, if they believe they can do it more efficiently and charge a lower price - they will. People aren't always going to buy the cheaper product but that's because they're either weary about the quality or the quality is worse (in their opinion, remember that value of products is subjective. Some people like bananas more than oranges.) than the competitor. Price isn't everything, quality has to follow. If they have both high prices and lacking quality they're opening themselves up for fierce competition. That is a scenario where competition isn't just a reality, it's assured.

[QUOTE=An Armed Bear;29515293]Didn't Herbert Hoover try trickle down economics?[/QUOTE] Hoover was weird, in the beginning he tried complete Trickle down economics, then switched to public works style programmes. None did any good because the damage was already there and he was just a mess of a president. At least he admitted it.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29535746]giant fucking picture[/quote] Giving tax breaks to the super-big corporations and not to small businesses will cause giant problems, smaller businesses can't compete. It's common sense. That's what i was advocating by the way, i wasn't saying tax breaks for big companies only is good only that cutting taxes for a specific demographic is bad. If you have across the board cutting or raising of taxes at least you won't be putting people to a disadvantage. (at least not locally) [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29535746]While I applaud you for actually knowing what a factor and product market are, I challenge your claim on the grounds that you cannot find a publicly traded company whose past financial statements and investor relations releases show any explicit instances in which our minor tax increases played a major factor in their changing the price or quality of a standard consumer product or in some other way played a large factor in their strategies for that time period. This is the exact kind of naive bullshit that leads to people dismissing graduated individual income tax rates because they don't know what "marginal propensity to consume" means and think all entities which are taxed behave exactly the same.[/quote] We're not talking about 'graduated individual income tax rates' though, we're talking about companies or corporate entities with their own accounts and their own behaviors and interests in expanding. Not the people who get paid. You say 'minor tax increases' but what does this even mean? It's a well known fact that companies adjust for taxes, gradually it might not be visible but if in 1990 the taxes are 5% and by 2010 they're 10%, the prices are effected. It might not be visible immediately but don't just presume it doesn't effect their products at all. You're presuming that companies will willingly take a loss and just not care that they're losing money, that isn't really something corporations are well known for. They will find some way to make it up, maybe not all of them pass it on directly to the consumer but don't fool yourself into thinking they won't formulate some type of plan to recoup those losses. [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29535746]Oh, that explains why [url=http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/26/executive-pay-ceo-leadership-compensation-best-boss-10-bosses_chart.html]Forbes' historical CEO compensation database[/url] shows it happening in swing with the Bush cuts, right?[/QUOTE] Well if you look at my reasoning above and reply to that, we can have a conversation.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29536036]Giving tax breaks to the super-big corporations and not to small businesses will cause giant problems, smaller businesses can't compete.[/QUOTE] I'm not even contesting it you're just not setting up a good discussion if you just run in saying "X is true because...I say so." It's also not clear if you believe the inverse (that tax hikes need to be applied across the board as well rather than graduated.) [QUOTE=s0beit;29536036]You say 'minor tax increases' but what does this even mean?[/QUOTE] Realistic tax increases you'd see in the U.S. or a relevant first world economy. [QUOTE=s0beit;29536036]It's a well known fact that companies adjust for taxes, gradually it might not be visible but if in 1990 the taxes are 5% and by 2010 they're 10%, the prices are effected. It might not be visible immediately but don't just presume it doesn't effect their products at all.[/QUOTE] You're claiming increased taxes on businesses hurt consumers via product price increases. I want proof. If you have no proof, you have no argument. If you can't find anything that could apply to companies in the U.S. (e.g. data from a U.S. company during a period where taxes did markedly increase or a relevant international firm), then you're really just making speculation. Consumer product prices are actually way more complex than that. You're not going to peg price spikes because Uncle Sam shaved a bit more off the top of businesses one year, but if you're going to make those sorts of claims, you better try, and looking at historical CPI data versus corporate tax rates or public financial information would be a start. [QUOTE=s0beit;29536036]You're presuming that companies will willingly take a loss and just not care that they're losing money, that isn't really something corporations are well known for.[/QUOTE] You're failing to take into account a shitload of factors that make a tax burden more easily borne by a corporate entity than you think. [QUOTE=s0beit;29536036]Well if you look at my reasoning above and reply to that, we can have a conversation.[/QUOTE] I don't see you providing any numbers not an explicit refutation. Nice attempt at dodging, your point was still wrong.