If you became the leader of your nation...

[JimboUK]

 

That goes back to my other question then. What do you consider over regulation? Regulation does not always mean their will be a profit cut.

 

Over regulation includes telling companies what they must pay their employees, what colour a set number of those employees must be, over zealous health and safely and all the other nonsense that has forced western companies to send jobs overseas in an effort to remain competitive. Profit is income minus costs, the more costs you pile onto businesses the less they make. Attacking the wealth creators and increasing spending while US debt is standing close to $15 Trillion with additional unfunded liabilities of $115 Trillion is absolute madness.

[RZ1029]

I found your problem. I forgot to throw in my two cents. I'm sure you'll all clearly agree with me after this, but it'll take a minute.

 

For Governmentization:

Please show me one successful socialist/communist/etc. nation that has ever existed for more than perhaps twenty years without falling to pieces. (No. Britain does not count. Do see most of the former Soviet Bloc countries, and their current KGB-run status.)

 

For NRA Members, and Others Like Them:

Care for a beer later? I'll buy. After that, we can begin to address the issue of Humans. Namely, their inherent greed and stupidity. Afterwards, we can all sign a murder-suicide pact in which we agree to purge the world of any irrational, greedy, overly-generous, intelligent, stupid, overly rational, patriotic, un-patriotic, pro-life, pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, anti-gay-marriage, socialists, communists, anarchists, conservatives, rebels, goths, overly-happy people, depressed people, and pretty much anyone else we can find, before we shoot ourselves, assuming we don't commit suicide by cop first in our rampage.

 

Did you miss me?

[marharth]

 

That goes back to my other question then. What do you consider over regulation? Regulation does not always mean their will be a profit cut.

 

Over regulation includes telling companies what they must pay their employees, what colour a set number of those employees must be, over zealous health and safely and all the other nonsense that has forced western companies to send jobs overseas in an effort to remain competitive. Profit is income minus costs, the more costs you pile onto businesses the less they make. Attacking the wealth creators and increasing spending while US debt is standing close to $15 Trillion with additional unfunded liabilities of $115 Trillion is absolute madness.

So you don't support the minimum wage and government mandated safety requirements? What? Look at history for a second? The last time the USA tried that we had sweet shops.

 

How are businesses forced to go over seas? They wouldn't go out of businesses if they stayed in the US. It is not the governments fault that greedy corporations want more profit. The US protects consumers more then India or China, obviously they want to make more profit by going to other countries.

 

To get this right, you are saying that its more important for businesses to make profit then the government to protect the people from businesses?

 

@RZ, off the top of my head Sweden, Norway, and Portugal. At least if you are going off what you consider socialism.

Edited December 29, 2011 by marharth

[JimboUK]

 

That goes back to my other question then. What do you consider over regulation? Regulation does not always mean their will be a profit cut.

 

Over regulation includes telling companies what they must pay their employees, what colour a set number of those employees must be, over zealous health and safely and all the other nonsense that has forced western companies to send jobs overseas in an effort to remain competitive. Profit is income minus costs, the more costs you pile onto businesses the less they make. Attacking the wealth creators and increasing spending while US debt is standing close to $15 Trillion with additional unfunded liabilities of $115 Trillion is absolute madness.

So you don't support the minimum wage and government mandated safety requirements? What? Look at history for a second? The last time the USA tried that we had sweet shops.

 

How are businesses forced to go over seas? They wouldn't go out of businesses if they stayed in the US. It is not the governments fault that greedy corporations want more profit. The US protects consumers more then India or China, obviously they want to make more profit by going to other countries.

 

To get this right, you are saying that its more important for businesses to make profit then the government to protect the people from businesses?

 

@RZ, off the top of my head Sweden, Norway, and Portugal. At least if you are going off what you consider socialism.

 

Protect people from business? you do know that without the evil businesses there wouldn't be a penny for services? it's these businesses that provide employment and keep a roof over the heads of the majority, they're not the enemy. Look we have two choices in the west, we compete or we starve, the gravy train has hit the buffers. We've lived beyond our means for decades and now the party is over, the money has run out and we're going to have to get up off our backsides and earn a living. It's worth looking up what happens when a country defaults, the minimum wage and health and safety would be least of peoples worries, not getting paid at all, rampant inflation and going hungry would be the fate of millions.

 

Sweden has moved to the right, in the 90s it had an extensive program of deregulation.

Norway is very much pro business.

Portugal is in such a mess that it had to be bailed out by the EU and IMF, without the bailout they would have defaulted.

[marharth]

 

That goes back to my other question then. What do you consider over regulation? Regulation does not always mean their will be a profit cut.

 

Over regulation includes telling companies what they must pay their employees, what colour a set number of those employees must be, over zealous health and safely and all the other nonsense that has forced western companies to send jobs overseas in an effort to remain competitive. Profit is income minus costs, the more costs you pile onto businesses the less they make. Attacking the wealth creators and increasing spending while US debt is standing close to $15 Trillion with additional unfunded liabilities of $115 Trillion is absolute madness.

So you don't support the minimum wage and government mandated safety requirements? What? Look at history for a second? The last time the USA tried that we had sweet shops.

 

How are businesses forced to go over seas? They wouldn't go out of businesses if they stayed in the US. It is not the governments fault that greedy corporations want more profit. The US protects consumers more then India or China, obviously they want to make more profit by going to other countries.

 

To get this right, you are saying that its more important for businesses to make profit then the government to protect the people from businesses?

 

@RZ, off the top of my head Sweden, Norway, and Portugal. At least if you are going off what you consider socialism.

 

Protect people from business? you do know that without the evil businesses there wouldn't be a penny for services? it's these businesses that provide employment and keep a roof over the heads of the majority, they're not the enemy. Look we have two choices in the west, we compete or we starve, the gravy train has hit the buffers. We've lived beyond our means for decades and now the party is over, the money has run out and we're going to have to get up off our backsides and earn a living. It's worth looking up what happens when a country defaults, the minimum wage and health and safety would be least of peoples worries, not getting paid at all, rampant inflation and going hungry would be the fate of millions.

 

Sweden has moved to the right, in the 90s it had an extensive program of deregulation.

Norway is very much pro business.

Portugal is in such a mess that it had to be bailed out by the EU and IMF, without the bailout they would have defaulted.

By your standards they would be considered socialist.

 

There is a difference between businesses that need to be regulated and businesses that do not. Pharmaceutical companies have to be regulated for example.

 

Without the minimum wage people wouldn't make enough money to properly live and would not have much to return to companies and other services. It would make the lower class even larger, which is a terrible idea. Without safety regulations businesses would not have to worry about their workers well being. It is not very good for the economy to have working people injured because their company is focusing entirely on profit and not their well being.

 

What people tend to forget is that big business is very similar to big government. A huge portion of your adult life is spent in your workplace. What if you have a job with shitty safety policies and a job that refuses to pay you much? You can't exactly stop working, you won't make any money and you will be completely screwed.

 

To make this clear again, what are the exact regulations you are talking about? Is it just safety regulations and the minimum wage?

[JimboUK]

 

By your standards they would be considered socialist.

 

There is a difference between businesses that need to be regulated and businesses that do not. Pharmaceutical companies have to be regulated for example.

 

Without the minimum wage people wouldn't make enough money to properly live and would not have much to return to companies and other services. It would make the lower class even larger, which is a terrible idea. Without safety regulations businesses would not have to worry about their workers well being. It is not very good for the economy to have working people injured because their company is focusing entirely on profit and not their well being.

 

What people tend to forget is that big business is very similar to big government. A huge portion of your adult life is spent in your workplace. What if you have a job with shitty safety policies and a job that refuses to pay you much? You can't exactly stop working, you won't make any money and you will be completely screwed.

 

To make this clear again, what are the exact regulations you are talking about? Is it just safety regulations and the minimum wage?

 

I didn't say no regulation, I was talking about over regulation. As for the minimum wage, higher wages lead to inflation so no one is any better off. You're talking as if we have a choice, we don't. We have to deal with the reality that faces us, that reality being we're broke and we can't compete globally. There are three ways out of this mess, the first is massive cuts, the second is economic growth, the third is a combination of the first two. Carrying on as we are on both sides of the Atlantic will lead to disaster.

[marharth]

 

By your standards they would be considered socialist.

 

There is a difference between businesses that need to be regulated and businesses that do not. Pharmaceutical companies have to be regulated for example.

 

Without the minimum wage people wouldn't make enough money to properly live and would not have much to return to companies and other services. It would make the lower class even larger, which is a terrible idea. Without safety regulations businesses would not have to worry about their workers well being. It is not very good for the economy to have working people injured because their company is focusing entirely on profit and not their well being.

 

What people tend to forget is that big business is very similar to big government. A huge portion of your adult life is spent in your workplace. What if you have a job with shitty safety policies and a job that refuses to pay you much? You can't exactly stop working, you won't make any money and you will be completely screwed.

 

To make this clear again, what are the exact regulations you are talking about? Is it just safety regulations and the minimum wage?

 

I didn't say no regulation, I was talking about over regulation. As for the minimum wage, higher wages lead to inflation so no one is any better off. You're talking as if we have a choice, we don't. We have to deal with the reality that faces us, that reality being we're broke and we can't compete globally. There are three ways out of this mess, the first is massive cuts, the second is economic growth, the third is a combination of the first two. Carrying on as we are on both sides of the Atlantic will lead to disaster.

Okay so what do you consider to be over regulated?

 

How do higher wages lead to inflation? The money is still in some place. It is better for the economy to give it to the middle class then to give it to the upper class.

 

As for cutting spending. If you have a empty wallet you have to fill it back up. As much as you stop spending money your wallet will still be empty.

 

How does the economy grow in corporations and the upper class make a ton of money, but the middle and lower class make less?

[JimboUK]

 

By your standards they would be considered socialist.

 

There is a difference between businesses that need to be regulated and businesses that do not. Pharmaceutical companies have to be regulated for example.

 

Without the minimum wage people wouldn't make enough money to properly live and would not have much to return to companies and other services. It would make the lower class even larger, which is a terrible idea. Without safety regulations businesses would not have to worry about their workers well being. It is not very good for the economy to have working people injured because their company is focusing entirely on profit and not their well being.

 

What people tend to forget is that big business is very similar to big government. A huge portion of your adult life is spent in your workplace. What if you have a job with shitty safety policies and a job that refuses to pay you much? You can't exactly stop working, you won't make any money and you will be completely screwed.

 

To make this clear again, what are the exact regulations you are talking about? Is it just safety regulations and the minimum wage?

 

I didn't say no regulation, I was talking about over regulation. As for the minimum wage, higher wages lead to inflation so no one is any better off. You're talking as if we have a choice, we don't. We have to deal with the reality that faces us, that reality being we're broke and we can't compete globally. There are three ways out of this mess, the first is massive cuts, the second is economic growth, the third is a combination of the first two. Carrying on as we are on both sides of the Atlantic will lead to disaster.

Okay so what do you consider to be over regulated?

 

How do higher wages lead to inflation? The money is still in some place. It is better for the economy to give it to the middle class then to give it to the upper class.

 

As for cutting spending. If you have a empty wallet you have to fill it back up. As much as you stop spending money your wallet will still be empty.

 

How does the economy grow in corporations and the upper class make a ton of money, but the middle and lower class make less?

 

A simple example is stores forced to pay higher wages will pass those additional costs onto their customers pushing prices up, that increase may well be on top of the price increase forced on their supplier by the wage demands of their employees, unless of course that supplier has moved his production overseas to keep costs down. What is better, a low paid job or no job at all? the minimum wage forces people to price themselves out of the job market.

 

I'm not sure what the wallet thing is about, an empty wallet is usually a sign of living beyond your means.

 

"How does the economy grow in corporations and the upper class make a ton of money, but the middle and lower class make less?"

 

Simple, it's called incentive, it's explained here...

 

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-socialism-failed/

 

There is no incentive to grow and succeed if there is no reward, to suggest otherwise ignores human nature.

[marharth]

A simple example is stores forced to pay higher wages will pass those additional costs onto their customers pushing prices up, that increase may well be on top of the price increase forced on their supplier by the wage demands of their employees, unless of course that supplier has moved his production overseas to keep costs down. What is better, a low paid job or no job at all? the minimum wage forces people to price themselves out of the job market.

 

I'm not sure what the wallet thing is about, an empty wallet is usually a sign of living beyond your means.

 

"How does the economy grow in corporations and the upper class make a ton of money, but the middle and lower class make less?"

 

Simple, it's called incentive, it's explained here...

 

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-socialism-failed/

 

There is no incentive to grow and succeed if there is no reward, to suggest otherwise ignores human nature.

The issue with that is that companies can afford to pay high wages and they can still make a profit with their current prices.

 

You are saying the only way to fix the country is through cutting spending. You can't fix the economy by cutting spending if you don't have any way of getting income.

 

You are saying the economy is better off if the upper class has a huge percentage of wealth? Why? What does that have to do with incentive?

 

How can the middle and lower class have reward if the majority of the wealth is with the upper class? It won't work out like that. That is simple math. You can't gain wealth if its in another place.

Edited December 29, 2011 by marharth

[JimboUK]

A simple example is stores forced to pay higher wages will pass those additional costs onto their customers pushing prices up, that increase may well be on top of the price increase forced on their supplier by the wage demands of their employees, unless of course that supplier has moved his production overseas to keep costs down. What is better, a low paid job or no job at all? the minimum wage forces people to price themselves out of the job market.

 

I'm not sure what the wallet thing is about, an empty wallet is usually a sign of living beyond your means.

 

"How does the economy grow in corporations and the upper class make a ton of money, but the middle and lower class make less?"

 

Simple, it's called incentive, it's explained here...

 

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-socialism-failed/

 

There is no incentive to grow and succeed if there is no reward, to suggest otherwise ignores human nature.

The issue with that is that companies can afford to pay high wages and they can still make a profit with their current prices.

 

You are saying the only way to fix the country is through cutting spending. You can't fix the economy by cutting spending if you don't have any way of getting income.

 

You are saying the economy is better off if the upper class has a huge percentage of wealth? Why? What does that have to do with incentive?

 

How can the middle and lower class have reward if the majority of the wealth is with the upper class? It won't work out like that. That is simple math. You can't gain wealth if its in another place.

 

They can but they'll make a lot less than their competitors, their competitors will have more to spend to invest on things like R&D and expansion. Also investors will get a better return on their money, those investors include pension funds and other investments made by ordinary working people. Anyway why shouldn't the wealth creators be rich? we all benefit from their endeavours, they did the work and took the risk, why shouldn't they benefit? Lets turn this around, what right do you or I have to the fruits of another mans labour? would you be willing to hand your money or property over to someone with less than you? there are plenty in this world who would love to have some of your stuff, if you wouldn't be willing to give your stuff away then why expect others to do so?

 

The middle and lower classes can work their way up, surely the opportunity to work your way up is preferable to the socialist system of keeping everyone down? they may not get the breaks but at least they have a chance, a chance that socialists deny people.

 

As for fixing the country, you cannot borrow your way out of debt, you either spend less or earn more, it's no different to the way people run their own finances. If a country keeps racking up debt sooner or later creditors are going to start to question the ability of that country to service its debt, it then that yields start to rise and the cost of the debt spirals until the country can't make its repayments and defaults. The likes of Greece, Ireland and Portugal are small enough to be rescued by other nations via the IMF and EU, the US is far too big to be rescued. Cuts and a lower standard of living isn't what anybody wants, however the alternative is far worse. Defaulting means having to balance the budget overnight, the scale of cuts that would involve are huge. The other problems that come with a default is the stuff of nightmares.