Kerry's Secret Iraq Plan

[wade]

what evidence? Please point to it. I would like to see it.

I've posted it numerous times. I'm sure I will do so again soon in the new Economics section.

But basically it has to do with the gross expansion of the debt, the massive increase in real unemployment (not the statistics games played by the politicians), and the wanton use of cheap foriegn credit and artificially low interest rates to stimulate unwise purchasing behavior and then refer to this as "growth".

 

[wade]

Bush has given tax incentives to companies to clean up their act and that is working better than mandates.

Oh? Point to one significant example please?

 

[Avatar4321]

Oh? Point to one significant example please?

Wouldnt you have to establish that government mandates work better first?

Personally i think its a matter of logic

Incentives are better than mandates because incentives give a company a way to profit from standards. Thus they benefit financially for higher standards why with mandates they have to spend increased amounts of money on them without any profit incentive.

I suggest you read the wealth of nations sometimes. I know you're a communist and all, but one of the reason marxism fails is because it doesnt address the concept of creating wealth. WoN does.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I've posted it numerous times. I'm sure I will do so again soon in the new Economics section.

But basically it has to do with the gross expansion of the debt, the massive increase in real unemployment (not the statistics games played by the politicians), and the wanton use of cheap foriegn credit and artificially low interest rates to stimulate unwise purchasing behavior and then refer to this as "growth".

Yes, wade. If only you could dictate to everyone what was wise and wise we would all be happier.

Get over your own ego, numbnuts. You're been reduced to sputtering absurdities so many times. Can't you get it through your head that you're just wrong?

Explain to us again about how since competition drives prices down (towards zero), that therefore the perfect capitalist system allows zero profit. That was funny as hell. Did you think of that before or after doing crack?

 

[manu1959]

i have been paying attention, you said mining coal not burning coal...

second there are companies which installed the scrubbers in PA that now do just fine.. they used bush tax cut money "money" to do so... your beloved 60 minutes did a profile on them earlier this year. they also showed companies in PA which went belly under clinton due to opressive clearn air bills and no way to pay for the scrubers

thus incentive worked mandates didn't

 

[wade]

Wouldnt you have to establish that government mandates work better first?

Personally i think its a matter of logic

Incentives are better than mandates because incentives give a company a way to profit from standards. Thus they benefit financially for higher standards why with mandates they have to spend increased amounts of money on them without any profit incentive.

I suggest you read the wealth of nations sometimes. I know you're a communist and all, but one of the reason marxism fails is because it doesnt address the concept of creating wealth. WoN does.

The problem is that the Bush admininstration has for the most part eliminated the incentives as well.

I have read Adam Smith, in great detail. The problem is that in Adam Smiths world, there really were very few external costs that were recognized.

And communism does not fail because it does not deal with the creation of wealth, it fails because it does not recognize basic human nature.

 

[wade]

i have been paying attention, you said mining coal not burning coal...

second there are companies which installed the scrubbers in PA that now do just fine.. they used bush tax cut money "money" to do so... your beloved 60 minutes did a profile on them earlier this year. they also showed companies in PA which went belly under clinton due to opressive clearn air bills and no way to pay for the scrubers

thus incentive worked mandates didn't

Grrrr, I was saying those mining the coal do not have to support the unclean burning of that coal. The idea that the worker has to, by definition, support wrong practices of the industry in which he works, is what I was debunking.

Look at the article at the top of this thread and its discussion of Bush's coal industry policies. Then use the info there to do your own searches on the topic, and then tell me the Bush policies are reducing mercury being pumped into the air! NOT!

 

[wade]

Yes, wade. If only you could dictate to everyone what was wise and wise we would all be happier.

Get over your own ego, numbnuts. You're been reduced to sputtering absurdities so many times. Can't you get it through your head that you're just wrong?

Explain to us again about how since competition drives prices down (towards zero), that therefore the perfect capitalist system allows zero profit. That was funny as hell. Did you think of that before or after doing crack?

Zero profit does not mean zero earnings. Companies are supposed to earn enough to pay their employees, pay dividends on their stock to compensate investors for risk and opportunity costs, and enough to cover improvments and some expansion.

You are misunderstanding what the word "profit" really means. Take a course or three in microeconomics and learn.

 

[eric]

But basically it has to do with the gross expansion of the debt, the massive increase in real unemployment (not the statistics games played by the politicians), and the wanton use of cheap foriegn credit and artificially low interest rates to stimulate unwise purchasing behavior and then refer to this as "growth".

Oh please Wade, give us a lesson in economics, I can't wait to see this!!

 

[freeandfun1]

Zero profit does not mean zero earnings. Companies are supposed to earn enough to pay their employees, pay dividends on their stock to compensate investors for risk and opportunity costs, and enough to cover improvments and some expansion.

You are misunderstanding what the word "profit" really means. Take a course or three in microeconomics and learn.

dividends come from profits. DOH!

 

[Avatar4321]

And communism does not fail because it does not deal with the creation of wealth, it fails because it does not recognize basic human nature.

I said not dealing with the creation of wealth is only one of the reasons communist fails. Basic human nature is the other.

 

[wade]

dividends come from profits. DOH!

That depends on how you define profits. Dividends are an expense companies pay for the use of capital, they are not really profit. They eat into a companies profit, and are legitimate as long as they reflect a reasonable return on investment as related to risk for the stockholders.

 

[musicman]

wade;

"One in 6 women in the USA today have mercury levels so high that they cannot give birth to healthy babies because of coal burning plants".





"And communism does not fail because it doesn't deal with the creation of wealth, it fails because it does not recognize basic human nature".

The creation of wealth is a function of basic human nature, wouldn't you say?

 

[CSM]

I hope you are correct and the economy will in fact recover, but all the real evidence is to the contrary.

My point is simply that if you are wrong, and the economy tanks and the war in Iraq stagnates, the Republicans will have to bear this fully - they cannot blame anyone else but themselves. And that will be the end of the Christo-fascist movement in the USA.

And if that crystal ball you are using proves to be totally wrong, then the Dems and libs will not be able to take any credit for the outcome.

 

[CSM]

wade;

"One in 6 women in the USA today have mercury levels so high that they cannot give birth to healthy babies because of coal burning plants".





"And communism does not fail because it doesn't deal with the creation of wealth, it fails because it does not recognize basic human nature".

The creation of wealth is a function of basic human nature, wouldn't you say?

So that means that 1 in six of every child born is unhealthy. I do not believe that. The US infant mortality rate is not that high nor are the other health indicators of children orn in the US.

 

[musicman]

So that means that 1 in six of every child born is unhealthy. I do not believe that. The US infant mortality rate is not that high nor are the other health indicators of children orn in the US.

Exactly. I love it when liberals make these grand, sweeping statements. One in six - my God! Speaking VERY conservatively, we'd be talking about 10 or 12 million women, unable to give birth to healthy babies, due to a specifically identifiable cause. Does this guy imagine that information like that would go unnoticed???!!!

 

[CSM]

Exactly. I love it when liberals make these grand, sweeping statements. One in six - my God! Speaking VERY conservatively, we'd be talking about 10 or 12 million women, unable to give birth to healthy babies, due to a specifically identifiable cause. Does this guy imagine that information like that would go unnoticed???!!!

When talking among themselves, such sweeping statements fly very well. Of course, when talking among themselves, facts have no bearing on the discussion. It is when they make such statements to others who have the ability and the motivation to check the facts that their arguments fall apart very swiftly.

 

[musicman]

When talking among themselves, such sweeping statements fly very well. Of course, when talking among themselves, facts have no bearing on the discussion. It is when they make such statements to others who have the ability and the motivation to check the facts that their arguments fall apart very swiftly.

If you're not busy, and would like a good chuckle this morning, check out the thread in this section titled, "DU has unlocked it's doors". There's a link there to the Democratic Underground site. The level of discourse in that little alternate universe is right along the lines of what you're saying - kind of funny, but kind of tragic, too.

 

[freeandfun1]

That depends on how you define profits. Dividends are an expense companies pay for the use of capital, they are not really profit. They eat into a companies profit, and are legitimate as long as they reflect a reasonable return on investment as related to risk for the stockholders.

Dividends are disbursements to shareholders based on a companies profits. A company CANNOT have a dividend if they have no profits. I am not sure where you get your definitions from.

Companies pay taxes on dividends, if you have no profit, you have no dividends. Period. If a company buys equipment, then there is NO dividend as there are NO profits. Take ECO101.

 

[freeandfun1]

That depends on how you define profits. Dividends are an expense companies pay for the use of capital, they are not really profit. They eat into a companies profit, and are legitimate as long as they reflect a reasonable return on investment as related to risk for the stockholders.

Dividends are disbursements to shareholders based on a company's profits. A company CANNOT have a dividend if they have no profits. I am not sure where you get your definitions from.

Companies pay taxes on dividends, if you have no profit, you have no dividends. Period. If a company buys equipment, then there is NO dividend as there are NO profits. Take ECO101.

div·i·dend ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dv-dnd)
n.

1. Mathematics. A quantity to be divided.
2.
1. A share of profits received by a stockholder or by a policyholder in a mutual insurance society.
2. A payment pro rata to a creditor of a person adjudged bankrupt.
3.
1. A share of a surplus; a bonus.
2. An unexpected gain, benefit, or advantage.

Dividend
1. A company's payment of profits to its stockholders. 2. A mutual fund's payment of profits to its shareholders. 3. A return of part of the premium on participating insurance to reflect the difference between the premium charged and the combination of ac