The future of capitalism

[Skylar]

In his announcement speech this week, Ben Carson addressed that head on with the suggestion of a tax holiday and let everybody bring their money home. It isn't doing any of us any good whatsoever parked overseas and wouldn't cost anybody a single dime by letting everybody bring their money home and put it to work here tax free.

That would be capitalism at its finest. And would make for a much more secure future for many. But how many on the left or right would agree with that?

I would absolutely agree with that as long as it came with the stipulation that business MUST reinvest in jobs for Americans. They are tens of millions of square footage of idle manufacturing plants in this country. Fire them back up and get this country working again. And this nonsense that companies CAN'T pay American workers a "decent" wage is bogus propaganda. These companies that have made out like bandits for the last 25-30 years can lower their profits by 3% and pay decent, living wages to their employees. The inherent problem? Unions. They would be like sharks in the water - and I understand that that is a principle reason for not bringing these companies back to America. Do something about these unions - and they WILL return.

I'm pretty sure they won't do it though with that kind of stipulation. In most cases, you cannot have both capitalism and government dictates. You have one or the other.

BUT. . . if Congress would get off their butts and start rolling back the most onerous and unnecessary regulations, create a fair and unoppressive tax system, and turn business loose to do what Americans do best, you can be assured they would put that money to work.

Honestly, it wouldn't be a "dictate" - but rather an "agreement". You know like the one we made with business when NAFTA came into being. And you are correct about regulations. Since taking over, Obama has increased (by nearly 200,000) the amount of regulations on business in this country. Business is most definitely being strangled out of existence in America.

I put '200,000 new regulations Obama' into a search engine and I find exactly dick. Is this another one of those 'phantom studies', like the one that said that new graduates have an 83% unemployment rate?

You know, one people keep 'quoting' but can never actually find?

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The future of capitalism


Capitalism is simply people doing business, making deals with each other, doing what they need to to attract customers and makes sales, without government intruding or inhibiting them.

In a word, capitalism is economic freedom.

The only role government plays in capitalism, is in enforcing contracts, prosecuting and punishing fraud and coercion, and arbitrating disputes.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I would absolutely agree with that as long as it came with the stipulation that business MUST reinvest in jobs for Americans. They are tens of millions of square footage of idle manufacturing plants in this country. Fire them back up and get this country working again. And this nonsense that companies CAN'T pay American workers a "decent" wage is bogus propaganda. These companies that have made out like bandits for the last 25-30 years can lower their profits by 3% and pay decent, living wages to their employees. The inherent problem? Unions. They would be like sharks in the water - and I understand that that is a principle reason for not bringing these companies back to America. Do something about these unions - and they WILL return.

I'm pretty sure they won't do it though with that kind of stipulation. In most cases, you cannot have both capitalism and government dictates. You have one or the other.

BUT. . . if Congress would get off their butts and start rolling back the most onerous and unnecessary regulations, create a fair and unoppressive tax system, and turn business loose to do what Americans do best, you can be assured they would put that money to work.

Honestly, it wouldn't be a "dictate" - but rather an "agreement". You know like the one we made with business when NAFTA came into being. And you are correct about regulations. Since taking over, Obama has increased (by nearly 200,000) the amount of regulations on business in this country. Business is most definitely being strangled out of existence in America.

I put '200,000 new regulations Obama' into a search engine and I find exactly dick. Is this another one of those 'phantom studies', like the one that said that new graduates have an 83% unemployment rate?

You know, one people keep 'quoting' but can never actually find?

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

Poor baby.....have to bring George Bush back into it, don't you? What the hell will you people do when Bush dies? Who the hell will you blame then? Granted, Bush was an idiot of the highest magnitude - but he was nowhere near the threat to this country that Obama is.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would absolutely agree with that as long as it came with the stipulation that business MUST reinvest in jobs for Americans. They are tens of millions of square footage of idle manufacturing plants in this country. Fire them back up and get this country working again. And this nonsense that companies CAN'T pay American workers a "decent" wage is bogus propaganda. These companies that have made out like bandits for the last 25-30 years can lower their profits by 3% and pay decent, living wages to their employees. The inherent problem? Unions. They would be like sharks in the water - and I understand that that is a principle reason for not bringing these companies back to America. Do something about these unions - and they WILL return.

I'm pretty sure they won't do it though with that kind of stipulation. In most cases, you cannot have both capitalism and government dictates. You have one or the other.

BUT. . . if Congress would get off their butts and start rolling back the most onerous and unnecessary regulations, create a fair and unoppressive tax system, and turn business loose to do what Americans do best, you can be assured they would put that money to work.

Honestly, it wouldn't be a "dictate" - but rather an "agreement". You know like the one we made with business when NAFTA came into being. And you are correct about regulations. Since taking over, Obama has increased (by nearly 200,000) the amount of regulations on business in this country. Business is most definitely being strangled out of existence in America.

I put '200,000 new regulations Obama' into a search engine and I find exactly dick. Is this another one of those 'phantom studies', like the one that said that new graduates have an 83% unemployment rate?

You know, one people keep 'quoting' but can never actually find?

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I'm pretty sure they won't do it though with that kind of stipulation. In most cases, you cannot have both capitalism and government dictates. You have one or the other.

BUT. . . if Congress would get off their butts and start rolling back the most onerous and unnecessary regulations, create a fair and unoppressive tax system, and turn business loose to do what Americans do best, you can be assured they would put that money to work.

Honestly, it wouldn't be a "dictate" - but rather an "agreement". You know like the one we made with business when NAFTA came into being. And you are correct about regulations. Since taking over, Obama has increased (by nearly 200,000) the amount of regulations on business in this country. Business is most definitely being strangled out of existence in America.

I put '200,000 new regulations Obama' into a search engine and I find exactly dick. Is this another one of those 'phantom studies', like the one that said that new graduates have an 83% unemployment rate?

You know, one people keep 'quoting' but can never actually find?

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

Indeed. And the point remains. I (personally) believe that Obama set out to strangle business. What other conclusion can one come to? The fact remains - business is refusing to do much of anything in America except collect profits. Not all business, of course, but most major manufactures are more than willing to remain off shore - some even moving their corporate headquarters to a more "business friendly" country. I don't question their patriotism - I question their motives.

 

[Foxfyre]

Honestly, it wouldn't be a "dictate" - but rather an "agreement". You know like the one we made with business when NAFTA came into being. And you are correct about regulations. Since taking over, Obama has increased (by nearly 200,000) the amount of regulations on business in this country. Business is most definitely being strangled out of existence in America.

I put '200,000 new regulations Obama' into a search engine and I find exactly dick. Is this another one of those 'phantom studies', like the one that said that new graduates have an 83% unemployment rate?

You know, one people keep 'quoting' but can never actually find?

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

Indeed. And the point remains. I (personally) believe that Obama set out to strangle business. What other conclusion can one come to? The fact remains - business is refusing to do much of anything in America except collect profits. Not all business, of course, but most major manufactures are more than willing to remain off shore - some even moving their corporate headquarters to a more "business friendly" country. I don't question their patriotism - I question their motives.

Question the motives of the businesses? Why? Why in the world would somebody want to do business with severely limited profits, limited ability to expand, limited ability to be innovative, and where he/she will be punished for success, if they can escape all that by doing business elsewhere? Why should such a motive even be questioned? It is what it is.

Do any of us volunteer our labor to our employer just because the employer wants it? No. The huge majority of us expect to be paid as agree for our labor, our skill sets, our work ethic, our ability to make profits for our employer.

Do any of us, as a matter of policy, hire people for no other reason than the person needs a job? I suspect many of us have done that once or twice just to help somebody out, but nobody can stay in business for long unless their labor force overall generates substantially more profits than what they cost us in business expense.

The profit motive is the ONLY reason to engage in commerce and industry at all whether it is a barter system to get what we want and need or monetary profits so that we can buy what we want and need.

"Silly greedy talk" as Walter Williams once put it, is the idea that business is greedy if their activities are strictly self serving and not altruistic. But as Adam Smith famously said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

It is all of us going about our daily lives and doing what we need to do to put dinner on our table, and in so doing we help everybody else put dinner on their own table, that is what capitalism is. What makes it work. What makes it the system that generates the most prosperity for the most people and provides opportunity for just about everybody. It is the best 'welfare' system in the world.

 

[Skylar]

I'm pretty sure they won't do it though with that kind of stipulation. In most cases, you cannot have both capitalism and government dictates. You have one or the other.

BUT. . . if Congress would get off their butts and start rolling back the most onerous and unnecessary regulations, create a fair and unoppressive tax system, and turn business loose to do what Americans do best, you can be assured they would put that money to work.

Honestly, it wouldn't be a "dictate" - but rather an "agreement". You know like the one we made with business when NAFTA came into being. And you are correct about regulations. Since taking over, Obama has increased (by nearly 200,000) the amount of regulations on business in this country. Business is most definitely being strangled out of existence in America.

I put '200,000 new regulations Obama' into a search engine and I find exactly dick. Is this another one of those 'phantom studies', like the one that said that new graduates have an 83% unemployment rate?

You know, one people keep 'quoting' but can never actually find?

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

But who says that regulations are 'crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules'? You're assuming your foundational claim, with the evidence cited to support it being off by an order of magnitude.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I put '200,000 new regulations Obama' into a search engine and I find exactly dick. Is this another one of those 'phantom studies', like the one that said that new graduates have an 83% unemployment rate?

You know, one people keep 'quoting' but can never actually find?

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

Indeed. And the point remains. I (personally) believe that Obama set out to strangle business. What other conclusion can one come to? The fact remains - business is refusing to do much of anything in America except collect profits. Not all business, of course, but most major manufactures are more than willing to remain off shore - some even moving their corporate headquarters to a more "business friendly" country. I don't question their patriotism - I question their motives.

Question the motives of the businesses? Why? Why in the world would somebody want to do business with severely limited profits, limited ability to expand, limited ability to be innovative, and where he/she will be punished for success, if they can escape all that by doing business elsewhere? Why should such a motive even be questioned? It is what it is.

Do any of us volunteer our labor to our employer just because the employer wants it? No. The huge majority of us expect to be paid as agree for our labor, our skill sets, our work ethic, our ability to make profits for our employer.

Do any of us, as a matter of policy, hire people for no other reason than the person needs a job? I suspect many of us have done that once or twice just to help somebody out, but nobody can stay in business for long unless their labor force overall generates substantially more profits than what they cost us in business expense.

The profit motive is the ONLY reason to engage in commerce and industry at all whether it is a barter system to get what we want and need or monetary profits so that we can buy what we want and need.

"Silly greedy talk" as Walter Williams once put it, is the idea that business is greedy if their activities are strictly self serving and not altruistic. But as Adam Smith famously said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

It is all of us going about our daily lives and doing what we need to do to put dinner on our table, and in so doing we help everybody else put dinner on their own table, that is what capitalism is. What makes it work. What makes it the system that generates the most prosperity for the most people and provides opportunity for just about everybody. It is the best 'welfare' system in the world.

Well, obviously this is where you and I disagree. Indeed, I question their motives. Nearly ALL of the companies who have moved their operations offshore have done so for profit - with no concern whatsoever - about their own country. I am absolutely in favor of profit. I am a staunch capitalist, always have been. But my country trumps profit - much as it did during World War II. Business didn't have to drop what they were doing and help the war effort, did they? Yet they did. American citizens didn't have to engage in voluntary rationing, but they did it. Business was more than willing to re-tool factories to help the war effort - profit be damned. And, when the war was over - we went crazy with building, buying, selling and moving up. And we never looked back.

This country, if not worse off that it was in that war, is nearly as bad. The major difference that I see now? A generation coming up that is without hope. To me, that is the most destructive thing this country could be facing. Sure, the operative word nowadays is "adapt". Sorry, but not everyone in the country can be an IT Engineer or a CEO. Doesn't work that way.

 

[Skylar]

Honestly, it wouldn't be a "dictate" - but rather an "agreement". You know like the one we made with business when NAFTA came into being. And you are correct about regulations. Since taking over, Obama has increased (by nearly 200,000) the amount of regulations on business in this country. Business is most definitely being strangled out of existence in America.

I put '200,000 new regulations Obama' into a search engine and I find exactly dick. Is this another one of those 'phantom studies', like the one that said that new graduates have an 83% unemployment rate?

You know, one people keep 'quoting' but can never actually find?

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

Indeed. And the point remains. I (personally) believe that Obama set out to strangle business. What other conclusion can one come to?

The only possible conclusion you can draw from a meager 5% increase in the pace of regulation is that Obama set out to 'strangle business'?

Wow. I don't know what to say to that. The elaborate series of nested assumptions that must go into such a conclusion is rather......fantastical. Lets start at something simple: What purpose would be served in strangling business?

 

[Foxfyre]

Honestly, it wouldn't be a "dictate" - but rather an "agreement". You know like the one we made with business when NAFTA came into being. And you are correct about regulations. Since taking over, Obama has increased (by nearly 200,000) the amount of regulations on business in this country. Business is most definitely being strangled out of existence in America.

I put '200,000 new regulations Obama' into a search engine and I find exactly dick. Is this another one of those 'phantom studies', like the one that said that new graduates have an 83% unemployment rate?

You know, one people keep 'quoting' but can never actually find?

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

But who says that regulations are 'crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules'? You're assuming your foundational claim, with the evidence cited to support it being off by an order of magnitude.

Well as a former business owner I say it. And anybody who objectively reads the arguments, testimonies, and research done on the subject say it. But I tell you what. Why don't you read the 51 plus volumes containing the U.S. code (laws passed by Congress), all the case law resulting from the laws in those 51 plus volumes, and the however many volumes of rules and regulations have been published every year for many many decades by the various divisions of government, and decide for yourself?

Just think of the 1000 plus pages that make up Obamacare that Congress passed alone. That is ONE LAW with so many different components the legal eagles still haven't figured it all out. And the myriad parts of government, some new and some old, given authority to implement Obamacare are writing many thousands of new rules and regulations to implement the law. As of September 2013:

These regulations add up to 10,516 pages in the Federal Register—or more than eight times as many pages as there are in the Gutenberg Bible, which has 642 two-sided leaves or 1,286 pages.​

Obamacare Regulations Are 8 Times Longer Than Bible

And from what I've read they haven't slowed down on writing those rules and regulations since then either. And that is one law.

 

[Skylar]

I put '200,000 new regulations Obama' into a search engine and I find exactly dick. Is this another one of those 'phantom studies', like the one that said that new graduates have an 83% unemployment rate?

You know, one people keep 'quoting' but can never actually find?

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

But who says that regulations are 'crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules'? You're assuming your foundational claim, with the evidence cited to support it being off by an order of magnitude.

Well as a former business owner I say it. And anybody who objectively reads the arguments, testimonies, and research done into the subject say it. But I tell you what. Why don't you read the 51 plus volumes containing the U.S. code (laws passed by Congress), all the case law resulting from the laws in those 51 plus volumes, and the however many volumes of regulations have been published every year for many many decades by the various divisions of government, and decide for yourself?

And as a business owner who is being crushed out of existence by regulation.....how do you explain record employment, the largest economy in US history, and an expanding manufacturing sector?

I don't think 'crushed' means what you think it means. As objectively, our economy is growing. And commerce is everywhere.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

But who says that regulations are 'crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules'? You're assuming your foundational claim, with the evidence cited to support it being off by an order of magnitude.

Well as a former business owner I say it. And anybody who objectively reads the arguments, testimonies, and research done into the subject say it. But I tell you what. Why don't you read the 51 plus volumes containing the U.S. code (laws passed by Congress), all the case law resulting from the laws in those 51 plus volumes, and the however many volumes of regulations have been published every year for many many decades by the various divisions of government, and decide for yourself?

And as a business owner who is being crushed out of existence by regulation.....how do you explain record employment, the largest economy in US history, and an expanding manufacturing sector?

I don't think 'crushed' means what you think it means. As objectively, our economy is growing. And commerce is everywhere.

Perhaps, as intelligent as you are, you can educate me with this: Why is it, that every time we hear that (for example) unemployment is at 5.6 percent, we hear in the next sentence that the "real" unemployment rate is (example) 12.9 percent? Why is it, that if this economy is growing at such a glorious rate - is the growth rate so slow? Why is it, if everyone is so rosy, that the (example - don't want to confuse you) president announced that "full-time" work is 30 hours?

Just curious.....

 

[Foxfyre]

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

Indeed. And the point remains. I (personally) believe that Obama set out to strangle business. What other conclusion can one come to? The fact remains - business is refusing to do much of anything in America except collect profits. Not all business, of course, but most major manufactures are more than willing to remain off shore - some even moving their corporate headquarters to a more "business friendly" country. I don't question their patriotism - I question their motives.

Question the motives of the businesses? Why? Why in the world would somebody want to do business with severely limited profits, limited ability to expand, limited ability to be innovative, and where he/she will be punished for success, if they can escape all that by doing business elsewhere? Why should such a motive even be questioned? It is what it is.

Do any of us volunteer our labor to our employer just because the employer wants it? No. The huge majority of us expect to be paid as agree for our labor, our skill sets, our work ethic, our ability to make profits for our employer.

Do any of us, as a matter of policy, hire people for no other reason than the person needs a job? I suspect many of us have done that once or twice just to help somebody out, but nobody can stay in business for long unless their labor force overall generates substantially more profits than what they cost us in business expense.

The profit motive is the ONLY reason to engage in commerce and industry at all whether it is a barter system to get what we want and need or monetary profits so that we can buy what we want and need.

"Silly greedy talk" as Walter Williams once put it, is the idea that business is greedy if their activities are strictly self serving and not altruistic. But as Adam Smith famously said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

It is all of us going about our daily lives and doing what we need to do to put dinner on our table, and in so doing we help everybody else put dinner on their own table, that is what capitalism is. What makes it work. What makes it the system that generates the most prosperity for the most people and provides opportunity for just about everybody. It is the best 'welfare' system in the world.

Well, obviously this is where you and I disagree. Indeed, I question their motives. Nearly ALL of the companies who have moved their operations offshore have done so for profit - with no concern whatsoever - about their own country. I am absolutely in favor of profit. I am a staunch capitalist, always have been. But my country trumps profit - much as it did during World War II. Business didn't have to drop what they were doing and help the war effort, did they? Yet they did. American citizens didn't have to engage in voluntary rationing, but they did it. Business was more than willing to re-tool factories to help the war effort - profit be damned. And, when the war was over - we went crazy with building, buying, selling and moving up. And we never looked back.

This country, if not worse off that it was in that war, is nearly as bad. The major difference that I see now? A generation coming up that is without hope. To me, that is the most destructive thing this country could be facing. Sure, the operative word nowadays is "adapt". Sorry, but not everyone in the country can be an IT Engineer or a CEO. Doesn't work that way.

Well, if you equate patriotism with taking fewer profits due to a government who does its damndest to limit those profits and/or take whatever it wants from you on the theory it will spend your money more wisely and effectively than you will, then of course you will continue to do business here as a noble thing.

I am a capitalist. I give more than a tithe of my time, energy, and resources to help others but I insist on doing that voluntarily, and I insist that I am entitled, Biblically, ethically, morally, and realistically, to the fruits of my own labor.

I was in a service business that could not do business by operating elsewhere. But if I had been in manufacturing with the oppressive, self-serving, anti-business, authoritarian government that we have now? Given ability to take it elsewhere, I would have done so in a heartbeat. I see no reason to not look to my own interests that gives me much opportunity to help others. I see no reason to diminish my own opportunities and interests in a system that is hurting far more people than it helps.

 

[Skylar]

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

But who says that regulations are 'crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules'? You're assuming your foundational claim, with the evidence cited to support it being off by an order of magnitude.

Well as a former business owner I say it. And anybody who objectively reads the arguments, testimonies, and research done into the subject say it. But I tell you what. Why don't you read the 51 plus volumes containing the U.S. code (laws passed by Congress), all the case law resulting from the laws in those 51 plus volumes, and the however many volumes of regulations have been published every year for many many decades by the various divisions of government, and decide for yourself?

And as a business owner who is being crushed out of existence by regulation.....how do you explain record employment, the largest economy in US history, and an expanding manufacturing sector?

I don't think 'crushed' means what you think it means. As objectively, our economy is growing. And commerce is everywhere.

Perhaps, as intelligent as you are, you can educate me with this: Why is it, that every time we hear that (for example) unemployment is at 5.6 percent, we hear in the next sentence that the "real" unemployment rate is (example) 12.9 percent?

The metrics of unemployment being used now are the same being used under Bush. We're comparing apples to apples. U-3 in both cases.

If you use U-3 under Bush, but U-6 under Obama, you're not going to get comparable numbers.For example, when you cite employment numbers under Bush, have you ever cited a number under 8%? If yes, then you're not using U-6. Which would be *wildly* inconsistent and intellectually dishonest if those are the stats you're using for Obama.

As for Obama's record, U-6 is at about 11%. Down from 14% when he took office. Using U-3, the official metric, it was 7.7 when he took office. And 5.5% now.

And when I say 'record employment', I'm speaking of total non-farm payroll. We're employing more folks now than we have in the history of our nation. Which is odd if business is being 'crushed'.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here...Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

My 200,000 was a typo. 20,000 Gee, someone as (obviously) intelligent as you should have had no trouble whatsoever finding it....

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

But who says that regulations are 'crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules'? You're assuming your foundational claim, with the evidence cited to support it being off by an order of magnitude.

Well as a former business owner I say it. And anybody who objectively reads the arguments, testimonies, and research done into the subject say it. But I tell you what. Why don't you read the 51 plus volumes containing the U.S. code (laws passed by Congress), all the case law resulting from the laws in those 51 plus volumes, and the however many volumes of regulations have been published every year for many many decades by the various divisions of government, and decide for yourself?

And as a business owner who is being crushed out of existence by regulation.....how do you explain record employment, the largest economy in US history, and an expanding manufacturing sector?

I don't think 'crushed' means what you think it means. As objectively, our economy is growing. And commerce is everywhere.

We have more able bodied workers out of the work force than has existed since the Carter Administration. Labor force participation was 67.2% in early April this year--that means that 1/3rd of Americans who should be or otherwise would be working are not working. The only reason unemployment is so low is because they are no longer eligible for unemployment benefits and have given up looking for work. We now have a national debt that exceeds our GDP. I closed my business because I was in a position to retire, others needed the work to feed their families, and because of the Obama business climate, there was no longer enough work to go around for everybody. (I would have gotten the lion's share of what business there was but it would have still been less than all of us were making before, and it just wasn't enough to justify the hassle and expense of running the business.)

We have more people underemployed than I have seen in my lifetime. And that is a direct result of Obamacare. Household incomes are down. In this dismal economic climate, most businesses are unwilling to risk their capital to expand much, if at all, and there are precious few new business start ups these days.

Some are prospering for sure, most especially those who benefit from government. But it is at the expense of the rest of us.

 

[boilermaker55]

Quitting a job isn't something most people do lightly. Employers have to give them a really good reason -- or several.
The top three factors cited by workers in Europe, Asia and North America are minimal wage growth, a lack of advancement opportunities and excessive overtime.
Also on the list: Companies or departments that don't encourage teamwork (71%); bosses who don't give employees some flexibility in when and where they work, such as telecommuting (65%); and offices where there's a sense that you'll be penalized if you opt for a flexible work schedule (67%).

Call it "flexibility stigma" -- meaning that your company may offer flexible work policies on the books, but everyone fears actually using them will work against them. For instance, they worry they could be penalized by being passed over for promotion, not getting a raise or worse.

Other leading factors that workers say would cause them to say "Sayonara, boss": Too much overnight business travel (62%).

And more than half also said they would leave a job if there was very limited access to mentors, and when there are too few senior managers who are juggling busy family lives -- e.g., those who have kids or those who have kids and a spouse who also works.

Something has been bothering me lately and has challenged my base political beliefs is capitalism's ability to deal with the long term future as a valid economic system for us to follow. For those of you that do not know me I am an avid advocate for both free market capitalism in as pure a sense as we can reasonably attain and libertarian ideals. I do not believe government interference leads to desirable outcomes in most situations. There is a very long term problem that I face with this belief structure though.

The reality that we face today is that more and more sectors are being automated. Workers in these fields are becoming more and more productive as a result. This is, at its base, a very good thing as we are getting more out of our work we will have to do less of it. Hundreds of years ago work would have consumed virtually 100 percent of peoples time. Better tools, automation and increased productivity have allowed us a great deal of freedom in our lives where we are able to work far less and even have almost 40% of our population not working at all. This is a good thing.

The actual value of labor becomes a problem when you have so much productivity though. Increased productivity does not necessarily increase the value of labor even though that labor produces more goods. The increased productivity might do so IF you are not increasing the labor pool. As labor is a commodity like any other, steeply decreasing the number of jobs will devalue even skilled labor as everyone is pushed into those few remaining jobs. I think this is somewhat reflected in today's society as we see so many young people with degrees making very little - literally everyone needs a degree these day simply because there are so many people looking for those few jobs.


I think that we are coming to a tipping point though where labor is going to become so rare that a capitalist system can no longer be reasonably sustained. Automation has been occurring for a long time and it really has not been that big of an issue because there were always other areas that people could move into - more high tech jobs or entirely new industries created from such automation. That was all fine and well as long as the automated machines were simple and narrow. If you go to an assembly line where cars are manufactured you will see many machines that replaced many workers. Those machines, however, are a FAR cry from actual human labor. They are repetitive and can only do a single task though they do it well. There is no intelligence there.

Today, the automation is completely different. Machines are no longer simple minded or extremely narrow. Cars are already capable of being completely controlled by computers - the entire transportation industry essentially no longer needs people to move product. As soon as society catches up, you are going to see thousands of jobs gone from the transportation industry. Such vehicles do not sleep, require medical care breaks or 401K's and (most importantly) do not get in accidents. They are FAR cheaper and they are poised to replace the largest employment sector in the nation right now. Even pilots are essentially passengers on automated aircraft these days. Aircraft take off, fly to their destination and land without a single command from the pilot. And as a side bonus, they never crash into the side of a mountain when they get depressed.


So far these machines have been fairly narrow machines but the truth is that machines are even getting into skilled professional jobs like writing or doctors or even creative endeavors like composing music. They are expanding into those specialized sectors as well eliminating need for highly skilled labors as well. In the video below it talks about WATSON - a diagnosis machines that is superior to a doctor for basic diagnosis.

I think that it is a given that machines are going to take a huge chunk out of modern employment. The question that we face is how to deal with a population that is largely unemployed simply because there is little to no need for those jobs to exist. This is a given - we see it happening all around us. Can capitalism cope with the future or are we going to need to come up with something different?

The right seems married to capitalism to the point that there can be no other solution or economic method to follow. I think that it is folly to assume that such must be the case forever - eventually change will occur as it must. The left seems stuck in 'solutions' that do nothing but perpetuate a broken system. Infrastructure cannot employ the nation and raising minimum wage does nothing to address the fact that jobs will disappear. Even safety nets are rather misguided as the value of money adjusts to the number of pieces of paper that you force into everyone's pockets. Personally I think there might very well be a new economic system that is unlike anything that we have used thus far to replace the current system when that time comes.


I may have not articulated myself well here (and a lot of posters are going to trash this without even reading it) but I would like to hear some of your thoughts on what the future might hold and what you think it might take to get there.



I am particularly interested in
dblack Foxfyre
opinions here. Am I completely off base?

 

[Skylar]

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

Indeed. And the point remains. I (personally) believe that Obama set out to strangle business. What other conclusion can one come to? The fact remains - business is refusing to do much of anything in America except collect profits. Not all business, of course, but most major manufactures are more than willing to remain off shore - some even moving their corporate headquarters to a more "business friendly" country. I don't question their patriotism - I question their motives.

Question the motives of the businesses? Why? Why in the world would somebody want to do business with severely limited profits, limited ability to expand, limited ability to be innovative, and where he/she will be punished for success, if they can escape all that by doing business elsewhere? Why should such a motive even be questioned? It is what it is.

Do any of us volunteer our labor to our employer just because the employer wants it? No. The huge majority of us expect to be paid as agree for our labor, our skill sets, our work ethic, our ability to make profits for our employer.

Do any of us, as a matter of policy, hire people for no other reason than the person needs a job? I suspect many of us have done that once or twice just to help somebody out, but nobody can stay in business for long unless their labor force overall generates substantially more profits than what they cost us in business expense.

The profit motive is the ONLY reason to engage in commerce and industry at all whether it is a barter system to get what we want and need or monetary profits so that we can buy what we want and need.

"Silly greedy talk" as Walter Williams once put it, is the idea that business is greedy if their activities are strictly self serving and not altruistic. But as Adam Smith famously said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

It is all of us going about our daily lives and doing what we need to do to put dinner on our table, and in so doing we help everybody else put dinner on their own table, that is what capitalism is. What makes it work. What makes it the system that generates the most prosperity for the most people and provides opportunity for just about everybody. It is the best 'welfare' system in the world.

Well, obviously this is where you and I disagree. Indeed, I question their motives. Nearly ALL of the companies who have moved their operations offshore have done so for profit - with no concern whatsoever - about their own country. I am absolutely in favor of profit. I am a staunch capitalist, always have been. But my country trumps profit - much as it did during World War II. Business didn't have to drop what they were doing and help the war effort, did they? Yet they did. American citizens didn't have to engage in voluntary rationing, but they did it. Business was more than willing to re-tool factories to help the war effort - profit be damned. And, when the war was over - we went crazy with building, buying, selling and moving up. And we never looked back.

This country, if not worse off that it was in that war, is nearly as bad. The major difference that I see now? A generation coming up that is without hope. To me, that is the most destructive thing this country could be facing. Sure, the operative word nowadays is "adapt". Sorry, but not everyone in the country can be an IT Engineer or a CEO. Doesn't work that way.

Well, if you equate patriotism with taking fewer profits due to a government who does its damndest to limit those profits and/or take whatever it wants from you on the theory it will spend your money more wisely and effectively than you will, then of course you will continue to do business here as a noble thing.

So business is less profitable....due to patriotism? Is this one of those 'I'm a business owner, so trust me' scenarios? Or can you actually back up your claims with objective evidence?

Because so far this is sounding shockingly subjective and emotion based.

I was in a service business that could not do business by operating elsewhere. But if I had been in manufacturing with the oppressive, self-serving, anti-business, authoritarian government that we have now?

You do realize that our manufacturing sector is expanding, right? And that we have the largest manufacturing output on this planet...by a fairly large margin?

More than China. More than Japan. More than the entire EU. More than China, Germany and France *combined*?

May I suggest that you grossly overstating your case.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

Indeed. And the point remains. I (personally) believe that Obama set out to strangle business. What other conclusion can one come to? The fact remains - business is refusing to do much of anything in America except collect profits. Not all business, of course, but most major manufactures are more than willing to remain off shore - some even moving their corporate headquarters to a more "business friendly" country. I don't question their patriotism - I question their motives.

Question the motives of the businesses? Why? Why in the world would somebody want to do business with severely limited profits, limited ability to expand, limited ability to be innovative, and where he/she will be punished for success, if they can escape all that by doing business elsewhere? Why should such a motive even be questioned? It is what it is.

Do any of us volunteer our labor to our employer just because the employer wants it? No. The huge majority of us expect to be paid as agree for our labor, our skill sets, our work ethic, our ability to make profits for our employer.

Do any of us, as a matter of policy, hire people for no other reason than the person needs a job? I suspect many of us have done that once or twice just to help somebody out, but nobody can stay in business for long unless their labor force overall generates substantially more profits than what they cost us in business expense.

The profit motive is the ONLY reason to engage in commerce and industry at all whether it is a barter system to get what we want and need or monetary profits so that we can buy what we want and need.

"Silly greedy talk" as Walter Williams once put it, is the idea that business is greedy if their activities are strictly self serving and not altruistic. But as Adam Smith famously said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

It is all of us going about our daily lives and doing what we need to do to put dinner on our table, and in so doing we help everybody else put dinner on their own table, that is what capitalism is. What makes it work. What makes it the system that generates the most prosperity for the most people and provides opportunity for just about everybody. It is the best 'welfare' system in the world.

Well, obviously this is where you and I disagree. Indeed, I question their motives. Nearly ALL of the companies who have moved their operations offshore have done so for profit - with no concern whatsoever - about their own country. I am absolutely in favor of profit. I am a staunch capitalist, always have been. But my country trumps profit - much as it did during World War II. Business didn't have to drop what they were doing and help the war effort, did they? Yet they did. American citizens didn't have to engage in voluntary rationing, but they did it. Business was more than willing to re-tool factories to help the war effort - profit be damned. And, when the war was over - we went crazy with building, buying, selling and moving up. And we never looked back.

This country, if not worse off that it was in that war, is nearly as bad. The major difference that I see now? A generation coming up that is without hope. To me, that is the most destructive thing this country could be facing. Sure, the operative word nowadays is "adapt". Sorry, but not everyone in the country can be an IT Engineer or a CEO. Doesn't work that way.

Well, if you equate patriotism with taking fewer profits due to a government who does its damndest to limit those profits and/or take whatever it wants from you on the theory it will spend your money more wisely and effectively than you will, then of course you will continue to do business here as a noble thing.

So business is less profitable....due to patriotism? Is this one of those 'I'm a business owner, so trust me' scenarios? Or can you actually back up your claims with objective evidence?

Because so far this is sounding shockingly subjective and emotion based.

I was in a service business that could not do business by operating elsewhere. But if I had been in manufacturing with the oppressive, self-serving, anti-business, authoritarian government that we have now?

You do realize that our manufacturing sector is expanding, right? And that we have the largest manufacturing output on this planet...by a fairly large margin?

More than China. More than Japan. More than the entire EU. More than China, Germany and France *combined*?

May I suggest that you grossly overstating your case.

Sounds like a typical leftist. Were it not for business during World War II - we would all be speaking German now. We won because we out manufactured the Axis powers. Damn - I thought you were intelligent?

 

[RandallFlagg]

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

Indeed. And the point remains. I (personally) believe that Obama set out to strangle business. What other conclusion can one come to? The fact remains - business is refusing to do much of anything in America except collect profits. Not all business, of course, but most major manufactures are more than willing to remain off shore - some even moving their corporate headquarters to a more "business friendly" country. I don't question their patriotism - I question their motives.

Question the motives of the businesses? Why? Why in the world would somebody want to do business with severely limited profits, limited ability to expand, limited ability to be innovative, and where he/she will be punished for success, if they can escape all that by doing business elsewhere? Why should such a motive even be questioned? It is what it is.

Do any of us volunteer our labor to our employer just because the employer wants it? No. The huge majority of us expect to be paid as agree for our labor, our skill sets, our work ethic, our ability to make profits for our employer.

Do any of us, as a matter of policy, hire people for no other reason than the person needs a job? I suspect many of us have done that once or twice just to help somebody out, but nobody can stay in business for long unless their labor force overall generates substantially more profits than what they cost us in business expense.

The profit motive is the ONLY reason to engage in commerce and industry at all whether it is a barter system to get what we want and need or monetary profits so that we can buy what we want and need.

"Silly greedy talk" as Walter Williams once put it, is the idea that business is greedy if their activities are strictly self serving and not altruistic. But as Adam Smith famously said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

It is all of us going about our daily lives and doing what we need to do to put dinner on our table, and in so doing we help everybody else put dinner on their own table, that is what capitalism is. What makes it work. What makes it the system that generates the most prosperity for the most people and provides opportunity for just about everybody. It is the best 'welfare' system in the world.

Well, obviously this is where you and I disagree. Indeed, I question their motives. Nearly ALL of the companies who have moved their operations offshore have done so for profit - with no concern whatsoever - about their own country. I am absolutely in favor of profit. I am a staunch capitalist, always have been. But my country trumps profit - much as it did during World War II. Business didn't have to drop what they were doing and help the war effort, did they? Yet they did. American citizens didn't have to engage in voluntary rationing, but they did it. Business was more than willing to re-tool factories to help the war effort - profit be damned. And, when the war was over - we went crazy with building, buying, selling and moving up. And we never looked back.

This country, if not worse off that it was in that war, is nearly as bad. The major difference that I see now? A generation coming up that is without hope. To me, that is the most destructive thing this country could be facing. Sure, the operative word nowadays is "adapt". Sorry, but not everyone in the country can be an IT Engineer or a CEO. Doesn't work that way.

Well, if you equate patriotism with taking fewer profits due to a government who does its damndest to limit those profits and/or take whatever it wants from you on the theory it will spend your money more wisely and effectively than you will, then of course you will continue to do business here as a noble thing.

So business is less profitable....due to patriotism? Is this one of those 'I'm a business owner, so trust me' scenarios? Or can you actually back up your claims with objective evidence?

Because so far this is sounding shockingly subjective and emotion based.

I was in a service business that could not do business by operating elsewhere. But if I had been in manufacturing with the oppressive, self-serving, anti-business, authoritarian government that we have now?

You do realize that our manufacturing sector is expanding, right? And that we have the largest manufacturing output on this planet...by a fairly large margin?

More than China. More than Japan. More than the entire EU. More than China, Germany and France *combined*?

May I suggest that you grossly overstating your case.

Okay...prove it. * here come the links from MSNBC......

 

[RandallFlagg]

When your numbers are off by an order of magnitude? Someone as intelligent as me would call bullshit and demand sources. Which I did.

And even after correcting for your 'typo', your numbers are way, way off:

That's 13,000. Not 20,000. You're off by about a third.

And its a meager increase of 5% over Bush's pace. With some of the regulations credited to Obama quite possibly late term Bush era changes.

I suspect the Hill could be off a bit too, but even if they aren't, what is the issue here? Whether somebody writing extemporaneously didn't get the numbers exactly right? Or whether the numbers, whatever they are, are crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all? And one law or regulation can contain hundreds of pages of rules to comply with it, so the actual number isn't as important as the actual effect.

Indeed. And the point remains. I (personally) believe that Obama set out to strangle business. What other conclusion can one come to? The fact remains - business is refusing to do much of anything in America except collect profits. Not all business, of course, but most major manufactures are more than willing to remain off shore - some even moving their corporate headquarters to a more "business friendly" country. I don't question their patriotism - I question their motives.

Question the motives of the businesses? Why? Why in the world would somebody want to do business with severely limited profits, limited ability to expand, limited ability to be innovative, and where he/she will be punished for success, if they can escape all that by doing business elsewhere? Why should such a motive even be questioned? It is what it is.

Do any of us volunteer our labor to our employer just because the employer wants it? No. The huge majority of us expect to be paid as agree for our labor, our skill sets, our work ethic, our ability to make profits for our employer.

Do any of us, as a matter of policy, hire people for no other reason than the person needs a job? I suspect many of us have done that once or twice just to help somebody out, but nobody can stay in business for long unless their labor force overall generates substantially more profits than what they cost us in business expense.

The profit motive is the ONLY reason to engage in commerce and industry at all whether it is a barter system to get what we want and need or monetary profits so that we can buy what we want and need.

"Silly greedy talk" as Walter Williams once put it, is the idea that business is greedy if their activities are strictly self serving and not altruistic. But as Adam Smith famously said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

It is all of us going about our daily lives and doing what we need to do to put dinner on our table, and in so doing we help everybody else put dinner on their own table, that is what capitalism is. What makes it work. What makes it the system that generates the most prosperity for the most people and provides opportunity for just about everybody. It is the best 'welfare' system in the world.

Well, obviously this is where you and I disagree. Indeed, I question their motives. Nearly ALL of the companies who have moved their operations offshore have done so for profit - with no concern whatsoever - about their own country. I am absolutely in favor of profit. I am a staunch capitalist, always have been. But my country trumps profit - much as it did during World War II. Business didn't have to drop what they were doing and help the war effort, did they? Yet they did. American citizens didn't have to engage in voluntary rationing, but they did it. Business was more than willing to re-tool factories to help the war effort - profit be damned. And, when the war was over - we went crazy with building, buying, selling and moving up. And we never looked back.

This country, if not worse off that it was in that war, is nearly as bad. The major difference that I see now? A generation coming up that is without hope. To me, that is the most destructive thing this country could be facing. Sure, the operative word nowadays is "adapt". Sorry, but not everyone in the country can be an IT Engineer or a CEO. Doesn't work that way.

Well, if you equate patriotism with taking fewer profits due to a government who does its damndest to limit those profits and/or take whatever it wants from you on the theory it will spend your money more wisely and effectively than you will, then of course you will continue to do business here as a noble thing.

I am a capitalist. I give more than a tithe of my time, energy, and resources to help others but I insist on doing that voluntarily, and I insist that I am entitled, Biblically, ethically, morally, and realistically, to the fruits of my own labor.

I was in a service business that could not do business by operating elsewhere. But if I had been in manufacturing with the oppressive, self-serving, anti-business, authoritarian government that we have now? Given ability to take it elsewhere, I would have done so in a heartbeat. I see no reason to not look to my own interests that gives me much opportunity to help others. I see no reason to diminish my own opportunities and interests in a system that is hurting far more people than it helps.

I equate patriotism with patriotism. It must be nice to be the CEO or the COO of a major corporation (overseas) making more money than God, knowing that your countrymen are doing without while they are living the "high life".




THIS is America in the 21st Century. Now, like the 12-15th Centuries, we have the very rich and the very poor - in servitude. What a country!!!