Progressive Propaganda: The Tax Edition

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,163
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
This is only one side of the story, if it is even true. The fact is that the deficit is skyrocketing on a monthly basis and, long term, the debt will as well.
As we’ve already established, that is not because of the tax cuts. Revenues to the government have increased because of the tax cuts. We have a spending problem. Period. End of story.

And, as I previously stated, stick to the discussion about taxes. This thread is NOT about deficits or debt. Start your own thread about that topic if that is what you want to discuss.
But the gop's REASON for tax cuts was to reduce the deficit
I don't remember anyone anywhere saying that.
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
1,870
Reaction score
330
Points
140
Location
North Carolina
So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?

Q. Since this has been tried before, and failed, why would anyone believe the same thing done again will trickle down this time

A. Those who are insane, apparently.

The Bill pushed by Ryan, and signed by Trump is a shame, and exposes what many of us already know and knew, that Plutocrats supported Trump, and will continue to support him because it is good for their pocket book, and Ryan saw the writing on the wall and will end up in a high six figure job in one of the private sector think tanks or Wall Street Firms, which benefit from the Bill; and they will find ways to keep the largess given to them and not use it to, "stimulate considerable economic growth and GDP".

T&R were slick, as are most con men, they give a few hundred dollars in year one, a little less in year two, and by year three - after the 2020 election, when States Raise taxes, and inflation continues to rise, the poor biddable fools will finally see they were screwed when the see their tax bill in 2021.
Trickle down has worked consistently throughout all the world.

Unless you are in government, you have a job because of trickle down. A rich guy makes a product, makes a company, and hires people to build it.

You show me an impoverished beggar that hires people, and then I'll admit trickle down isn't how the world works.

Of course it is.

What do you think companies do with money they earn in profits?

Walmart spent $10 Billion dollars last year, on remodeling stores, building new stores, and building distribution and infrastructure.

Where do you think that money went? Into the magical ether of the universe? It went to workers, construction jobs, electricians plumbers, flooring worker, new jobs in the company, new truck drivers to deliver to those stores. And on and on and on.*

What do you think Walmart would do if it had more profits? It would remodel more stores, and build more new stores, and hire more people.

By the way, where do you think Walmart gets those products to sell, that pay for all those jobs and wages? From other rich people who sell those products.

Tickle down is how the world works. In fact, even the self-employed mechanic, only has a job because rich people made the cars he works, and rich people make the car parts he uses to fix those cars.

So absolutely everything that there is, is only do to a rich person. The computer you are reading this on, everything about it was supply by a rich person, or rich corporation of people. This software, that runs this forum, is made by a company.

Profits are what improves everything in this world. The more profits, the more improvement. How do you think companies invest in new products, without profits?

Hayek the economist said, the reason socialists don't understand anything about economics, is because if they did, they wouldn't be socialist anymore.
You seem to forget that no company, no individual is going to invest in jackshit unless they are meeting a consumer demand. But yes, sometimes companies like Walmart spend money building new stores and infrastructure. But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking", which is, by definition, a drain on economic output that results in ineffective allocation of resources. And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks. And quite honestly, Hayek himself was very worried that our current system of government would inevitably evolve into a dictatorial democracy, spawned by increasing rent-seeking by corporations. Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.
But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.
We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.
Rent seeking does not require government action.

Rent seeking could include buying government inaction.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Corporate officers/employees can certainly use corporate resources for personal gain.
The Clinton "Foundation" took bribes from individuals, companies, organizations and foreign governments without creating benefits to society.

And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses,

WalMart signed contracts with corporations or individuals to lease land/buildings.
How are these contracts rent-seeking? What "company, organizational or individual resources" are being unfairly used? Who is unfairly gaining?

What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered rent-seeking. It would only work when there is a barrier to new competitors, like a ridiculously long and expensive approval process for new or generic competitors.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking.

But all shareholders benefit from the higher price caused by the buybacks. Not like the old days when corporate raiders could be fended off by greenmail. In that case the raider and the corporate officers benefitted when company funds were used to buy back shares at above market value in a private transaction.

Using corporate money like that would tend to cause the share price to fall, harming other shareholders, unlike buybacks in the market tending to make prices rise.

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions. And it is rather ironic that you mentioned rent seeking could be buying government inaction. That is the one "achievement" of the Trump presidency. The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation. The gutting of enforcement activities in regards to those regulations that remain. The whole global warming denial campaign is nothing more than rent-seeking activities by outfits like Koch with the soul goal of achieving government inaction. What you and other's fail to realize is that environmental regulations merely prevent corporations from externalizing too much of their cost of production.

Here is the thing. When you and I were kids there was much, much, more competition is almost every single market. You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money. There has been a massive consolidation in almost every category of the economy. Those consolidation activities can also be considered rent seeking. And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power". We are virtually surrounded by oligopolies. So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,480
Reaction score
10,714
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Trickle down has worked consistently throughout all the world.

Unless you are in government, you have a job because of trickle down. A rich guy makes a product, makes a company, and hires people to build it.

You show me an impoverished beggar that hires people, and then I'll admit trickle down isn't how the world works.

Of course it is.

What do you think companies do with money they earn in profits?

Walmart spent $10 Billion dollars last year, on remodeling stores, building new stores, and building distribution and infrastructure.

Where do you think that money went? Into the magical ether of the universe? It went to workers, construction jobs, electricians plumbers, flooring worker, new jobs in the company, new truck drivers to deliver to those stores. And on and on and on.*

What do you think Walmart would do if it had more profits? It would remodel more stores, and build more new stores, and hire more people.

By the way, where do you think Walmart gets those products to sell, that pay for all those jobs and wages? From other rich people who sell those products.

Tickle down is how the world works. In fact, even the self-employed mechanic, only has a job because rich people made the cars he works, and rich people make the car parts he uses to fix those cars.

So absolutely everything that there is, is only do to a rich person. The computer you are reading this on, everything about it was supply by a rich person, or rich corporation of people. This software, that runs this forum, is made by a company.

Profits are what improves everything in this world. The more profits, the more improvement. How do you think companies invest in new products, without profits?

Hayek the economist said, the reason socialists don't understand anything about economics, is because if they did, they wouldn't be socialist anymore.
You seem to forget that no company, no individual is going to invest in jackshit unless they are meeting a consumer demand. But yes, sometimes companies like Walmart spend money building new stores and infrastructure. But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking", which is, by definition, a drain on economic output that results in ineffective allocation of resources. And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks. And quite honestly, Hayek himself was very worried that our current system of government would inevitably evolve into a dictatorial democracy, spawned by increasing rent-seeking by corporations. Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.
But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.
We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.
Rent seeking does not require government action.

Rent seeking could include buying government inaction.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Corporate officers/employees can certainly use corporate resources for personal gain.
The Clinton "Foundation" took bribes from individuals, companies, organizations and foreign governments without creating benefits to society.

And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses,

WalMart signed contracts with corporations or individuals to lease land/buildings.
How are these contracts rent-seeking? What "company, organizational or individual resources" are being unfairly used? Who is unfairly gaining?

What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered rent-seeking. It would only work when there is a barrier to new competitors, like a ridiculously long and expensive approval process for new or generic competitors.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking.

But all shareholders benefit from the higher price caused by the buybacks. Not like the old days when corporate raiders could be fended off by greenmail. In that case the raider and the corporate officers benefitted when company funds were used to buy back shares at above market value in a private transaction.

Using corporate money like that would tend to cause the share price to fall, harming other shareholders, unlike buybacks in the market tending to make prices rise.

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions. And it is rather ironic that you mentioned rent seeking could be buying government inaction. That is the one "achievement" of the Trump presidency. The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation. The gutting of enforcement activities in regards to those regulations that remain. The whole global warming denial campaign is nothing more than rent-seeking activities by outfits like Koch with the soul goal of achieving government inaction. What you and other's fail to realize is that environmental regulations merely prevent corporations from externalizing too much of their cost of production.

Here is the thing. When you and I were kids there was much, much, more competition is almost every single market. You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money. There has been a massive consolidation in almost every category of the economy. Those consolidation activities can also be considered rent seeking. And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power". We are virtually surrounded by oligopolies. So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.
It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions.

Well, a company raising the price of their product is a business decision, not corruption.
An employee or corporate officer using corporate assets to enrich themselves is corruption and so is
buying government favors. That's why the latter two, but not the former, are usually what is being referenced when the evils of rent-seeking are discussed.

The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation.

Sounds scary! Tell me more.

You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money.

WalMart may have "killed" competition, but they did it with efficiency and lower prices.
Clothes and insurance (life insurance) are cheaper than they used to be.
I have the ability to have institutions across the world handle my money, not just the local bank
I used to walk to when I updated by passbook savings account.

And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power".

Be more specific. Who has all this pricing power?

So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.

Link?

And stock buy-backs still aren't rent-seeking.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,163
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Trickle down has worked consistently throughout all the world.

Unless you are in government, you have a job because of trickle down. A rich guy makes a product, makes a company, and hires people to build it.

You show me an impoverished beggar that hires people, and then I'll admit trickle down isn't how the world works.

Of course it is.

What do you think companies do with money they earn in profits?

Walmart spent $10 Billion dollars last year, on remodeling stores, building new stores, and building distribution and infrastructure.

Where do you think that money went? Into the magical ether of the universe? It went to workers, construction jobs, electricians plumbers, flooring worker, new jobs in the company, new truck drivers to deliver to those stores. And on and on and on.*

What do you think Walmart would do if it had more profits? It would remodel more stores, and build more new stores, and hire more people.

By the way, where do you think Walmart gets those products to sell, that pay for all those jobs and wages? From other rich people who sell those products.

Tickle down is how the world works. In fact, even the self-employed mechanic, only has a job because rich people made the cars he works, and rich people make the car parts he uses to fix those cars.

So absolutely everything that there is, is only do to a rich person. The computer you are reading this on, everything about it was supply by a rich person, or rich corporation of people. This software, that runs this forum, is made by a company.

Profits are what improves everything in this world. The more profits, the more improvement. How do you think companies invest in new products, without profits?

Hayek the economist said, the reason socialists don't understand anything about economics, is because if they did, they wouldn't be socialist anymore.
You seem to forget that no company, no individual is going to invest in jackshit unless they are meeting a consumer demand. But yes, sometimes companies like Walmart spend money building new stores and infrastructure. But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking", which is, by definition, a drain on economic output that results in ineffective allocation of resources. And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks. And quite honestly, Hayek himself was very worried that our current system of government would inevitably evolve into a dictatorial democracy, spawned by increasing rent-seeking by corporations. Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.
But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.
We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.
Rent seeking does not require government action.

Rent seeking could include buying government inaction.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Corporate officers/employees can certainly use corporate resources for personal gain.
The Clinton "Foundation" took bribes from individuals, companies, organizations and foreign governments without creating benefits to society.

And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses,

WalMart signed contracts with corporations or individuals to lease land/buildings.
How are these contracts rent-seeking? What "company, organizational or individual resources" are being unfairly used? Who is unfairly gaining?

What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered rent-seeking. It would only work when there is a barrier to new competitors, like a ridiculously long and expensive approval process for new or generic competitors.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking.

But all shareholders benefit from the higher price caused by the buybacks. Not like the old days when corporate raiders could be fended off by greenmail. In that case the raider and the corporate officers benefitted when company funds were used to buy back shares at above market value in a private transaction.

Using corporate money like that would tend to cause the share price to fall, harming other shareholders, unlike buybacks in the market tending to make prices rise.

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions. And it is rather ironic that you mentioned rent seeking could be buying government inaction. That is the one "achievement" of the Trump presidency. The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation. The gutting of enforcement activities in regards to those regulations that remain. The whole global warming denial campaign is nothing more than rent-seeking activities by outfits like Koch with the soul goal of achieving government inaction. What you and other's fail to realize is that environmental regulations merely prevent corporations from externalizing too much of their cost of production.

Here is the thing. When you and I were kids there was much, much, more competition is almost every single market. You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money. There has been a massive consolidation in almost every category of the economy. Those consolidation activities can also be considered rent seeking. And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power". We are virtually surrounded by oligopolies. So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.
Environment regulation, is not rent seeking. If you want to make that case, I'll need some direct examples.

No one is denying global warming. It's a scientific fact. We're denying that there is concrete proof, that man-made CO2 is causing it. Because there is no proof of that. Only theory. Theory that throughout the entire climate-screamers campaign, has consistently proven false.

This has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

No, consolidation in a market is not 'rent-seeking'.

Further, in most of the areas where there is massive consolidation, there has tons of regulations. Regulations inherently cause consolidation, because regulations benefit the large companies, and destroy the smaller ones.

If you are worried about oligopolies, you should oppose burdensome regulations that push competition out of the market.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,480
Reaction score
10,714
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Thanks...…..

Rent-seeking occurs when an individual or business attempts to make money from its resources without using those resources to benefit to society or generate wealth. One of the most common ways companies engage in rent-seeking is by using their capital to influence politicians. Politicians decide the laws and regulations that govern industry and how government subsidies are to be distributed. If a company succeeds in receiving subsidies or in getting laws passed that restrict competition and create new barriers to entry for an industry, it has increased its share of existing wealth without increasing the total of that wealth. Moreover, it has earned income without being productive or putting its capital at risk.

Read more: Rent-Seeking Rent-Seeking
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
1,870
Reaction score
330
Points
140
Location
North Carolina
You seem to forget that no company, no individual is going to invest in jackshit unless they are meeting a consumer demand. But yes, sometimes companies like Walmart spend money building new stores and infrastructure. But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking", which is, by definition, a drain on economic output that results in ineffective allocation of resources. And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks. And quite honestly, Hayek himself was very worried that our current system of government would inevitably evolve into a dictatorial democracy, spawned by increasing rent-seeking by corporations. Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.
But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.
We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.
Rent seeking does not require government action.

Rent seeking could include buying government inaction.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Corporate officers/employees can certainly use corporate resources for personal gain.
The Clinton "Foundation" took bribes from individuals, companies, organizations and foreign governments without creating benefits to society.

And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses,

WalMart signed contracts with corporations or individuals to lease land/buildings.
How are these contracts rent-seeking? What "company, organizational or individual resources" are being unfairly used? Who is unfairly gaining?

What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered rent-seeking. It would only work when there is a barrier to new competitors, like a ridiculously long and expensive approval process for new or generic competitors.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking.

But all shareholders benefit from the higher price caused by the buybacks. Not like the old days when corporate raiders could be fended off by greenmail. In that case the raider and the corporate officers benefitted when company funds were used to buy back shares at above market value in a private transaction.

Using corporate money like that would tend to cause the share price to fall, harming other shareholders, unlike buybacks in the market tending to make prices rise.

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions. And it is rather ironic that you mentioned rent seeking could be buying government inaction. That is the one "achievement" of the Trump presidency. The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation. The gutting of enforcement activities in regards to those regulations that remain. The whole global warming denial campaign is nothing more than rent-seeking activities by outfits like Koch with the soul goal of achieving government inaction. What you and other's fail to realize is that environmental regulations merely prevent corporations from externalizing too much of their cost of production.

Here is the thing. When you and I were kids there was much, much, more competition is almost every single market. You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money. There has been a massive consolidation in almost every category of the economy. Those consolidation activities can also be considered rent seeking. And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power". We are virtually surrounded by oligopolies. So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.
It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions.

Well, a company raising the price of their product is a business decision, not corruption.
An employee or corporate officer using corporate assets to enrich themselves is corruption and so is
buying government favors. That's why the latter two, but not the former, are usually what is being referenced when the evils of rent-seeking are discussed.

The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation.

Sounds scary! Tell me more.

You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money.

WalMart may have "killed" competition, but they did it with efficiency and lower prices.
Clothes and insurance (life insurance) are cheaper than they used to be.
I have the ability to have institutions across the world handle my money, not just the local bank
I used to walk to when I updated by passbook savings account.

And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power".

Be more specific. Who has all this pricing power?

So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.

Link?

And stock buy-backs still aren't rent-seeking.
Here is you an article, and a speech by Elizabeth Warren. I am sure I am wasting my time.

Elizabeth Warren Opens Broad Attack Against Rent-Seeking Oligopolists Like Amazon, Apple, Google, Walmart, Comcast | naked capitalism

But yes, stock buy-backs can be rent seeking when they are used as price manipulation to inflate executive compensation packages. Tell me, why were stock buybacks illegal until the Reagan administration? And I believe it was the other Roosevelt administration that first adopted those restrictions.

This is all really simple. The numbers clearly indicate that the EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate for corporations was too low before the damn Trump tax cut. Numbers like corporate tax percentage of total government revenue, inflated returns on equity, ever climbing gross profit margins across industry sectors. But most importantly, the continued rise in rent seeking activities. Many of the world's leading economists have been pointing this fact out for years. Even Hayek warned of it before his death. The reality is that as effective corporate tax rates decline the incentive to engage in risk taking activities also declines. The least riskiest means of distributing capital is through rent seeking activities. It was easily predictable and legislative actions could have easily prevented much of it.
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
1,870
Reaction score
330
Points
140
Location
North Carolina
You seem to forget that no company, no individual is going to invest in jackshit unless they are meeting a consumer demand. But yes, sometimes companies like Walmart spend money building new stores and infrastructure. But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking", which is, by definition, a drain on economic output that results in ineffective allocation of resources. And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks. And quite honestly, Hayek himself was very worried that our current system of government would inevitably evolve into a dictatorial democracy, spawned by increasing rent-seeking by corporations. Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.
But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.
We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.
Rent seeking does not require government action.

Rent seeking could include buying government inaction.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Corporate officers/employees can certainly use corporate resources for personal gain.
The Clinton "Foundation" took bribes from individuals, companies, organizations and foreign governments without creating benefits to society.

And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses,

WalMart signed contracts with corporations or individuals to lease land/buildings.
How are these contracts rent-seeking? What "company, organizational or individual resources" are being unfairly used? Who is unfairly gaining?

What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered rent-seeking. It would only work when there is a barrier to new competitors, like a ridiculously long and expensive approval process for new or generic competitors.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking.

But all shareholders benefit from the higher price caused by the buybacks. Not like the old days when corporate raiders could be fended off by greenmail. In that case the raider and the corporate officers benefitted when company funds were used to buy back shares at above market value in a private transaction.

Using corporate money like that would tend to cause the share price to fall, harming other shareholders, unlike buybacks in the market tending to make prices rise.

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions. And it is rather ironic that you mentioned rent seeking could be buying government inaction. That is the one "achievement" of the Trump presidency. The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation. The gutting of enforcement activities in regards to those regulations that remain. The whole global warming denial campaign is nothing more than rent-seeking activities by outfits like Koch with the soul goal of achieving government inaction. What you and other's fail to realize is that environmental regulations merely prevent corporations from externalizing too much of their cost of production.

Here is the thing. When you and I were kids there was much, much, more competition is almost every single market. You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money. There has been a massive consolidation in almost every category of the economy. Those consolidation activities can also be considered rent seeking. And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power". We are virtually surrounded by oligopolies. So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.
Environment regulation, is not rent seeking. If you want to make that case, I'll need some direct examples.

No one is denying global warming. It's a scientific fact. We're denying that there is concrete proof, that man-made CO2 is causing it. Because there is no proof of that. Only theory. Theory that throughout the entire climate-screamers campaign, has consistently proven false.

This has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

No, consolidation in a market is not 'rent-seeking'.

Further, in most of the areas where there is massive consolidation, there has tons of regulations. Regulations inherently cause consolidation, because regulations benefit the large companies, and destroy the smaller ones.

If you are worried about oligopolies, you should oppose burdensome regulations that push competition out of the market.
Absolutely market consolidation is rent seeking. What additional pie is made through consolidation? And when that consolidation results in higher prices with bigger profits, tell me, is that not merely taking more of the pie that is already there? I mean you do know the classic definition of rent seeking, right? Or is my suspicion correct, the big old tom cat lounging here beside me knows more about rent seeking than you do?
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,163
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.
We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.
Rent seeking does not require government action.

Rent seeking could include buying government inaction.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Corporate officers/employees can certainly use corporate resources for personal gain.
The Clinton "Foundation" took bribes from individuals, companies, organizations and foreign governments without creating benefits to society.

And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses,

WalMart signed contracts with corporations or individuals to lease land/buildings.
How are these contracts rent-seeking? What "company, organizational or individual resources" are being unfairly used? Who is unfairly gaining?

What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered rent-seeking. It would only work when there is a barrier to new competitors, like a ridiculously long and expensive approval process for new or generic competitors.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking.

But all shareholders benefit from the higher price caused by the buybacks. Not like the old days when corporate raiders could be fended off by greenmail. In that case the raider and the corporate officers benefitted when company funds were used to buy back shares at above market value in a private transaction.

Using corporate money like that would tend to cause the share price to fall, harming other shareholders, unlike buybacks in the market tending to make prices rise.

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions. And it is rather ironic that you mentioned rent seeking could be buying government inaction. That is the one "achievement" of the Trump presidency. The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation. The gutting of enforcement activities in regards to those regulations that remain. The whole global warming denial campaign is nothing more than rent-seeking activities by outfits like Koch with the soul goal of achieving government inaction. What you and other's fail to realize is that environmental regulations merely prevent corporations from externalizing too much of their cost of production.

Here is the thing. When you and I were kids there was much, much, more competition is almost every single market. You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money. There has been a massive consolidation in almost every category of the economy. Those consolidation activities can also be considered rent seeking. And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power". We are virtually surrounded by oligopolies. So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.
It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions.

Well, a company raising the price of their product is a business decision, not corruption.
An employee or corporate officer using corporate assets to enrich themselves is corruption and so is
buying government favors. That's why the latter two, but not the former, are usually what is being referenced when the evils of rent-seeking are discussed.

The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation.

Sounds scary! Tell me more.

You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money.

WalMart may have "killed" competition, but they did it with efficiency and lower prices.
Clothes and insurance (life insurance) are cheaper than they used to be.
I have the ability to have institutions across the world handle my money, not just the local bank
I used to walk to when I updated by passbook savings account.

And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power".

Be more specific. Who has all this pricing power?

So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.

Link?

And stock buy-backs still aren't rent-seeking.
Here is you an article, and a speech by Elizabeth Warren. I am sure I am wasting my time.

Elizabeth Warren Opens Broad Attack Against Rent-Seeking Oligopolists Like Amazon, Apple, Google, Walmart, Comcast | naked capitalism

But yes, stock buy-backs can be rent seeking when they are used as price manipulation to inflate executive compensation packages. Tell me, why were stock buybacks illegal until the Reagan administration? And I believe it was the other Roosevelt administration that first adopted those restrictions.

This is all really simple. The numbers clearly indicate that the EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate for corporations was too low before the damn Trump tax cut. Numbers like corporate tax percentage of total government revenue, inflated returns on equity, ever climbing gross profit margins across industry sectors. But most importantly, the continued rise in rent seeking activities. Many of the world's leading economists have been pointing this fact out for years. Even Hayek warned of it before his death. The reality is that as effective corporate tax rates decline the incentive to engage in risk taking activities also declines. The least riskiest means of distributing capital is through rent seeking activities. It was easily predictable and legislative actions could have easily prevented much of it.
But yes, stock buy-backs can be rent seeking when they are used as price manipulation to inflate executive compensation packages.
"Rent seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits"

Name the individual that is not gaining any benefit, from the stock buy back program, or the stock options, or whatever.
Who is it that is being forced to pay, without gaining benefit?
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
146,329
Reaction score
15,704
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Everything the left says about taxes is an outrageous lie. And the left knows it too. But they are more interested in getting their hands on your money than they are in prosperity.
Many U.S.-based multinationals are finding luck with Ireland’s low corporate tax rate—and that 12.5% rate has been a pot of gold for the Irish economy as well.

In 2015, the Irish economy was estimated to have grown by 26.3% through foreign companies opening operations and providing high-paying jobs, including about 700 U.S. companies currently operating in the country.
The indisputable, undeniable fact is that low taxes brings in businesses, creates jobs, and stimulates considerable economic growth and GDP.

Ireland Lowered Its Corporate Tax Rate. Here's What Happened.
What is the percentage of funds going home weekly now versus before the tax cut?

We'll make it easy, make it a 50K income..
 

HenryBHough

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
29,304
Reaction score
5,629
Points
290
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
One must remember that progressives were, in their youths, taught that all good things flow from a powerful mother-figure and then only if they behave perfectly well. These snowflakes cannot cut the apron strings. They want government to take over the role. Providing all in exchange for obedience rather than earning anything through honest effort.

It's wrong to chastise them for they do only that which they were taught. But to feed them?

:1peleas:
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,480
Reaction score
10,714
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.
We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.
Rent seeking does not require government action.

Rent seeking could include buying government inaction.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Corporate officers/employees can certainly use corporate resources for personal gain.
The Clinton "Foundation" took bribes from individuals, companies, organizations and foreign governments without creating benefits to society.

And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses,

WalMart signed contracts with corporations or individuals to lease land/buildings.
How are these contracts rent-seeking? What "company, organizational or individual resources" are being unfairly used? Who is unfairly gaining?

What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered rent-seeking. It would only work when there is a barrier to new competitors, like a ridiculously long and expensive approval process for new or generic competitors.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking.

But all shareholders benefit from the higher price caused by the buybacks. Not like the old days when corporate raiders could be fended off by greenmail. In that case the raider and the corporate officers benefitted when company funds were used to buy back shares at above market value in a private transaction.

Using corporate money like that would tend to cause the share price to fall, harming other shareholders, unlike buybacks in the market tending to make prices rise.

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions. And it is rather ironic that you mentioned rent seeking could be buying government inaction. That is the one "achievement" of the Trump presidency. The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation. The gutting of enforcement activities in regards to those regulations that remain. The whole global warming denial campaign is nothing more than rent-seeking activities by outfits like Koch with the soul goal of achieving government inaction. What you and other's fail to realize is that environmental regulations merely prevent corporations from externalizing too much of their cost of production.

Here is the thing. When you and I were kids there was much, much, more competition is almost every single market. You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money. There has been a massive consolidation in almost every category of the economy. Those consolidation activities can also be considered rent seeking. And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power". We are virtually surrounded by oligopolies. So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.
It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions.

Well, a company raising the price of their product is a business decision, not corruption.
An employee or corporate officer using corporate assets to enrich themselves is corruption and so is
buying government favors. That's why the latter two, but not the former, are usually what is being referenced when the evils of rent-seeking are discussed.

The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation.

Sounds scary! Tell me more.

You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money.

WalMart may have "killed" competition, but they did it with efficiency and lower prices.
Clothes and insurance (life insurance) are cheaper than they used to be.
I have the ability to have institutions across the world handle my money, not just the local bank
I used to walk to when I updated by passbook savings account.

And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power".

Be more specific. Who has all this pricing power?

So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.

Link?

And stock buy-backs still aren't rent-seeking.
Here is you an article, and a speech by Elizabeth Warren. I am sure I am wasting my time.

Elizabeth Warren Opens Broad Attack Against Rent-Seeking Oligopolists Like Amazon, Apple, Google, Walmart, Comcast | naked capitalism

But yes, stock buy-backs can be rent seeking when they are used as price manipulation to inflate executive compensation packages. Tell me, why were stock buybacks illegal until the Reagan administration? And I believe it was the other Roosevelt administration that first adopted those restrictions.

This is all really simple. The numbers clearly indicate that the EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate for corporations was too low before the damn Trump tax cut. Numbers like corporate tax percentage of total government revenue, inflated returns on equity, ever climbing gross profit margins across industry sectors. But most importantly, the continued rise in rent seeking activities. Many of the world's leading economists have been pointing this fact out for years. Even Hayek warned of it before his death. The reality is that as effective corporate tax rates decline the incentive to engage in risk taking activities also declines. The least riskiest means of distributing capital is through rent seeking activities. It was easily predictable and legislative actions could have easily prevented much of it.
Here is you an article, and a speech by Elizabeth Warren. I am sure I am wasting my time.

A speech by Elizabeth Warren is a waste of everyone's time. Where did she mention rent seeking in the speech? I don't see any mention.

But yes, stock buy-backs can be rent seeking when they are used as price manipulation to inflate executive compensation packages.

If executive stock options only vest when the price hits a certain level (Enron), you 'd have a point.
If you're complaining that all shareholders benefit from higher prices but it's unfair that executives also
benefit.....I'll have to laugh at you.

Tell me, why were stock buybacks illegal until the Reagan administration?

Because there are a lot of stupid regulations.

The numbers clearly indicate that the EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate for corporations was too low before the damn Trump tax cut.

What are you adding back in to decide that the effective rate was too low?

inflated returns on equity

Compared to what?

ever climbing gross profit margins across industry sectors.

Such as?

But most importantly, the continued rise in rent seeking activities.

If you want less rent-seeking, shrink the power of government.

The reality is that as effective corporate tax rates decline the incentive to engage in risk taking activities also declines.

Baloney. I'm more likely to invest with the prospect of keeping 79% of profit versus keeping 65%.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,480
Reaction score
10,714
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.
We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.
Rent seeking does not require government action.

Rent seeking could include buying government inaction.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Corporate officers/employees can certainly use corporate resources for personal gain.
The Clinton "Foundation" took bribes from individuals, companies, organizations and foreign governments without creating benefits to society.

And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses,

WalMart signed contracts with corporations or individuals to lease land/buildings.
How are these contracts rent-seeking? What "company, organizational or individual resources" are being unfairly used? Who is unfairly gaining?

What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered rent-seeking. It would only work when there is a barrier to new competitors, like a ridiculously long and expensive approval process for new or generic competitors.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking.

But all shareholders benefit from the higher price caused by the buybacks. Not like the old days when corporate raiders could be fended off by greenmail. In that case the raider and the corporate officers benefitted when company funds were used to buy back shares at above market value in a private transaction.

Using corporate money like that would tend to cause the share price to fall, harming other shareholders, unlike buybacks in the market tending to make prices rise.

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions. And it is rather ironic that you mentioned rent seeking could be buying government inaction. That is the one "achievement" of the Trump presidency. The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation. The gutting of enforcement activities in regards to those regulations that remain. The whole global warming denial campaign is nothing more than rent-seeking activities by outfits like Koch with the soul goal of achieving government inaction. What you and other's fail to realize is that environmental regulations merely prevent corporations from externalizing too much of their cost of production.

Here is the thing. When you and I were kids there was much, much, more competition is almost every single market. You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money. There has been a massive consolidation in almost every category of the economy. Those consolidation activities can also be considered rent seeking. And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power". We are virtually surrounded by oligopolies. So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.
Environment regulation, is not rent seeking. If you want to make that case, I'll need some direct examples.

No one is denying global warming. It's a scientific fact. We're denying that there is concrete proof, that man-made CO2 is causing it. Because there is no proof of that. Only theory. Theory that throughout the entire climate-screamers campaign, has consistently proven false.

This has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

No, consolidation in a market is not 'rent-seeking'.

Further, in most of the areas where there is massive consolidation, there has tons of regulations. Regulations inherently cause consolidation, because regulations benefit the large companies, and destroy the smaller ones.

If you are worried about oligopolies, you should oppose burdensome regulations that push competition out of the market.
Absolutely market consolidation is rent seeking. What additional pie is made through consolidation? And when that consolidation results in higher prices with bigger profits, tell me, is that not merely taking more of the pie that is already there? I mean you do know the classic definition of rent seeking, right? Or is my suspicion correct, the big old tom cat lounging here beside me knows more about rent seeking than you do?
Absolutely market consolidation is rent seeking. What additional pie is made through consolidation?

Increased efficiency. Lower overhead. Better bargaining power with suppliers. Lower prices for customers.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,163
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.
We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.
Rent seeking does not require government action.

Rent seeking could include buying government inaction.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Corporate officers/employees can certainly use corporate resources for personal gain.
The Clinton "Foundation" took bribes from individuals, companies, organizations and foreign governments without creating benefits to society.

And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses,

WalMart signed contracts with corporations or individuals to lease land/buildings.
How are these contracts rent-seeking? What "company, organizational or individual resources" are being unfairly used? Who is unfairly gaining?

What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered rent-seeking. It would only work when there is a barrier to new competitors, like a ridiculously long and expensive approval process for new or generic competitors.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking.

But all shareholders benefit from the higher price caused by the buybacks. Not like the old days when corporate raiders could be fended off by greenmail. In that case the raider and the corporate officers benefitted when company funds were used to buy back shares at above market value in a private transaction.

Using corporate money like that would tend to cause the share price to fall, harming other shareholders, unlike buybacks in the market tending to make prices rise.

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions. And it is rather ironic that you mentioned rent seeking could be buying government inaction. That is the one "achievement" of the Trump presidency. The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation. The gutting of enforcement activities in regards to those regulations that remain. The whole global warming denial campaign is nothing more than rent-seeking activities by outfits like Koch with the soul goal of achieving government inaction. What you and other's fail to realize is that environmental regulations merely prevent corporations from externalizing too much of their cost of production.

Here is the thing. When you and I were kids there was much, much, more competition is almost every single market. You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money. There has been a massive consolidation in almost every category of the economy. Those consolidation activities can also be considered rent seeking. And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power". We are virtually surrounded by oligopolies. So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.
Environment regulation, is not rent seeking. If you want to make that case, I'll need some direct examples.

No one is denying global warming. It's a scientific fact. We're denying that there is concrete proof, that man-made CO2 is causing it. Because there is no proof of that. Only theory. Theory that throughout the entire climate-screamers campaign, has consistently proven false.

This has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

No, consolidation in a market is not 'rent-seeking'.

Further, in most of the areas where there is massive consolidation, there has tons of regulations. Regulations inherently cause consolidation, because regulations benefit the large companies, and destroy the smaller ones.

If you are worried about oligopolies, you should oppose burdensome regulations that push competition out of the market.
Absolutely market consolidation is rent seeking. What additional pie is made through consolidation? And when that consolidation results in higher prices with bigger profits, tell me, is that not merely taking more of the pie that is already there? I mean you do know the classic definition of rent seeking, right? Or is my suspicion correct, the big old tom cat lounging here beside me knows more about rent seeking than you do?
The whole reason the market consolidates is because firms that are providing more benefit, are replacing firms that provide little benefit.

Additional pie is always made through consolidation. That *IS* why they are consolidating.

In the late 90s, early 2000, I worked at a grociery chain called "Big Bear".

BigBearHebronRoad.jpg

In fact, I think this is the actual store I worked at. Regardless, Big Bear doesn't exist anymore. They were bought out, and replaced with
Giant Eagle, and Meijer. The market consolidated. Why? Because Big Bear sucked, and Giant Eagle and Meijers are both vastly better than Big Bear. In quality, quantity of options, and lower price.

The whole reason consolidation happens, is because better firms that product better products and services, replace crappy firms that produce inferior products and services.

It is not rent seeking. In fact, that whole concept is ridiculous. You want to know why I shop at walmart? Because I can by the same product at a lower price. I needed to replace my terrible vacuum sweeper with something that worked better. I went to one store, and they had one for $70. Another store for $60. I went to walmart, and got the identical sweeper for $44.

If your idea of what rent seeking is, is that I get same quality products for a almost 50% less money.... then rent seeking is wonderful and we need to encourage it.

More likely thought, your definition of rent-seeking is crap.
 

OnePercenter

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
23,652
Reaction score
1,842
Points
265

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,163
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Everything the left says about taxes is an outrageous lie. And the left knows it too. But they are more interested in getting their hands on your money than they are in prosperity.
Many U.S.-based multinationals are finding luck with Ireland’s low corporate tax rate—and that 12.5% rate has been a pot of gold for the Irish economy as well.

In 2015, the Irish economy was estimated to have grown by 26.3% through foreign companies opening operations and providing high-paying jobs, including about 700 U.S. companies currently operating in the country.
The indisputable, undeniable fact is that low taxes brings in businesses, creates jobs, and stimulates considerable economic growth and GDP.

Ireland Lowered Its Corporate Tax Rate. Here's What Happened.
What is the percentage of funds going home weekly now versus before the tax cut?

We'll make it easy, make it a 50K income..
I don't understand what difference you think that makes either way. Give me some kind of point to asking this question.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,163
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?
No...it doesn't "trickle down" at all. It floods them in wealth. Just look at the nation right now. Look at the headlines.
Here is your headline.

More Americans need a 2nd job to make ends meet — and it's sending a troubling message about the economy
That's ridiculous.

I make barely $25,000 a year, and I have not needed a 2nd job, for over a decade.

Now there was a time where I did need a second job. And I had to work that job.

Why did I need a second job? Because I borrowed money, and bought things I didn't need.

The only reason an American needs a second job to "make ends meet" is because they are living irresponsibly.

How do I know this, besides my own personal experience? Because I meet people who come here from other countries, and they earn a fraction of the average American, and they make ends meet. Because they don't buy crap they don't need. They live within their means.

When you make the choice to live beyond your income, that is not the fault of the economy, that you need a second job. The only person to blame is the person in the mirror.
 

Ame®icano

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
21,692
Reaction score
4,490
Points
280
Location
Michigan
Just look at the US debt clock folks. It's accelerating. No amount of bullshit from the retards can hide that fact.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

You are a PROPAGANDIST, and it is obvious to anyone who has any logic at all!

You tie truth with YOUR opinion, and try to spin it into reality.

Here, let me use YOUR PROPAGANDA METHOD to make a point, which is as dumb as yours-----------> Stalin had to breathe. We to breathe. But, if we want to show how we are all against the ideas of Stalin, we all need to hold our breath forever, lololol.

That is YOUR propagandist logic, and it is BULLSH**!
Tax revenues increased every year of Obama's regime. Without cutting taxes.

I don't recall you or P@triot bragging about that.

Hmmm...

You see, dumb shit, tax revenues have very little correlation to tax rates.

If we went by your and P@triot's illogic, we would see maximum tax revenues if we cut tax rates to zero!

So, please. Hold your breath. That would be great, though I doubt it would do any more damage to your brains than is already apparent.

PROPAGANDA!

Want to know how to get no tax income? Tell them G-) Don't know? Let me heeeeeelllllllppppppp you!


Make the tax rate zero, or 100%! At zero you get nothing, at 100% everybody quits work.

So whenever you hear that PROPAGANDIST argument to make tax rates zero, remember to bring up the opposite of 100%-)
I have pointed out many times that lowering tax rates to zero would net zero tax revenues, and that raising tax rates to 100 percent would drastically reduce productivity.

That's why I laugh at simplistic parroting rubes who start topics like this one.

The tax situation is far more nuanced than P@triot or you are able to grasp.
Leftist talking about taxes? Go figure.

Which tax rate are you talking about? Personal income, business tax, property, licencing, tariffs...
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top