30 years: IMF scholars admit trickle down free market Reagan capitalism a bust

[dinosnake]

Anyone who studies the markets and macroeconomic history has seen the writings in the wall, but it's nice to know that the IMF isn't in complete denial...only partial

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/witnessing-death-neoliberalism-imf-economists

They declared the Washington Consensus an overhyped dream years ago, but kept it to academics as the political pundits and politicians continued to allow the brainwashed masses to believe the lie. 

So, now, the question is whether or not the IMF's policy makers will listen to their own economic scientists and actually change policy to reflect this admittance of failure.  Or, will our own policy makers admit the problems or continue steady on course, because to admit that all the signs point to failure is to admit that their political platform is fundamentally a failure, as well.

[Robert]

The IMF is not our friend and they are the ones that are pushing for a one world government. They have not formed a country that is doing well not even the European union is doing well. The person who wrote that paper is a Russian and cannot understand the formation of the US and the exact reason for the failures in this country.

Its NOT the system, But the uncheck corruption and special interests that the government abdicating their job and have now thrown in the towel and joined the other side with wealth distribution and corruption. MEN in power more corrupt than the ones in jails forming favored policies for those who pay them or their own needs.

The IMF did not form this country and we are unique and special. We were formed by people with a religion to allow men to be free to work build and trade with a conscience and morals to the benefit of themselves and all around them. With the government supervision to make sure that men who could manipulate markets would be stopped, make laws to keep all men to standards, and keep US soil sovereign and free of foreign influence.

What government or system does work? NONE without the morality of men. We dont have one example of a government today that is working in this utopia men are looking for.

You had better research the IMF before you go quoting a think tank devoted to the destruction of the US in its present form.

Below Adam wrote this letter in 1798 and its as true today as it was back then and we see results of what he predicted back then.


Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts
John Adams
October 11, 1798

Gentleman,

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance, and displays I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier, General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted. in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the World; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, it would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

An address from the officers commanding two thousand eight hundred men, consisting of such substantial citizens as are able and willing at their own expense completely to arm and clothe themselves in handsome uniforms, does honor to that division of the militia which has done so much honor to its country. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.


When a government or business becomes corrupt and self serving how can men who have a conscience and morals fully support with time money passion and lives the trusted plans of that business or government, THEY CANNOT. We are a passionate people knowing when those in power are corrupt and becoming disturbed in our spirit about it. The Constitution was written with this kind of corruption and self interest in mind. Our Founding Fathers came from this kind of world and knew the strength of the avarice of the men who ran it. They did not want to dictate what men should do to stop it but wanted men to stand up and stop corruption and self service in their own conscience and morals.

[dinosnake]

Robert, you didn't read the full content of the article.  The criticism of the IMF and neoliberal economic policies come from within the IMF ITSELF - the critical paper is from the IMF's own internal economic sciences department

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/pdf/ostry.pdf

With quotes like:

Austerity  policies  not  only  generate  substantial  welfare  costs  due  to  supply-side  channels,  they  also  hurt  demand—and  thus worsen  employment  and  unemployment.  The  notion  that  fiscal consolidations can be expansionary (that is, raise output and employment),  in  part  by  raising  private  sector  confidence  and investment,  has  been  championed  by,  among  others,  Harvard  economist  Alberto  Alesina  in  the  academic  world  and  by  former  European  Central  Bank  President  Jean-Claude  Trichet  in the policy arena. However, in practice, episodes of fiscal consolidation have been followed, on average, by drops rather than by expansions  in  output.  On  average,  a  consolidation  of  1  percent  of GDP increases the long-term unemployment rate by 0.6 percentage point and raises by 1.5 percent within five years the Gini measure of income inequality (Ball and others, 2013).

In sum, the benefits of some policies that are an important part of the neoliberal agenda appear to have been somewhat overplayed.  In  the  case  of  financial  openness,  some  capital  flows,  such  as  foreign  direct  investment,  do  appear  to  confer the benefits claimed for them. But for others, particularly short-term  capital  flows,  the  benefits  to  growth  are  difficult  to  reap,  whereas  the  risks,  in  terms  of  greater  volatility  and  increased risk of crisis, loom large.

The Guardian article can be confusing because it frames the IMF's self-criticism in the light of a novel written about the USSR's economic failure, trying to paint a picture of relative equality as in "the USSR failed because it went too far in one direction, and we're failing because we went too far in the other".  It can be a confusing contrast.

Therefore, an article that is more direct in the lambasting of neoliberalism as per the IMF research paper:

http://www.businessinsider.com/imf-neoliberalism-warnings-2016-5

This op-ed will help to understand the concepts

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/14/neoliberal-theory-economic-failure

[Valkorado]

News flash.  Socialist welfare states have never prospered, anywhere, in the course of human history.

[dinosnake]

News flash.  Socialist welfare states have never prospered, anywhere, in the course of human history.

AGAIN, you are not reading the article.  

The article is NOT about socialism, it is using a book about the failure of socialism to introduce the reader to the [recent] concepts that our CAPITALIST system is also failing, do to unregulated greed.  During the past 30 years the agenda as been to deregulate industry, in the magical belief that, if left to their own devices, industry would benefit the majority due to beneficial actions.  

The REALITY is that a large amount of industry acted selfishly - surprise, its not only Welfare queens who are greedy - and the promise of 'a rising tide lifting all boats' didn't come true because the top hoards assets while industry demand drops out from the bottom due to economic stagnation, creating a continuous cycle of contraction (they promised expansion, due to supposed increased business investments, but the investment only stayed in pockets).

[Valkorado]

OK Snake, what do you suggest we usher in to replace our wicked CAPITALIST system?  Does it involve redistribution of wealth?

[Rams]

Below Adam wrote this letter in 1798 and its as true today as it was back then and we see results of what he predicted back then.


Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts
John Adams
October 11, 1798

Gentleman,

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance, and displays I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier, General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted. in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the World; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, it would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

An address from the officers commanding two thousand eight hundred men, consisting of such substantial citizens as are able and willing at their own expense completely to arm and clothe themselves in handsome uniforms, does honor to that division of the militia which has done so much honor to its country. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.


When a government or business becomes corrupt and self serving how can men who have a conscience and morals fully support with time money passion and lives the trusted plans of that business or government, THEY CANNOT. We are a passionate people knowing when those in power are corrupt and becoming disturbed in our spirit about it. The Constitution was written with this kind of corruption and self interest in mind. Our Founding Fathers came from this kind of world and knew the strength of the avarice of the men who ran it. They did not want to dictate what men should do to stop it but wanted men to stand up and stop corruption and self service in their own conscience and morals.

Damn!   People simply don't write like that any longer.   I wish I could do that.   Poetic and inspiring IMHO.   

[dinosnake]

OK Snake, what do you suggest we usher in to replace our wicked CAPITALIST system?  Does it involve redistribution of wealth?

What the IMF, and economists such as Stiglitz are saying, that that it is unregulated capitalism that is the problem, and that any person who can simply pick up a book to read about economics and living conditions in the 1800's can easily prove to themselves.

"Redistribution of wealth" has been turned into the catchphrase of "no taxes", but taxes can and should be seen as the responsibility of maintaining the system and infrastructure that you use every day in your pursuit of private industry.  Sadly, people do not act fairly: the problem with laissez-faire capitalism is not the idea that people will work to benefit themselves, the problem is that reality intercedes and people will play the system to benefit only themselves.  

Since competition weeds out the weak, a low-cost supplier will sooner or later triumph over a higher-cost one, even if that higher cost also includes longer-term higher quality.  So neoliberal capitalism, as shown by history and discussed by economists, drives things to the lowest common denominator as the neoliberal policies also allow free capital transfer across political borders, made even easier by modern technology of electronic banking.  

Therefore, capital moves instantly to the point of greatest returns versus friction - capital moves to the lowest cost locations in order to enable the greatest arbitrage of industry across the borders in question.  Labor costs will always move to the lowest point, driving down income and standards of living, because capital is allowed to move freely to where it will make the most money regardless of social repercussions.

Since neoliberalism also believes in reduced oversight, taxes, duties and penalties are also reduced for shifting funds between nation-states in order to play games with any oversight left.  Therefore, we have openly created a system where cheating and keeping the workers in a continuous cycle of economic stagnation is normal and desired - business is allowed to seek highest profits regardless of social costs so as to benefit the top few.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, you ask what I would do, for a solution?  I'm not an expert, but forcing business to pay an equitable amount of social costs, based upon their real-life usage and benefits given by our system, would be a start.  Allowing massive corporation to benefit from our huge consumer market then pay not a DIME in taxes is utter crap, and don't even get me started on the industries that take government benefits (subsidies and tax breaks) then play the double-Irish to avoid claiming any American income at all.  

[Rams]

While, I won't suggest you are 100% wrong, I would suggest that deceasing that social cost you want profit based companies to pay for most surely needs to be reduced if not eliminated.  

I would also suggest the IMF is not our friend in any way, shape or form.   I'm only a little bit surprised that we are still members supporting their agenda.    

[dinosnake]

We've seen the results of not having a social safety net - reducing / eliminating social benefits.  This is why social programs exist, they were created because we NEEDED them as human beings were suffering and our system didn't care or create opportunities to help them.

A study of the economics of the 1800's would be beneficial for most, but normal schooling does not cover such topics.  I think a reading of Riis' How the Other Half Lives should be required for high school, in order to learn why our modern system works like it does

http://www.bartleby.com/208/

Then go on to read about the great Panics (recessions / depressions) of the 1800's, and how all these problems formed the basis of our creation of the Great Society.  It did not happen in a vacuum nor was it an unwanted push by overreaching government intrusion - the people who lived through the burdens and saw the waste of humanity wanted these changes, but of course the elites did not as it weakened them personally.

Also, it is worthwhile to remember that the IMF and the World Bank are mostly American constructs - we were significant in their creation and they are both based in the United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank

Both created out of the Bretton Woods conference, headed by the United States, and for the World Bank the head is traditionally an American banker, to boot.  We stay because we WANT to stay, because we helped create the very principles that they operate under and continue to use their bureaucracy to forward an agenda that we agree with.

[baldo]

Snake, you've been busy.....

[Rams]

We stay because we WANT to stay, because we helped create the very principles that they operate under and continue to use their bureaucracy to forward an agenda that we agree with.

When you say "we", I presume you are talking about the folks that helped elect Barrack Obama to his present position?   Everybody makes mistakes, some make two.   But, if they don't learn from their mistakes, they and we are doomed to keep making those same and worse mistakes.   

Reminds me of that picture I saw once where the snake was eating it's own tail.   

[mike72903]

our human nature ruins everything.  That includes economic and political systems.  It's in our DNA to compete and better our personal circumstances.  Always at somueone else's disadvantage.  Trickle Down and massive tax cuts for the already rich simply gave them added advantage in this universal competition for survival.  

[Oss]

I will tell you one answer its so simple even I thought of it

Corporate Law is a big problem,

An individual can take an oath, understand it, have conscience and thought about consequences and self guilt to control impulses

A corporation only owes to the shareholder, not to the PEOPLE of the country or state of its incorporation  Not all corporations are evil, in fact they have no agenda by birth, but there may be no moral or other compass as with an individual.

If your corporation kills wounds etc it MAY have to pay money, the people at the top who pull the strings do not pay and there is no fear  Any more than say, Hillary or Obama has fear for their malfeasance because they are protected by big money as well

It took a hunter such as Teddy Roosevelt to give us national parks, it will take a Trump to force the beginning of corporate responsibility   Capitalism aint perfect but its better than the alternatives
(communism/socialismor heaven forbid fascism)

Trickle down?  If you build a small company you are creating wealth where none existed.
If you help a merger, you are likely ending jobs  go figure
YMMV

[Moonshot_1]

our human nature ruins everything.  That includes economic and political systems.  It's in our DNA to compete and better our personal circumstances.  Always at somueone else's disadvantage.  Trickle Down and massive tax cuts for the already rich simply gave them added advantage in this universal competition for survival.  

This highlights the total polarity of perspective of you and I.

I do not believe our "human nature" ruins everything. Human nature can, admittedly, go awry, but it has been a source of Great things. Music, art, literature to name a few.

We do want to better our personal circumstances. But it doesn't have to be at someone else's disadvantage and when done right, rarely is.

You seem to be the kind of person who will go by the Country Club by the lake and look at all the fancy homes, cars and boats and think no one should get to live like that.

I will go by and wish everyone could and hope everyone can have that opportunity.

To take a hand full of the wealthiest people and base an economic policy on them and the idea that their wealth (which an overwhelming majority have earned) is not fair creates policies that really screw it up for the business folks chasing their dream.

Capitalism isn't a race for Utopia and doesn't pretend to be. There will be ups and there will be downs.
Sometimes the downs are severe but things will rebound. A new idea, a new process, a new service provided, will take the country and world by storm.

Does this mean we abandon social programs and public assistance? Of course not. But we need to reign it in in terms of the fraud and abuse.

I want to see policies that help the Mother of 4 whose husband just died of cancer or auto accident.
I want to see policies that are there to support and provide opportunities to the economically disadvantaged.

But I want to see the policies crafted in a manner that doesn't dig these folks into a hole of dependency they can never get out of, or allow for rampant fraud and abuse.

[Robert]

I understood the article and where the criticism was coming from but OSS really hit the nail on the head. Our government was not the problem till they got in bed with business and special interest instead of doing its job. So its not the form of government but the corruption and morals in it.

[Savago]

I only wished that big Corps paid as much taxes as I do. Sounds fair, right?


Savago

[mike72903]

our human nature ruins everything.  That includes economic and political systems.  It's in our DNA to compete and better our personal circumstances.  Always at somueone else's disadvantage.  Trickle Down and massive tax cuts for the already rich simply gave them added advantage in this universal competition for survival.  

This highlights the total polarity of perspective of you and I.

You seem to be the kind of person who will go by the Country Club by the lake and look at all the fancy homes, cars and boats and think no one should get to live like that.

I will go by and wish everyone could and hope everyone can have that opportunity.

To take a hand full of the wealthiest people and base an economic policy on them and the idea that their wealth (which an overwhelming majority have earned) is not fair creates policies that really screw it up for the business folks chasing their dream.

Capitalism isn't a race for Utopia and doesn't pretend to be. There will be ups and there will be downs.
Sometimes the downs are severe but things will rebound. A new idea, a new process, a new service provided, will take the country and world by storm.

Does this mean we abandon social programs and public assistance? Of course not. But we need to reign it in in terms of the fraud and abuse.

I want to see policies that help the Mother of 4 whose husband just died of cancer or auto accident.
I want to see policies that are there to support and provide opportunities to the economically disadvantaged.

But I want to see the policies crafted in a manner that doesn't dig these folks into a hole of dependency they can never get out of, or allow for rampant fraud and abuse.

Mike, if I may call you that (sig line name).  my name is Mike as well.  I don't disagree with anything you said and we are more alike than you think but I'm not as idealistic as you.  I stand by my statement though.  Competition and the drive to win lead to corruption and destruction EVENTUALLY.  And BTW I live in a very nice paid for home in an , if not exclusive, Historical (by Arkansas standards) neighborhood with lots of businessmen and doctors as neighbors.  Call me a 1 percenter 

[mike72903]

I understood the article and where the criticism was coming from but OSS really hit the nail on the head. Our government was not the problem till they got in bed with business and special interest instead of doing its job. So its not the form of government but the corruption and morals in it.

+1. Corporations should not be considered people for political purposes.  not one of the great Supreme Court decisions

[Moonshot_1]

I understood the article and where the criticism was coming from but OSS really hit the nail on the head. Our government was not the problem till they got in bed with business and special interest instead of doing its job. So its not the form of government but the corruption and morals in it.

+1. Corporations should not be considered people for political purposes.  not one of the great Supreme Court decisions

Pretty good article on the Corp./People topic.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/corporations_are_people_and_that_s_why_hobby_lobby_should_lose_at_the_supreme.html

While I agree with the decision of the Court on the Hobby Lobby case, the Law that requires them to provide contraception coverage in the first place is one I don't agree with. But that wasn't the point before the court. Health care coverage was a benefit of a job. Employers provided that as an incentive for attracting and keeping the best employees. Now it is expected by even the worst employees as it is mandated by law.

[dinosnake]

I understood the article and where the criticism was coming from but OSS really hit the nail on the head. Our government was not the problem till they got in bed with business and special interest instead of doing its job. So its not the form of government but the corruption and morals in it.

I'll 100% agree with this.  The corruption has become systemic because we have allowed it to become systemic, turning our heads and saying "That's the way it is" (as Bruce Hornsby so rightly noted) rather than say, "NO.  We will fix this". 

[Firefighter]

I don't have to good a vocabulary so as to argue with you, and I couldn't stomach reading all the books you have swallowed, but I don't agree with much anything you think.

I know there is greed, all of us have it. Do you wish a government to regulate the price of housing for example? When you go to sell your house are you going to offer it at a price to match the social needs in your area or are you going to get every dime you can!

Can't blame corporations, they pay taxes by the government law like you and I. The rich pay more taxes than the rest, the poor pay no taxes but get thousands in income tax returns every year.

I live in welfare country, we have program after program, 30 programs for the same thing, it is a tool used by politicians to keep their voter base, keeps people down and gives government power over the people, it is obvious where I live, wont try to convince anybody.

If government would quit regulating us so much, quit spending so much, not tax so much, and curb  welfare just a little people might get the incentive to go back to work. You should read history and see how Hitler and other rulers controlled their people so as to continue their rule.

This country is the land of opportunity and any body can succeed if they really want to.

[Daddie O]

Oss, when exactly has Trump shown an inkling of corporate responsibility? That guy gets sued right and left for being a tax dodger.  The government says a property is worth 13 million, and he says no its only worth 1.5 million, but then brags its worth 50 million.  He outsources jobs to other countries, and brings in foreign workers for his businesses here.

Robert, when exactly was our government not in bed with business and special interest?

Was it the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee that said, "Corporations are people, my friend." ?

Was it the conservative judges or liberal judges that voted for "citizens united"?

I'm encouraged by some conservatives that see the error in that decision, and recognize that corporations are buying candidates.  Trump used to brag about doing so.

[Oss]

ahh daddy o you get my point


It is never who you expect will do what is done

Roosevelt was an avid hunter, his decision to create national parks
was totally unexpected  Speak softly but carry a big stick, remember that one? its from him. He lived large

Who else but Trump knows the world of business  hillary never held a real job or created one outside government  Sanders? you have surely no belief that he understands business

I never said corps are immoral just that they operate on a different plane of existence than people in many respects, I create corporations in my line of work, they are not born equal.

Yes I believe only one who has exploited the system can have the if you will epiphany of what it takes to actually fix the problem

Since there is no credible alternative I put my money where my mouth is on this and support Trump

Feel free to support who you will

[Robert]

Oss has again expressed my opinion also,

But it has never been so blatant, that now that business is actually controlling government rather than soliciting favors from them.

No one accepted business on the same plane as the individual as far as government was concerned but the symbiotic relationship of government and business was always needed. People need jobs and lives and business need favors to go forward. To much regulation business becomes state business, to little and we have what we have today. People paying for business failures and underwriting businesses.

  Politicians considered it expedient and didn't cost them anything to grant privileges, but it has gone to far. No one endorses corporate corruption of government nor liked the way corporations pandered government. It was allowed because we did not have politicians that could cut a effective deal and use the tools at their disposal to make business submit to rules. The politicians being weak  got paid off and bent rules and looked out for themselves rather than the people they were charged with protecting.

They lost the vision for this country and did not have the moral backbone to do the right thing.

This is where we look to Trump to have the backbone not to get paid off the ability to cut a legal and  good deal for both sides deal and get the self serving corruption out of the White House.

Trump uses every option available to him in the courts as well as business and government. This is business and yes there may have been some that would consider some of his dealings questionable. But he does not distort the rule of law he uses it with knowledge and authority and catches people in their own lies and attitudes.

He uses the established rules to keep his empire running, He does not distort the rule of law and get in bed with the politicians and change the laws. He works within the confines of present laws and uses them for his own good. Government could change the laws on him and he will again work within that confine. That is what the difference is in what we have today in government.

Hillary has generated nothing for herself that has not come except by corruption, she has distorted truth, lied, changed bent or broken the laws of this country. She has fired people, then lied about them, then stopped government investigations, used every law and favor in the book to stone wall every investigation. She has cost lives, said they don't matter been terrible at her job been promoted by favors and endorsed a form of government that is contrary to our Constitution.  That is the difference between Trump and Hillary that is the difference between a business man and a corrupt politician. I don't understand no matter who you are why would anyone against corp corruption endorse the one who has used it and more for every thing in her life?

Bill and Hillary are the best example I have seen of a modern day Ahab and Jezebel.

[Ramie]

A lot of topics here, everyone trying to make their points.  Here are mine.

Human Nature: man is fallen and bent towards evil, any good that comes from him comes from the creator.

Social welfare: We used to have a great system, neighbor helping neighbor, churches reaching out in the community helping those with real need.

Corporate taxes: They all pay taxes but not really, taxes are a cost of doing business, the more they tax a corporation to more we pay for their product or service, we end up paying the tax.

[Rams]

Corporate taxes: They all pay taxes but not really, taxes are a cost of doing business, the more they tax a corporation to more we pay for their product or service, we end up paying the tax.

Unfortunately, those in line for the free stuff don't care as long as they get their share of the free stuff.  Their problem is in how they can go about increasing their share.   By hook or crook, what ever they can get away with.

[baldo]

Corporate taxes: They all pay taxes but not really, taxes are a cost of doing business, the more they tax a corporation to more we pay for their product or service, we end up paying the tax.

Unfortunately, those in line for the free stuff don't care as long as they get their share of the free stuff.  Their problem is in how they can go about increasing their share.   By hook or crook, what ever they can get away with.

You're talking about Exxon, Walmart, Monsanto, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, Nestle, Nabisco, and countless more, right? It makes me laugh when people say that corporates pay their fair share of taxes. That is unvarnished horse shyte.

[Willow]

Corporate taxes: They all pay taxes but not really, taxes are a cost of doing business, the more they tax a corporation to more we pay for their product or service, we end up paying the tax.

Unfortunately, those in line for the free stuff don't care as long as they get their share of the free stuff.  Their problem is in how they can go about increasing their share.   By hook or crook, what ever they can get away with.

You're talking about Exxon, Walmart, Monsanto, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, Nestle, Nabisco, and countless more, right? It makes me laugh when people say that corporates pay their fair share of taxes. That is unvarnished horse shyte.

What's greater horse crap is folks who are naive enough not to know where the taxes paid by corporations comes from.  Companies that do business with the public get their money from the public.  If the government demands those companies pay more tax they don't go out to their shareholders to retrieve the money for those taxes.  They retrieve what money they need from the sales they achieve.  That's from the customers of the company.

I do believe that if the government wishes to discourage companies from shipping jobs overseas the only real way is to adopt huge import taxes (tariffs?) on things that were produced elsewhere to be sold to American markets.  Of course, then we have to be ready for those foreign governments to do likewise for products produced in America intended to be marketed elsewhere.

Do you believe there is any irony in Americans who live in the top percentage of the world's wealth complaining that their jobs are being exported to people who live at the lower levels, people who would be starving without those jobs?

Life is complex.  It is made moreso by the average intellectual level (and self centeredness) of the human populace.     

[Firefighter]

Why worry about who is not paying their fair share? Our problem is the spending, if the government taxed corporations more it wouldn't make any difference, just as if the corporation didn't exist. The out of control vote buying spending waste is what hurts our country.

[Oss]

firefighter,
I would love to weigh 200 instead of 230
there are 2 ways
1 is eat less
1 is exercise more

Same with government bloating
either spend less or tax less (ironically tho lowering taxes usually expands the economy enough to offset by far revenue that could have been raised by increase in taxes

The only good side to missing the pie auction is that I wont be eating so much pie on wednesday

 

[dinosnake]

Corporate taxes: They all pay taxes but not really, taxes are a cost of doing business, the more they tax a corporation to more we pay for their product or service, we end up paying the tax.

Unfortunately, those in line for the free stuff don't care as long as they get their share of the free stuff.  Their problem is in how they can go about increasing their share.   By hook or crook, what ever they can get away with.

You're talking about Exxon, Walmart, Monsanto, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, Nestle, Nabisco, and countless more, right? It makes me laugh when people say that corporates pay their fair share of taxes. That is unvarnished horse shyte.

What's greater horse crap is folks who are naive enough not to know where the taxes paid by corporations comes from.  Companies that do business with the public get their money from the public.  If the government demands those companies pay more tax they don't go out to their shareholders to retrieve the money for those taxes.  They retrieve what money they need from the sales they achieve.  That's from the customers of the company.

I do believe that if the government wishes to discourage companies from shipping jobs overseas the only real way is to adopt huge import taxes (tariffs?) on things that were produced elsewhere to be sold to American markets.  Of course, then we have to be ready for those foreign governments to do likewise for products produced in America intended to be marketed elsewhere.

Do you believe there is any irony in Americans who live in the top percentage of the world's wealth complaining that their jobs are being exported to people who live at the lower levels, people who would be starving without those jobs?

Life is complex.  It is made moreso by the average intellectual level (and self centeredness) of the human populace.     

Of course life is complex.  But the problem with the right-wing political propaganda about corporate taxes is that they fail to follow the money to the logical conclusion.

OF COURSE corporate taxes are taken out of corporate income, which is fundamentally paid for by customers.  That's not the problem.  The problem is that the argument that lowering corporate taxes benefits customers, due to that lower tax burden, constantly and naively forgets that the extra funds left available are, most often, NOT returned to the customer via lower costs.  Most often, lower tax burdens simply mean increased profits which are distributed to stockholders and upper management via increased bonuses and pay, thereby only serving to increase the inequality of income: the cost of living for the customer does not decrease, yet the income for the top earners does.

This is fundamentally due to our current system of the most common compensation for upper management: stock options.  It is desirable to increase the value of a company's stock, from the management's perspective, because it not only increases the company's financial abilities via increased credit ratings, not only increases the justification of maintaining current management personnel, but also increases upper management's personal income.  This is why we have so many corporate scandals: cooking the books or padding the stock value puts more money into management's personal pockets.  So, 'Why not push the boundaries?', seems to have become the new business accounting model (and, if you ever have spoken to numerous business accountants, you'll find that many do feel that way).

[Moonshot_1]

I guess I don't understand the fascination with the "inequality of income" perspective.

What does it matter how much a person earns?

The argument about lower corporate taxes isn't that it somehow leads to lower consumer prices, the argument is that the corporation will go where the tax burden is lower and take the jobs with them.

Then you lose all their corporate tax, the income tax from their employees, the property taxes that the employees used to pay before they moved to another job, the loss of tax from the now failing business that depended on the employees of that company, and on and on.

And all because you want to stick it to 'em

So insuring that the corporate environment is vibrant and healthy is not just a good policy it is an essential policy.

[mike72903]

I have a headache.

[baldo]

For Christ sake. I'm not talking about raising the corporate tax rate. I'm not talking about 'sticking it to em'. I'm talking about getting after the bullshit loopholes that allow 19000 corporations to be based in that one building in Grand Cayman....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjonsrIwYfNAhVBMFIKHT64A5wQFggqMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforeignpolicy.com%2F2012%2F01%2F24%2Fhouse-of-19000-corporations%2F&usg=AFQjCNHbRQbW89HRmb6PKoeZmfkP5YCRJg&sig2=6uNuQ_cd7Cwdtjn6inhIcQ

That article was written about Romney, but read past it.

I'm also talking about billions in profits for some of these corps, and THEY GET MILLIONS IN REFUNDS, ON TOP OF THE TAX THEY'VE LOOPHOLED THEMSELVES OUT OF!

But, I guess it's easier to go after the individual that doesn't have an army of lawyers on staff.

Yes, welfare fraud ( the FSA everyone has hardons about) is a serious problem. But just imagine if two or three of these huge corps got their wings clipped, how many welfare cheats would have to be bagged to equal those gained $$$$ ?

[Oss]

Baldo I am glad I am sitting down

It seems both you and Robert agree

[Patrick]

For Christ sake. I'm not talking about raising the corporate tax rate. I'm not talking about 'sticking it to em'. I'm talking about getting after the bullshit loopholes that allow 19000 corporations to be based in that one building in Grand Cayman....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjonsrIwYfNAhVBMFIKHT64A5wQFggqMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforeignpolicy.com%2F2012%2F01%2F24%2Fhouse-of-19000-corporations%2F&usg=AFQjCNHbRQbW89HRmb6PKoeZmfkP5YCRJg&sig2=6uNuQ_cd7Cwdtjn6inhIcQ

That article was written about Romney, but read past it.

I'm also talking about billions in profits for some of these corps, and THEY GET MILLIONS IN REFUNDS, ON TOP OF THE TAX THEY'VE LOOPHOLED THEMSELVES OUT OF!

But, I guess it's easier to go after the individual that doesn't have an army of lawyers on staff.

Yes, welfare fraud ( the FSA everyone has hardons about) is a serious problem. But just imagine if two or three of these huge corps got their wings clipped, how many welfare cheats would have to be bagged to equal those gained $$$$ ?

And yet we keep voting in the likes of charlie rangel.

[Patrick]

 (ironically tho lowering taxes usually expands the economy enough to offset by far revenue that could have been raised by increase in taxes
end quote



Oh boy Oss, now ya done said it. It won't get touched though.

[baldo]

And yet we keep voting in the likes of charlie rangel.

I agree, he's one of the dirtier ones....

[baldo]

Baldo I am glad I am sitting down

It seems both you and Robert agree

A broken clock is right twice a day....