Socialism

  • 234 Replies
  • 17143 Views
?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Socialism
« Reply #210 on: May 13, 2010, 12:12:04 PM »
Actually, people in the travelling community here often use horses on tarmac.

Do they go on the motorways?

the speed of other traffic makes it somewhat dangerous and for that reason it's illegal

Oh OK.

Re: Socialism
« Reply #211 on: May 14, 2010, 09:40:56 PM »
Hahaha, since zero government regulations work so well in Somolia.
The country has been in the midst of a civil war for about 2 decades.  I don't see how this has anything to do with capitalism.
But, if you really want to talk about murder in relations to economics, I'll again have to refer you to the Nazis.
Or Imperialist Japan, or Communist China, or the USSR, or the US.  All strongly socialist countries (the US since Wilson), responsible for more murder throughout the world than any other countries in the history of the world.
Oh, and we know that socialism is working out great in Mexico too.
Socialists are all the same: give us your money or die.

I thought the worst thing that happens when you don't pay your taxes is you get audited. That being said, our socialists in Ottawa have never won a majority, so I guess anything could be possible (and it is entirely reasonable to expect the worst).
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: Socialism
« Reply #212 on: May 14, 2010, 10:17:58 PM »
Hahaha, since zero government regulations work so well in Somolia.
The country has been in the midst of a civil war for about 2 decades.  I don't see how this has anything to do with capitalism.
But, if you really want to talk about murder in relations to economics, I'll again have to refer you to the Nazis.
Or Imperialist Japan, or Communist China, or the USSR, or the US.  All strongly socialist countries (the US since Wilson), responsible for more murder throughout the world than any other countries in the history of the world.
Oh, and we know that socialism is working out great in Mexico too.
Socialists are all the same: give us your money or die.

I thought the worst thing that happens when you don't pay your taxes is you get audited. That being said, our socialists in Ottawa have never won a majority, so I guess anything could be possible (and it is entirely reasonable to expect the worst).
You're Canadian?

W00T!

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Socialism
« Reply #213 on: May 15, 2010, 01:06:09 AM »
I got that impression quite early on.

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 64732
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Socialism
« Reply #214 on: May 15, 2010, 04:36:49 AM »
Canada in the name does kind of give it away
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

Re: Socialism
« Reply #215 on: May 15, 2010, 07:35:14 AM »
lol
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

Re: Socialism
« Reply #216 on: May 16, 2010, 12:58:56 PM »
Once again, there is a huge distinction between economics and politics, but you seem to be confusing the two. There have been plenty of brutal and repressive 'free market' states, and loads of stable, prosperous and liberal socialist states. Just look at China, which has a free-market economy run by what is essentially a Communist party dictatorship. Similarly, nations like Sweden, Finland and Germany all have enormous welfare state programs and initiatives, yet remain some of the most wealthy and democratic nations on Earth.


Socialism and capitalism are at heart economic theories, which only develop a political edge when the underlying philosophies are taken to their logical extremes. The fact is that no nation on Earth practices 'pure capitalism', because pure capitalism would involve the abolition of law and the state.
It's interesting that you try to draw distinction between economic policy and over-all government organization, only to wrap up your second paragraph with "Pure capitalism would involve the abolition of law and the state."
This seems contradictory to your own viewpoint.
There is no freedom without economic freedom.

China is not a free market economy.   Don't make such silly statements.
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

*

Lorddave

  • 16290
Re: Socialism
« Reply #217 on: May 16, 2010, 02:31:41 PM »
Once again, there is a huge distinction between economics and politics, but you seem to be confusing the two. There have been plenty of brutal and repressive 'free market' states, and loads of stable, prosperous and liberal socialist states. Just look at China, which has a free-market economy run by what is essentially a Communist party dictatorship. Similarly, nations like Sweden, Finland and Germany all have enormous welfare state programs and initiatives, yet remain some of the most wealthy and democratic nations on Earth.


Socialism and capitalism are at heart economic theories, which only develop a political edge when the underlying philosophies are taken to their logical extremes. The fact is that no nation on Earth practices 'pure capitalism', because pure capitalism would involve the abolition of law and the state.
It's interesting that you try to draw distinction between economic policy and over-all government organization, only to wrap up your second paragraph with "Pure capitalism would involve the abolition of law and the state."

This seems contradictory to your own viewpoint.
There is no freedom without economic freedom.

China is not a free market economy.   Don't make such silly statements.

It's actually a hybrid economy.  While the government does have a huge sector of the economy there is also a private and highly competitive sector.  This has allowed them to integrate into the global economy, offer up choice to their people, and preserve their power base.  Why do you think Coca-Cola, Nike, McDonalds, and who knows how many other non-Chinese businesses are able to do business in China?  Yes there are many laws and the government doesn't allow just anyone to start a business without their approval, but they aren't as horrible about it as you think.  As long as your business doesn't disrupt the moral fiber of the Chinese people you're fine.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2010, 02:57:18 PM by Lorddave »
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: Socialism
« Reply #218 on: May 16, 2010, 02:55:32 PM »
It's actually a hybrid economy.  While the government does have a huge sector of the economy there is also a private and highly competitive sector.  This has allowed them to integrate into the global economy, offer up choice to their people, and preserve their power base.  Why do you think Coca-Cola, Nike, McDonalds, and who knows how many other non-Chinese businesses are able to do business in China?  Yes there are many laws and the government doesn't allow just anyone to start a business without their approval, but they aren't as horrible about it as you think.  As long as your business doesn't disrupt the moral fiber of the Chinese people you're fine.

I seemed to have missed a <quote> tag or something...
How do you know what I think about China's economic policy concerning private enterprise?  lol.
China allows business as long as it benefits China.  It cares for, nor supports, individual profits.  You gave examples on foreign companies that produce consumer goods for export.  The major industrial components in that country are nationalized.
Largest steel producer in China (5th in the world) is state owned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baosteel
The second largest company is purportedly privately owned, however the heavy regulation of the industry and China's demand for industry expansion to monopolize the market means (likely IMO) that the private firms are heavily subsidized and sell their steel directly to China.  In other words, it's more than likely a bureaucrat pet project.
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

*

Lorddave

  • 16290
Re: Socialism
« Reply #219 on: May 16, 2010, 03:02:32 PM »
It's actually a hybrid economy.  While the government does have a huge sector of the economy there is also a private and highly competitive sector.  This has allowed them to integrate into the global economy, offer up choice to their people, and preserve their power base.  Why do you think Coca-Cola, Nike, McDonalds, and who knows how many other non-Chinese businesses are able to do business in China?  Yes there are many laws and the government doesn't allow just anyone to start a business without their approval, but they aren't as horrible about it as you think.  As long as your business doesn't disrupt the moral fiber of the Chinese people you're fine.

I seemed to have missed a <quote> tag or something...
How do you know what I think about China's economic policy concerning private enterprise?  lol.
China allows business as long as it benefits China.  It cares for, nor supports, individual profits.  You gave examples on foreign companies that produce consumer goods for export.  The major industrial components in that country are nationalized.
Largest steel producer in China (5th in the world) is state owned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baosteel
The second largest company is purportedly privately owned, however the heavy regulation of the industry and China's demand for industry expansion to monopolize the market means (likely IMO) that the private firms are heavily subsidized and sell their steel directly to China.  In other words, it's more than likely a bureaucrat pet project.

Your quote was mixed in with Wilmore's quote.  Guess I missed a few lines.

Anyway, yes, China cares about China.  I fail to see how that's any different than any other nation on Earth.  The US cares about the US, which includes the people of the US and new businesses provide not only tax revenue, but also happy people.  Thus, it benefits the US.


Oh and you could name me any nation that uses pure (or as close as  you know) capitalism as their economic model and is prosperous and happy?
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: Socialism
« Reply #220 on: May 16, 2010, 03:22:48 PM »
It's actually a hybrid economy.  While the government does have a huge sector of the economy there is also a private and highly competitive sector.  This has allowed them to integrate into the global economy, offer up choice to their people, and preserve their power base.  Why do you think Coca-Cola, Nike, McDonalds, and who knows how many other non-Chinese businesses are able to do business in China?  Yes there are many laws and the government doesn't allow just anyone to start a business without their approval, but they aren't as horrible about it as you think.  As long as your business doesn't disrupt the moral fiber of the Chinese people you're fine.

I seemed to have missed a <quote> tag or something...
How do you know what I think about China's economic policy concerning private enterprise?  lol.
China allows business as long as it benefits China.  It cares for, nor supports, individual profits.  You gave examples on foreign companies that produce consumer goods for export.  The major industrial components in that country are nationalized.
Largest steel producer in China (5th in the world) is state owned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baosteel
The second largest company is purportedly privately owned, however the heavy regulation of the industry and China's demand for industry expansion to monopolize the market means (likely IMO) that the private firms are heavily subsidized and sell their steel directly to China.  In other words, it's more than likely a bureaucrat pet project.

Your quote was mixed in with Wilmore's quote.  Guess I missed a few lines.

Anyway, yes, China cares about China.  I fail to see how that's any different than any other nation on Earth.  The US cares about the US, which includes the people of the US and new businesses provide not only tax revenue, but also happy people.  Thus, it benefits the US.


Oh and you could name me any nation that uses pure (or as close as  you know) capitalism as their economic model and is prosperous and happy?
No, it's not the US's business to care about the US's economic welfare, outside of creating a platform on uninhibited commerce.  Ultra-nationalist sentiment is what leads to the undermining collectivism of fascism.  In the US, individuals do things for the benefit of individuals, that's it.  Whether or not the US directly benefits from economic activity is not a consideration of a free market system.
The closest any nation got to free market capitalism is the US, pre-civil war.  You could limit it to a shorter, more specific time period than that, but I think that's a good standard.
Is it any coincidence that today's dollar is worth 97% less than 1913's dollar, when the current Federal Reserve System (central banking) was enacted?
Is it any coincidence that Andrew Jackson refused to renew the second national bank's charter because he thought it only served the interests of the Bankers and not the people?
Is it any coincidence that the US, Europe, the UK are completely flat broke right now, and that Goldman Sach's posted record profits in 2009 amidst the worst financial crisis ever?
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

*

Lorddave

  • 16290
Re: Socialism
« Reply #221 on: May 16, 2010, 03:35:09 PM »
It's actually a hybrid economy.  While the government does have a huge sector of the economy there is also a private and highly competitive sector.  This has allowed them to integrate into the global economy, offer up choice to their people, and preserve their power base.  Why do you think Coca-Cola, Nike, McDonalds, and who knows how many other non-Chinese businesses are able to do business in China?  Yes there are many laws and the government doesn't allow just anyone to start a business without their approval, but they aren't as horrible about it as you think.  As long as your business doesn't disrupt the moral fiber of the Chinese people you're fine.

I seemed to have missed a <quote> tag or something...
How do you know what I think about China's economic policy concerning private enterprise?  lol.
China allows business as long as it benefits China.  It cares for, nor supports, individual profits.  You gave examples on foreign companies that produce consumer goods for export.  The major industrial components in that country are nationalized.
Largest steel producer in China (5th in the world) is state owned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baosteel
The second largest company is purportedly privately owned, however the heavy regulation of the industry and China's demand for industry expansion to monopolize the market means (likely IMO) that the private firms are heavily subsidized and sell their steel directly to China.  In other words, it's more than likely a bureaucrat pet project.

Your quote was mixed in with Wilmore's quote.  Guess I missed a few lines.

Anyway, yes, China cares about China.  I fail to see how that's any different than any other nation on Earth.  The US cares about the US, which includes the people of the US and new businesses provide not only tax revenue, but also happy people.  Thus, it benefits the US.


Oh and you could name me any nation that uses pure (or as close as  you know) capitalism as their economic model and is prosperous and happy?
No, it's not the US's business to care about the US's economic welfare, outside of creating a platform on uninhibited commerce.  Ultra-nationalist sentiment is what leads to the undermining collectivism of fascism.  In the US, individuals do things for the benefit of individuals, that's it.  Whether or not the US directly benefits from economic activity is not a consideration of a free market system.
The closest any nation got to free market capitalism is the US, pre-civil war.  You could limit it to a shorter, more specific time period than that, but I think that's a good standard.
Is it any coincidence that today's dollar is worth 97% less than 1913's dollar, when the current Federal Reserve System (central banking) was enacted?
Is it any coincidence that Andrew Jackson refused to renew the second national bank's charter because he thought it only served the interests of the Bankers and not the people?
Is it any coincidence that the US, Europe, the UK are completely flat broke right now, and that Goldman Sach's posted record profits in 2009 amidst the worst financial crisis ever?

Well that's stupid.
The US's power is based on it's economy.  Politicians are voted in our out based on if their voters have a job or not and that requires an economy.  So yes, I think the US cares about it's own economic welfare.

Is it a coincidence that the dollar in 1913 was worth less than a dollar in 1885?  Why, there was a time when the dollar could buy you so much.  But people also made less money.  We call this inflation.

Quote
Ultra-nationalist sentiment is what leads to the undermining collectivism of fascism.
Wait... let me get this right...
People who believe their nation is great and strives to make their nation even greater and to show others that their nation is the best undermines fascism? 
You do realize that Fascism is nationalism right?

Quote
Is it any coincidence that Andrew Jackson refused to renew the second national bank's charter because he thought it only served the interests of the Bankers and not the people?

So?
That was his opinion and that's fine.  Maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong.  Doesn't mean much either way.

Quote
Is it any coincidence that the US, Europe, the UK are completely flat broke right now, and that Goldman Sach's posted record profits in 2009 amidst the worst financial crisis ever?

Free Market?
I dunno.  All I know is that China, which you don't feel is a free market, is not broke.  In fact, all the jobs went from the US to China and Mexico because it's cheaper to manufacture goods there.  Why?  Free Market and lack of government regulations.

Quote
The closest any nation got to free market capitalism is the US, pre-civil war. 
Good to know you feel that child labor, slavery, low wages, poverty, and no regard for the environment or even human life is what a Free Market economy should be.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: Socialism
« Reply #222 on: May 16, 2010, 03:49:09 PM »
Your views on economics are so distorted, I don't even know where to begin.
Every time I try to give an example of why free markets (and the personal freedoms that come with it) are better than socialism, you just attempt to undermine what I say, without supporting your side of the argument.

However, I do want to point out your little minimum wage conundrum:
China has a nearly nonexistent minimum wage, whereas the US does.  So, it's better to send jobs overseas to keep wages for those same jobs here, higher.  So, essentially, you took a low wage, and made it a zero wage, because the job opportunity no longer exists.
It still boggles my mind that it can be so freaking much cheaper to make things in China, and have them SHIPPED ACROSS THE WORLD to the US rather than have the US produce them directly.  It's positively amazing, if you consider all the added logistics vice having something produced right down the road, so to speak.
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Socialism
« Reply #223 on: May 16, 2010, 04:15:42 PM »
It's interesting that you try to draw distinction between economic policy and over-all government organization, only to wrap up your second paragraph with "Pure capitalism would involve the abolition of law and the state."
This seems contradictory to your own viewpoint.
There is no freedom without economic freedom.


And how exactly do you define 'economic freedom'? Because in my opinion, you cannot have absolute economic freedom if your actions are constrained by law of any kind.


China is not a free market economy.   Don't make such silly statements.


The degree to which China is a free-market economy is a totally different debate; the wider point remains, and you have not dealt with it.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Socialism
« Reply #224 on: May 16, 2010, 04:27:00 PM »
A totally free economy means that there is absolutely nothing regulating it.... which is absolute capitalism..... which is as bad as any other "pure" economic/government system.

The robber-barons are a true example of why unrestricted free market would fail horribly in actually having wealth for everybody and those that fail,get old, or are disabled would be left to rot.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

Lorddave

  • 16290
Re: Socialism
« Reply #225 on: May 16, 2010, 04:30:45 PM »
Your views on economics are so distorted, I don't even know where to begin.
Every time I try to give an example of why free markets (and the personal freedoms that come with it) are better than socialism, you just attempt to undermine what I say, without supporting your side of the argument.

However, I do want to point out your little minimum wage conundrum:
China has a nearly nonexistent minimum wage, whereas the US does.  So, it's better to send jobs overseas to keep wages for those same jobs here, higher.  So, essentially, you took a low wage, and made it a zero wage, because the job opportunity no longer exists.
It still boggles my mind that it can be so freaking much cheaper to make things in China, and have them SHIPPED ACROSS THE WORLD to the US rather than have the US produce them directly.  It's positively amazing, if you consider all the added logistics vice having something produced right down the road, so to speak.

Right... MY views on economics are screwed up but yours are perfectly correct.  And I bet you have a masters in Economics to show me eh?

Quote
China has a nearly nonexistent minimum wage, whereas the US does.  So, it's better to send jobs overseas to keep wages for those same jobs here, higher.  So, essentially, you took a low wage, and made it a zero wage, because the job opportunity no longer exists.
This is confusing to me.
Here is how I understand what you said...

China doesn't have a minimum wage but the US does.  By sending those jobs over seas to china, the wages for those jobs stay high here and are gone.

Am I right because it was hard to understand what you wrote.

Anyway, why would it boggle your mind?
The biggest cost to any company is the employee.  American companies have to pay decent wages, let's say $30,000/year per person.  They have to pay health insurance, worker's compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, lawyers for any employee disputes, better safety for their employees, retirement funds, ect...  That one little employee could cost $50,000 a year for the company.  Put in 20 employees and that's a huge amount of money.
Go to China, pay each person $150/month ($1,800/year) with no medical, no insurance, nothing and all you pay is $1,800/year/person.  

$36,000 for a factory of 20 workers vs $1,000,000 for a factory of 20 workers.  Which one do YOU think is better?

All that adds up and it's much more expensive than sending a boat full of cargo across the Pacific Ocean then sending that cargo along rail, plane, and truck.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: Socialism
« Reply #226 on: May 16, 2010, 05:57:57 PM »
I guess you're right.  If you are not able to make at least $50k per year, you should have to make $0 per year.  What a great system.  Thanks socialists!
Labor is just a small part of the equation.  You have to look at the tax posturing of multinational corporations to see the big picture.  This is where an in-depth study of a subject would be useful, but I'll break it down for you as I interpret it:
On top of local taxes, etc, US income tax for the largest corporations is between 34 and 39%.  Solution to this problem?  Well, it's likely that (and this is where the specific code knowledge will come in), if you are a corporation, you set up a separate subsidiary company inside your retail market (the US), and 'sell' your manufactured goods to that company 'at cost' or in another similar arrangement.
It's also likely this is a three-country set up, with the 3rd country allowing closed book accounting, aka no income tax or a secret banking system.  This would allow any potential audit of 'foreign earned income' to be stamped out, because the trail would run dry at the third country.

lol, biggest cost to a company is the employees, it's so funny to hear this kind of stuff.
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Socialism
« Reply #227 on: May 16, 2010, 06:05:14 PM »
I guess you're right.  If you are not able to make at least $50k per year, you should have to make $0 per year.  What a great system.  Thanks socialists!

Someone apparently has a hard time understnading economic systems. (moderate) Socialism spreads the wealth so that everyone is equaled out to a degree while still giving you your due. You fail sir.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

Lorddave

  • 16290
Re: Socialism
« Reply #228 on: May 16, 2010, 07:21:10 PM »
I guess you're right.  If you are not able to make at least $50k per year, you should have to make $0 per year.  What a great system.  Thanks socialists!
Labor is just a small part of the equation.  You have to look at the tax posturing of multinational corporations to see the big picture.  This is where an in-depth study of a subject would be useful, but I'll break it down for you as I interpret it:
On top of local taxes, etc, US income tax for the largest corporations is between 34 and 39%.  Solution to this problem?  Well, it's likely that (and this is where the specific code knowledge will come in), if you are a corporation, you set up a separate subsidiary company inside your retail market (the US), and 'sell' your manufactured goods to that company 'at cost' or in another similar arrangement.
It's also likely this is a three-country set up, with the 3rd country allowing closed book accounting, aka no income tax or a secret banking system.  This would allow any potential audit of 'foreign earned income' to be stamped out, because the trail would run dry at the third country.

lol, biggest cost to a company is the employees, it's so funny to hear this kind of stuff.

Are you selective understanding?
I didn't say "if you can't make 50K you should make nothing" I said "Why pay someone 30k if you can pay someone else 1.8k?"

And as much as income taxes are, I'm damn certain that it's nowhere near the cost of your employees.

Hell, just go look at any school budget and see how much they pay for insurance, employee pay, retirement, and health insurance.  It'll be the biggest single item on the budget.  Let's take my school.

Yes I know it's not a corporation and I know it doesn't pay taxes but since it's pubic I have access to their budget.
You need adobe PDF reader to read it.

http://www.vcsd.k12.ny.us/57129012171436/lib/57129012171436/10-11%20Budget%20&%20Contingency%20Estimate.pdf

Now as you can see, the cost of salary for the staff ranges from $40-70k for the teachers, about 75k for administrators, and over 100k for the superintendent.  The staff can range from 12k to 40k depending on what they do.  I'm hourly and when I started I made about 12k gross.  I now make about 14k after 6 years.  I work 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, 180 ish days a year.

The total amount of employees for the district, while I don't have exact numbers, is probably around 1,000.  We have 7 schools: 5 elementary schools, 1 middle school, 1 highschool.

So, knowing all that, the cost of salary is $44 million (see the 2009-2010 budget) and benefits are $17.6 million giving us a total of over $61.6 million of our $84.8 million budget going to the employees.  That's 73% of our total budget going to paying and insuring our staff.

Unfortunately a search for a corporation's payroll information was unsuccessful.  But it stands to reason that if it costs $61.6 million dollars for 1,000 employees of various pay scales, how much do you think it would cost say Apple, for each employee, on average. 

Now if I'm understanding you right, you just told me that the only reason they don't do business in the US is because of corporate tax.  While it does play a part, it's not exactly the whole story and if we removed all corporate tax and removed all tariffs , it's not like it'll suddenly be more expensive to make things in China and ship them here.  Hell, it'll be cheaper since getting that load of TVs into the US will cost nothing except shipping.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: Socialism
« Reply #229 on: May 16, 2010, 07:52:29 PM »
A public school doesn't generate income.  It's nothing BUT expenses.  It's also service oriented, not product oriented.  You cannot outsource (save IT/administrative tasks) services.  No matter how much you pay a man in china, he will not be able to unclog your toilet from the other side of the world.

Take, for instance, Exxon.  Product orient (produces a good).
If you look at a breakdown of their financial report from 2009 (link follows below), you'll see the following (among other things) in expenses:

Sales-based taxes:  25.9 billion
Other taxes and duties: 34.8 billion
Income tax:  15.1 billion

.. Admin expenses:  14.7 billion
Production and manufacturing expenses: 33 billion

http://thomson.mobular.net/thomson/7/3095/4222/  (go to page 38 when it loads).
Now, even if we said that both types of expenses that could include employees were made of nothing BUT employee expenses, we could conclude that employee expenses do not come close to covering the taxes.
For year 2009 Exxon had 80 thousand employees.  Even if every employee (on average) was a liability of $250,000 per year, that would only be 20 billion in employee expenses.
I'm sure if someone searches a bit harder and longer than I did, they could find the actual expense breakdown covering employee expenses, but I don't think it's necessary to illustrate what I'm trying to say (though it would be interesting).
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

*

Lorddave

  • 16290
Re: Socialism
« Reply #230 on: May 16, 2010, 08:04:31 PM »
Ok, point.  Taxes are expensive for large corporations and are a larger expense than the employees alone.

It's still cheaper to produce goods in another country with low taxes AND low wages than just low taxes.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: Socialism
« Reply #231 on: May 17, 2010, 06:23:53 AM »
Ok, point.  Taxes are expensive for large corporations and are a larger expense than the employees alone.

It's still cheaper to produce goods in another country with low taxes AND low wages than just low taxes.
lol, well, of course.
I was trying to highlight the fact that minimum wage laws are just one (small piece) of the outsourcing puzzle.  When you're thinking about companies that are large enough to send operations over seas, and still maintain market share domestically, you're talking about billion dollar corporations.

If you care about domestic jobs, and don't want to enrich the corporations and banks large enough to send jobs over seas, then you should support floor-level taxes and zero minimum wage laws.  You'd see an economic explosion (of a good kind) in the US.
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1524
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: Socialism
« Reply #232 on: May 17, 2010, 07:29:27 AM »
Ok, point.  Taxes are expensive for large corporations and are a larger expense than the employees alone.

It's still cheaper to produce goods in another country with low taxes AND low wages than just low taxes.
lol, well, of course.
I was trying to highlight the fact that minimum wage laws are just one (small piece) of the outsourcing puzzle.  When you're thinking about companies that are large enough to send operations over seas, and still maintain market share domestically, you're talking about billion dollar corporations.

If you care about domestic jobs, and don't want to enrich the corporations and banks large enough to send jobs over seas, then you should support floor-level taxes and zero minimum wage laws.  You'd see an economic explosion (of a good kind) in the US.
Zero minimum wage would just end in sweatshops existing in America.  Not to mention the other terrible consequences of an unregulated free market.
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

*

Lorddave

  • 16290
Re: Socialism
« Reply #233 on: May 17, 2010, 02:59:09 PM »
Ok, point.  Taxes are expensive for large corporations and are a larger expense than the employees alone.

It's still cheaper to produce goods in another country with low taxes AND low wages than just low taxes.
lol, well, of course.
I was trying to highlight the fact that minimum wage laws are just one (small piece) of the outsourcing puzzle.  When you're thinking about companies that are large enough to send operations over seas, and still maintain market share domestically, you're talking about billion dollar corporations.

If you care about domestic jobs, and don't want to enrich the corporations and banks large enough to send jobs over seas, then you should support floor-level taxes and zero minimum wage laws.  You'd see an economic explosion (of a good kind) in the US.

You mean the minimum wage laws that allow us to maintain a specific standard of living?
Are you aware that, when there wasn't a minimum wage law, people, including whole families, would work at a factory and live in company housing, just to survive?  That the conditions were horrible and not fit for any human being?  And you want to go BACK?  What kind of person are you who feels that slave labor is better?  Or do you feel that companies would pay their workers ABOVE minimum wage without a minimum wage law? 


And floor taxes...

Well, if we did that, we'd have to cut out most social programs just to keep the military funded.
That means no public schools.
No public roads.
No Medicare/Medicade.
No Unemployment.
No Police department.
No Fire department.
No EPA.
No FDA.


So let's see...
On your low wage you'd have to pay tolls for traveling on the road as they'd be privately owned and funded and thus would require some kind of profit to be made.
You'd have to pay for school for your kids, which can cost as much as college tuition, ie. $8,000+ each year for 12 years. 
If you got hurt and couldn't work, you'd be dead.  No money, no food, no hope.
If you lost your job, you might have many opportunities for other, low wage paying jobs.  I mean let's face it, $1.50/hour is the same no matter where you work.
If you got robbed, you'd have to pay for the police work, which would probably be as much as s visit to the Hospital.  And they'd charge by the day.
If your house caught fire, the only hope is the community helping to put it out with buckets like they used to.
The environment would be trashed as no one would be there to stop anyone from doing whatever they like.  We'd lose the many species we come to know and love, the wonderful parks we like to walk in, and everything would smell and look like New Jersey.
Drugs would be much cheaper but carry a much higher risk of death.  After all, dead men tell no tales so who would know?

I'm sorry if you feel that the world is capable of self regulation but it isn't.  Humans are too damn selfish to care about each other, let alone the greater good.  Most people will first ask "what's in it for me" before asking "Will it help anyone".  And those who are better at something will rise to the top, crushing those underfoot until you have the peasant class and the royalty, thus ensuring that the middle ages will live again.

In fact, I'd like to ask you a question:
In a general sense, who is more important: You or someone else?
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: Socialism
« Reply #234 on: May 17, 2010, 03:26:48 PM »
Ok, point.  Taxes are expensive for large corporations and are a larger expense than the employees alone.

It's still cheaper to produce goods in another country with low taxes AND low wages than just low taxes.
lol, well, of course.
I was trying to highlight the fact that minimum wage laws are just one (small piece) of the outsourcing puzzle.  When you're thinking about companies that are large enough to send operations over seas, and still maintain market share domestically, you're talking about billion dollar corporations.

If you care about domestic jobs, and don't want to enrich the corporations and banks large enough to send jobs over seas, then you should support floor-level taxes and zero minimum wage laws.  You'd see an economic explosion (of a good kind) in the US.

I don't care about domestic jobs if it means that I have a crummy standard of living.

Tell me what you imagine would happen if the your country adopted floor-level taxes and threw labour laws out the window.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.