-
🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪 -
🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥
Wal-Mart Cares
- Thread starter Bowden
- Start date
And how exactly is libertarian economic ideology (since it contains no actually mathematical models) any better if it does nothing to prevent the revolving door between the Hill and the private sector? How does it prevent the oligarchy from forming when it already has? the financializaiton of the the U.S economy 198's is proof positive of that so "some how" it would reverse the effects of this? Would it reverse the effects of decades of maximizing shareholder value and disinvestment in the country? Would it reverse Citizen's United? Would it remove private capital from the public election cycle?
or not....
Last edited:
it's called free market capitalism, something you know nothing about because you were taught keynesian economics your entire life and know nothing more.
you need to get your head out of the sand and open your mind to other options as Keynesian economics has been a complete failure. why is it you think govt is the answer to all the countries problems? It's govt that's the problem, open your eyes it's not too hard to see......
I rarely go to Wal-Mart, but yes I do about 1-2 times per year.
Do you ever notice most of the cashiers on these low wages, supplemented by Medicaid have accents?
They are from the Middle East and Latin America.
Immigration, legal and illegal is good for keeping wages down by having a large pool and oversupply of people who will do these low-paying jobs.
Keeps wages low.
Do you ever notice most of the cashiers on these low wages, supplemented by Medicaid have accents?
They are from the Middle East and Latin America.
Immigration, legal and illegal is good for keeping wages down by having a large pool and oversupply of people who will do these low-paying jobs.
Keeps wages low.
so anyone with an accent has only takes low paying jobs? don't you think that's kind of a racist comment?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101658424
traitor. speaking from that platform is a sickening move. it's like commending a rapist for being kind enough to use anal lube. no one needs those fucking jobs you retard. even his fans are so disgusted with his choice of venue they don't give a fuck what he has to say this time.
traitor. speaking from that platform is a sickening move. it's like commending a rapist for being kind enough to use anal lube. no one needs those fucking jobs you retard. even his fans are so disgusted with his choice of venue they don't give a fuck what he has to say this time.
Last edited:
heckler7
Registered
if you need or want a job a walmart is always hiring, you dont have to stay there. My daughter is working at jamba juice and understands that its not a career, its a job that pays for her phone and some gas money, but she will need to have a career to pay for rent and move out. When you interview for a job you except the task and pay, if you disagree you dont take the job and look elsewhere. its really that simple
I hope - and - assume - you are joking.
If you are not joking (which I think you are):
Accents are not related to race. Accent is a linguistic term.
To clarify, I mean people who are not white English speaking like yourself.
There is no such thing as free markets and contrary to conservative ideology, there is no such thing as a free market that is wholly divorced from laws, regulation and government. The market, as it exists, is a function of those property rights that were modified to exclude communal rights. The legal infrastructure of capitalism is what separates ownership from labor, and turns the marketplace into an inherently "owner friendly" institution.
The rules that dictate the marketplace are in a constant state of flux, they are not static and never have been. A perfect example would be Glass–Steagall Act which created the separation of commercial and investment banking. First it was legal, then made illegal then legalized again.
If you feel the need to debate this topic in more detail please post a link to the document that specifies the laws and rules which specify this mythological "free market" and who created them and the dates that this non-existent document was utilized.
Never in a single post have I championed for Keynesian economics its principles are however the most widely used in the U.S since the Great Depression. Keynesian economic principles were also utilized over the greatest economic expansion in U.S history during the progressive era.
free markets were never divorced from law. not sure where you come up with that. you obviously can't kill people or steal from them. we have the court system for people who want to sue a company for whatever reason they choose
you have championed Keynesian econ. for example: you have always said the stimulus was not big enough. you think govt spending borrowed money can create a sustainable economy. it never has worked and never will.
the economic expansion you speak of was because we had less taxation, regulation, rules, inflation and a smaller govt.
We also had the world's greatest manufacturing based economy and a population that was 60% smaller and a financial sector that actually worked for the people and not the inverse, the Brenton Woods system was still in use, US large firms invested plenty of capital back into the real economy place and infrastructure spending was seen as "good debt".
So pretty much an economy that was that functioned the exact opposite of the one today.
Stiglitz said time and time again that the original stimulus was too small..
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/18/nobel_economist_joseph_stiglitz_on_obamas
"the economic expansion you speak of was because we had less taxation"
Well that's not what historical data shows when you look at the percentages and sources of taxation post WWII.
Table 2.3—Receipts by Source as Percentages of GDP: 1934–2019
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/hist02z3.xls
"a smaller govt. "
the size of government grows as the economy of a country becomes more open, this has been seen in every single country in the world. So please explain how the U.S with a large open economy AND many large firms accomplishes this. When large firms are dependent on big government, it's why there are no large firms or MNE's seen in any country in the world with a closed economy or small government.
that chart shows nothing of value.
companies and people paid less in taxes then, than they do today. you failed to address the less rules and regulations.
the size of govt doesn't have to grow with the economy. the govt has no authority to manage the economy. large firms need not to be dependent on govt. And if they need big govt to survive then they should fail. we had a smaller govt. and great economy. From 1870-1910 was one of the best economic times the US has ever had.
who cares what Stigliz says. economists are wrong most of the time. the stimulus has been a failure and now they have to make up excuses for why it didn't work.
the chart has no value to you because you can't understand it which is pretty sad as it couldn't be any simpler. It shows the sources of tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. Current levels of taxation are in line with historic trends. And if you would have read just one of the dozens of reports that I have posted you would know that the post 2001 economy in the US was unsustainable as all of the economic growth seen in the 2000-2010 period came from mortgage debt and not from real income growth.
And I did not say it had to I stated that it did. The size of government grows in response to increased risk of external economic shocks from foreign trade and the globalization of supply chains. A larger share of government purchases of goods and services in GDP also reduces reduces income volatility and then there is the social safety net as a % of GDP.
And yes the government most certainly does have the authority to manage the economy because it is the government that defines the markets via taxation, tariff, quotas, trade agreements, etc. Regardless if a person views this as "right or wrong" doesn't matter, it's the way it is and the way it always will be. World history clearly shows that the owners of the means of production have always dictated major policy in every non-communist country in the world and this goes back to the fact that money isn't value neutral.
Over-taxation nor regulation is what's hampering the economy (neither are factors that caused the economic downturns in 2008, 2001 or the 1980's) we are now feeling the long term effects of the financialization of the US economy which is the leading cause of off-shoring and disinvestment in the real economy and of course the extreme and growing level of inequality in the U.S. which then circles back to financialization and labors decline share of the national income. The structural changes to both the demand and supply sides of the economy couldn't be any more obvious and why economic growth the past 3-4 decades is extremely unbalanced. There are at least a dozen country's across the OECD feeling the effects of financialization.
And economic reports come in two basic flavors those that are quantitative or qualitative, the fact that you simply dismiss all of them in favor of political economic ideology (less taxes and regulation) combined with a rudimentary understanding of economic theory is why your your one–dimensional solutions are not only irrelevant but are not even cited as known issues with the economy. You have oversimplified an extremely complicated subject matter which spans many decades with far too much focus on economic theory vs practical application (applied economics).
"economists are wrong most of the time."
And you know this from not reading those same reports, that's got to be the most asinine statement you've made in a while. There are thousands of economist around the world and tens of thousands of various reports and briefs and you come to this conclusion by not reading anything, that's just brilliant.
The political economy of the US disregards most of what is known to be sound economic policy in country's with similar structure since no two country's are exactly the same..
Just name one way the US economy if today is similar to that of 1870-1910.
LOL at your claim of "over-taxation" of US large firms.
Tax Avoidance in Silicon Valley,
and How America’s Richest Company
Pays a Lower Tax Rate than You Do
http://www.cob.calpoly.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/03/Tax-Avoidance-in-Silicon-Valley.pdf
US tech firms make eleventh-hour attempt to halt tax avoidance reforms
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/19/tech-firms-attempt-halt-tax-avoidance-reforms
Fighting tax evasion
http://www.oecd.org/ctp/fightingtaxevasion.htm
WP 2009-5 Financialization and the Dynamics of Offshoring in the U.S
http://www.economicpolicyresearch.o...nancial_crisis/SCEPA_Working_Paper_2009-5.pdf
"In sum, financialization and globalization have reinforced each other for U.S. corporations and, despite the corporate sector’s contribution to national savings over the past decade, the offshoring-financialization linkage reduces the capacity of non-financial corporations to act as a driver of the recovery from the economic crisis that emerged in 2008. Having moved into core competence beginning in the early 1990s as part of the financialization process, U.S. corporations are today ill-equipped to serve as the driver of the recovery from the economic crisis that emerged in 2008."
Tax Avoidance in Silicon Valley,
and How America’s Richest Company
Pays a Lower Tax Rate than You Do
http://www.cob.calpoly.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/03/Tax-Avoidance-in-Silicon-Valley.pdf
US tech firms make eleventh-hour attempt to halt tax avoidance reforms
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/19/tech-firms-attempt-halt-tax-avoidance-reforms
Fighting tax evasion
http://www.oecd.org/ctp/fightingtaxevasion.htm
WP 2009-5 Financialization and the Dynamics of Offshoring in the U.S
http://www.economicpolicyresearch.o...nancial_crisis/SCEPA_Working_Paper_2009-5.pdf
"In sum, financialization and globalization have reinforced each other for U.S. corporations and, despite the corporate sector’s contribution to national savings over the past decade, the offshoring-financialization linkage reduces the capacity of non-financial corporations to act as a driver of the recovery from the economic crisis that emerged in 2008. Having moved into core competence beginning in the early 1990s as part of the financialization process, U.S. corporations are today ill-equipped to serve as the driver of the recovery from the economic crisis that emerged in 2008."
The effect of financialization on labor’s share of income
http://www.ipe-berlin.org/fileadmin/downloads/working_paper/ipe_working_paper_17.pdf
ABSTRACT
Numerous studies have analyzed the decline in labor’s share of income, but only few have linked it to the increase in
financialization. The process of financialization can roughly be described as an increasing importance of the financial sector which had an impact on the distribution between wages and profits on the one hand, and retained earnings and financial income in the form of dividends and interest s on the other hand. This paper seeks to explore the relationship between financialization and labor’s share of income using a time-series cross-section data set of 13 countries over the time period from 1986 until 2007. The results suggest that there is indeed a relationship between increasing dividend and interest payments of non-financial corporations and the decline of the share of wages in national income. Other
factors that can be accounted for the decline relate to globalization and a decrease in the bargaining power of labor.
http://www.ipe-berlin.org/fileadmin/downloads/working_paper/ipe_working_paper_17.pdf
ABSTRACT
Numerous studies have analyzed the decline in labor’s share of income, but only few have linked it to the increase in
financialization. The process of financialization can roughly be described as an increasing importance of the financial sector which had an impact on the distribution between wages and profits on the one hand, and retained earnings and financial income in the form of dividends and interest s on the other hand. This paper seeks to explore the relationship between financialization and labor’s share of income using a time-series cross-section data set of 13 countries over the time period from 1986 until 2007. The results suggest that there is indeed a relationship between increasing dividend and interest payments of non-financial corporations and the decline of the share of wages in national income. Other
factors that can be accounted for the decline relate to globalization and a decrease in the bargaining power of labor.
Financialization and US Income Inequality, 1970-2008
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1954129
Abstract:
Focusing on U.S. non-finance industries, we examine the connection between the financialization of the US economy and rising income inequality. We argue that the increasing reliance by firms on earnings realized through financial channels decoupled the generation of surplus from production, strengthening owners' and elite workers' negotiating power relative to other workers. Moreover, the financial conception of the firm reduced capital and management commitment to production, further marginalizing labor’s role in U.S. corporations. The result was an incremental exclusion of the general workforce from revenue generating and compensation setting processes. Using time-series cross-section data at the industry level, our analysis shows that increased dependence on financial income, in the long run, decreased labor's share of income, increased top executives' share of compensation, and increased earnings dispersion among workers. Net of conventional explanations, including declining unionization, globalization, technological change, and capital investment, the effects of financialization are substantial on all three dimensions of increased inequality. The counterfactual analysis suggests that financialization accounts for more than half of the decline in labor's share of income, 10 percent of the growth in officers' share of compensation, and 15 percent of the growth in earnings dispersion between 1970 and 2008.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1954129
Abstract:
Focusing on U.S. non-finance industries, we examine the connection between the financialization of the US economy and rising income inequality. We argue that the increasing reliance by firms on earnings realized through financial channels decoupled the generation of surplus from production, strengthening owners' and elite workers' negotiating power relative to other workers. Moreover, the financial conception of the firm reduced capital and management commitment to production, further marginalizing labor’s role in U.S. corporations. The result was an incremental exclusion of the general workforce from revenue generating and compensation setting processes. Using time-series cross-section data at the industry level, our analysis shows that increased dependence on financial income, in the long run, decreased labor's share of income, increased top executives' share of compensation, and increased earnings dispersion among workers. Net of conventional explanations, including declining unionization, globalization, technological change, and capital investment, the effects of financialization are substantial on all three dimensions of increased inequality. The counterfactual analysis suggests that financialization accounts for more than half of the decline in labor's share of income, 10 percent of the growth in officers' share of compensation, and 15 percent of the growth in earnings dispersion between 1970 and 2008.
"economists are wrong most of the time."
Actually reading economic reports helps.
"I discuss the impact of financialisation on real capital accumulation in the US. Using data from a sample of non-financial corporations from 1973 to 2003, I find a negative relationship between real investment and financialisation. Two channels
can help explain this negative relationship: first, increased financial investment and increased financial profit opportunities may have crowded out real investment by changing the incentives of firm managers and directing funds away from real
investment. Second, increased payments to the financial markets may have impeded real investment by decreasing available internal funds, shortening the planning horizons of the firm management and increasing uncertainty."
Financialisation and capital accumulation in the non-financial corporate sector:
A theoretical and empirical investigation on the US economy: 1973–2003
http://courses.umass.edu/econ711-rpollin/Orhangazi financialization in CJE.pdf
Actually reading economic reports helps.
"I discuss the impact of financialisation on real capital accumulation in the US. Using data from a sample of non-financial corporations from 1973 to 2003, I find a negative relationship between real investment and financialisation. Two channels
can help explain this negative relationship: first, increased financial investment and increased financial profit opportunities may have crowded out real investment by changing the incentives of firm managers and directing funds away from real
investment. Second, increased payments to the financial markets may have impeded real investment by decreasing available internal funds, shortening the planning horizons of the firm management and increasing uncertainty."
Financialisation and capital accumulation in the non-financial corporate sector:
A theoretical and empirical investigation on the US economy: 1973–2003
http://courses.umass.edu/econ711-rpollin/Orhangazi financialization in CJE.pdf
Last edited:
Bong, joints are for road trips..LOL
Conditions of Work and Employment Series No. 40
Conditions of Work and Employment Branch
Is aggregate demand wage-led or profit-led?
National and global effects
"This paper estimates the effects of a change in the wage share on growth in the G20 countries using a post-Keynesian/post-Kaleckian model, analyses the interactions among different economies, and calculates the globa
l multiplier effects of a simultaneous decline in the wage share. At the national level, a decrease in the wage share leads to lower growth in the euro area, Germany, France, Italy, UK, US, Japan, Turkey, and Korea, i.e. these economies are wage-led, whereas it stimulates growth in Canada, Australia, Argentina, Mexico, China, India, and South Africa; thus the latter group of countries are profit-led. However, a simultaneous decline in the wage share in all these countries leads to a decline in global growth. Furthermore, Canada, Argentina, Mexico, and India also contract when they decrease their wage-share along with their trading partners. Thus the global economy in aggregate is wage-led. The policy conclusion
s of the paper shed light on the limits of strategies of international competitiveness based on wage competition in a highly integrated global economy, and point at the possibilities to correct global imbalances via coordinated macroecono
mic and wage policy, where domestic demand plays an important role. There is room for a wage-led recovery in the global economy based on a simultaneous increase in the wage shares, where global GDP as well as all individual
countries can grow."
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pu...travail/documents/publication/wcms_192121.pdf
Conditions of Work and Employment Branch
Is aggregate demand wage-led or profit-led?
National and global effects
"This paper estimates the effects of a change in the wage share on growth in the G20 countries using a post-Keynesian/post-Kaleckian model, analyses the interactions among different economies, and calculates the globa
l multiplier effects of a simultaneous decline in the wage share. At the national level, a decrease in the wage share leads to lower growth in the euro area, Germany, France, Italy, UK, US, Japan, Turkey, and Korea, i.e. these economies are wage-led, whereas it stimulates growth in Canada, Australia, Argentina, Mexico, China, India, and South Africa; thus the latter group of countries are profit-led. However, a simultaneous decline in the wage share in all these countries leads to a decline in global growth. Furthermore, Canada, Argentina, Mexico, and India also contract when they decrease their wage-share along with their trading partners. Thus the global economy in aggregate is wage-led. The policy conclusion
s of the paper shed light on the limits of strategies of international competitiveness based on wage competition in a highly integrated global economy, and point at the possibilities to correct global imbalances via coordinated macroecono
mic and wage policy, where domestic demand plays an important role. There is room for a wage-led recovery in the global economy based on a simultaneous increase in the wage shares, where global GDP as well as all individual
countries can grow."
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pu...travail/documents/publication/wcms_192121.pdf
Labor's Declining Share of Income and Rising Inequality
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2012/2012-13.cfm
Debt and the Consumption Response to Household Income Shocks
http://www.stanford.edu/~srbaker/Papers/Baker_DebtConsumption.pdf
The Labor Market Consequences of Adverse Financial Shocks
http://www.imf.org/external/np/res/seminars/2012/arc/pdf/BGM.pdf
What Accounts for the Slow Growth of the Economy After the Recession?
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43707-SlowRecovery.pdf
I could site dozens more sources. The causes of the 2008 economic downturn and the sluggish recovery are well known and not a "mystery" with declining wages and increasing household debt since the 80's being well known factors. Not a single mention of excessive taxation or regulation in these or any others, because they are not the causes nor is the reduction of them ever mentioned as a solutions to restoring aggregate demand.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2012/2012-13.cfm
Debt and the Consumption Response to Household Income Shocks
http://www.stanford.edu/~srbaker/Papers/Baker_DebtConsumption.pdf
The Labor Market Consequences of Adverse Financial Shocks
http://www.imf.org/external/np/res/seminars/2012/arc/pdf/BGM.pdf
What Accounts for the Slow Growth of the Economy After the Recession?
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43707-SlowRecovery.pdf
I could site dozens more sources. The causes of the 2008 economic downturn and the sluggish recovery are well known and not a "mystery" with declining wages and increasing household debt since the 80's being well known factors. Not a single mention of excessive taxation or regulation in these or any others, because they are not the causes nor is the reduction of them ever mentioned as a solutions to restoring aggregate demand.
Corporate Income Tax:
Effective Tax Rates Can Differ Significantly from the Statutory Rate
http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-520
Tax rates in the U.S may be higher then the OECD average but tax loopholes and havens have been expanded while they were closed in many OECD country's. And the results of the 2004 tax holiday in the U.S are proof positive of what U.S large firms would do with lower tax rates, stock share buy-backs and more off-shoring because of the MSV ideology.
With all the campaign donations by the wealthy and corporations that tax rate is clearly what they want it to be. They could be paying zero taxes, which some already do, if they really wanted it.
MI1972
Registered
Corporations just have many lawyers to find the tax loopholes, like having a headquarters in the Cayman Islands, or some BS. They also take advantage of tax benefits like accelerated depreciation (approved by Congress paid for by corporate lobbyists). Want all of this to change, ban all lobbyists from Washington DC. Make it a capital offense to accept a bribe, not just a slap on the wrist... public executions of government officials on the take.
It would be nice to see all that offshore money come back some day. I have heard it is as high as 3 trillion dollars that can be repatriated if the taxes were lower.
It would be nice to see all that offshore money come back some day. I have heard it is as high as 3 trillion dollars that can be repatriated if the taxes were lower.
The 2004 Tax Holiday along with the past 30+ years tells us what would happen, more stock share buy-backs and jobs off-shored. Maximizing shareholder value takes precedence over long term investments, it's a viscous downward spiral.
Even now profits are up but capital spending is down, large companies are eager to spend cash on immediate IRR opportunities such as dividends, stock buybacks, and to a lesser extent M&A, than on longer-term, higher IRR, but less immediate bang for the buck opportunities, such as capital reinvestment.
Small firms can't afford to invest due to weak demand which stems from the loss of home wealth (home equity) the extraction of which fueled economic growth the last decade. US household are still deleveraging from record levels of debt but via defaults not by repayment. Households are going to take on pre-recession levels of debt again since housing price dynamics have changed.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HDTGPDUSQ163N
MI1972
Registered
This time, they should put stipulations on the tax holiday so it is worthwhile... i.e. To be used for capital improvements, personnel, R & D in the US. Instead, these corporations are just going to hoard their cash or spend it outside of the country.
Like it or not, this is a capitalist country.... or was. It was also full of opportunity for those who reached for it. Its survival of the fittest, that is all. Not everyone can be a first baseman for the Yankees, so some people are billionaires and some are broke.
But since it is becoming a nanny state, maybe we should just all send our money to the Feds, because they know what is best for us. After all, Communism works...right? Besides, if you look at history, almost all countries fail when the government is corrupted by money and the citizens finally wake up. Also, it happens when the currency becomes so deflated that the citizens cannot pay for anything or over reach the borders and become "occupiers"... i.e. Rome.