• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GE moving X-ray business to China

Grant said:
Then perhaps instead of listening to a politicians oratory we should judge them by the quality of the character and their past experience, their accomplishments.

What do you think qualified Barrack Obama to be President?
Click to expand...

Character is subjective, and something we are easily fooled by. Some actually though Bush the jr had character. It is just one more thing they will lie about. And experience? What counts as experience? Obama meant all the qualifications. So, while I would have prefered someone with more experience, republicans offered up a McCain who was then a shell of the man he was before, with Palin running mate. Left little choice but to vote for Obama.

And frankly, Obama is not near as bad you guys contend. In fact, if he would actually be a little more liberal, push a more liberal agenda, and beat that bully pulpit a little more, he be doing fine, all things concidered.
 
drz-400 said:
So you are against large multinational companies? If so, then there are other economic reasons to support these, especially with trade. Lets start with the first point, these companies can build economies of scale. Large companies have the ability to reduce transaction costs causing the costs to make things, distribute things, etc to fall and making us again able to produce more things. Walmart has a clear advantage in the international markets than a mom and pop store, the reasons should be obvious. Not to mention, many things would fail to exist if things were only traded at the local level. Do you think every small town should have its own car maker, or x-ray maker? Does that sound efficient?
Click to expand...

Take Walmart of example. Their low prices are not a deal. As they undercut everyone else, eventually they corner most the market and then there will be little competition. Competition requires a competitor. Every small town neverdad all those things, and we're not just talking about small towns, though they have sufferd a lot.

And again, no is saying only trading at a local level. No one has said that at all.
 
Grant said:
Then perhaps instead of listening to a politicians oratory we should judge them by the quality of the character and their past experience, their accomplishments.

What do you think qualified Barrack Obama to be President?
Click to expand...

In an ideal world, yes. When will that ever happen though?

The unfortunate thing is that nobody is really qualified to be President until they are President. By that logic we'd just keep re-electing the same disasters again and again (like GW, and if some have their way, Obama).
 
Boo Radley said:
Their low prices are not a deal.
Click to expand...

especially when one considers the non-retail costs, such as unemployment and other need-based entitlements that would not be necessary if people were employed and making goods here in the states.

cheap goods are only artificially so; and only in the strictest retail sense.
 
1Perry said:
To be blunt, you are full of ****.



And many are not.



Labor costs do have an impact, just as taxes a so many regulations do.
Click to expand...

Labour costs are the primary factor

Effective tax rates in the US are lower then the majority of the OECD countries for both individuals and companies. Heck even labour costs are lower in the US then in Canada and northern Europe. What the US can not do is compete on labor with countries like China or India. Boston Sci is not going into China because taxes in China are so much lower then the US, regulations perhaps, but the primary factor is cheaper labour and a large Chinese market. A 2.3% excise tax that applies to all medical equipement sold in the US is not the factor. The desire to increase profits are, the same reason RIM is laying off a signficant number of workers
 
Boo Radley said:
Take Walmart of example. Their low prices are not a deal. As they undercut everyone else, eventually they corner most the market and then there will be little competition. Competition requires a competitor. Every small town neverdad all those things, and we're not just talking about small towns, though they have sufferd a lot.

And again, no is saying only trading at a local level. No one has said that at all.
Click to expand...

Well, why don't you just explicitly tell me what your argument is? Its hilarious that you say that walmart takes away competition. How does walmart under-cut everyone else? Is it because they OUTCOMPETE them. You are arguing for competition by arguing against it. That makes absolutely no sense.
 
Boo Radley said:
Character is subjective, and something we are easily fooled by. Some actually though Bush the jr had character. It is just one more thing they will lie about. And experience? What counts as experience? Obama meant all the qualifications. So, while I would have prefered someone with more experience, republicans offered up a McCain who was then a shell of the man he was before, with Palin running mate. Left little choice but to vote for Obama.

And frankly, Obama is not near as bad you guys contend. In fact, if he would actually be a little more liberal, push a more liberal agenda, and beat that bully pulpit a little more, he be doing fine, all things concidered.
Click to expand...



Still can't mention Obama without mentioning Bush, huh?

What counts as experience in the selection of a President of the United States? If you knew the answer to that question Barrack Obama would still be in the Senate.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yeah, got lucky. And yes, it is life. No one said otherwise. But they ahd a TV, They had a phone. They had a computer. If we judged them by that alone, we'd have missed a lot.
Click to expand...

Nobody claimed that they all vacationed on the Riveria. Many of the things in the article are things the middle class didn't have even 25 year ago. It was pretty common to have only 1 television and you got your channels off an antenna.

The position is that even the "poor" have it pretty good in this country.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Labour costs are the primary factor

Effective tax rates in the US are lower then the majority of the OECD countries for both individuals and companies. Heck even labour costs are lower in the US then in Canada and northern Europe. What the US can not do is compete on labor with countries like China or India. Boston Sci is not going into China because taxes in China are so much lower then the US, regulations perhaps, but the primary factor is cheaper labour and a large Chinese market. A 2.3% excise tax that applies to all medical equipement sold in the US is not the factor. The desire to increase profits are, the same reason RIM is laying off a signficant number of workers
Click to expand...

2.3% is a pretty good increase in profits. The point isn't that 2.3% is a huge factor. The point is, adding it on top of everything else can be the back breaker.
 
Boo Radley said:
If fact, as I've said
Click to expand...

it would be better for all if those who lived in the community profitted in the community
Click to expand...

Some actually though Bush the jr had character
Click to expand...

Obama meant all the qualifications
Click to expand...

he be doing fine
Click to expand...

all things concidered
Click to expand...

Take Walmart of example
Click to expand...

Every small town neverdad all those things
Click to expand...

they have sufferd a lot
Click to expand...

no is saying only trading at a local level
Click to expand...

LOL!

try as he might, the dept chair just can't help hisself
 
drz-400 said:
Well, why don't you just explicitly tell me what your argument is? Its hilarious that you say that walmart takes away competition. How does walmart under-cut everyone else? Is it because they OUTCOMPETE them. You are arguing for competition by arguing against it. That makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

Where Walmart comes, others go out of business.

The giant retailer's low prices often come with a high cost. Wal-Mart's relentless pressure can crush the companies it does business with and force them to send jobs overseas. Are we shopping our way straight to the unemployment line?

The Wal-Mart Effect | Charles Fishman

Wal-Mart’s ability to sell goods more cheaply means that it represents a profound threat to the viability of other nearby retail establishments. There is no doubt that some of these newly out-competed establishments will be forced out of business when a new Wal-Mart opens its doors for business, and that others will be forced to downsize as their customer base declines. Particularly hard-hit competing businesses tend to be stores selling apparel, shoes, hardware, building supplies, paint and glass, groceries, fabric and jewelry. Additionally, establishments providing certain kinds of services – for example, optical services and car repairs – are also vulnerable.

http://www.ag-econ.ncsu.edu/VIRTUAL_LIBRARY/ECONOMIST/novdec05.pdf

Wal-Mart has taught us that the lower price is the correct price and we've lost track of quality in many categories as part of the equation of price.

Understanding 'The Wal-Mart Effect' : NPR

We found that a Wal-Mart store reduced the average earnings per retail worker in urban and suburban counties (counties that are part of Metropolitan Statistical Areas) for sectors it affects most—general merchandising and grocery. Accounting for job losses or gains only strengthened the finding, as total take-home pay fell even more than average earnings with Wal-Mart entry. In rural counties, the story was more nuanced, as Wal-Mart affected wages for workers in grocery and general merchandise differently. But after accounting for any impact on job gains or losses, total take-home pay remained stable. Since most retail workers (85%) and a majority of Wal-Mart store are in counties that are part of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, the net effect on overall pay was negative. Our research shows that Wal-Mart reduced take-home pay of retail workers by $4.7 billion dollars annually.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmartwage.pdf
 
1Perry said:
Nobody claimed that they all vacationed on the Riveria. Many of the things in the article are things the middle class didn't have even 25 year ago. It was pretty common to have only 1 television and you got your channels off an antenna.

The position is that even the "poor" have it pretty good in this country.
Click to expand...

Which really means very little, which is my point. Sure, if I am going to be poor, I'd rather be in the US. And in the US, I rather be poor in the north. But, it is not something that should be downplayed. Poverty is still painful, and still a problem.
 
Boo Radley said:
All they really do is hope it will get better so they can take credit, and hope if it doesn't, they can blame the other party.
Click to expand...

LOL!

what was the stimulus for?

If you don't know this, I might suggest it isn't your strength either.
Click to expand...

why were all those companies leaving california, again?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Labour costs are the primary factor

Effective tax rates in the US are lower then the majority of the OECD countries for both individuals and companies. Heck even labour costs are lower in the US then in Canada and northern Europe. What the US can not do is compete on labor with countries like China or India. Boston Sci is not going into China because taxes in China are so much lower then the US, regulations perhaps, but the primary factor is cheaper labour and a large Chinese market. A 2.3% excise tax that applies to all medical equipement sold in the US is not the factor. The desire to increase profits are, the same reason RIM is laying off a signficant number of workers
Click to expand...

Corporate tax rate are lower in Canada than the US and that has been to Canada's advantage. If Canada can continue to get away with it, so much the better.

It could be argued that corporate taxes should be abolished altogether. That would eliminate "loopholes" and encourage more businesses, and thus more jobs. Companies will move, just as people will, and moaning about it, or setting up more barriers, is not going to do any good whatsoever.
 
The Prof said:
LOL!

what was the stimulus for?



why were all those companies leaving california, again?
Click to expand...

It is useless to answer you, but I will tell you one more time. It was a short term stop gab measure to keep things from gettig worse. Not a cure all. No one, no leader, democrat or republican can control the economy.
 
1Perry said:
2.3% is a pretty good increase in profits. The point isn't that 2.3% is a huge factor. The point is, adding it on top of everything else can be the back breaker.
Click to expand...

The 2.3% is an excise tax the equivalent of a sales tax. Boston Sci will not pay it, the end user will and given the rate of inflation in the medical industry it would be barely noticed. If Boston Sci was the only medical device supplier paying the tax then I would agree with you. It is however a tax that will be applied to devices, just like a sales tax, sold. Since claim by some for Boston Sci to lay off people is the tax, why are other medical device companies not laying off people? Others should be in the same boat should they not, yet Boston Sci is the only one announcing layoff that I know off. Perhaps Boston Sci is somewhat bloated and has too much staff and the the excise tax is a good excuse to lean up a little
 
Boo Radley said:
It was a short term stop gab measure to keep things from gettig worse
Click to expand...

the 862 billion dollar stimulus was passed to KEEP THINGS FROM GETTING WORSE!

LOL!

it was a STOP GAB!

except romer and bernstein promised 6.5% by now

WHO could be so stupid as to try to sell a trillion dollar spending bill as an attempt to KEEP THINGS FROM GETTING WORSE!

a one trillion dollar STOP GAB!

too funny

seeya at the polls, progressives
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Corporate tax rate are lower in Canada than the US and that has been to Canada's advantage. If Canada can continue to get away with it, so much the better.

It could be argued that corporate taxes should be abolished altogether. That would eliminate "loopholes" and encourage more businesses, and thus more jobs. Companies will move, just as people will, and moaning about it, or setting up more barriers, is not going to do any good whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Official tax rates yes, but what about effective tax rates?


The US tax system has a large number of loopholes that help companies lower the effective tax rate. Other then smaller sized business ( up to about $40 million) I doubt any pay the official tax rate of 35% in the US. Would a simplification of the tax system in the US lowering the official tax rate, but increasing the effect one be an ideal situation, sute.

Now as for the lower tax rate in Canada being a Canadian advantage, do you have any links that indicate business invested here in Canada and not the US due primarily to lower tax rates?
 
The Prof said:
the 862 billion dollar stimulus was passed to KEEP THINGS FROM GETTING WORSE!

LOL!

it was a STOP GAB!

except romer and bernstein promised 6.5% by now

WHO could be so stupid as to try to sell a trillion dollar spending bill as an attempt to KEEP THINGS FROM GETTING WORSE!

a one trillion dollar STOP GAB!

too funny

seeya at the polls, progressives
Click to expand...

Really making fun of peoples post for grammer by the person with the most incomprehensibleb posts since Republic of Public left is rather rich
 
Grant said:
You can continue to shop in places which charge you more, rather than seeking out bargains for yourself and your family. That's freedom of choice.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. I never said we were smart. Nor did I say have a law to stop us from being stupid.
Click to expand...
 
the stimulus failed---but only by obama's OWN measure

otherwise, it was a stimulating success

LOL!

think much?
 
The Prof said:
the stimulus failed---but only by obama's OWN measure

otherwise, it was a stimulating success

LOL!

think much?
Click to expand...

I wish you would think some and try to understand what is being said. Your silliness really doesn't move us forward very well. :coffeepap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom