• 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!

Regulations, taxes aren't killing small business, owners say

They're sitting on it because of uncertainty about future costs due to new regulations not fully implemented, new programs that will cost companies more money not fully implemented, threats of new taxes, threats of new regulations, etc. How can you make a long investment such as hiring with all of that uncertainty?

there is never certainty
your expectation of business certainty is as real as the unicorn
business is not investing its capital in business expansion because our consumer driven economy has substantially fewer consumers with the means to buy
and those still with significant discretionary income are saving it, until they see that this period of asset devaluation has ended
 
Yes, exceptionalize all you wish
,

dunno what you mean by that... i was just ensuring that i understood you . as it seems i did and you made no counter argument, i suppose there is nothing left to say.

geo.
 
If you wish to only post partial quotes, anything said in response to the partial quotes can be dismissed.

there was no quote, partial or otherwise in the post to which you replied. of course, that does not mean you cannot dismiss it - you can dismiss anything you like... you dismiss reason regularly.

geo.
 
That is what the QE programs have been. When people get to keep their money, they will spend it. When the government gives other peoples money to Wall Street, as we've seeen, not so much.

The problem isn't with mom and pop businesses either.

You do realize that the boom years of the Bush Administration was basically built off of Wall Street using other peoples' money via low interest rates set by the government to artificially inflate spending? So yes, when the government gives other peoples' money to Wall Street, it tends to generate over consumption which at the time is great. But not so great when the faucet goes dry.
 
there is never certainty

Agreed.

your expectation of business certainty is as real as the unicorn
business is not investing its capital in business expansion because our consumer driven economy has substantially fewer consumers with the means to buy
and those still with significant discretionary income are saving it, until they see that this period of asset devaluation has ended

This is just not true. Companies are making RECORD PROFITS! That is not possible unless you have some demand. Record profits signal to me that there is room for expansion. So what is the problem? The artificial uncertainty brought about by exogenous controls by the state and the threats of new exogenous controls. Endogenous uncertainty is real, and that will always be there. However, adding artificial uncertainty through state control is not exactly a recipe for robust growth.
 
Aren't companies now in a position where they are sitting on quite a bit of capital? The result appears to be no new jobs and a floundering economy.

Companies only do what's in their best interest to do, not necessarily what's in the best interest of the country.

Great arguement agains the QE programs.
 
there was no quote, partial or otherwise in the post to which you replied. of course, that does not mean you cannot dismiss it - you can dismiss anything you like... you dismiss reason regularly.

geo.

Post 59, you only partially quoted what I said. Quote it all and then discuss it and I'll reply.
 
You do realize that the boom years of the Bush Administration was basically built off of Wall Street using other peoples' money via low interest rates set by the government to artificially inflate spending?

Yes, and it's been my position that someone should take Greenspan out behind a barn and beat him about the head for allowing that to happen.

So yes, when the government gives other peoples' money to Wall Street, it tends to generate over consumption which at the time is great. But not so great when the faucet goes dry.

Neither being positive and yet, we still do it. Bernanke has continued with the same foolish policy of Greenspan.
 
Back
Top Bottom