• 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!

Something's not right here ...

Strings said:
I spent the last 34 years of my career in senior management at both a huge Wall St. listed, multinational and a midsize (under $1b) privately held company who hired me to help them operate their business like a publicly traded company. All that own stocks understand the joy when share values increase and the not no happy times when share values decline.

So here's my point: No company - none that realize profits in line with or above what was planned, has ever turned to it's management team and instructed them to, "Hire more people because the company has unexpected profits." Never happened! Never will! Personally, I would question the decision making of any staff member that came to me with the idea of giving raises or increased bonuses because we made more money.

Imagine how you would feel if the stock you held appreciated but then retreated - or perhaps dividends weren't paid, because it was decided to "share" your prosperity with a few hundred Americans the company doesn't really need. Or give big raises because you - the shareholder, would do so for the good of his fellow Americans.

Companies add staff for one reason and one reason only - an increase in demand! That's it!

They also give raises for one reason only - their competitors raised their wage budget. why would you otherwise?

People who want to believe that assembly line, light manufacturing, coal industry, fashion - on and on, jobs will leave their $5 per day labor cost heaven in Asia and return to the US
simply drank too much of the Trickle Down the Kool Aid. It doesn't happen.

In fact, our company owned over 400 individual companies around the world. Nearly $14b in sales in 1985 - bit outfit. It was Beatrice Foods. Spent 19 years with them. I don't have these same values today, but our goals at corporate were realized in simple steps.

1. Identify and acquire profitable companies that FIT our product lines
2. Acquire with stock swaps or acquire share ownership majority, junk bonds (our takeover of Esmark), cash, etc.
3. Then find overlaps (actually this was done as part of the pre-purchase planning), such as duplication is Sales, Accounting - really anyplace in the acquired organization where we could do the work ourselves, and eliminate those folks.
4. Note that we often financed any acquisition debt and charged those expenses to the newly purchased - formally profitable company. Then we milked.

We must have furloughed thousands of people over the years here and around the world. We were hard-nosed and profit driven every day.

Never gave away a thing. And now these companies are suppose to become generous? Do you know who the Koch Brothers are? They will set you straight. It's all theirs and you can't have any.

We at Beatrice felt the same ...

Remember that first tenet of business you learned in your freshman year: "The only reason for any company to exist is to make money for its shareholders."
Click to expand...

It’s called greed. It Has dominated the country for a long time.
 
apdst said:
No.....
Click to expand...

then your position is that it is wise public policy to cut taxes and operate the government at a deficit while experiencing a full economy
 
apdst said:
I never said that there should be zero taxation, as your original post suggested. Care to try again?
Click to expand...

I mean is there any point at all in me actually trying to debate with you since you're not a serious debater?

Because you're going to be dishonest about the very things you actually said.

Right here:

apdst said:
It isn't the government's purpose to tell people how much of their money they can keep.
Click to expand...

Thats a pretty implicit statement that you don't think the government has a right to tax at all... I mean how else could you possibly read that... Unless you're going to be dishonest about that statement and as you are, not a serious debater.
 
Strings said:
I spent the last 34 years of my career in senior management at both a huge Wall St. listed, multinational and a midsize (under $1b) privately held company who hired me to help them operate their business like a publicly traded company. All that own stocks understand the joy when share values increase and the not no happy times when share values decline.

So here's my point: No company - none that realize profits in line with or above what was planned, has ever turned to it's management team and instructed them to, "Hire more people because the company has unexpected profits." Never happened! Never will! Personally, I would question the decision making of any staff member that came to me with the idea of giving raises or increased bonuses because we made more money.

Imagine how you would feel if the stock you held appreciated but then retreated - or perhaps dividends weren't paid, because it was decided to "share" your prosperity with a few hundred Americans the company doesn't really need. Or give big raises because you - the shareholder, would do so for the good of his fellow Americans.

Companies add staff for one reason and one reason only - an increase in demand! That's it!
Click to expand...

What do you mean "No company - none"? When that is historically wrong. It's so wrong historically it's on par with saying something like, "There were no British or Virginian companies that engaged in a slave trade of human beings ever, not one."

The Japanese companies through the 1980s did exactly what you claim no company has ever done. Remember in the late 1980s when their was an international battle between 3 different capitalist systems, Japan, Germany, and the USA over which system would win out over planet earth?

Yeah, it was the American cut-throat capitalist system that won out. The Japanese routinely hired more people for jobs at companies than need as culturally it was a matter of national pride to have people working rather than unemployed. Japanese companies were culturally tied to a sense of obligation to their country and the Japanese as a people (racial, ethnic). Furthermore, Japanese capitalism during the 1980s ran this way: first took take monetary cuts were shareholders, second CEO's and management, last the workers "on the floor."

Currently, the German capitalist system probably workers the best for the overall people in the country (not just the rich). Japan and the USA from my understanding have their currency too vulnerable and the US currency is going to plummet when the next recession hits (which will be a full blown Great Depression) as Wall Street and the bankers (under Obama and now continued under Trump) are doing the exact same derivative scams they pulled before that crashed the economy. But this time Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China are going to dump the US dollar.

People who want to believe that assembly line, light manufacturing, coal industry, fashion - on and on, jobs will leave their $5 per day labor cost heaven in Asia and return to the US
Click to expand...


No, probably not. You are correct mostly likely.

However, I can't believe running an economy (as complex as it is), when stating one's goal for the nation or globe, is more impossible than sending man to the moon or finding cures for cancer or more especially viral diseases. The latter I imagine are far more difficult for man to solve as problems.

The issue is fundamentally one of will.

For example, if corporations have went international then why the hell does organized labor remain 10 steps behind by only being national (stopping at their national boarders)? In other words American Teamsters shouldn't be American but International Teamsters. Same with non-skilled industrial unions, with international union laws set.

And there are probably pretty much many more options besides that.

You know how there are Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, atheists and so on? Well... no one is going to convince me there is only one way, one way only, a damned economy and political-economy can be run. Physics and chemistry might be run by laws outside human creation: economics a lot less so.




The working man and unemployed in the USA are without a politician with fire in his or her belly for them. That's just the bottom line. And they are going to lose because of that.

 
Jetboogieman said:
I mean is there any point at all in me actually trying to debate with you since you're not a serious debater?

Because you're going to be dishonest about the very things you actually said.

Right here:



Thats a pretty implicit statement that you don't think the government has a right to tax at all... I mean how else could you possibly read that... Unless you're going to be dishonest about that statement and as you are, not a serious debater.
Click to expand...

If you are going to insist on lying about my comments, then your responses are indeed a waste of time.

Pro tip: if you want to have discussion, ask what I mean vice telling me what I mean.
 
Strings said:
I spent the last 34 years of my career in senior management at both a huge Wall St. listed, multinational and a midsize (under $1b) privately held company who hired me to help them operate their business like a publicly traded company. All that own stocks understand the joy when share values increase and the not no happy times when share values decline.

So here's my point: No company - none that realize profits in line with or above what was planned, has ever turned to it's management team and instructed them to, "Hire more people because the company has unexpected profits." Never happened! Never will! Personally, I would question the decision making of any staff member that came to me with the idea of giving raises or increased bonuses because we made more money.

Imagine how you would feel if the stock you held appreciated but then retreated - or perhaps dividends weren't paid, because it was decided to "share" your prosperity with a few hundred Americans the company doesn't really need. Or give big raises because you - the shareholder, would do so for the good of his fellow Americans.

Companies add staff for one reason and one reason only - an increase in demand! That's it!

They also give raises for one reason only - their competitors raised their wage budget. why would you otherwise?

People who want to believe that assembly line, light manufacturing, coal industry, fashion - on and on, jobs will leave their $5 per day labor cost heaven in Asia and return to the US
simply drank too much of the Trickle Down the Kool Aid. It doesn't happen.

In fact, our company owned over 400 individual companies around the world. Nearly $14b in sales in 1985 - bit outfit. It was Beatrice Foods. Spent 19 years with them. I don't have these same values today, but our goals at corporate were realized in simple steps.

1. Identify and acquire profitable companies that FIT our product lines
2. Acquire with stock swaps or acquire share ownership majority, junk bonds (our takeover of Esmark), cash, etc.
3. Then find overlaps (actually this was done as part of the pre-purchase planning), such as duplication is Sales, Accounting - really anyplace in the acquired organization where we could do the work ourselves, and eliminate those folks.
4. Note that we often financed any acquisition debt and charged those expenses to the newly purchased - formally profitable company. Then we milked.

We must have furloughed thousands of people over the years here and around the world. We were hard-nosed and profit driven every day.

Never gave away a thing. And now these companies are suppose to become generous? Do you know who the Koch Brothers are? They will set you straight. It's all theirs and you can't have any.

We at Beatrice felt the same ...

Remember that first tenet of business you learned in your freshman year: "The only reason for any company to exist is to make money for its shareholders."
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that the Republican tax plan will NOT work.

And PS: "furlough"? ... You mean "laid off".
 
Strings said:
I spent the last 34 years of my career in senior management at both a huge Wall St. listed, multinational and a midsize (under $1b) privately held company who hired me to help them operate their business like a publicly traded company. All that own stocks understand the joy when share values increase and the not no happy times when share values decline.

So here's my point: No company - none that realize profits in line with or above what was planned, has ever turned to it's management team and instructed them to, "Hire more people because the company has unexpected profits." Never happened! Never will! Personally, I would question the decision making of any staff member that came to me with the idea of giving raises or increased bonuses because we made more money.

Imagine how you would feel if the stock you held appreciated but then retreated - or perhaps dividends weren't paid, because it was decided to "share" your prosperity with a few hundred Americans the company doesn't really need. Or give big raises because you - the shareholder, would do so for the good of his fellow Americans.

Companies add staff for one reason and one reason only - an increase in demand! That's it!

They also give raises for one reason only - their competitors raised their wage budget. why would you otherwise?

People who want to believe that assembly line, light manufacturing, coal industry, fashion - on and on, jobs will leave their $5 per day labor cost heaven in Asia and return to the US
simply drank too much of the Trickle Down the Kool Aid. It doesn't happen.

In fact, our company owned over 400 individual companies around the world. Nearly $14b in sales in 1985 - bit outfit. It was Beatrice Foods. Spent 19 years with them. I don't have these same values today, but our goals at corporate were realized in simple steps.

1. Identify and acquire profitable companies that FIT our product lines
2. Acquire with stock swaps or acquire share ownership majority, junk bonds (our takeover of Esmark), cash, etc.
3. Then find overlaps (actually this was done as part of the pre-purchase planning), such as duplication is Sales, Accounting - really anyplace in the acquired organization where we could do the work ourselves, and eliminate those folks.
4. Note that we often financed any acquisition debt and charged those expenses to the newly purchased - formally profitable company. Then we milked.

We must have furloughed thousands of people over the years here and around the world. We were hard-nosed and profit driven every day.

Never gave away a thing. And now these companies are suppose to become generous? Do you know who the Koch Brothers are? They will set you straight. It's all theirs and you can't have any.

We at Beatrice felt the same ...

Remember that first tenet of business you learned in your freshman year: "The only reason for any company to exist is to make money for its shareholders."
Click to expand...

Yep, everyone who knows anything about economics knows that Republicans are full crap and have always been. Bush Sr. correctly called it "Voodoo Economics" because it was all nonsense. Wages, like everything, are driven by supply and demand. Employers don't just give out higher salaries because they have more money. They pay higher salaries when the supply of labor is lower than demand and employers are competing for quality workers. That's like economics 101.

Good luck explaining that to Trump supporters.

027.jpg
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
It isn't the government's purpose to tell people how much of their money they can keep.
Click to expand...

Wrong, it is EXACTLY the purpose of government to collect taxes and regulate commerce. In fact, without taxes there is no government and without government there is no commerce, as we've come to expect it to work. I find your opinion to be shockingly common with a certain group of Americans who subscribe to a very magical worldview. I mean, holy ****, what is the moral purpose of government any way if not to provide human services, regulate commerce and promote the general welfare of the nation?

Debt and deficit are created by over-spending, not under-taxing.
Click to expand...

What, like the extra trillion and a half added to the deficit by the Trump tax plan? I am really tired of magical government just pretending that tax cuts are good for anyone BUT the rich, when they never have been. What right does the conservative party have to build American policy upon a foundation of unicorn ****? This tenacious conservative fantasy is, I suppose, the safe place we're supposed to send our minds while we're being raped by them. Well, sorry if I can't pretend with you that markets can exist except as defined by law (ie., regulation) and sorry I can't close my eyes real tight and imagine a god who suffers imbeciles to exploit each other, and call it "freedom".

The conservative faction in this country floats into office on a cloud of make-believe, bolstered by a constituency who rewards their patronizing blather. Then, when they should be representing everyone, they instead remain faithful to the fantasy who brought them to the dance and treat irrational, proven failures of ideas as rational as long as the magic-loving, conservative public approves.
 
Strings said:
No company - none that realize profits in line with or above what was planned, has ever turned to it's management team and instructed them to, "Hire more people because the company has unexpected profits." Never happened! Never will!
Click to expand...
Yep.

Heck, most won't even put it into capital investment.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/11/...nces-from-ceos-on-tax-plan-gets-crickets.html

The reality is that corporations have had record profits for years, and a big part of that is whacking jobs, outsourcing jobs and automating jobs. Another big part is borrowing, at ridiculously low interest rates, to pay for any capital investments.


Companies add staff for one reason and one reason only - an increase in demand! That's it!
Click to expand...
Yep. And that increase in demand won't come from increasing corporate profits.

You can only get that from providing the vast majority of Americans with more cash, and the current tax plan doesn't do that. Most of the cuts are for corporations, not citizens. And most of the cuts for citizens are for the wealthy, who already have so much surplus income that their savings rates are north of 40% of their income. If they earn more money, they're just going to bank it, not spend it.

Basically, every justification for this particular tax cut structure is bull****. It won't increase consumption, it won't provide relief to taxpayers, it won't provide a long-term boost to growth, it won't create jobs, it won't simplify taxes, and it's going to protect and/or provide a bunch of tax breaks that will benefit... wait for it... Trump's own family and business.

This specific tax reform bill sucks ass. It should die in a fire.

The sad thing is, we could design a reasonable tax reform, which rationalizes corporate taxation, makes it more uniform to international standards, makes it easier for companies to repatriate foreign holdings, and do things to make taxes easier for consumers (especially via government tax preparation, something other nations do quite effectively). Of course, the chances of that happening with this administration and Republican-controlled Congress is pretty much zero. Sad.
 
Lutherf said:
That's a little shortsighted.

When profits are up and capital is relatively easy to come by there is greater opportunity for speculation such as exploring new markets or expanding services. Additional capital also opens the opportunity for infrastructure improvements and R&D.
Click to expand...
Sure, that would be true... if credit did not exist.

The reality is that credit is readily available and dirt cheap to most companies. In many cases, they will earn a greater return by borrowing at a low interest rate (maybe 4%) for capital investments, and hanging onto their surplus capital which earns higher returns than the cost of the interest (perhaps 6-10%).

Plus, guess what? Profits are up. Corporate profits are near record highs. They are swimming in capital. Meanwhile, there aren't any "new markets" in the US because of this tax bill, because most taxpayers aren't getting a significant tax break.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
And look at how R&D has been in decline for ages, and at what a wreck our infrastructure is....
Click to expand...
Huh?

Corporate R&D is not in decline.

Corporate infrastructure is doing just fine.

It is public infrastructure that is aging, and is not getting fixed fast enough. And guess what? Cutting taxes does not generate more revenue for public infrastructure spending. It does the opposite, because it will reduce tax revenues.
 
FastPace said:
What do you mean "No company - none"? When that is historically wrong. It's so wrong historically it's on par with saying something like, "There were no British or Virginian companies that engaged in a slave trade of human beings ever, not one."

The Japanese companies through the 1980s did exactly what you claim no company has ever done. Remember in the late 1980s when their was an international battle between 3 different capitalist systems, Japan, Germany, and the USA over which system would win out over planet earth?

Yeah, it was the American cut-throat capitalist system that won out. The Japanese routinely hired more people for jobs at companies than need as culturally it was a matter of national pride to have people working rather than unemployed. Japanese companies were culturally tied to a sense of obligation to their country and the Japanese as a people (racial, ethnic). Furthermore, Japanese capitalism during the 1980s ran this way: first took take monetary cuts were shareholders, second CEO's and management, last the workers "on the floor."

Currently, the German capitalist system probably workers the best for the overall people in the country (not just the rich). Japan and the USA from my understanding have their currency too vulnerable and the US currency is going to plummet when the next recession hits (which will be a full blown Great Depression) as Wall Street and the bankers (under Obama and now continued under Trump) are doing the exact same derivative scams they pulled before that crashed the economy. But this time Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China are going to dump the US dollar.




No, probably not. You are correct mostly likely.

However, I can't believe running an economy (as complex as it is), when stating one's goal for the nation or globe, is more impossible than sending man to the moon or finding cures for cancer or more especially viral diseases. The latter I imagine are far more difficult for man to solve as problems.

The issue is fundamentally one of will.

For example, if corporations have went international then why the hell does organized labor remain 10 steps behind by only being national (stopping at their national boarders)? In other words American Teamsters shouldn't be American but International Teamsters. Same with non-skilled industrial unions, with international union laws set.

And there are probably pretty much many more options besides that.

You know how there are Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, atheists and so on? Well... no one is going to convince me there is only one way, one way only, a damned economy and political-economy can be run. Physics and chemistry might be run by laws outside human creation: economics a lot less so.




The working man and unemployed in the USA are without a politician with fire in his or her belly for them. That's just the bottom line. And they are going to lose because of that.

Click to expand...


I would be uncomfortable if anyone got the impression my current personal values align in any way with the corporate experiences of my past, but understand this; though I have gotten older, retired and entered a more reflective time in my life, big business has not. Never will. The government is lying to you and stealing from you right now. Today. Big business has the purchasing power to buy this kind of donor benefitting tax cut by their hired politicians.

Any trickle down effect you sense today is simply these people peeing down your back.
 
joG said:
It is exactly that principle that you describe that has made our society so relatively successful.
Click to expand...

Temporarily successful, utterly unsustainable. Even "MAGA" admits you are no longer great. The OP is a big part of why.
 
Strings said:
I spent the last 34 years of my career in senior management at both a huge Wall St. listed, multinational and a midsize (under $1b) privately held company who hired me to help them operate their business like a publicly traded company. All that own stocks understand the joy when share values increase and the not no happy times when share values decline.

So here's my point: No company - none that realize profits in line with or above what was planned, has ever turned to it's management team and instructed them to, "Hire more people because the company has unexpected profits." Never happened! Never will! Personally, I would question the decision making of any staff member that came to me with the idea of giving raises or increased bonuses because we made more money.

Imagine how you would feel if the stock you held appreciated but then retreated - or perhaps dividends weren't paid, because it was decided to "share" your prosperity with a few hundred Americans the company doesn't really need. Or give big raises because you - the shareholder, would do so for the good of his fellow Americans.

Companies add staff for one reason and one reason only - an increase in demand! That's it!

They also give raises for one reason only - their competitors raised their wage budget. why would you otherwise?

People who want to believe that assembly line, light manufacturing, coal industry, fashion - on and on, jobs will leave their $5 per day labor cost heaven in Asia and return to the US
simply drank too much of the Trickle Down the Kool Aid. It doesn't happen.

In fact, our company owned over 400 individual companies around the world. Nearly $14b in sales in 1985 - bit outfit. It was Beatrice Foods. Spent 19 years with them. I don't have these same values today, but our goals at corporate were realized in simple steps.

1. Identify and acquire profitable companies that FIT our product lines
2. Acquire with stock swaps or acquire share ownership majority, junk bonds (our takeover of Esmark), cash, etc.
3. Then find overlaps (actually this was done as part of the pre-purchase planning), such as duplication is Sales, Accounting - really anyplace in the acquired organization where we could do the work ourselves, and eliminate those folks.
4. Note that we often financed any acquisition debt and charged those expenses to the newly purchased - formally profitable company. Then we milked.

We must have furloughed thousands of people over the years here and around the world. We were hard-nosed and profit driven every day.

Never gave away a thing. And now these companies are suppose to become generous? Do you know who the Koch Brothers are? They will set you straight. It's all theirs and you can't have any.

We at Beatrice felt the same ...

Remember that first tenet of business you learned in your freshman year: "The only reason for any company to exist is to make money for its shareholders."
Click to expand...

One of the best posts I've seen on here in a while. So clear, an idiot could understand. You'd have to be partisan lunatic level dumb to miss the point after this. Welcome to DP, will look forward to seeing more from you. :)
 
Strings said:
I would be uncomfortable if anyone got the impression my current personal values align in any way with the corporate experiences of my past...
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily begrudge you having performed well in the tasks of your old job. If I were placed in your exact shoes--that your were in--armed with your education and professional abilities I would almost certainly have done the same thing. I mean... I'm no innocent. If the Catholic story of purgatory is true then that would probably be my best way of getting into heaven. Because I have sins to damn me to hell. I like money, material things, more than I probably should.

Not that I don't share but nonetheless I don't imagine I would turn down a $200,000 salary to close business down either or cut jobs.
 
Strings said:
but understand this; though I have gotten older, retired and entered a more reflective time in my life, big business has not. Never will. The government is lying to you and stealing from you right now. Today. Big business has the purchasing power to buy this kind of donor benefitting tax cut by their hired politicians.

Any trickle down effect you sense today is simply these people peeing down your back.
Click to expand...

I believe what you are saying. I don't necessarily agree with the Trickle Down view (I'm too fiscally liberal anyways).

And I was not implying that your earlier commentary was wrong about the American system of capitalism. I was however pointing out one error in your post, that being no company on earth over employed. Japanese companies used to do it all the time. And that is not my opinion it is just an historical fact.

And keep in mind here I'm not suggesting Japanese companies over employing people was always a wise thing. It was not. It's inefficient if we look whatever formula in Keynesian economics I learned years ago which calculates when x number labor input reduces productivity (you know... workers start getting in each others way, or some just stand around). Although, for certain job types (like women in mall department stores spraying perfume on customers etc.) maybe, possibly, over employing, temporarily may not be so bad and actually have some positive social effects/affects. Overall it is not a wise choice though.

That said I like the former Japanese model where shareholders took the shave to earnings/incomes first. Then management. And last the labor on the so-called floor. The American system works the exact opposite way though--and promotes and rewards greed in that sense. And the American system won out by the early 1990s. I remember this because I was reading about this in the early 1990s and hoping the Japanese or German model won out. Neither did, the American system won.

As for Trump and his promises, I voted for the dude for reason only, I was a one issue voter: reduce tensions with Russia.




That said... what I was trying to communicate in my 1st post in this thread to you, was that although you may be right (and are knowledgeable--more than me about business), innovations in how economies are run or function can be made (by powerful people) in an attempt to reduce certain problems. As in a had a teacher with a Ph.D. in economics once state that given corporations have gone international, organized labor should be international (rather than chopped up a national entities). That could be one way to handle the issue of corporations fleeing to regions of the earth with the least expensive labor inputs. Maybe. But I'm saying brilliant people should be able to figure something out--if we can put man on the moon or cure diseases. (I was not nor am I saying this would happen under Trump or even in the next 50 years.)
 
Strings said:
...but understand this; though I have gotten older, retired and entered a more reflective time in my life, big business has not. Never will. The government is lying to you and stealing from you right now. Today. Big business has the purchasing power to buy this kind of donor benefitting tax cut by their hired politicians.

Any trickle down effect you sense today is simply these people peeing down your back.
Click to expand...



As for Trump's ability these two Black-Americans below contrast it to Obama's 8 years. They view Trump as having gotten a few of his goals started off in the first few weeks of his Presidency, more in number than Obama accomplished in over a span of 8 years.

The video is long. You the first 4 or 5 minutes are sufficient to hear their critique. Actually, fast forward to the 1:00 or 2:00 mark. Past the first yellow line. Then listen to the 4 or 5:00 mark. If you so wish.



Yvette--the woman--used to work on Capital Hill and for the DNC. According to her (in separate video) Obama had a weak leadership style they termed "leading from the back." That is to say he had arguing sides find a common ground and draw up a policy to give to him. Rather than the strong leadership style, the way in fact I claim I would lead (from military experience), which is to state my goals and state what I want to see and order my team to right up a policy plan to accomplish that.








As for lies... the Libertarian (I think he's one) Peter Schiff who is successful at investments, stated in 2006 in this meeting and debate below, that the US economy was going to crash from a housing bubble and he stated why. Everyone thought he was nuts. And Peter Schiff said Wall Street and the Government were lying to Americans. His prediction came true and for the reasons he gave.



Peter Schiff
Published on Sep 24, 2009

My Mortgage Bankers Speech from Nov 13th 2006 is now in one video clip. I gave this presentation at the the Western Regional Mortgage Bankers Conference in Las Vegas. There were over 2,000 mortgage bankers in attendance.
Click to expand...


Peter Schiff as claimed that the Obama administration led by bankers were lying again, now the same thing with Trump he says, and now says the US economy is going to crash again, but this time much worse, with foreign nations responding by dumping the US dollar when it happens.

So, yeah, I know the Government is lying. But the catch is it's both party's politicians. The bankers own both Democrats and Republicans. Because Democrats are so emotionally invested in their beliefs about the Democratic Party like ISIS is about an Islamic Caliphate, few to no Democrats can believe bankers control Democratic Presidential administrations as much as they do Republican ones.
 
FP - I've got two books you need to read:

1. Dark Money by Jane Mayer. It's relative your first remark.
2. Post Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory, Second Edition: A Foundation for Successful Economic Policies for the Twenty-first Century 2nd Edition by Paul Davidson. I think this study both explains how this economy evolved and (perhaps) offers a clear explanation of how what Obama and his administration did in 2008/9, was the ONLY thing that could work for recovery.
 
A bit of Japanese econ history relative to taxes is shared here. It demonstrates (if I understand your assertion) the "evolvement" of the Japanese economy through its tax history. You may interpret the data differently than I do, but what I see is a tax history that obviously heavily assessed the revenues of both businesses and families for the good of the people and I think, to your point.

https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/corporate-tax-rate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom