Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
And didn't a president who had been a general warn us about the "military industrial complex" in his farewell address?
I'm sure Gary Kildall would have been happy if IBM chose CP/M 86 instead of DOS...
Last edited:
valdas
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Al,
Ah, yes, but Eisenhower was a notorious leftie...
Actually, he's a perfect illustration of just how far right the American mainstream has moved. I've seen it suggested (quite convincingly) that in any real sense, with due allowance for the passage of more than half a century, Eisenhower was well to the left of Obama.
Cheers,
R.
gb hill
Veteran
So are you standing in your government wellfare line waiting for your equal share of Konica film.
valdas
Veteran
So are you standing in your government wellfare line waiting for your equal share of Konica film.
Lines, what lines? "Welfare lines" expression I have only heard from american friends
Well, we don't sell cameras in Finland to go see doctor...
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I'm not convinced Eisenhower was a leftist, but we certainly did ignore his message. I do think he wouldn't get through a Republican primary today though. Now,we have the "security industrial complex" running amok as well.
Last edited:
gb hill
Veteran
Lines, what lines? "Welfare lines" expression I have only heard from american friends
Well, we don't sell cameras in Finland to go see doctor...
I was just making lite of the wellfare lines but in reality what you are doing is recieving free handouts from the government. I was taught from my dad to work for what you recieve if one is able to do so. As for healthcare I'm no fan of being forced by our Government to buy healthcare or else pay a fine. That's Obamacare my friend.
gb hill
Veteran
Eisenhower did give us an Interstate highway system that opened up the freedom to travel while European countries couldn't even visit another piece of land without the aid of a passport. BTW I think it was President Reagan, the extreme right winger who told Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall.
Zhemin
Member
In Australia where i live in, the Economy never feel, or it never really felt like it has.
And from the looks of camera prices its pretty high. Everyone is cashed up and willing to spend.
And from the looks of camera prices its pretty high. Everyone is cashed up and willing to spend.
MikeL
Go Fish
That's why corporate welfare, roughly double that spent on 'social' welfare programs, really irritates me. As someone all for balanced budgets (long term, since some social programs like the GI Bill have long term returns), I wish we tackled the big problems, including what Eisenhower warned us about, first.
pakeha
Well-known
arguing over an engineered economic slide is pointless.Wait 15 years for the truth to become common knowledge.
Frontman
Well-known
One of the main reasons this is happening is because of growth of governments around the world, particularly in developed countries. Governmemts have been consuming an ever-greater part of their respective GDP's. Unfortunately, though the government does provide jobs, government spending does not effectively add to GDP. With such a large amount of resources being absorbed by governments, there is less and less for private-sector financial activity.
Nowadays, most companies' largest expense is now tax, which is usually higher than payroll or other overhead. With most money going to pay taxes, there is less left to hire new workers, or pay existing workers more.
Many people don't understand the effects of taxation on the economy at-large, or how it effects them individually. As individuals many of us pay federal income tax, social security, property tax, sales tax, utitlities taxes, some have to pay state income tax, and then there are rhe numerous fees and expenses such as vehicle registration, licenses, etc.
But it doesn't end here. The taxes paid by businesses and corporations are passed directly to consumers in the form of higher prices for products. At some point the increase in cost becomes so large that consumers begin to stop buying goods. In order to stay in business, companies at this time consider moving their manufacturing/operations overseas.
I am not saying that government and taxes are a bad thing, as they are necessary parts of a safe society. But people somehow think that the intentions of those who work in government are somehow different than those who work in the private sector. As a rule, people want more. They want more money, a bigger home, and more toys. People who work in the government are no less ambitious than people who work outside of it. Government workers want more responsibility, more pay, and more benefits, and, to an extent, this is fine.
But now we find that many government workers are more highly paid than their private sector counterparts, and that the government has expanded it's role to take over and perform tasks and services which most people could do or provide for themselves.
On the surface, this doesn't sound so bad, except for a couple of things. First, the government doesn't have to compete with other service providers, which means that it can perform as badly as it likes, with no consequences. Next, money spent by the government does not produce a effective positive return on GDP.
And though governments tax us rather heavily, they have been spending spectacularly more than what they collect in revenue. This has resulted in the accumulation of spectacular debts. Here in Japan, more than 25% of the revenue collected by the government must be spent just on debt servicing costs.
To negate the effect of these debts, governments have reduced interest rates to nearly 0%, and have embarked on massive "quantitive easing" programs. These programs are purported to "add liquidity" to the markets, but in reality the goal is to devalue currency, since the amount of debt is not tied to inflation.
In the last presidential campaign there was a call by the president to have the "rich pay their fair share", or to pay more in tax in order to reduce the burden on the middle and lower classes. What wasn't mentioned is that the top 1% of wage earners in America already pay about 40% of the revenue collected in tax. The top 10% pay more than 70% of tax collected.
The top 10% employ nearly 80% of all Americans.
One basic concept which many people fail to understand is that any tax levied on the top earners is immediately passed down to the lower income classes. It is the most basic nature of economics. If my company is charged a higher tax rate, I simply raise the cost of my goods to cover the increase, just as I would do if I had to pay more for energy or materials.
Another thing people in America don't seem to understand is that the vast majority of rich in America are not Wall Street bankers, CEO's, or IT entrepreneurs. Most rich people are small business owners, and most Americans work for small businesses.
Also, most rich Americans are not blue-blooded Thurston Howell the third types. 70% of the rich in America are first-generation rich. Their money was not given to them, they worked hard, saved, took risks, or came up with an idea that people loved.
Taxes on these people affect the economy disproportionately. Whatever they pay in increased taxes ends up not being spent on their staff, equipment, or growth. For those who are not rich, it makes becoming rich more difficult, and further increases the gap between rich and poor.
In order for the economy to improve, people need to have more money. For the people to have more money, their government simply needs to take less of it.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Ah, a point on which we agree.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
This post is filled with so many lies, I don't know where to start. Have you ever actually managed or owned a business? I've done both.
Lets start with taxes are the largest expense businesses have. Taxes are actually one of the smaller expenses. Its simple math. Corporate taxes are a percentage of the company's profits. Note that I said PROFITS, not total income. Few if any companies make more profit than they put out in expenses. A company whose profits are 20% of income is doing very well. Taxes are a percentage of that 20%, so if the corporate income tax is 30%, the company's taxes are 30% of the 20% profit, or a mere 6% of income.
When I see conservatives spouting such glaring falsehoods, I often wonder: Are you just blindly repeating something you saw a political hack spout on television?
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Socialism = Welfare state. For example France.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Since the average profit of the S&P 500 is closer to 10% than 20%, can you tell me who makes that 20%, Microsoft and the drug companies excluded? BTW, you are right, the real problem is that too many people on both sides couldn't read a financial statement without help. And too few have ever been self employed or tried to run a business.
Payroll or rent usually beat taxes by a huge margin. Now that I work in corporate america again, my taxes are a larger percentage of my salary than the comparative percentage of the gross income of my business. The dollar amount is fairly close though in total dollars.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
Well, quite.
One of the (many) lies you didn't cover in detail concerns GDP. The classic example here is that while a (private) company that supplies desks to a school "contributes" to GDP, the (state-run) school where those desks are used is a burden and a deadweight. The same goes for police cars and police forces. An intelligent, thoughtful person might conclude that this means there is something wrong with such a limited definition of GDP.
Not only are most people incapable of reading a financial statement (as Al says) but their understanding of economics is at best 100 years out of date and commonly 200 years out of date.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Al,
By any rational standard, he wasn't. He was a sane, honourable and rather lucky Republican.But as you say, he wouldn't get through a Republican primary today. Which, to many mainstream republicans, makes him a leftie.
(Sorry, I don't do smilies).
Your point about the "security industrial complex" is very well taken.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This is the reddest of red herrings. Have you ever crossed theborder into Mexico? Of course there are border controls at borders, and in a big country you travel further before you get from one border to the next.
A more realistic assessment might be that Eisenhower put government money into roads, which are a public good. By your usual arguments, this would make him a wicked socialist.
Then there's your other post, I was just making lite of the wellfare lines but in reality what you are doing is recieving free handouts from the government. I was taught from my dad to work for what you recieve if one is able to do so. As for healthcare I'm no fan of being forced by our Government to buy healthcare or else pay a fine. That's Obamacare my friend.
And if someone can't work, whether because of ill health or because there are no jobs, what then? Well, ill health is self solving -- with no health care, you die -- but otherwise you can just starve.
And what is your problem with being forced to buy heath care? You would prefer the right to die? Or (if you can afford it) the right to be irresponsible and wait for someone else to pay for you if you get sick?
My wife was born in upstate New York and spend the first 36 years of her life in the USA. In 2000, in the UK, she was diagnosed with cancer. A nurse saw her weeping. She said, "Don't worry. It often takes people like this. You have a very, very good chance of survival." Frances said, "These are tears of gratitude and relief. If I were still living in the USA, I'd be facing bankruptcy as well as cancer."
No, the benefits of a welfare state AREN'T free handouts from the government. Everyone pays for them. Out of taxes. I know that the "welfare queen" is one of the cherished myths of right-wing Republicanism (and right-wing Tories in the UK), but it's a tiny number of people that a rich country can well afford, no matter how distasteful one may find it. The real scandals are (i) not enough decently-paid jobs; (ii) a pathological unwillingness to pay even reasonable taxes; and (iii) massive government support of the military-industrial complex -- which has now metamorphosed into the military-industrial-"security"-financial complex.
Cheers,
R.
