re: corporate welfare vs socialism

quote:

---

More money in the pockets of shareholders, CEOs, and high level execs does nothing at all to better and move America forward. Companies are profiting hand over fist and yet somehow that only translates to CEOs getting larger bonuses and lower ppl losing their jobs due to "cost cutting" measures that only looks good on paper (inorganic growth).

Tax breaks (corporate welfare) = less money for infrastructure, schools, parks, and other public goods.

Apple has more money then they know what to do with. A tax break for Apple does not persuade them to hire more ppl and stop using Chinese slave labor--it only enables them.

Globalism is a by product of capitalism and is inevitable.

---

You are so November 7th 2016.....it is a brave new world, my friend.....if those CEOs want to sell their shite in the US they better make it in the US or their products will be so expensive no one is going to buy them....thats the beatiful thing about protectionism....something the labor movement in America has been clamoring for for years!!!!

quote:

---

if those CEOs want to sell their shite in the US they better make it in the US or their products will be so expensive no one is going to buy them....thats the beatiful thing about protectionism

---

Holy shite, you don't know what you're saying.

The People have voted American jobs overseas with their dollars. We've had the choice to buy American or cheap imports, we chose cheap imports. No amount of tax breaks is going to compensate for the cheap labor overseas.

What you're advocating will lead to runaway inflation. It'll be inflationary, because suddenly we'll have to either pay the cost of the tariff, or pay the cost of the more expensive American labor. Once inflation hits, the Fed will look at the debt and say, "We can't afford to raise interest rates - besides, devaluing our money with inflation is the only way to pay off the debt."

In any case, inflation is coming.

quote:

---

What makes you think they would invest the money here if they get a better deal by expanding in Mexico? Ever heard of the repatriation tax? It's a bitch

---

"cause if they invest elsewhere the Don is going to slap a tariff on 'em and bankrupt 'em man....the labor movement in the United States has been clamoring for protectionism for years....and finally the American worker has found a president willing to go to bat for them...and if he balks they'll find one who will.....

quote:

---

Please include the specific regulation

---

quote:

---

Pollutant discharge limits are regulate

---

I'm not debating whether regulations exist. So far you argument looks like this:


You: We need regulations to protect businesses from other businesses.

Me: Ok, please demonstrate an example of a regulation protecting businesses in this manner

You: Pollutant discharge limits are regulated.

Brilliant argument so far. Really supporting your case here. The way you have taken me step by step from the problem through the development of a regulation to the final result is fascinating.

you: Pollutant discharge limits are regulated.

I might write a pro-regulation newsletter with just that one line on every page.

Questions to the editor: Mr. Carton,

How do regulations work? Do they achieve their desired endstate effectively?

Mr Carton: Pollutant discharge limits are regulated.

Reader: oh, thanks for clearing that up.

quote:

---

It's in the public commons. Regulations keep them available to EVERYONE, including businesses.

---

Ahhh yes, here I see the actual root of the problem. The ORIGINAL regulation that hath caused the problem to begin with.

quote:

---

violating others' property is already illegal?

---

quote:

---

Oh, I see, you think regulations aren't laws.

---

You are entering dangerously close to "retard" zone. I see that you haven't even come close to breaking the seal on an actual position, so I guess I can expect you to intentionally mischaracterize mine.

quote:

---

I'm not saying we have to regulate the shite out of everything

---

I never said you did. You told me some regulations are Necessary, then you accused me of being trite. You haven't put forth any support for your position other than stating that regulations exist and that they work.

quote:

---

Trite: (of a remark, opinion, or idea) overused and consequently of little import; lacking originality or freshness.

---

Hrmmm.

quote:

---

No, but, "Who owns the river?"

---

For those who supports regulations, this is an unavoidable question and it actually forms the crux of your strongest argument. Glad to see your grasp of this subject is so weak that you find your best argument ridiculous.

I will also note that I told you beforehand that we would not agree on this and it isn't worth your time.

quote:

---

Indiana loses tax income.

---

Haven't read through the thread, but your OP premise it awful. It is completely totally thoroughly false.

Carrier might recieve $700K/yr in tax relief.
But as a result it will employ 1200 taxpayers/yr.

So let's talk revenue.
As opposed to leaving the country, Carrier is STILL PAYING TAX, as are those 1200 workers. If the workers alone pay $585/yr in income/sales/property tax, it covers the revenue loss. That does not include residual amounts Carrier will still pay.

quote:

---

No amount of tax breaks is going to compensate for the cheap labor overseas.

---

But putting Tariffs on Mexico could offset things.

Less money for labor... more money for tariffs...

Isn't that what Trump put before Carrier during the phone call?

quote:

---

No, we don't.

---

Ah, I see. Is this where you tell me that you aren't worth arguing with?

quote:

---

Keneysian economics at its finest...

---

No. Keynesian Economics is based on growth assumptions. Unless you'd claim Carrier's employees will not pay $585/yr in income/sales/property tax along with contributions to others' tax contribution within the economy, this has zero to do with Keynesianism.

quote:

---

You did, you just didn't tell me you'd be dishonest:

---

quote:

---

You didn't ask how they worked, you asked for an example of how one could work.

---

No, I specifically asked for an example of a regulation and how it works. You failed to produce both. You simply stated that certain things are regulated and that they could work. I already know that you believe they work. This is simple, you said they work, i asked for proof, you failed to produce it.

It's actually very simple for you to go online and find a regulation and show me how it works to achieve its purpose. You didn't do that.

quote:

---

Pollutant discharge limits are regulated.

If one plant is discharging an herbicide into a stream, and a farmer pulls water from the stream to irrigate his crops, he will suffer losses. Many streams, lake and reservoirs are public drinking water supplies.

Regulations attempt to keep water safe to drink.

---

I in no way misrepresented your argument. From the top: you provided a generalized hypothetical regulation, a vignette concerning an externality that only exists because of a government regulation, then you say that regulations "attempt" to stop this.

My quote:

quote:

---

1. Please include the specific regulation. I will not just assume that the regulation actually fulfills its purpose in either A. protecting the river or environment or B. protects other businesses from externalities. You are arguing those points, so prove it.

---

So I see that there is no specific regulation, nor any attempt at all to explain how an actual regulation of your choosing works to achieve the stated goal. I see you have done none of the things highlighted in bold. So one can only assume that you are creating a hypothetical in which there are only two possibilities 1. There are no regulations and people are free to destroy property as much as they want or 2. There are regulations that will actually prevent number 1. This is the exact discourse I said I would not engage in.

Again, it is your contention that regulations are necessary to protect against externalities. There are a lot of great arguments to support your case. Many people I respect greatly believe the same as you believe. To be clear though, they actually provide arguments to support their case. You have not.

quote:

---

You didn't ask how they worked, you asked for an example of how one could work.

---

1. Please include the specific regulation. I will not just assume that the regulation actually fulfills its purpose in either A. protecting the river or environment or B. protects other businesses from externalities. You are arguing those points, so prove it.

quote:

---

Sorry, I didn't mean to invade your personal space.

---

Ok, that was a good one.

quote:

---

Much of the surface water in the US in held in public trust. That's how it is now. That's not a regulation, that's based in common law.

---

So now we are parsing the difference between laws and regulation?

quote:

---

Oh, I see, you think regulations aren't laws.

---

Is this a "regulations are all law, but not all laws are regulation"?

quote:

---

Suppose all waters were held privately, don't you think there would be laws protecting owners of the water? These would actually be in the form of regulations. Public commons is not necessary for my position. I'm sorry you are just so blind and closed minded that all you have is attempted ridicule.

---

If everything is privately owned then I think it's fairly obvious that no particular regulation is necessary, as any violation of another person's property rights can be adjudicated based on the particular circumstances of that case. You are again missing one of the strongest arguments to support your position. A better argument on would be this:

"Private owners of what are now considered public properties would quickly devolve into monopolies over said properties. This implies these properties should be controlled and regulated by the state to prevent monopolies and increase access to vital resources."

Of course that argument is also rather weak, but it is much more sound than assuming we need specific regulations concerning property damage claims.

quote:

---

What you extreme Libertarians don't realize is how much you come across like Utopian Socialists. NEWSFLASH: You'll never get to your Utopia, try to deal with the real world. Also, berating people will never win them over to see your position, and without any support, your just farting in the wind.

---

Just pathetic. This is at least the second time you have misconstrued my position. Again, I expect this as you have not actually formed a position at all. I remind you that you are the one accusing me of being trite, yet have not provided any footholds for any meaningful discussion. I will also remind you that I warned you not to engage in this conversation because we would never agree.

quote:

---

Pollutant discharge limits are regulated.

---