The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Many resource rich neighboring countries did the same thing much more effectively, without terrorizing the opposition.

 

Yup. The fact that the governing party is now in chaos with no leadership is a sign of the type of government he ran. For as much as he restricted free speech, though, I'd throw out there that he did depart from the typical SA "assassinate or disappear the opposition" moves, at least as far as I've ever heard, while some of the opposition still advocates for those tactics.

[Reddy]

Small business owners don't pocket enough to worry about whether they should be giving their employees a little bit more. Most barely make a living of their own.

 

I agree with you the problem is fixing the income gap of the very top. But unfortunately liberals have a mindset that anyone with a little bit of money or anyone that runs a business is super mega rich and can afford to give their much more deserving employees more money/benefits.

 

don't you think that those small business owners would be making more money if their stock didn't cost quite so much and they could make more profit? And why does it cost so much? because big oil tycoons are charging record prices while reaping record profits, and your party wants to keep it that way. YOUR party is screwing small business owners RIGHT NOW - which is worse than this hypothetical screwing that the Dems would do.

[bmags]

Yup. The fact that the governing party is now in chaos with no leadership is a sign of the type of government he ran. For as much as he restricted free speech, though, I'd throw out there that he did depart from the typical SA "assassinate or disappear the opposition" moves, at least as far as I've ever heard, while some of the opposition still advocates for those tactics.

 

South American governance has certainly turned a corner, but I prefer to hold up Chile and Brazil as the progress rather than their bad apple. Chile's tech scene is because of their government and people's initiative. The two go can go hand and hand and countries should always look for those opportunities and be accepting of failure in those cases.

[StrangeSox]

Small business owners don't pocket enough to worry about whether they should be giving their employees a little bit more. Most barely make a living of their own.

 

So? The calculus doesn't change: lower production costs, be it labor, materials, equipment, whatever, means you can either enjoy a larger profit margin or reduce prices and hopefully expand your market revenues.

 

I'm trying to make this statement as amorally as possible--this is simply how our economy currently functions. Business owners need to reduce costs in all areas, and labor is typically one of the biggest costs.

 

I agree with you the problem is fixing the income gap of the very top. But unfortunately liberals have a mindset that anyone with a little bit of money or anyone that runs a business is super mega rich and can afford to give their much more deserving employees more money/benefits.

 

No, we don't. We have a mindset that an incredibly small slice of the population controls an enormous amount of the wealth and income, that this is bad for society in the long-term and that it's devastating for millions that get the short-end of the stick in the short-term.

[southsider2k5]

Chavez died yesterday. Mixed bag of anti-democratic measures, ego-maniacal leadership but also using his country's natural resources wealth to actually help the poorer citizens of his country.

 

And helped himself to two billion dollars.

[StrangeSox]

South American governance has certainly turned a corner, but I prefer to hold up Chile and Brazil as the progress rather than their bad apple. Chile's tech scene is because of their government and people's initiative. The two go can go hand and hand and countries should always look for those opportunities and be accepting of failure in those cases.

How much of Chile's progress in the last couple of decades are an offshoot of Pinochet's reign? They've done well after those neoliberal policies were implemented, but how egalitarian is their society? How does it compare to Chavez's use of natural resource wealth for the poor?

 

Chavez did some good things while also having a toxic political culture. I don't know if that comes out to a net positive or if that even means anything anyway. But I think it's important to note what he did with the natural resource wealth when he could have easily done what's much more common. There's no question that he's harmed Venezuelan democracy, and for that he should be criticized.

[StrangeSox]

And helped himself to two billion dollars.

 

Chavez did a good thing by actually helping the poor of his country with the oil wealth. He also did plenty of s***ty things and I don't like seeing him idolized by some on the left.

[GoSox05]

Chavez was no saint, but at least he wasn't some U.S backed puppet dictator.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

US-backed puppet dictators tend to have far, far worse human rights records.

[Jake]

Chavez was no saint, but at least he wasn't some U.S backed puppet dictator.

 

But Obama would have voted for him!

[GoSox05]

US-backed puppet dictators tend to have far, far worse human rights records.

 

There is difference between Chavez creating a toxic political culture and Pinochet dumping thousands of bodies in the ocean.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

So? The calculus doesn't change: lower production costs, be it labor, materials, equipment, whatever, means you can either enjoy a larger profit margin or reduce prices and hopefully expand your market revenues.

 

I'm trying to make this statement as amorally as possible--this is simply how our economy currently functions. Business owners need to reduce costs in all areas, and labor is typically one of the biggest costs.

 

 

 

No, we don't. We have a mindset that an incredibly small slice of the population controls an enormous amount of the wealth and income, that this is bad for society in the long-term and that it's devastating for millions that get the short-end of the stick in the short-term.

 

Yes, in theory you lower costs, your revenues go up and your labor should get a share of that. But given the costs of doing business in this country, that's not some easy feat. Most companies don't charge exorbitant prices with tons of excess revenue. Their prices are set by the market - competition from other businesses and the price they can demand for their product/service.

 

The wealth shift you want can't come from middle class people. It's very limited to a small number of people who hold the ginormous amounts of wealth.

[bmags]

How much of Chile's progress in the last couple of decades are an offshoot of Pinochet's reign? They've done well after those neoliberal policies were implemented, but how egalitarian is their society? How does it compare to Chavez's use of natural resource wealth for the poor?

 

Chavez did some good things while also having a toxic political culture. I don't know if that comes out to a net positive or if that even means anything anyway. But I think it's important to note what he did with the natural resource wealth when he could have easily done what's much more common. There's no question that he's harmed Venezuelan democracy, and for that he should be criticized.

 

After Pinochet was removed, the former socialist party took over and have been a very good government. They have kept the best part of Friedman via Pinochet reforms, while creating a better floor for their population. They are a very-well run country with good government.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, in theory you lower costs, your revenues go up and your labor should get a share of that. But given the costs of doing business in this country, that's not some easy feat. Most companies don't charge exorbitant prices with tons of excess revenue. Their prices are set by the market - competition from other businesses and the price they can demand for their product/service.

 

Labor's just another line item. The business will be more successful if you minimize labor costs as much as possible, regardless of business size.

 

"As much as possible" is doing a lot of work for me there, but our economic system still incentivizes reducing your labor costs.

 

The wealth shift you want can't come from middle class people. It's very limited to a small number of people who hold the ginormous amounts of wealth.

 

Uh, yeah? No disagreement there. The lower and middle classes have been stagnant or losing ground for decades to an increasingly small percentage who hoards all the wealth.

 

edit: did you see that video I posted earlier? go take a look, it shows how pretty much across the board, until you get to the very tail, the wealth distribution is far below what Americans think it is and think it should be.

Edited March 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

After Pinochet was removed, the former socialist party took over and have been a very good government. They have kept the best part of Friedman via Pinochet reforms, while creating a better floor for their population. They are a very-well run country with good government.

 

But they still have pretty high inequality and there's widespread discontent with the government IIRC. And their privatized social security system has been a bit of a failure, too.

 

What's wrong with saying Chavez was s***ty politically but that the way he used the oil wealth to help the poor was genuinely good when many other leaders have not? I'm not required to endorse everything he did or said in order to point out that he wasn't the universal evil he's typically portrayed as.

Edited March 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

But they still have pretty high inequality and there's widespread discontent with the government IIRC. And their privatized social security system has been a bit of a failure, too.

 

What's wrong with saying Chavez was s***ty politically but that the way he used the oil wealth to help the poor was genuinely good when many other leaders have not? I'm not required to endorse everything he did or said in order to point out that he wasn't the universal evil he's typically portrayed as.

 

Probably for the same reason people don't say, Sure, Mussolini was a bloody tyrant, but boy did the trains arrive on time.

 

As I said, many other countries in south america have reigned in their natural resources to create better transfers of wealth.

[StrangeSox]

I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to compare Chavez to Mussolini.

 

You pointed to Chile, where inequality is still high (higher Gini than Venezuela) and so is discontent with the government. That doesn't seem like a particularly strong example. What other countries have taken measures similar to Venezuela to use these resources to directly help the poor? I don't have much knowledge in this area, but I know I've seen Venezuela lauded for their efforts in this area and I've seen other countries that have fallen victim to the "Resource Curse"

[Jenksismyhero]

Labor's just another line item. The business will be more successful if you minimize labor costs as much as possible, regardless of business size.

 

"As much as possible" is doing a lot of work for me there, but our economic system still incentivizes reducing your labor costs.

 

 

 

Uh, yeah? No disagreement there. The lower and middle classes have been stagnant or losing ground for decades to an increasingly small percentage who hoards all the wealth.

 

edit: did you see that video I posted earlier? go take a look, it shows how pretty much across the board, until you get to the very tail, the wealth distribution is far below what Americans think it is and think it should be.

 

I watched it and I agree it's a huge problem. What i'm saying is that 95% of business owners can't be expected to magically raise rates for all of their employees if they want to stay in business. 95% of businesses don't have CEO's and board members hoarding tons of cash while their employees scrape by. Liberals think that's a general business problem when in reality it's a very small percent. Shifting wage inequality through broad, mandatory measures is going to hurt more people than it'll help.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I watched it and I agree it's a huge problem. What i'm saying is that 95% of business owners can't be expected to magically raise rates for all of their employees if they want to stay in business. 95% of businesses don't have CEO's and board members hoarding tons of cash while their employees scrape by.

 

So? None of that challenges my statement that the people who comprise "The Market" that sets wage rates are always looking to minimize wage rates. For the barely-profitable small business, even more so.

 

Liberals think that's a general business problem when in reality it's a very small percent. Shifting wage inequality through broad, mandatory measures is going to hurt more people than it'll help.

It's a capitalism problem, but I think you're generalizing and straw-man stuffing a bit when you keep saying what "liberals think."

 

How do you expect to shift wage inequality through narrow, voluntary measures?

[Jenksismyhero]

So? None of that challenges my statement that the people who comprise "The Market" that sets wage rates are always looking to minimize wage rates. For the barely-profitable small business, even more so.

 

I guess I don't disagree with the statement, but my response is so what? If the point is that employers should give more, we've established that small companies most likely can't because of other market forces.

 

It's a capitalism problem, but I think you're generalizing and straw-man stuffing a bit when you keep saying what "liberals think."

 

How do you expect to shift wage inequality through narrow, voluntary measures?

 

It wouldn't have to be voluntary measures. I'd start by getting rid of the massive tax loopholes for the top companies that both republicans and democrats continue to give. At the same time i'd give MORE tax incentives to small and medium size businesses so that they can hire more people/expand their businesses. Add qualifiers that the tax incentives require hiring or re-investment into the business or whatever if you'd like.

[GoSox05]

I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to compare Chavez to Mussolini.

 

You pointed to Chile, where inequality is still high (higher Gini than Venezuela) and so is discontent with the government. That doesn't seem like a particularly strong example. What other countries have taken measures similar to Venezuela to use these resources to directly help the poor? I don't have much knowledge in this area, but I know I've seen Venezuela lauded for their efforts in this area and I've seen other countries that have fallen victim to the "Resource Curse"

 

 

Why Ecuador loves Rafael Correa

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I guess I don't disagree with the statement, but my response is so what? If the point is that employers should give more, we've established that small companies most likely can't because of other market forces.

 

I was making a descriptive statement there. It was more about pointing out the fallacy of treating "market forces" as some sort of deity with its own will and unknowable intentions when it's really the culmination of peoples' collective actions and conscious choices.

 

It wouldn't have to be voluntary measures. I'd start by getting rid of the massive tax loopholes for the top companies that both republicans and democrats continue to give. At the same time i'd give MORE tax incentives to small and medium size businesses so that they can hire more people/expand their businesses. Add qualifiers that the tax incentives require hiring or re-investment into the business or whatever if you'd like.

 

But how would helping small and medium businesses become big businesses help them? What do you do in the age of incredibly mobile capital to keep the big businesses, who still employ a majority of Americans (if we count "big" as >500 employees), around? You're just shifting some tax preferences around in the same structure.

 

(how are these substantial tax reforms not "broad, mandatory measures"??)

Edited March 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Why Ecuador loves Rafael Correa

 

Awesome, thanks.

 

edit: interesting paper in the comments http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications...dor-2012-05.pdf

Edited March 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I was making a descriptive statement there. It was more about pointing out the fallacy of treating "market forces" as some sort of deity with its own will and unknowable intentions when it's really the culmination of peoples' collective actions and conscious choices.

 

But how would helping small and medium businesses become big businesses help them? What do you do in the age of incredibly mobile capital to keep the big businesses, who still employ a majority of Americans (if we count "big" as >500 employees), around? You're just shifting some tax preferences around in the same structure.

 

(how are these substantial tax reforms not "broad, mandatory measures"??)

 

The bigger the business, the more employees, the bigger the impact on local and state economies. The more people have the opportunity to advance within the company and make more money and on and on.

 

And yes, we are changing the tax structure. Big businesses should be paying a bunch of taxes whereas the little business should be paying next to none. One can afford it, the other can't.

 

And they're limited because they'd only apply to a minority of businesses. If facebook and GE are getting away from paying hundreds of millions in taxes, that's f***ed up, especially when their respective owners/board members are worth billions of dollars individually.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

The bigger the business, the more employees, the bigger the impact on local and state economies. The more people have the opportunity to advance within the company and make more money and on and on.

 

But all you're doing is making it a little easier for small- and medium-sized businesses to become big businesses. Where does the calculus ultimately change there? Why wouldn't these new-big-businesses also have CEO's making 380 times the average employee's salaries, why wouldn't a substantial portion of the wealth created still be siphoned off by the finance industry? We've seen the growth of gigantic, multi-national firms over the past several decades and we've seen real wages stagnate and opportunities disappear. Why should we expect drastically different results from these tax policy changes?

 

And yes, we are changing the tax structure. Big businesses should be paying a bunch of taxes whereas the little business should be paying next to none. One can afford it, the other can't.

 

One will take its capital and its jobs to another country. This is the real problem that the race-to-the-bottom, cut-taxes-and-regulations policy that gets euphamized as a "business-friendly environment" is addressing.

 

And they're limited because they'd only apply to a minority of businesses. If facebook and GE are getting away from paying hundreds of millions in taxes, that's f***ed up, especially when their respective owners/board members are worth billions of dollars individually.

 

But your stated goal is to help small- and mid-sized businesses become large businesses, who would then become subject to these taxes, right?

 

I don't see how such a substantial tax reform is't broad, but really that's just semantics so w/e.