| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Why the US declines? Solutions?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Why the US declines? Solutions?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 07:13
Originally posted by Pike Pike wrote:

Is there a "solution" to the relative decline of the US?  Probably not.

I believe there is, but only if the large majority of Americans lose some silly ideas.
Quote Since political interests have come to understand the power of media (since the 1960s), money has come to dominate politics as never before that time.  Media exposure is very expensive.  The "political aristocracy" is not the same as in 1800 when the "rich; the well-born and the able" were considered the rightful arbiters of politics and power.  Now it is just who has the money.

This is a failure of your democratic system and your media.
Consitutional reform is needed to alter the system to minimise that affect. I'd recommend a state broadcaster and a preferential voting system.
Quote Socialism seems to have discredited itself through unsustainable entitlements; communism seems to have discredited itself through the inability to do anything except to spread poverty around equally.

Totally incorrect. This is nothing but the fantasies of Americans. The single organisation that has been most sucessful in eliminating poverty is the China Communist Party. You may argue that's not "true" communism, but it's as communist as the US is democratic for sure. Every wealthy country in Asia-Pacific is either socialist or communist. Not to mention that Democracy is socialism.
Quote The observed effects of "globalization" seem to be the leveling out of labor costs, the diminishment of working class influence, and the concentration of wealth in fewer hands.

Apart from Labor coasts, and except in the US, I'd say the opposite is true. Globally, working classes are more powerful and wealth is better distributed.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 09:55
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:






That's what I mean by confusing government expenditure with transfer payments. If the government takes a dollar from X and gives it to Y than the government hasn't spent that money: it's still around.
 
Of course at a deeper level it needs to be understood that money spent hasn't gone away or disappeared ionto some oblivion. Money spent has merely been ransferred from one person's (or companie's) pocket to another one, ready to finance another transaction somewhere else. Of course it can be saved, which deprives it of any use, but it still sits around, usually steadily losing value.
 
But the idea that money can be exhausted isn't one that's easy to put over even in economics classes. It'll certainly take more than a few Nobel prize winners.


Of course, The guessing cup game. Keep the money away from the taxpayer.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 22:19
The guessing cup game?
 
I don't know that one, seriously.
 
In depressions you need to move money from people who would save it to people who will spend it. In booms you need to do the opposite. It's called negative feedback and it's essential to all control systems. ('People' there includes governments and corporations too.)
 
 
Of course in economics you usually look for controlled growth rather that simple stability, so you need less action in booms than in depressions.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2011 at 15:19
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


The guessing cup game?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG78kSNqxk0&feature=related

I'm sure there is a name for it, but dummy that i am, i can't think of it right now.

Quote
In depressions you need to move money from people who would save it to people who will spend it. In booms you need to do the opposite. It's called negative feedback and it's essential to all control systems. ('People' there includes governments and corporations too.)
 
Of course in economics you usually look for controlled growth rather that simple stability, so you need less action in booms than in depressions.


When i talk economics with you, i always wind up feeling like "Homer Simpson". DOH!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 04:58
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


The guessing cup game?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG78kSNqxk0&feature=related

I'm sure there is a name for it, but dummy that i am, i can't think of it right now.
 
In the UK the similar game with three cards, one of them usually the Queen of Hearts, is called 'Find the Lady' or less picturesquely the Three Card Trick. I can't remember what it's called when you use cups either.
 
On the general point though the intent is not to keep the money away from the 'taxpayer' (i.e. everyone who pays taxes, i.e everyone) but to steer it from one group of taxpayers to another.  
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 07:29
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


The guessing cup game?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG78kSNqxk0&feature=related

I'm sure there is a name for it, but dummy that i am, i can't think of it right now.
 
In the UK the similar game with three cards, one of them usually the Queen of Hearts, is called 'Find the Lady' or less picturesquely the Three Card Trick. I can't remember what it's called when you use cups either.
 
On the general point though the intent is not to keep the money away from the 'taxpayer' (i.e. everyone who pays taxes, i.e everyone) but to steer it from one group of taxpayers to another.  


That isn't a game.  That is called politics.  Wink


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 09:48
Yes, it is politics: the game that destroy countries.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 10:05
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Yes, it is politics: the game that destroy countries.


I think you should recalibrate.  Politics is two things when it works:

1)  The art of the possible by compromise and accommodation.

2)  The distribution of who gets what and how much of it, predicated on who has the most influence.

Politics may, in fact, be "a very low occupation," but it is much preferable to shooting at one another which is often what happens when politics does not work.






Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 10:09
Yes, politics is a fine art. The problem are the politicians.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 11:17
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


The guessing cup game?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG78kSNqxk0&feature=related

I'm sure there is a name for it, but dummy that i am, i can't think of it right now.
 
In the UK the similar game with three cards, one of them usually the Queen of Hearts, is called 'Find the Lady' or less picturesquely the Three Card Trick. I can't remember what it's called when you use cups either.
 
On the general point though the intent is not to keep the money away from the 'taxpayer' (i.e. everyone who pays taxes, i.e everyone) but to steer it from one group of taxpayers to another.  


That isn't a game.  That is called politics.  Wink




Our politicians sure do act like it's a game. Angry
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 11:25
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:



Politics may, in fact, be "a very low occupation," but it is much preferable to shooting at one another which is often what happens when politics does not work.


Words of wisdom. However, regardless of political affiliation, a few of our politicians are doing their damnedest too make it all not work by encouraging us to turn against one another with their elimination rhetoric. Thumbs Down
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 21:28
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Yes, it is politics: the game that destroy countries.


I think you should recalibrate.  Politics is two things when it works:

1)  The art of the possible by compromise and accommodation.

2)  The distribution of who gets what and how much of it, predicated on who has the most influence.

Politics may, in fact, be "a very low occupation," but it is much preferable to shooting at one another which is often what happens when politics does not work.
 
I thnk you need to add to that that politics is the art of convincing people that what you are recommending benefis them, when in fact it does nothing of the kind. Put another way, that would be making your first point "The art of the possible by compromise and accomodation, but preferably deception."
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 00:14
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Yes, it is politics: the game that destroy countries.


I think you should recalibrate.  Politics is two things when it works:

1)  The art of the possible by compromise and accommodation.

2)  The distribution of who gets what and how much of it, predicated on who has the most influence.

Politics may, in fact, be "a very low occupation," but it is much preferable to shooting at one another which is often what happens when politics does not work.
 
I thnk you need to add to that that politics is the art of convincing people that what you are recommending benefis them, when in fact it does nothing of the kind. Put another way, that would be making your first point "The art of the possible by compromise and accomodation, but preferably deception."


What?  Politicians deceive and lie?  I had no idea!

But so do business executives and bankers and school administrators and attorneys and salesmen and children and parents.  Almost everyone lies...often a lot, and certainly more than should be done, and it isn't going to change.  Hopefully, as we age the B.S. Detector becomes more engaged, but from what I see, it doesn't look like that happens much.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 00:29
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
I thnk you need to add to that that politics is the art of convincing people that what you are recommending benefis them, when in fact it does nothing of the kind. Put another way, that would be making your first point "The art of the possible by compromise and accomodation, but preferably deception."


What?  Politicians deceive and lie?  I had no idea!

But so do business executives and bankers and school administrators and attorneys and salesmen and children and parents.  Almost everyone lies...often a lot, and certainly more than should be done, and it isn't going to change. 
That's all politics, which are not necessarily national politics. Now you're talking about the field of micro-politics, parallelling micro-economics.


Edited by gcle2003 - 02 Mar 2011 at 00:29
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 05:42
Depending upon what is meant by "US decline" I am a bit curious about what the problem is, and not least who has a problem? It is not at all unimaginable that in countries loosing status as powers most of the population can gain better standards of living, health, liberties, etcetera. Nor that a majority of humans can.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 07:50
Good point. Britain never lost status and power faster than in the Conservative government of 1955-59 but MacMillan still won in '59 on the basis of the slogan "You never had it so good" which for most people was undoubtedly true.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 08:16
The European Great Powers were probably never as powerful as in the decades before the first world war, were they dominated most of the rest of the world. Still in many respects their lot in many countires  improved much especially in the decades after 1945, were their situation had reversed.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 08:58
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

The European Great Powers were probably never as powerful as in the decades before the first world war, were they dominated most of the rest of the world. Still in many respects their lot in many countires  improved much especially in the decades after 1945, were their situation had reversed.


In the decades after 1945, the European (former) colonial powers were laying off a disproportionate amount of their defense expenditure on North America.  Of course their lot improved.

The USSR was 500 miles away to the east, and the bankroll was coming from 3,000 miles to the west.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 22:14
You forget Britain and France had the bomb. With no shilly shallying they had announded they would rely on first use to defend themselves, so anyone attacking would have been hit by nuclear weapons immediately, or at least run the risk of doing so. The rest of Western Europe had that nuclear umbrella to rely on for defence, and no need for an offensive capability. Only Britain and France had any need for foreign entanglements, and they both paid for their own.
 
It was the non-nuclear defence that cost money. And that was largely seen as necessary by the US.
 
Of course it is true that some European countries made a pretty good deal out of supporting US bases (and British ones), but that's not saving on their own defence but charging someone else for their ideas of defence.
 
Also of course European countries and Japan, having been hit hard by the destruction of ww2 were in a much better position to rebuild, and nothing makes GDP shoot up faster than having to rebuild after a destructive catastrophe.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 07:25
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Also of course European countries and Japan, having been hit hard by the destruction of ww2 were in a much better position to rebuild, and nothing makes GDP shoot up faster than having to rebuild after a destructive catastrophe.
A tempting explanation perhaps, but not necessarily true. The degree of destruction differed extremely, and the correspondence with economic development is not at all that obvious.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 11:14
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello to you all
 
Thanks for Graham for explaining what I was saying. Warren Buffet if I am not mistaken pays around 17% of his income as taxes while the combined federal (forget state) taxes are around 30%. The average income taxes payed by the top 400 taxpayers is around 16%:
 
This is the problem with the US. Rich people pay less rates than lower income people squeezing the lower income people and damaging the economy. A fairer tax system will cancel all that.
 
Al-Jassas
 
 


Al, as long as the political aristocracy are disproportionately multi-millionaires paying 16%, it ain't gonna happen.




 
And isn't it the people who gave that aristocracy the power in the first place?
 
Seeing the current political landscape of the US and to a lesser extent other countries I couldn't but help noticing the similarities between today's corporate political class and the Liberals (particularly the utilitarians) who dominated european economic policies in the 1820s untill the middle of the 19th century. Should we expect a second coming for socialism/communism?
 
Al-Jassas
 


Since political interests have come to understand the power of media (since the 1960s), money has come to dominate politics as never before that time.  Media exposure is very expensive.  The "political aristocracy" is not the same as in 1800 when the "rich; the well-born and the able" were considered the rightful arbiters of politics and power.  Now it is just who has the money.

Corporate or other established financial interests now manipulate, and in essence control, elected representatives through their influence over those representatives' financial requirements...."you want media exposure, we'll help pay for it - for a price."

Socialism seems to have discredited itself through unsustainable entitlements; communism seems to have discredited itself through the inability to do anything except to spread poverty around equally. 

Is there a "solution" to the relative decline of the US?  Probably not.  Adapting to the reality that the disproportionate allocation of prosperity that existed, 1950 - 1980/90 is over is probably the best that can be expected.  Realistically, the prosperity that was thought to exist, or that could be expected, was an historical anomaly that could never be sustained.  The return to a more usual reality of basic subsistence and to more modest expectations seems to be in order.  What that may mean for the outraged dis-entitled citizen, or the dis-enfranchised union member has yet to be determined.

The observed effects of "globalization" seem to be the leveling out of labor costs, the diminishment of working class influence, and the concentration of wealth in fewer hands.  That tends to make it easier for the wealthiest to control the "political aristocracy" by purchasing influence and access to media.  Media can be manipulated to demonize and destroy whoever the adversary of the day might be - unions; political opponents; unpopular social groups, etc.

The United States will survive as a great power, even if only in the Western Hemisphere, and the United States will continue to to be a prosperous alternative to other places to live, but not in the relative sense of 1950 to 1990.  Too many things have changed, and they are basically reverting to the longer term historical reality that existed before that period of anomaly.

          
 
 
I'd suggest that the anomoly of the 1950-80 period was that it was actually a sustainable one, bracketed by a longer period of greed invoked bust and boom. The '30s was an almost terminal bust, saved only by the application of what could be described as socialist measures. We returned to the precipice again in '08, and again the world was saved by the application of socialism, in this case corporate welfare, something the business community finds no problem with, as apposed to benefits for individuals, which go against the laws of god and common sense, as they see it.
 
This period was sustainable because it had an economy that urged the continual recirculation of money, and also the flow of capital into relatively worthwhile projects, rather than into personal wealth and ostentation. The factors that helped to ensure this are the very ones being chipped away at today: labour unions, social programs, a progressive tax system.
 
It is only those mesmerized by the corporate line that believe that, in a country with one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, citizens cannot afford the very same things others of a relatively similar position most certainly can, like a universal health care system, pensions that are on a sustainable financial basis, and other benefits taken as a given.


Edited by Captain Vancouver - 03 Mar 2011 at 11:16
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 12:11
Just how many times to  have to type these words?
 
Taxes levied upon corporations and other businesses within the USA and the World, do not result in those "Capitalist" entities actually paying.
 
 
Instead, these so called "taxes" are merely moved into the "cost of doing business", in their "balance sheets!"  If you do not know what in the hell I am speaking of then you do not know anything about economics!
 
It is the ultimate consumer, in "all" cases, that eventually pay these so called "taxes upon the rich!"
 
To make a quote from a great movie "The God's must be crazy?"
 
And so are most of you!
 
Regards anyway!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 12:50
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Just how many times to  have to type these words?
 
Taxes levied upon corporations and other businesses within the USA and the World, do not result in those "Capitalist" entities actually paying.
 
 
Instead, these so called "taxes" are merely moved into the "cost of doing business", in their "balance sheets!"  If you do not know what in the hell I am speaking of then you do not know anything about economics!
 
It is the ultimate consumer, in "all" cases, that eventually pay these so called "taxes upon the rich!"
 
To make a quote from a great movie "The God's must be crazy?"
 
And so are most of you!
 
Regards anyway!


Hi opuslola,

I am curious as to why you think the business will always without fail pass on the cost of increased tax liabilities to the consumer. Where is your evidence for this?

As opposed, for example, to the company absorbing the entire cost or part of the cost of the tax liability. If a product is too highly priced because the company includes these prices in the product cost, then consumers may think that the price is inherently too high and simply decide to do without the commodity. The only way for the company to prevent a massive loss in market share and quantity of purchases would be to absorb some of the cost out of profits.

Faced with a choice between losing most of their market and reducing the bonuses and dividends paid to executives and shareholders - most companies would wisely vote in favour of the long term success of the company and choose to absorb some of the cost rather than losing long term customer patronage. And the fact remains that most large businesses can afford to do this, perhaps only a few such as the airline industry as earning such threadbare profits that they have no choice but to pass on the cost to the consumer.

It will differ from one circumstance to another, of course, but I do not think that the conclusion that the business will always saddle the consumer with increased tax liabilities is necessarily true.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 13:49
Especially if you tax luxuries and privlidges that people don't need and can do without.
 
Gambling, alcohol, designer clothing, luxury cars. There should be taxed such that anyone who wishes to indulge in them is paying a large proportion of the cost into the coffers of social security programs.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 14:11
My dear Constantine XI!
You must be frigging kidding me?  Just why would a company absorb a tax that applies to all companies doing business in the same manner?  Just to get a small increase in sales?  NO!   In most instances the "bean counters"/financial managers/tax specialists, will merely do just what the competetion would do, that is pass this new tax onto the receiver of the goods or services that every one else must also do!
 
Otherwise, you might, for a short time, control the orders, but in the long term, you would end up having to explain to the stock holders just why the profit margin fell!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 14:57
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

You must be frigging kidding me?  Just why would a company absorb a tax that applies to all companies doing business in the same manner?  Just to get a small increase in sales?  NO!


Because then they occupy the position of market leader in terms of cost, allowing them to capture a larger share of the market, thereby increasing profits and also denying profits to their competitors...

People often have a rough figure in their mind of how much they think a commidity is worth - and they will go without that commodity if they think the price is too high. For example, in 1932 the British government introduced a new tax on many 'luxuries' to impress the Americans into giving them a loan by proving they could be fiscally disciplined. One such luxury was beer. Despite increasing the tax on beer by a large fraction, government revenues on the sale of beer fell dramatically because brewers could not absorb the cost and ordinary people thought the prices extortionate compared to what they thought a beer was really worth.

Quote In most instances the "bean counters"/financial managers/tax specialists, will merely do just what the competetion would do, that is pass this new tax onto the receiver of the goods or services that every one else must also do!


I won't deny that this does happen. But it is not bound to happen. Managers must assess the impact of their pricing policy to reach the optimal combination of high price with large market share. Just 'doing what everyone else does' is not exactly an inspired pricing strategy.

Quote Otherwise, you might, for a short time, control the orders, but in the long term, you would end up having to explain to the stock holders just why the profit margin fell!


Or they might find their market share collapsing as the competition picks off their customer base through the advantage of cost leadership - which is far worse news for shareholders than a temporary reduction in dividend payouts.

One thing we are taught at university is that if a customer for whatever reason becomes dissatisfied with a supplier and tries an alternative, there is a 70% chance they won't be back.

Only through oligopoly and price fixing can companies ensure that the customer always absorbs any increasing cost with no risk to the shareholder - a practice which is of course anti-competitive and should be prevented by government bodies.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 15:03
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Just how many times to  have to type these words?
 
Taxes levied upon corporations and other businesses within the USA and the World, do not result in those "Capitalist" entities actually paying.
 
 
Instead, these so called "taxes" are merely moved into the "cost of doing business", in their "balance sheets!"  If you do not know what in the hell I am speaking of then you do not know anything about economics!
 
It is the ultimate consumer, in "all" cases, that eventually pay these so called "taxes upon the rich!"
 
To make a quote from a great movie "The God's must be crazy?"
 
And so are most of you!
 
Regards anyway!
 
The biggest problem with this logic is that it doesn't explain why corporations that get a negative tax rate (that is get tax credit for taxes it didn't pay) keep hiking their prices instead of reducing them?
 
Case in point Energy companies in the US. They pay on average less than 10% (if they didn't get an outright subsidy/credit) and yet keep energy prices high (not just gas but Diesel, heating oil etc.):
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 02:12
What opuslola overlooks/is ignorant of is that all expenditures made by a corporation are costs of doing business, including the payments made to shareholders as dividends, and the attribution of 'retained' earnings to the shareholders' account.
 
The value of the corporation itself at any point in time is exactly zero: it has assets and liabilities that exactly balance, and those liabilities include what it owes to the shareholders (the equity) along with all its other debt.
 
So the result of increasing tax is exactly the same as the result of any other change in expenditure. It must be matched by a decrease in one or all of the other costs of doing business, including profit
and wages, salaries and bonuses, or by an increase in income. Which of those is possible in any given environment is, as Constantine points out, dependent of skilled analysis of the situation plus a great deal of guessing and luck.
 
How come companies tend to oppose wage increases asked for by unions? If it is so easy to pass costs of doing business on to the customer, why not do the same thing with wages?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.