Posted by loweyecue:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by bitty41:
Bippity,
First off you stated one major inaccuracy in your post. And I think this goes to the heart of the matter why you are off base in some of your assumptions.
The United States is not ranked the highest in the Standard of living and I'll do you one better the UN's Human Development Index which measures a country's literacy knowledge education, life expectancy, and standard of living ranked the United States as number 13 hell we aren't even number one on our continent because Canada is.
So lets take a further look at our economy: one percent of the richest households in America control 38% of the wealth and the top 20 percent control 80%. Our distribution of wealth is the WORST among developed nations. An even more disturbing trend the things that the middle class rely on for wealth CDs, homeownership, savings accounts, money markets; 85% of all outstanding stocks and financial securities are controlled by the 10% richest families, as well as 90% of business assets. So I challenge you to find a reputable economist (I am not proclaiming to be one) that would say this model will promote positive economic growth and stability for a nation.
You also stated that your French, British, and Middle Eastern business associates complain that they live in a financial system that allows no growth from one class to the next. I think this a generic statement not really based on anything of substance other then a couple of guys talking. Thats not to say you or they are off base but I seriously doubt that their systems are that regimented. Hell the richest women in GB right now who I believe is worth more then the Queen of England J.K. Rowling started writing the Harry Potter series while she was on Welfare. This is just a random sample off the top of my head. The Middle East why you would group them together considering that the Middle East includes a vast number of countries with very diverse societies I don't know. But I also admit that I am not well versed of the intricacies of the French, British, and all the Middle Eastern countries economic systems.
You will get agreement with me on improving our educational system but again this deals with regulation. Various lending companies have been allowed to completely gouge college students on loans. The average college tuition at a private school is around 32,000 so please tell me how an average kid is going to come up with 128,000? Winning the lottery, becoming a big budget action star, signing a multi-million dollar pro sports contract? Now add that the student loan debt, to inflation that exists almost everywhere in this society (except of course our salaries)? Yet we wonder why so many kids opt to not goto college and this hurts the middle class the most. At least if you are poor it's easier to obtain financial aid but if you have both parents in the household and they make 50 grand a piece you can kiss most of financial aid good-bye.
Finally this country' stability is based on checks and balances. Thats why we have a Supreme Court, Congress, Senate, and President. Everyone (at least in theory) in this society has to answer for their actions. Thats what separates us from anarchy or on the opposite spectrum dictatorships. So when you complain that business men such as yourself are suffering under the oppressive rules of the American government remember that these checks and balances protect you and your family as well. Guess what the middle class that includes you to. Unless of course your net income falls in the bracket of top 10% (which I'm assuming it doesn't but I could be wrong). Stop believing the Reaganomics myth. That businesses and a country's economic growth will suffer tremendously if there is too much government oversight. You would be very hard pressed to find any actual facts or models to back-up this claim. But if you can I'm absolutely open to hearing it. I know we've all heard this saying before but your only as strong as your weakest link. Most countries in the world you can find filthy rich people but what truly separates the bad from, the good, to the best is their middle class and poor. What kind of opportunities if any they have to seek a better life. Because right now that rubber band is being stretched, stretched, and stretched until it snaps and the economy totally collapses. And would you feel it was worth it because you got to save a few extra tax dollars?
Bitty you raise some great points, many of which I agree with. But let me ask you this question. You brought up our educational system. Can you research and examine what has happened to our educational system since the Board of Education has come into affect. The government fixes nothing. You and I will agree to disagree on this topic. When the government gets involved it decreases competition and innovation. It leads to indirect consequences that are not obvious to see but happen nonetheless. I'm just stating reality. We can raise the taxes on business to suit the masses. And on paper it looks great. But the bottomline is people go into business to make money. When you eat into their profits they will cut costs. It's human nature.
Absolutely AWESOME post by Bitty!! WOW!!!!
Bippity - Here is my counter to your argument: The premise that large government stifles innovation and competition is a bad one. Government is perfectly capable of being efficient. I think the root of the problem is the approach the govt has taken in the US of A. Who gets hired to government? Do the best and the brightest take govt jobs? Do you think any one in even the top 25% of college students would work for our govt? Didnt think so either. It has always been the policy of our govt to hire second and third tier people into government jobs. When you load you organization with such people do you really expect innovation and competition? None of these people are bad employees but the overall culture become oppressive, stifling and resistant to change. Those high flying ambitious people needed to create and share a vision and to mobilize the masses are not there in Govt agencies, that is why they fail. So large govt is not bad govt. Its who you hire into it.
Your argument about people going onto business to make money is spot on. So they will shed jobs if taxes are raised? What if taxes are not raised that money goes staright into their greedy pockets, right? Business dont hire people as a social service they hire less people than they need and force everyone to work extra. So I dont completely buy the notion that they can shed more people and continue to operate at the same level.
But this economy did not crash becuase of taxes it crashed IN SPITE of tax breaks, that much is history. We live in an economy financed primarily through debt. Regardless of how you look a it, the republicans took the approach that we would borrow our way out of debt. The last I checked that shyit dont fly. At some point in the future this nation will have to realize that status quo is not working and we actually have an obligation to repay our debt. The only way any government can hope to pay off anything is by increasing taxes, interest rates etc. There is no way around it, we have all seen what the fancy footwork by accountants who juggle numbers at will can do (Read ENRON) and we have also seen that you cannot finaance your entire economy based on debt alone. So yes raising taxes is a MUST.
Why is it the "policy" of government to hire 2nd and 3rd tier employees when you can hire 1st tier? That point right there shows government is not operating at the most efficient level. But to answer the question, government jobs do not pay as well as private companies. However, there are some of the brightest people in the world for the government because they believe it's their obligation to help improve the society that raised them. I am sure Bloomberg could just retire and relax at his billion dollar island and billion dollar mansion, instead of dealing with the stress of being the NYC mayor at the pay of $1 per year. Also, Spitzers and Clintons are lawyers graduating from Ivy league schools, who could have just made millions and coast for the rest of their lives, but they just choose to become politicians and work for the public.
This doesn't change the fact that the governemnt is inefficient. Most government employees, who are are not scrtunized by the media, aren't performing at the highest level. I went through the public school education in NYC, and I could tell you the teachers (majority) were not working after hours making improvements to their lesson plans or trying to fix the problems why their students can't read or do basic mathematics operations. They say it's not their fault and just blame the NYC public education system for their student's shortcoming. But if their job is on the line, I am sure there would be more teachers holding study sessions after school. My point is, most government jobs are very secure, and there aren't many incentives to perform at the highest level. Also, the job security and pension plan undermines (many, not all) government employees' motivation to be as productive and innovative as they can.
I can give another example. Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, said he did not want to be a politician because there are no incentives to be innovative and efficient since there are no competition for governemnt service. To illustrate this point, he mentioned the governor of Indiana promised to keep jobs in the state and not outsource them in his election campaign; the governor kept his promise by increasing overall state tax rate to make up for the higher cost of keeping the jobs in state.
"It almost as if Bonn is relying on techniques he has learned for academic debates."
"I can pay someone to find a statistic that will prove cloudy days cause stock market crashes." -Silverfuel
9/1/2008 7:23 PM