It comes under the heading of GImmicks:
Shopping for the holidays, you pick up an item, scan it with your phone, and BOOM, you can see how much it would save you had you shopped on line… at… Amazon.com…
Great service. The customer has a need for information. It is provided conveniently. The customer can make a decision on the spot.
Gone are the days of writing down prices, walking through 8 stores, then returning to the one with the lowest… It is all in the palm of you hand…
Ahhh, but is it fair for those retailers trying to stay open another year, by capitalizing on the surge of holiday book sales?
Are small businesses who lack the gigantic resources required, put at a competitive disadvantage? Is it morally correct, to allow corporate espionage on a scale that could wipe out all small business competitors in one Christmas season.
Somewhere in Amazon.com, is a listing of every price in every bookstore, as well as a guide as to which books are popular. And no one gets employed to go out looking for that information.
On one hand, businesses have the right to innovation. they have the right to compete, they have the right to outsmart the competition. That is how society moves forward. The weak fail. The strong survive.
But on the other hand, like an endangered species, little bits of Americana, of life as it used to be, those pieces of the good side of life, do not return the next season; it gets worse year after year….
On one hand prices are low now, meaning other things can be bought with the savings.
On the other hand, as we saw with Standard Oil at the beginning of the last century, monopolies do raise prices to levels a lot higher than they would be if they had competition….
It is quite similar to the Wal*mart takeover of America. For one, I love Wal*mart. It is how I find out what’s new. But my folk’s small town, died the day Wal*mart opened its doors onto the Interstate exit. Understandably. You saved $20 dollars buying the same assortment of items………. back when they first opened that is. Now, with Main Street closed up, the prices are about where they were in the small shops the day before it opened…. All we did was move spending our money downtown, to spending it 3 miles out of town. Whereas the local businesses used to give back both in taxes and in donations…. the corporate giant now sends our money overseas….
Do small businesses have to take this onslaught. “The law has long been clear that stores do not invite the public in for all purposes. A retailer is not expected to serve as a warming station for the homeless or a site for band practice. So it’s worth wondering whether it’s lawful for Amazon to encourage people to enter a store for the purpose of gathering pricing information for Amazon and buying from the Internet giant, rather than the retailer.”
And so, the issue actually moves from economic, to political.. Sort of like the “Buy America” campaign in the 80’s. It involves conceding the economic war; establishing a new front in the form the political war. It becomes a moral issue, and not a price-point one. Do you like small bookstores? Do you like seeing a business open? Do you like establishing a solid tax base for your community? Do you like the option of your son or daughter being hired by someone you personally have known for years….. when they come home for Christmas breatk? If so, then support your local bookstore, and don’t buy on line at Amazon.com….
That may work for those politically motivated, which if the past presidential election can serve as a guide, applies to only 61% of us… The rest of us need to save that $20….
If there is any wisdom that comes from watching this past decade unfold, it is this: you have to treat corporations like children; you can’t let them have the upper hand… Historians know this. Teddy Roosevelt proved it during the dawn of the 1900’s. You HAVE to break up corporations so they become SO worried about other’s moving in on their territory, they don’t have time for mischief. You give them time (with no supervision), they’ll make mischief. Just like one’s kids.
So the answer lies not in boycotts. The answer lies not in public shame. The answer lies not in micromanaging colossal giants…
After thinking about it for a very long time, it appears the only answer is to eliminate them, by breaking them up so they have to compete against themselves.
The laws are already on the books to do it.
kavips 
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 13, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Duffy
Wonderful. Call this bill “Too Big To Succeed” or something.
Why is it that every remedy you come up with involves restriction of activity by individuals and corporations by government?
In this scenario, Daddy (the government) tells the children (business) exactly how large they can grow before they are punished and summarily destroyed to fit the model you like best. Never mind the efficiencies for the consumer, we’re here to prevent too much success and growth.
Who gets to decide how big is too big? Who gets to decide how the breakup works? Where are these perfect actors? You say your solution is not micromanaging colossal giants but your solution is exactly that.
Business 101. If you can’t beat them on price you have to beat them on service. The little guy has to become a center of gravity for bibilophiles or otherwise offer the customers a reason to go in there. If consumers want to support small local business over the conglomerate that is their right. Just remember that every huge corporation started out as a very small business somewhere and simply succeeded. Now you want to punish them for it.
December 14, 2011 at 12:55 am
kavips
Like restriction of activity is bad? WTF.
“Son. Hand guns aren’t allowed here, this is a school.”
“If you pay this toll, you may drive to Baltimore on this road, but please stay on the pavement and don’t drive on the grass in the middle.”
“I’m sorry, Jerry. I know you’ve been a long time employee, but rape is not something we can condone.”
Unlimited Freedom is bad, very bad. It hinges on the necessity of people being counted on to police themselves. We know they can’t. There has to be structure. There have to be rules. There have to be those who enforce rules.
I chose extreme examples for a reason. At a glance they point out that restriction of activity, is a damn good thing….
The question then occurs, where do we draw the line? We know Americans are not genetically bred to be Singaporeans, where a list of rules creates an efficient society, but no effin fun. We also know that if we had no rules and no enforcement, our entire county would be an OK Corral as is the northern end of Market Street in Wilmington… The reason there are shoot out all the time in Wilmington is because there is not enough “restriction of activity.”
So,
If we restrict harmful situations involving bodily harm, now that corporations are people, … (lol) they too, must be responsible.
Who decides?
The same damn people who always decide…. Americans.
The same people who decided the Stamp Act was unfair.
The same people who decided that we should be our own nation.
The same people who decided we “could” take land away from the Indians.
The same people who decided slavery was wrong.
The same people who decided the Union was worth keeping together.
The same people who decided that Income tax was awesome.
The same people who decided Standard Oil was too big,
The same people who decided that Tamminy Hall needed to go.
The same people who decided that building the PA Turnpike was right.
The same people who decided Pearl Harbor needed an answer.
The same people who decided we should stand up to the USSR.
The same people who decided we should help the United Nations.
The same people who decided we should get out of Vietnam.
The same people who decided a sitting President should resign.
The same people who decided we should allow abortions.
The same people who decided we should revenge 9/11
The same people who decided that Obama should rule.
The same people who decided that Republican philosophy sucked.
The same people who decided that we should have National Health.
The same people who decided we should bail out car manufacturers.
The same people who decided Republicans were morally bankrupt.
The same people who currently think Obama didn’t do enough.
WE, the people will be the ones who make the decisions you outlined in your argument….. We’ll do by our vote…….
There are times when we do need to restrict activity. Monopolies and large corporations are one of those times.
There are times when we need to prevent “restriction of activities”. Stopping the Patriot Act, the SOPA legialation, and domain takedowns, are some of those times.
Saying a person has to be either for “restriction of all activity” … or … against all “restriction of activity” … puts one in silly land…..
That is simply not realistic.
December 14, 2011 at 9:52 am
Duffy
Strawman. No one is arguing for unbounded freedom.
You are using hypberolic examples because your case is weak. You cite “harm” so broadly that any form of browsing would be equally harmful. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, I cannot go from car dealer to car dealer to price shop. That wouldn’t be “fair” to the smaller dealers who don’t have the inventory that the larger guys do. I can’t go to The Small Guy Bookstore and browse. If I am going to buy the book I must buy it there. Who the hell are you to tell me where I can and cannot buy a book? If Mr. Small Bookstore Owner wants to make a “No Browsing” rule that’s his right. He will, however, alienate many potential companies.
It seems to me they need to adapt or perish. The days of yore when every town had a quaint little bookstore are gone. Is that bad? Maybe. It may also be inevitable. At one point there were hundreds of companies making buggywhips. Eventually they all closed their doors an the last one left made the best buggywhips in the world but it didn’t matter. The world had moved on.
We also know that if we had no rules and no enforcement, our entire county would be an OK Corral as is the northern end of Market Street in Wilmington… The reason there are shoot out all the time in Wilmington is because there is not enough “restriction of activity.”
That’s quite a leap. DC has an absolute ban on handguns and even most long guns (DC vs. Heller notwithstanding) and they are the murder capital. Correlation isn’t cause.
Who decides?
The same damn people who always decide…. Americans.
WE, the people will be the ones who make the decisions you outlined in your argument….. We’ll do by our vote…….
So we’re a direct democracy now or are we going to whipsaw back and forth between each party’s idea of what is permissable.
The same people who decided that Tamminy Hall needed to go.
Tammany Hall was run by Democrats
The same people who decided we should allow abortions.
When did that happen?
The same people who decided that Obama should rule.
You’re showing your stripes. Obama does not “rule”, he governs at the will of the electorate.
I’m old enough to remember when liberals were always defying “the man”. Sadly they’ve become “the man” and are just as authoritarian (if not moreso) than The Man they replaced.
December 14, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Duffy
Just in time:
Don’t support your local bookstore
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/12/independent_bookstores_vs_amazon_buying_books_online_is_better_for_authors_better_for_the_economy_and_better_for_you_.single.html
December 14, 2011 at 2:17 pm
kavips
Actually the case got stronger, not weaker. and correct me if I’m wrong, but they weren’t hyperbolic examples, they were historical ones…..
You miss the underlying point…
For capitalism to be beneficial, there needs to be competition. Once the competition is gone, I guess, the argument could be made, that instead of a capitalist society, we have an authoritarian one, with the one entity still standing, making all the rules… as well as setting prices as high as the eye can see….
If I remember correctly you were accusing me of making the rules and I was stating that no, I was just pointing out something that was happening. It was the American people who make the rules.
Thing is, we’ve been here before… 100 years ago.. Back then there were the kavips arguing for dissolution of corporate giants. Back then there were the Duffys arguing that giant capitalism was beneficial…
Turns out, it truly was beneficial to the 1% back then, harmful to the 99%… Enough of the giant monopolies got busted up, much to the chagrin of their shareholders, and life was grand for all..
The American people went from frustration to financially solvent, until the next round of deregulation came about during the 20’s leading to the next bubble popping and the Great Depression….
AS a result, more regulations were created and enforced, to make sure that never happened again, and they worked! It never happened again, until……….those industries were again De-regulated in the 2000’s ….
And here we are… Time to break up the monopolies again…
December 14, 2011 at 2:37 pm
kavips
Piecemeal retorts:
… and no, no reference was made that we were a direct voting democracy, nor was any intention there to suggest that should be our path.
…. and Tammany Hall, as a Democratic machine, is an excellent example, proving once again, that ‘right is right’ no matter which party it is beholden of. The people stopped supporting it. …
… and picking off of “rule” … Every executive rules. That’s why we have an executive…. someone to make a decision.
And I am no liberal… Just someone who points us in the direction we need to go. .. … (Actually, I am a conservative: I just want the nation to go back to the policies that gave us the “good old days.” )
Fact is: deregulation has messed up things royally.
….
December 15, 2011 at 2:55 am
kavips
But you were right about one thing:
I am “da man”….. 🙂
December 15, 2011 at 8:12 am
Duffy
Fundamentally what you’re forgetting is that the American people can decide. By voting with their wallets. We don’t need to cede that authority to some bureaucrat in Washington to then decide what we really wanted. We have the ability to decide for ourselves. We need much more self determination in America and far fewer decisions deferred to elected officials.
December 15, 2011 at 8:17 am
Duffy
One more thing:
(Actually, I am a conservative: I just want the nation to go back to the policies that gave us the “good old days.” )
Interesting you classify yourself so. What positions do you think make you conservative? I can see no policy point where you’ve expressed anything other than ardent leftist.
December 16, 2011 at 4:00 am
kavips
Agreed.. Americans can vote with their wallets. And we do when we shop.
But that doesn’t apply to government. We need government.
Too much government is bad. As well as too little government is bad. And exactly where in the middle we need to be, depends entirely on what is happening at that time.
Right now, we need more… We know this because when we had more government, things were better for the middle class. They were worse for the upper class back then of course…. That is to be expected.
So should a minority benefit at the expense of the majority, or… should the majority benefit at the expense of the minority.? This question is made simpler by the fact that the minority of which we are speaking, want for nothing. They can give up 99% of their wealth, and still find it impossible to run out of money if they never stopped buying.
Whatever happens, they’ll be ok. But currently, the majority is not. .
So, the true definition of a conservative is someone who tends to look backward with nostalgia at the way things were, and wishes to return there. … I look back at the good government we had during he Clinton years with nostalgia and wish to return there… Balance budgets, all quintiles getting wealthier at the same time, More income, lower costs. …. I am, a conservative.
December 16, 2011 at 11:31 am
Duffy
Right now, we need more… We know this because when we had more government, things were better for the middle class.
Correlation isn’t cause. We also had fewer iPods. By your logic we could blame the problems on the increase in iPods.
They were worse for the upper class back then of course…. That is to be expected.
Why is that to be expected? Wealth creation is not zero sum. Economics is not zero sum. Why is that so hard to understand?
So should a minority benefit at the expense of the majority, or… should the majority benefit at the expense of the minority.? This question is made simpler by the fact that the minority of which we are speaking, want for nothing. They can give up 99% of their wealth, and still find it impossible to run out of money if they never stopped buying.
The minority you should be concerned about is the individual. Indeed the smallest minority there is. You continually want to deprive people of their lawful property because you think they have too much. No matter that it is theirs. Legally earned by their own efforts (and in rare cases accident of birth). Why not assign everyone a multiplier? Determine their ratio of wealth or income to liabilities and may them pay for everything as a function of that number. For you a gallon of gas is $15. For me its $.75. I have many kids and you don’t so you can afford it.
Whatever happens, they’ll be ok. But currently, the majority is not. .
Thanks to $1 trillion wasted on crony capitalism and excessive hostility to the private sector.
So, the true definition of a conservative is someone who tends to look backward with nostalgia at the way things were, and wishes to return there.
Partially. Mostly conservatives want to be guided by tradition and don’t want to use government for social engineering or social experiments. William F. Buckley once described a conservative as someone standing astride history and yelling “stop”.
… I look back at the good government we had during he Clinton years with nostalgia and wish to return there… Balance budgets, by adopting a GOP budget and claiming it as his own
all quintiles getting wealthier at the same time,
Much of that due to a tech bubble and a housing bubble.
More income, lower costs
due to tax reductions and reforms
. …. I am, a conservative.
Bill Clinton is far more conservative than Barack Obama or any of his policies.
December 20, 2011 at 3:33 am
kavips
How can you blame it on fewer Ipods? No, the problems we have are directly correlated to lack of government. or a government TOO SMALL to do it’s job. No regulations on derivatives, was the cause of the global collapse. it was a direct correlation…( btw, having nothing to do witn ipods.)
I don’t follow your connection with the upper class being better off now, and a zero sum… The wealthy are now better off because they 1) are paying no taxes, 2) are gambling tremendous amounts of money instead of physical investment; 3) raising prices we have to pay, by betting in hedge funds that jack up the prices of necessities we need to live… Remember when gasoline was $4.25 a gallon, and two weeks later, it was $1.40… The hedge funds collapsed, showing us the real price of a gallon.
And we are depriving no one of anything. Just asking them to return what they stole. You are forgetting when they paid more in taxes, life for all was good… As soon as taxes got cut, life became bad for 99% of Americans, this argument that has been repeatedly proven wrong, and NEVER been proven right.
Corporations are more profitable now than ever. The problem is that they are making money for free, and others, the taxpayers, are paying most of their expenses… The old premise was, we’ll allow you to use these for free and make money, but we ask only a percentage back to help us cover the cost… That amount was taxes.
And the Clinton budget was not Republican at all. They rubber stamped his budget after their shutting down government backfired on them. No republican voted to raise taxes, which was the true reason his era was so fruitful….
The higher the taxes, the better the economy.
December 20, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Duffy
How can you blame it on fewer Ipods? No, the problems we have are directly correlated to lack of government. or a government TOO SMALL to do it’s job. No regulations on derivatives, was the cause of the global collapse. it was a direct correlation…( btw, having nothing to do witn ipods.)
“The wealthy are now better off because they 1) are paying no taxes”
That is patently absurd. The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the total taxes paid. Add to that the luxury taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and on and on.
, 2) are gambling tremendous amounts of money instead of physical investment;”
That “gambling” as you call it is how companies raise capital (that means money) to build physical things and hire people.
“3) raising prices we have to pay, by betting in hedge funds that jack up the prices of necessities we need to live… Remember when gasoline was $4.25 a gallon, and two weeks later, it was $1.40… The hedge funds collapsed, showing us the real price of a gallon.”
Again, hedge funds have very little effect if any on commodity prices. For every short position there is a long one. Someone will win and someone will lose. Quantitative easing has much more of an effect on commodity prices than hedge funds.
“And we are depriving no one of anything. Just asking them to return what they stole.”
Stole? They played by the rules set up by the government. That they were bailed out when they failed is an entirely different matter. I don’t think they should have been.
“You are forgetting when they paid more in taxes, life for all was good… As soon as taxes got cut, life became bad for 99% of Americans, this argument that has been repeatedly proven wrong, and NEVER been proven right.”
So you believe that when taxes go up, corporations flourish? That makes no sense. Corporations do not, and never will pay taxes. Taxes are simply a cost component that is built into the price of the good or service they render. Accounting 101: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnings_before_interest_and_taxes
Corporations are more profitable now than ever. The problem is that they are making money for free, and others, the taxpayers, are paying most of their expenses… The old premise was, we’ll allow you to use these for free and make money, but we ask only a percentage back to help us cover the cost… That amount was taxes.
And the Clinton budget was not Republican at all. They rubber stamped his budget after their shutting down government backfired on them. No republican voted to raise taxes, which was the true reason his era was so fruitful….
The higher the taxes, the better the economy.
December 21, 2011 at 3:16 pm
kavips
In regards to whining about 1% of people paying 40% of the taxes… Boo hoo. If you don’t want to pay your fair share of the taxes, give up some of your wealth…. Duh..
Conversely, if you own 100% of the wealth, you should pay 100% of ALL taxes…. Again, … duh… So quit whining….
And concluding that corporations raise capital by gambling, is silly.. Like anything, if stretched to the n’th degree, it too can be linked to Kevin Bacon, so I’m sure you can find some path to describe how gambling is productive to the economy… But what that intellectual argument fails to mention, is the other side. How much harm does gambling cost the economy?
Bottom line, it would be totally unacceptable for John Corzine to take the earnings of his company and bet them on the 5th race of the Kentucky Derby, but it is considered good business practice to bet on something with a far less chance of being successful….? Yeah, right…
The best investment for a company that has too much money sitting around, is to build another plant right here in America…. Preferably in North Dakota…..
As for hedge funds, hedge funds have EVERYTHING to do with prices… If I buy gas at $4.00 a gallon to come due in June, that price in June will be $4.00 a gallon even if the supply is high, and demand is low, and even if there is no jitteriness across the globe… It comes down to “Here is your oil, sir, at $4.00 a gallon..” “Oh,.. thank you.”
You define “stole” according to “rules set by the government”… I define it by movement of worth…. “sorry, neighbor, I have here a warrent to confiscate your moonshine still, and haul it off to the sheriff’s farm to be held as evidence… And he wants your manual on how to work it too, If you didn’t write one, can he have one of your workers come with us to show us how to fire it up and get it running?”
From my point of view, Sheriff Boss Hogg stole my still…..
In today’s real world, huge amounts of worth left the middle class and are now the majority of the wealth owned by the top 1%.
When taxes go up corporations flourish? Not my concern… but when taxes go up, people flourish, the economy grows, and reinvestment occurs at a more rapid rate….
Taxes are not a cost factor…. They are an influencer. They influence those to reinvest instead of declaring higher profits. If you tax cash-only profits at 50%, it makes sense to put your money where you own all of it, back into your business.. Putting money back into your business, sends more of it rippling out through the economy. If every business is sending more rippling out through the economy, the economy is better than it was back when every business was sucking money out of the economy and hoarding it in secret chambers.
The higher the taxes, the better the economy….. Rake them over the coals, I say….
December 22, 2011 at 11:22 am
Duffy
In regards to whining about 1% of people paying 40% of the taxes… Boo hoo. If you don’t want to pay your fair share of the taxes, give up some of your wealth…. Duh..
What? This is absurd. How is 1% of the people paying nearly HALF of the taxes in any way fair? Because they have it? That’s the criteria for seizing someone’s property? Why not forceably remove your blood for hospitals? You have plenty after all. You have two kidneys surely you don’t need both.
Conversely, if you own 100% of the wealth, you should pay 100% of ALL taxes…. Again, … duh… So quit whining….
They don’t own 100% of the wealth and you know it. Once again you keep conflating wealth and income. For the last time they are not the same thing. That you cannot grasp the difference explains why you don’t understand economics.
And concluding that corporations raise capital by gambling, is silly.. Like anything, if stretched to the n’th degree, it too can be linked to Kevin Bacon, so I’m sure you can find some path to describe how gambling is productive to the economy… But what that intellectual argument fails to mention, is the other side. How much harm does gambling cost the economy?
It isn’t gambling. Maybe for you it is given you poor comprehension of capital markets. Unlike you, people in the industry do tons of research, use metrics and have sound reasons for buying stocks or bonds. They don’t just pick a ticker at random and hope the little ball points to their stock which then goes up. Firms raise capital by either borrowing it (debt) or selling shares in the company (equity). Why they choose one over the other is complicated. That you think the stock market is “gambling” is very telling. Yes there are some people who do indeed gamble. But the large majority of investors are long investors not short ones.
Bottom line, it would be totally unacceptable for John Corzine to take the earnings of his company and bet them on the 5th race of the Kentucky Derby, but it is considered good business practice to bet on something with a far less chance of being successful….? Yeah, right…
Where are you getting your odds? Do you have any basis for the things you say at all? Corzine was CEO and he had a trading account at the same time. That is completely bonkers and nobody else does that for good reason. He was also comingling funds which is illegal. Although taking money from customers and putting it in corporate accounts isn’t too far removed from what he was doing as US Senator.
The best investment for a company that has too much money sitting around, is to build another plant right here in America…. Preferably in North Dakota…..
I’ve never heard of a company with “too much” money. The either pay dividends, grow, retire debt or sit on it like Apple.
As for hedge funds, hedge funds have EVERYTHING to do with prices… If I buy gas at $4.00 a gallon to come due in June, that price in June will be $4.00 a gallon even if the supply is high, and demand is low, and even if there is no jitteriness across the globe… It comes down to “Here is your oil, sir, at $4.00 a gallon..” “Oh,.. thank you.”
No. For as I tried to explain, for every long position there is a short one. Further, the long/short positions do not and cannot possibly cover the full global oil supply. Second, forward contracts are a way for companies to remove uncertainty and plan for the future. some companies, for example, buy gasoline for fleet vehicles in the manner. They agree to buy 10,000 gallons of gas @ $3.15 a gallon. They have 1 year to take receipt of that gas but they pay now. If gasoline goes down to $2.99 by spring, they still buy at the higher price. If it goes up, they still buy at $3.15 a gallon. Either they’re going to pay a premium or get it at a discount but they don’t care as much about that as they do locking in a stable price.
You define “stole” according to “rules set by the government”… I define it by movement of worth…. “sorry, neighbor, I have here a warrent to confiscate your moonshine still, and haul it off to the sheriff’s farm to be held as evidence… And he wants your manual on how to work it too, If you didn’t write one, can he have one of your workers come with us to show us how to fire it up and get it running?”
From my point of view, Sheriff Boss Hogg stole my still…..
Which is what you’re advocating in your first sentence. You take from someone based on nothing more than your whim. They have more so they should pay more. The sherriff didn’t have a still and you did. Go buy another one. That’s what you’re advocating when you want to confiscate from those who have more than you. How much is enough? What is the maximum tax rate someone should be required to pay on income? What about wealth?
In today’s real world, huge amounts of worth left the middle class and are now the majority of the wealth owned by the top 1%.
False. The middle class has been expanding for decades and their standard of living is much much higher. Also, the increase in wealth or income at the top has not been at the expense of the middle class. You have odd notions of zero sum games. Wealth and income are not zero sum but spot and forward markets are.
When taxes go up corporations flourish? Not my concern… but when taxes go up, people flourish, the economy grows, and reinvestment occurs at a more rapid rate….
When corporations do not flourish there isn’t the tax revenue you want. It goes down. Reinvestment is a business decision and rarely a form of tax avoidance.
Taxes are not a cost factor…. They are an influencer. They influence those to reinvest instead of declaring higher profits.
Fundamentally incorrect. In order to price my goods/services I have to cover the taxes that I know I’m going to be charged. It is a basic cost component like labor and materials.
If you tax cash-only profits at 50%, it makes sense to put your money where you own all of it, back into your business.. Putting money back into your business, sends more of it rippling out through the economy. If every business is sending more rippling out through the economy, the economy is better than it was back when every business was sucking money out of the economy and hoarding it in secret chambers.
Other than cash profits what kind are there? Second, for the millionth time. Profits are calculated AFTER TAXES ARE PAID NOT BEFORE. Take an accounting class. Third, you’re invoking the Scrooge McDuck Fallacy. That is, greedy corporations get money and put it away in a huge vault somewhere. That is nonsense on stilts. As stated they either retire debt, pay dividends, grow or save. If they save it, it sits in a bank somewhere. That bank then lends that money out to people like you and me to buy houses or cars or whatever.
December 27, 2011 at 10:21 am
kavips
For timeliness, we will start and stop with the first question.
How is it fair for people who make all the money to pay all the taxes?
forgive me for stooping to this level, but allow me to use math….
$400,000,000,000 X 40% = $160,000,000,000
$40.000 X 40% = $16000
$16,000 / $160,000,000,000 = 0.00001%
That, my friend, is how it is fair….