Budget talks: This is getting nasty

There are just as many, if not more, poor people that vote for imprudent policies for themselves because of a delusion that they one day will be rich too.

To me this falls in line with athletes from generations of poor or lower-middle class backgrounds who become millionaires because of a rare talent, then become Republican because it benefits them now.

Don't get it.

 

Lot of poor people have become rich in America.

There's a fairly simple plan to follow to do so.

 

I don't get why people cheer attendance announcements at baseball games. In an way they are celebrating their idiocy.

"I just spent $750 to take my family to a baseball game."

 

Then I would say your beef is with the behest, not the execution of it.

At any rate, it's not that I'm immune to the struggles of small business, but, it's like you said several pages ago: Small business people choose the struggle. They risk maybe foolishly. They get rewarded maybe too modestly. It's the lot.

And I don't think removing much of that regulation is a wise play. Because, if it's as you say, and it is a racket, there's a quid pro quo to it. One deregulation begets another. And the fundamental regulations protect you from being swallowed whole by them.

 

So you really think companies are ready to hire but don't want to because they are afraid that the new employee will have to be state licensed or something? Is that really the issue? Or is that a talking point to deflect attention away from other policy failures: low rates did not help. Low taxes did not help. So let's make up something else that people complain about.

There's a difference between things that are deterrents and things people bitch and moan about. I'm not saying that all regulation is right. I'm sure there are some stupid regulations out there. But to suggest that loosening regulations in some fields is a policy decision that would make ANY kind of difference in the current environment is, well...I think having my flower person be state licensed may actually be a bit smarter (but not much).

 

You keep talking about AAU basketball and you'll draw the wrath of Zag. Fair warning.

And don't use any quotes from Kobe to support your argument either...

 

This is more an issue of stopping people from going into business or raising costs on business.

But, when businesses don't get off the ground, they don't grow and hire people.

Read the WSJ article I posted.

Regulatory agencies collect fees. Then, to justify their own existence, they take those fees and spend their time harassing small business.

 

Selling drugs?

 

I don't really see how you can reconcile this point with others' concerns vis-a-vis regulations. You argue that a corporation -- bugaboo No. 1 on this board, it seems -- with a direct financial stake in the outcome can't tailor what it does at a local level even if doing so would enhance its bottom line. What makes you think somebody working for the federal government, with little to no stake in the bottom line, would be able to write/enforce a regulation with suitable flexibility such that welfare is maximized?

 

So how do you keep businesses from taking the extra money they make from the more "business-friendly" tax and regulatory environment and running with it? How do you ensure that they invest the money in jobs and infrastructure here and not in China or India where, even under the best of circumstances, they can pay a fraction of the cost for labor?

And for all the talk about "making things better for small businesses," tax and regulatory cuts are also going to benefit the Walmarts and Home Depots of the economy, who will still be just as capable of putting Mom & Pop Hardware Store out of business because they'll still have the same vastly superior supply chain and other elements in their favor. Tax and regulation cuts won't reduce that trend.

 

We don't. It's really that simple.

Those are low skill, low paying jobs.

You're father may have raised a family of four on his salary from working on the assembly line. You're son will not be able to.

Government intervention to save these kinds of jobs will only make things worse.

Far better for people to prepare for jobs in the new economy.

Far better for government to provide the kind of environment that will spur the creation of the next Microsoft or Apple.

Our country needs to invent, to innovate, to create new products, new technologies, advancements in medicine, and energy production.

 

Actually, many of those "regime" changes make it even more difficult for smaller firms to compete with larger ones. The trick isn't to make smaller firms competitive with larger firms, because if there are economies of scale then it behooves any economy to encourage them. The trick is to create an environment in which new ideas can be pursued, because these new ideas are where tomorrow's jobs (and wealth) will originate.