***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Totally, I am with you on this point. Having said that, for senior leadership to get together somehow have this even come up and the consensus conclusion being “Let’s tell our employees they can’t use ballpark because it is offensive to people who can’t play baseball” is wild to me. I am sure it has to with folks saying “ballpark” in relation to salary but to ban the word with that reasoning?

Oh, yeah, that’s terrible. But not so much because of “ballpark”, but just because they are too lazy to deal with the nuance, it’s a lot harder to address conscientiousness and empathy in the workplace and much, much easier to just come up with some arbitrary set of rules to follow.

it really drives me crazy about, uh certain people, that they reduce complex things to stupid rules and then get mad at the stupidity of the rules. Worse, they then conclude that because they made up stupid rules that the original problem must be stupid to begin with.
 


This takes me way back to my econ history/development class.

The consensus among economists who study this stuff is that tax rates can be fairly high but as long as they are predictable, based on a transparent formula, and don’t change drastically from one year to the next, people and firms will reinvest their surplus and thus the overall capital stock grows and the GDP in your country will grow consistently.

On the other hand, your country can have a very low overall tax rate but if the sovereign can arbitrarily take private property, then people and firms will be far less likely to reinvest and they will use their wealth to buy noble titles, lucrative offices within the government, invest their wealth abroad, or simply had the money somewhere their townhome or buried under a field on their country estate.

So DeSantis can rail all he wants about how California has an “unfriendly business climate” but his tantrums are the sort of thing that makes capital flee and flee fairly quickly.
 


mjlol (1) (1).png
 
Back
Top Bottom