Rexanglorum wrote:
JayHood23 wrote:
If somebody threw a grenade in that room what would be left
The answer is a lot of dead job creators and a murdered President Obama. As someone who is against senseless violence, I am not wishing death on President obama or anyone in that room, the only thing that should die is the close working relationship between big government and big business (I do not care if President Obama and Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs et al. are all personal best friends. It would even be fine if those people in the private sector told the President and the overwhelming majority of his advisors, who have no experience at in the private sector, how firms respond to incentives and uncertainty and how jobs get created or lost. A lot of good may come from this meeting, Presidents should at least be aware of how bosses at big firms operate. Unfortunately, a little bit of knowledge can be worse than no knowledge (as anyone who has been or who knows a college sophomore knows). The views and experiences of the chiefs of already established and massive firms represent only a small slice of American business, let alone knowledge of macro economics and how countries prosper and how jobs (jobs that create wealth and are not dependent on the spending of tax payer dollars) get created.
What I fear is that President Obama, despite his very high IQ and fine education (mostly in politics and the law), has almost no knowledge of the private sector or economic development. He is unable to understand the importance new ideas and firms emerging. Just a few years ago no one had heard of Mark Zuckerberg and facebook or youtube or google or smart phones. The internet and its closely related high tech hardware sectors, which are largely free of both subsidies and taxation as well as regulation and protectionism and barriers to entry, has changed a lot since 1992, when it became commercially available.In 1996 and 1997, Kobe Bryant and Ray Allen's Rookies seasons, the internet was still mosly a curiosity. In the last 15 years we have seen many failures, a lot of bad and ugly but so much good has emerged tht it is stupifying and all of these amazing things emerged from within our own short life times.
Most of the people at that table would not be what they are and they would not have made the contributions to our every day quality of life if, during the last three deaces, we had a national debt and budget deficits of today's magnitude (high levels of debt and deficits take loanable funds away from the private sector), heavy restrictions on capital (banning all forms of leveraging and making banks and other financial firms old most of their assets in liquids cash means that they will mostly make low interest and safe loans to government or very big, ofetn times state backed, firms), high taxation of capital gains (once again, that means that it is better to only invest in government deficits or established firms, if you invest in a small firms, which mostly fail and leave you with a loss but one of these start ups takes off and grows 10,000% in a year, your obscene profits would be taxed and your return would be the same as if you invested, at low interests rates in established firms) and years worth of red tape (Haiti and Egypt, among other very poor countries, are world leaders in the number of days and monetary costs of simply obtaining a permit to start the process of starting a business) all working in concert to deny capital and the incentives of entrepeneuers to take risks and
A few decades ago, most people, including many academic economists and bosses of the leading firms, saw no future for the personal computer for home or even business uses. Barack Obama also shows his lack of understanding of economics (actually, a smart man like him probably has learned a lot of economics in the last few years but his policies and speeches do not reflect that at all) by equating economic prosperity to a sporting event where one side "wins" and the other sides presummably lose the future, he fails to understand that through trade (even trade where one country or multiple countries are not playing by the rules of "fair trade") Americans can become more prosperous while Chinese, Japanese, Europeans and others also become richer at the same time.
If you fail to understand that you win the future by allowing many ideas to be tried, by trading with the world and by letting scarce resources flow away from oversaturated sectors and into sectors that would otherwise grow if they had greater access to capital. In order for that to happen, President Obama would have to do something if not he, but his base, call repugnant, calling free market capitalism the path to wealth and admitting that the private sector is the source of wealth in an economy. The State plays a role, it should provide the money so that all parents have the funds to purchase education for their children in market for education, it can simplify its tax code to reduce the cost of compliance and the distortions caused by loopholes and exemptions, it can procure public goods at lower cost than private producers, it can provide a bulwark against the extreme poverty that will befall the most unlucky and disadvantaged and it can provide courts that settle disputes and allow torts (the ability to sue people or companies for doing bad things, including being negligent) to regulate bad behavior by the private sector and by government as wel las perform a few other functions. Beyond those things, we should limits the ability of government to reward big firms, especially financially insolvent big firms. We want an environment where people can trade, innovate, cooperate, collaborate, be creative, try new ideas and when an idea works we should not punish it with burdensome taxation and regulation.
Really?
Rexanglorum wrote:
JayHood23 wrote:
If somebody threw a grenade in that room what would be left
The answer is a lot of dead job creators and a murdered President Obama. As someone who is against senseless violence, I am not wishing death on President obama or anyone in that room, the only thing that should die is the close working relationship between big government and big business (I do not care if President Obama and Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs et al. are all personal best friends. It would even be fine if those people in the private sector told the President and the overwhelming majority of his advisors, who have no experience at in the private sector, how firms respond to incentives and uncertainty and how jobs get created or lost. A lot of good may come from this meeting, Presidents should at least be aware of how bosses at big firms operate. Unfortunately, a little bit of knowledge can be worse than no knowledge (as anyone who has been or who knows a college sophomore knows). The views and experiences of the chiefs of already established and massive firms represent only a small slice of American business, let alone knowledge of macro economics and how countries prosper and how jobs (jobs that create wealth and are not dependent on the spending of tax payer dollars) get created.
What I fear is that President Obama, despite his very high IQ and fine education (mostly in politics and the law), has almost no knowledge of the private sector or economic development. He is unable to understand the importance new ideas and firms emerging. Just a few years ago no one had heard of Mark Zuckerberg and facebook or youtube or google or smart phones. The internet and its closely related high tech hardware sectors, which are largely free of both subsidies and taxation as well as regulation and protectionism and barriers to entry, has changed a lot since 1992, when it became commercially available.In 1996 and 1997, Kobe Bryant and Ray Allen's Rookies seasons, the internet was still mosly a curiosity. In the last 15 years we have seen many failures, a lot of bad and ugly but so much good has emerged tht it is stupifying and all of these amazing things emerged from within our own short life times.
Most of the people at that table would not be what they are and they would not have made the contributions to our every day quality of life if, during the last three deaces, we had a national debt and budget deficits of today's magnitude (high levels of debt and deficits take loanable funds away from the private sector), heavy restrictions on capital (banning all forms of leveraging and making banks and other financial firms old most of their assets in liquids cash means that they will mostly make low interest and safe loans to government or very big, ofetn times state backed, firms), high taxation of capital gains (once again, that means that it is better to only invest in government deficits or established firms, if you invest in a small firms, which mostly fail and leave you with a loss but one of these start ups takes off and grows 10,000% in a year, your obscene profits would be taxed and your return would be the same as if you invested, at low interests rates in established firms) and years worth of red tape (Haiti and Egypt, among other very poor countries, are world leaders in the number of days and monetary costs of simply obtaining a permit to start the process of starting a business) all working in concert to deny capital and the incentives of entrepeneuers to take risks and
A few decades ago, most people, including many academic economists and bosses of the leading firms, saw no future for the personal computer for home or even business uses. Barack Obama also shows his lack of understanding of economics (actually, a smart man like him probably has learned a lot of economics in the last few years but his policies and speeches do not reflect that at all) by equating economic prosperity to a sporting event where one side "wins" and the other sides presummably lose the future, he fails to understand that through trade (even trade where one country or multiple countries are not playing by the rules of "fair trade") Americans can become more prosperous while Chinese, Japanese, Europeans and others also become richer at the same time.
If you fail to understand that you win the future by allowing many ideas to be tried, by trading with the world and by letting scarce resources flow away from oversaturated sectors and into sectors that would otherwise grow if they had greater access to capital. In order for that to happen, President Obama would have to do something if not he, but his base, call repugnant, calling free market capitalism the path to wealth and admitting that the private sector is the source of wealth in an economy. The State plays a role, it should provide the money so that all parents have the funds to purchase education for their children in market for education, it can simplify its tax code to reduce the cost of compliance and the distortions caused by loopholes and exemptions, it can procure public goods at lower cost than private producers, it can provide a bulwark against the extreme poverty that will befall the most unlucky and disadvantaged and it can provide courts that settle disputes and allow torts (the ability to sue people or companies for doing bad things, including being negligent) to regulate bad behavior by the private sector and by government as wel las perform a few other functions. Beyond those things, we should limits the ability of government to reward big firms, especially financially insolvent big firms. We want an environment where people can trade, innovate, cooperate, collaborate, be creative, try new ideas and when an idea works we should not punish it with burdensome taxation and regulation.
Really?
And OprahOriginally Posted by Rolaholic
Should have brought Robert Johnson
And OprahOriginally Posted by Rolaholic
Should have brought Robert Johnson
