The choices you have are much, much, much less important than you think.
You can have a reasonable environment for growth and corporate opportunity without allowing them to exploit every last natural resource and second of labor that they have available. Liberals don't want to turn your precious market over to the government. We just want somebody to keep their eye on the far-too-occasional sociopathic CEO.
Milena, I think you're entitled to your opinion, but I HAVE to argue against economic theories being "basically equivalent to our belief in gravity."
We've had 3+ major shifts in economic thought in the last century: Classical, Keynesian, and Neoclassical (nevermind the splinter movements). To say that economic science is settled is like saying you've figured out once and for all what makes people tick. Our understanding of any social science is never going to be as as our understanding of a physical science, like physics (which includes gravity).
@Not Amused - I'm sorry you didn't find this funny. Did you read the FAQ first?
@David Wynn - I'm talking about laws of supply, demand, value theory, etc. that even splinter groups can agree on. I know there are many who will debate that government intervention works, and I'm ready to philosophize there, but here's my point: I'm talking about when we raise corporate profit taxes, those costs are passed on the consumer. The consumer is ultimately hurt, not helped. We can guarantee that to happen, just like we can guarantee we are in no danger of falling of the earth today.
Furthermore, Neo-classical economics is a refinement of Classical economics, and Keynesian economics is simply a distortion of Classical economics.
@Chris Ford - thanks. I get sick of people railing on corporations. It's silly!
I clicked on this article mainly out of shock. I thought, now did Milena ditch being a libertarian over night? I mean, I like the stuff you write, but I've been reading about politics all morning and didn't want to read anymore. You tricked me!
@Alaia Williams - hehe. I don't know if there is much danger in me changing my positions. : ) Sorry for the trick!
August 29, 2008 7:45 pm
Scott
Milena - refreshing article! Corporate taxes need to be cut substantially (USA has second highest corp tax in the world). Since it's not an issue that is likely to win many votes in swing states, I doubt it will happen anytime soon.
August 29, 2008 11:46 pm
Liz
Sheesh.
Two words: Straw. Man.
Liberals believe in many things you may dislike, but we're hardly storming the bastille with rotten fruit. The day you need health insurance, badly, and spend 45 minutes on hold with a call center in Manila, is the day you may start wondering whether or not the market really does offer the best solution to all possible problems, or if maybe a little group action might be necessary.
In the meantime, maybe try not to call your ideological opponents stupid. It's possible we never noticed something your professor obviously did. But the reverse is also possible.
I'm not sure what you mean by the first statement.
Second, I have no problems with punishing isolated incidents of CEO fraud and penalizing corporations that support that behavior. What I become frustrated by is the idea that "corporations are evil" which I hear all the time.
Furthermore, why is the government supposed to play nanny (ineffectively at that)? Why can't a private corporate watch-dog organization be established? I'd guess there would be fear that corporations would pay off such an organization to turn a blind eye to foul play, but what if an intelligent, skeptical individual like yourself was in charge? I'd put my money behind you, because I know you'd be unlikely to take corporate bullshit.
Additionally, I'd ask you to consider the following: do you think Exxon's profits of $1,400 a second as excessive? If you (or anyone else out there) answers yes they need to consider that an additional $4,000 a second goes to taxes, and $15,000 a second goes to operating expenses.
Hardly a "windfall," hardly unfair. This illustration shows governmental (in this case, Obama's) ignorance of how corporations are run and the idea that additional taxation doesn't fall right back on the consumer. Those operating expenses cannot be reduced, and profits must be made somewhere.
I take issue with government excesses where their collective sociopathic tax-collecting schemes come in. $4,000 a minute is not enough?
I think I am in love...haha, no but really I think this has to be one of the funniest posts I have ever read on here and you made your points fantastically through humor.
@Not Amused - I thought about your comment some more, and here is a serious response. No doubt you wondered what mocking political commentary had to do with career advice.
While you may take issue with my tone, my message is, “Let’s look at the impact of proposed policies.” If we look at this from a career perspective, when a political party suggests corporations are paid disproportionately for what they provide and that taxation is an appropriate solution, what impact does that have on your career?
When a company’s profits go to the government, instead of back into the company, to its employees and shareholders, a couple of things happen. 1) Chances that the company can hire new employees or give raises to existing employees is reduced. 2) The operations of that company will not change, their costs are usually fixed (unless they fire people or reduce product/service offerings or quality), therefore, they will have to raise prices on products and services in order to break even. Who pays the tax then? Consumers. 3) Most consumers pay for products with wages from their job. Now go back to number 1, can you see the cycle?
If you think I've executed poorly, that's a fine criticism.
However, to be perfectly fair, I've seen worse from my ideological opponents, (Daily Kos, Rachel Maddow - though truthfully I'm in love with her a little bit, and so is this woman.)
Anyhow, I must defend myself as I never used the word stupid.
I never have complained about Exxon's profits. I think they should be taxed for the greater benefit of the population.
You make lots of money, you get taxed more than average. That's just the way that it works. If we didn't tax the rich or the corporations on a skewed scale, we wouldn't be able to afford the war on terror, public schools, or the piddling health care that we already have.
This taxation allows these individuals and corporations a greater say in determining the direction of our country. The rich make the policy, because the rich are paying for it. So, if you want to cut corporate and estate taxes, then it also comes at a price: these people who have pushed so hard for less regulation and more freedom to open up factories in cheap labor markets are going to have less clout.
Can't have it both ways.
So, which do you think they should have? More profit, or more pull in Washington?
P.S. My first statement was leading towards a discussion on just how valuable cheap goods really are. Fight Club, need vs. necessity, plus the environmental and humane costs that are needed to create these cheap goods, but I think you'd write me off before I finished the sentence. So, why bother.
@Tim - I thought the Exxon illustration was enlightening, which is why I offered it. Does the fact that Exxon paying out far more in taxes not say anything about the Dems ridiculous claims that they enjoy a windfall of profits? Furthermore, you side-stepped my point that increased taxes only hurt individual consumers.
Regarding taxes, you are presenting your personal preferences, but nothing based in fact, logic, or economic theory. Without a comprehensive discussion on the effects of taxes throughout the economy (not just on an isolated segment of the population), we are at a loss to effectively debate their impact positively or negatively. Relegating our conversation to "Well, that's just what I like." will not lead to greater understanding. I am not willing to engage in a conversation about your preferences, as they are yours and I have no say in what you enjoy.
So, I'll stick to my point: increased and disproportionate taxes ultimately end up hurting consumers of every strata. I'm well aware that the goal of taxation is to offer programs to benefit the greater good, but I think many of programs are qualitative failures: the war, public education, public health. It looks like we agree there.
I also don't entirely understand your last question/assertion. But to answer what I think you are pointing towards, I don't care if corporations have zero clout in Washington. I think it's fairly clear I value individuals/corporations directing their profits to benefit their companies.
@Tim - whoops, I missed your second comment altogether. You are wrong! I think those are excellent points and worthy of discussion.
I don't think you'll like my solutions, as they don't involve government intervention, but I think that there are ways to encourage stewardship of the planet and humanity even without the government.
.avatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
18 RESPONSES TO "I THINK THE DEMOCRATS ARE FINALLY GETTING THROUGH TO ME"
The choices you have are much, much, much less important than you think.
You can have a reasonable environment for growth and corporate opportunity without allowing them to exploit every last natural resource and second of labor that they have available. Liberals don't want to turn your precious market over to the government. We just want somebody to keep their eye on the far-too-occasional sociopathic CEO.
How is this relevant to the mission of this blog?
Milena, I think you're entitled to your opinion, but I HAVE to argue against economic theories being "basically equivalent to our belief in gravity."
We've had 3+ major shifts in economic thought in the last century: Classical, Keynesian, and Neoclassical (nevermind the splinter movements). To say that economic science is settled is like saying you've figured out once and for all what makes people tick. Our understanding of any social science is never going to be as as our understanding of a physical science, like physics (which includes gravity).
@Not Amused - I'm sorry you didn't find this funny. Did you read the FAQ first?
@David Wynn - I'm talking about laws of supply, demand, value theory, etc. that even splinter groups can agree on. I know there are many who will debate that government intervention works, and I'm ready to philosophize there, but here's my point: I'm talking about when we raise corporate profit taxes, those costs are passed on the consumer. The consumer is ultimately hurt, not helped. We can guarantee that to happen, just like we can guarantee we are in no danger of falling of the earth today.
Furthermore, Neo-classical economics is a refinement of Classical economics, and Keynesian economics is simply a distortion of Classical economics.
@Chris Ford - thanks. I get sick of people railing on corporations. It's silly!
I clicked on this article mainly out of shock. I thought, now did Milena ditch being a libertarian over night? I mean, I like the stuff you write, but I've been reading about politics all morning and didn't want to read anymore. You tricked me!
@Alaia Williams - hehe. I don't know if there is much danger in me changing my positions. : ) Sorry for the trick!
Milena - refreshing article! Corporate taxes need to be cut substantially (USA has second highest corp tax in the world). Since it's not an issue that is likely to win many votes in swing states, I doubt it will happen anytime soon.
Sheesh.
Two words: Straw. Man.
Liberals believe in many things you may dislike, but we're hardly storming the bastille with rotten fruit. The day you need health insurance, badly, and spend 45 minutes on hold with a call center in Manila, is the day you may start wondering whether or not the market really does offer the best solution to all possible problems, or if maybe a little group action might be necessary.
In the meantime, maybe try not to call your ideological opponents stupid. It's possible we never noticed something your professor obviously did. But the reverse is also possible.
Correction: should be "$4,000 a second" in that last sentence.
Tim -
I'm not sure what you mean by the first statement.
Second, I have no problems with punishing isolated incidents of CEO fraud and penalizing corporations that support that behavior. What I become frustrated by is the idea that "corporations are evil" which I hear all the time.
Furthermore, why is the government supposed to play nanny (ineffectively at that)? Why can't a private corporate watch-dog organization be established? I'd guess there would be fear that corporations would pay off such an organization to turn a blind eye to foul play, but what if an intelligent, skeptical individual like yourself was in charge? I'd put my money behind you, because I know you'd be unlikely to take corporate bullshit.
Additionally, I'd ask you to consider the following: do you think Exxon's profits of $1,400 a second as excessive? If you (or anyone else out there) answers yes they need to consider that an additional $4,000 a second goes to taxes, and $15,000 a second goes to operating expenses.
Hardly a "windfall," hardly unfair. This illustration shows governmental (in this case, Obama's) ignorance of how corporations are run and the idea that additional taxation doesn't fall right back on the consumer. Those operating expenses cannot be reduced, and profits must be made somewhere.
I take issue with government excesses where their collective sociopathic tax-collecting schemes come in. $4,000 a minute is not enough?
I think I am in love...haha, no but really I think this has to be one of the funniest posts I have ever read on here and you made your points fantastically through humor.
Great post Milena!
Wow for a second there I almost thought you were serious!
@Not Amused - I thought about your comment some more, and here is a serious response. No doubt you wondered what mocking political commentary had to do with career advice.
While you may take issue with my tone, my message is, “Let’s look at the impact of proposed policies.” If we look at this from a career perspective, when a political party suggests corporations are paid disproportionately for what they provide and that taxation is an appropriate solution, what impact does that have on your career?
When a company’s profits go to the government, instead of back into the company, to its employees and shareholders, a couple of things happen. 1) Chances that the company can hire new employees or give raises to existing employees is reduced. 2) The operations of that company will not change, their costs are usually fixed (unless they fire people or reduce product/service offerings or quality), therefore, they will have to raise prices on products and services in order to break even. Who pays the tax then? Consumers. 3) Most consumers pay for products with wages from their job. Now go back to number 1, can you see the cycle?
Anyways, I hope you got some value out of this.
@Liz -
Sheesh indeed.
Two words: Political. Satire.
If you think I've executed poorly, that's a fine criticism.
However, to be perfectly fair, I've seen worse from my ideological opponents, (Daily Kos, Rachel Maddow - though truthfully I'm in love with her a little bit, and so is this woman.)
Anyhow, I must defend myself as I never used the word stupid.
I never have complained about Exxon's profits. I think they should be taxed for the greater benefit of the population.
You make lots of money, you get taxed more than average. That's just the way that it works. If we didn't tax the rich or the corporations on a skewed scale, we wouldn't be able to afford the war on terror, public schools, or the piddling health care that we already have.
This taxation allows these individuals and corporations a greater say in determining the direction of our country. The rich make the policy, because the rich are paying for it. So, if you want to cut corporate and estate taxes, then it also comes at a price: these people who have pushed so hard for less regulation and more freedom to open up factories in cheap labor markets are going to have less clout.
Can't have it both ways.
So, which do you think they should have? More profit, or more pull in Washington?
P.S. My first statement was leading towards a discussion on just how valuable cheap goods really are. Fight Club, need vs. necessity, plus the environmental and humane costs that are needed to create these cheap goods, but I think you'd write me off before I finished the sentence. So, why bother.
@Tim - I thought the Exxon illustration was enlightening, which is why I offered it. Does the fact that Exxon paying out far more in taxes not say anything about the Dems ridiculous claims that they enjoy a windfall of profits? Furthermore, you side-stepped my point that increased taxes only hurt individual consumers.
Regarding taxes, you are presenting your personal preferences, but nothing based in fact, logic, or economic theory. Without a comprehensive discussion on the effects of taxes throughout the economy (not just on an isolated segment of the population), we are at a loss to effectively debate their impact positively or negatively. Relegating our conversation to "Well, that's just what I like." will not lead to greater understanding. I am not willing to engage in a conversation about your preferences, as they are yours and I have no say in what you enjoy.
So, I'll stick to my point: increased and disproportionate taxes ultimately end up hurting consumers of every strata. I'm well aware that the goal of taxation is to offer programs to benefit the greater good, but I think many of programs are qualitative failures: the war, public education, public health. It looks like we agree there.
I also don't entirely understand your last question/assertion. But to answer what I think you are pointing towards, I don't care if corporations have zero clout in Washington. I think it's fairly clear I value individuals/corporations directing their profits to benefit their companies.
@Tim - whoops, I missed your second comment altogether. You are wrong! I think those are excellent points and worthy of discussion.
I don't think you'll like my solutions, as they don't involve government intervention, but I think that there are ways to encourage stewardship of the planet and humanity even without the government.
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?