No more Twinkies - Hostess out of business

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

You say these arent extordinary times but Never in the history of our country were we at a point where improving business didnt directly translate into jobs for the country. And your reasonable theory is again from 1950's text books. The game has completely changed, countries like China and India are not buying our products as they are protecting their economies . We are not and we are getting absolutley crushed. I hope you are right and I am wrong but I am not seeing that at this point.

There are some simple rules in economics. Growth is good, lack of growth is bad. Doesn't matter what year.

If we tax our companies more and hold them to harsher regulations, how could they possibly produce a product that would be competitively priced with similar products made in China or India?

The reason that the Walton family is really rich is because they figured out that our society values pricing over all else. Do you really think that Americans are going to start paying 5x as much for the same products because they are American made?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There are some simple rules in economics. Growth is good, lack of growth is bad. Doesn't matter what year.

If we tax our companies more and hold them to harsher regulations, how could they possibly produce a product that would be competitively priced with similar products made in China or India?

The reason that the Walton family is really rich is because they figured out that our society values pricing over all else. Do you really think that Americans are going to start paying 5x as much for the same products because they are American made?

If companies charge 5x what they are charging now someone will come in much lower and eat their lunch. Let the market decide. Maybe the solution is execs should only be making 1000 times
what their lowest paid employee makes instead of 1,000,000 times.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

If companies charge 5x what they are charging now someone will come in much lower and eat their lunch. Let the market decide. Maybe the solution is execs should only be making 1000 times
what their lowest paid employee makes instead of 1,000,000 times.

I'm confused now. You touted protectionism and now you want to let the market decide? For example if we were to slap huge tariffs on imported tshirts (or ban) from the far east and American companies were encouraged to start producing tshrts do you really think that they wont cost far more to produce and because of the lack of an open market charge more?

The salaries of executives of these corporations are more or less meaningless to the bottom line of the company.If a company makes a billion dollar profit what difference does it make if the CEO gets a 5 million dollar bonus? Trying to rein in pay in private enterprise will lead to more companies being based in the Isle of Mann or Aruba.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I'm confused now. You touted protectionism and now you want to let the market decide? For example if we were to slap huge tariffs on imported tshirts (or ban) from the far east and American companies were encouraged to start producing tshrts do you really think that they wont cost far more to produce and because of the lack of an open market charge more?

The salaries of executives of these corporations are more or less meaningless to the bottom line of the company.If a company makes a billion dollar profit what difference does it make if the CEO gets a 5 million dollar bonus? Trying to rein in pay in private enterprise will lead to more companies being based in the Isle of Mann or Aruba.

They can only charge what people are willing to pay regardless of the cost to produce. My solution to companies moving out of the country is to levy high tariffs on their products just like India and China do to our products. I would also not allow these foriegn companies to be listed on our stock exchanges. Your strategy amounts to business as usual and we know that no longer is working. Having said that we will continue business as usual and contine to circle the drain.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The reason that the Walton family is really rich is because they figured out that our society values pricing over all else. Do you really think that Americans are going to start paying 5x as much for the same products because they are American made?

That and the Walton's were tight with the Clinton's.

Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors for Walmart, the Clinton's are big supporters of Walmart.

hmm.. I wonder why Bill Clinton was so excited to sign the free trade agreement with China.... to help Walmart maybe??

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-10-10/p...PM:ALLPOLITICS


Clinton has as big of a hand in this economic mess as any of the other players do.

[cal828]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...m-ireland-move

Here is an interesting article from BloombergBusinessweek. I guess we can't expect companies not to move their corporate headquarters, if we have what seems to be a corporate tax code that is so high, but do we have to reward them for doing so by giving them tax breaks for moving?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by cal828

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...m-ireland-move

Here is an interesting article from BloombergBusinessweek. I guess we can't expect companies not to move their corporate headquarters, if we have what seems to be a corporate tax code that is so high, but do we have to reward them for doing so by giving them tax breaks for moving?

I wouldn't call it a tax break. Companies are currently allowed to deduct the cost of moving. If the law was changed so that a company could not deduct the cost of moving overseas, that wouldn't stop anyone from moving. The cost of moving is negligible.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I wouldn't call it a tax break. Companies are currently allowed to deduct the cost of moving. If the law was changed so that a company could not deduct the cost of moving overseas, that wouldn't stop anyone from moving. The cost of moving is negligible.

Probably so. I don't imagine that they have to set up much of a corporate headquarters in other countries. Negligible or not, the cost to the treasury of the US is not negligible, but don't get me wrong, if corporate taxes in the US are onerous, I think they should be lowered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/bu...pagewanted=all

Here is another interesting article from the New York Times. Sounds like a bit of shell game. All perfectly legal of course.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by cal828

Probably so. I don't imagine that they have to set up much of a corporate headquarters in other countries. Negligible or not, the cost to the treasury of the US is not negligible, but don't get me wrong, if corporate taxes in the US are onerous, I think they should be lowered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/bu...pagewanted=all

Here is another interesting article from the New York Times. Sounds like a bit of shell game. All perfectly legal of course.

If you tax rate was 50% but they gave you write offs to reduce it to a point that you get a refund then what is your tax rate? Do other countries with low tax rates also allow the practice of write offs?

[bigrun]