Taxing production rather than consumption destroys economy. I left a comment about that here, I don't want to repeat, but the gist is this:
It is production that must be encouraged. Consumption is easy, production is hard. Wealth of an economy depends on what the economy produces and whether there is profit in it. Profit is direct signal that consumers like the product. Lack of profit is the signal to STOP doing whatever the investor is doing, because it's not the right thing.
Taking profit out of any product/service means taking out the measuring stick by which the product/service can be evaluated to see whether it's needed or not, whether it is the right thing to do and in which direction it is better to move.
Income taxes are the worst for economy in totality, they are the worst for poor as well and more so, because the rich can take capital and move it, which then makes some other place more wealthy and the place that lost capital becomes poorer. Poorer places means - fewer jobs, less manufacturing, less production.
Consumption levels do not go down if there is any way to consume, so if gov't puts out money (however it got that money) that money will be spent. But it will be spent on consumables rather than on investment and building production capacity. Poor subsidized people do not build production capacity, as you said, they spend everything they have on food/energy/shelter. Which is why they are hit the hardest of all things by lack of production but especially by inflation.
Government is the one that suffers from deflation the most, not poor people. For poor people deflation (shrinking of the money supply) is a good thing. As the money is more scarce, it gains more value and it becomes profitable to save it, which allows savings to be formed and savings are what capital is derived from. Savings = capital, and capital allows investment into production capacity. More production capacity and more efficiency brings prices down.
On the other hand governments prefer inflation, because governments always spend more money than can be provided by the economy (gov't is a spending itme, it's a luxury spending item, and as a spending item it must be cut when cuts are made because of slowing economy. Instead gov't is expanded by promises of improving the economy. But gov'ts can do nothing to improve economy except one thing: shrink. That's why Harding's cuts to gov't in 1921 stopped that recession quickly. But he cut gov't by 70%. He fired 70% of gov't, allowed capital to restructure, lowered income taxes. This is the only good thing a gov't can do - go away.)
Poor people need lower prices, but lower prices can only be brought about by decrease of monetary supply relative to size of production. So either increasing levels of production without printing more money, or decreasing the amount of money relative to existing production, or decreasing amount of available money faster than the decrease of production. In any case, the prices go down when there is more production (value) than money.
Gov'ts prefer inflation and rising prices, which is bad for poor people and bad for economy in general. It's clear why it's bad for poor people - they spend most money on food and energy and shelter. But why is it bad for economy in general? Because it destroys the value of money, and there is a potential for total destruction of value of money - hyper inflationary depression. This is achieved by excessive spending and borrowing and then by monetizing the debt without any relative increase of production capacity.
The production taxes are the worst, because they give incentives to move production out. They are also the worst because they remove capital FROM the productive private sector and put it INTO unproductive government hands, who spend it on consumables - wars, subsidies, bail outs, welfare, SS, etc.
Consumption taxes - that's the only correct way to fund governments. This prevents gov't from gro
It's amazing but not really, that most of/. participants have not a clue about economics.
The only correct way to fund a government is through consumption taxes. What exactly is taxed, how much, whether there is a formula to figure out how much you make and REFUND you because you do not make enough, etc., that's all fine.
But funding government from PRODUCTION or INCOME taxes is going to lead to a total disaster (and people are observing it now,) because taxing income is taxing money that is not consumed by the earner, but instead is used for something else, that is not consumption. However this also allows the government to grow very rapidly and to become very large (always bigger than the economy can afford.)
What economy needs is production, not consumption.
Consumption is a consequence of production. Without production there is no consumption. iPads first had to be created before they could be consumed and it was a risky move on Apple's part - they didn't know if there was a market for it, but that's how it's supposed to be with all products. Unlike what the governments do: Obama saying that he is going to make sure there WILL be consumers for Orion Energy (which just happens to be mostly owned by GE, ex-CEO of which just happens to be in government now.) Obama and Biden are just going to build 'high speed rail' even though US has no money and in fact USA used to have rail system that was the biggest in the world and that system was destroyed during the New Deal because of all the new roads that were put, while the rail was torn down and airlines were taxed - gov't made sure to totally annihilate profitability of those 3 modes of transportation, making sure it's all subsidized forever and thus controlled forever. Now they are going to build rail? With what money? Where is the profit that would at least indicate that the endeavor is the right move? They are going to build rail in US with all parts and all railroad cars built in US. USA has no production capacity for this, USA made rail road will be extremely expensive if compared to just buying the parts and cars from countries that already manufacture them. The end user tickets will have to be subsidized, they'll be monstrously expensive.
Anyway, economy is about production. Production only takes place if there is a profit motive and there is capital. Capital is money saved. It could be money borrowed (after all, USA used to borrow money in 19 century) but today all the money that's borrowed by US gov't goes directly to spending - military, SS, EI, welfare, corporate subsidies and bailouts, Medicare - none of this is investment. Doing huge projects like rail, while in debt for medical insurance and social security is a joke.
USA needs more capital. USA needs government to stop spending. USA needs gov't to stop collecting income taxes. USA needs to allow debt to restructure instead of monetizing it and destroying US dollars.
With the government like US has had since the last sane president - Harding, US is not going to restructure debt, it's not going to stop spending, it's not going to stop taxing, it's not going to stop printing/inflating. So USA is not going to see any economic growth and instead it will see a huge disaster when US dollar is printed to buy all the debt back and then some is printed to build this rail, etc.
You asked how many can I name. I named one that I am certain of. As to unions - they are non-government, thus it is not the same thing as government law.
Private unions are fine, that's again, a private matter between the employer and employee.
As to what is it that I would prefer - I do not prefer US or Europe, that's a false choice for me. They are not economically sound at all and the chickens are coming home to roost as more and more European nations are finding themselves unable to serve those ever increasing social obligations they have. They are in a better shape than the USA because of USA military spending. Otherwise they are all coming to a conclusion, which is not going to be preferable for them.
Switzerland. We have at will employment, the employment is a private matter based on contract and there is no gov't mandated minimum wage. It's all about contract between employer and employee and it has nothing to do with government.
Again, my argument is that the economies of European countries are also failing, especially for those countries that have very high gov't guarantees, 'social obligations', etc. The jobs will leave, there will be more poverty all due to lack of free market and loss of capital.
What's strange is that you believe that MOST European countries are this way. Germany and Switzerland - I agree. Most of Scandinavia - OK.
They are all pursuing more and more liberal business practices, reducing regulations, allowing cheap labor to be imported from other countries. I just took ICE 17, then DB and then Eurostar from Baden Baden through Belgium to London. Belgium of-course is the EU capital, so money is brought in through taxes. Germany is the producer and UK is following the footsteps of USA on the road of economic collapse through inflation, capital and job destruction and asset bubbles (now in housing and UK sovereign bonds - very similar road to US).
I am sure you are incorrect. Employers have ways to avoid hiring new people to deal with any new business. Efficiencies, outsourcing, possibly splitting company into more than 1 entity (I know a bit about that) to avoid regulations is another way to avoid regulations.
But at the end if some business has an option to hire additional help or to do with who they have and just force the existing people to do more work because the new hires will trigger some government regulations, they'll go with that option.
I agree, you should be able to express your opinion all you want.
I disagree that government must step in and protect you from being fired by your employer if they disagree with your opinion.
The free speech idea is about your being protected from abuse by the government, who has power to jail and kill you. Your job is between you and your employer, it's a private matter and your employer cannot jail and kill you (unless they are also the government, of-course.)
Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the black youth in America had much higher employment rate than even the white people in that same age category. Unemployment was about 15% for that category.
After the Civil Rights Act the unemployment started going up, now it's 50% in that category.
There is a lesson, but people do not learn it - create incentives for employers not to hire you and they will not hire you.
Being comfortable - is that a 'basic human right' or something?
Any regulation that limits power of employer to fire an employee also limits the willingness of employer to hire more employees.
How many businesses do not go past 49 employees because of the medical insurance requirement? How many businesses do not hire minorities/women/people with disabilities, etc., because those are guaranteed government protection against basically being fired by private companies?
Starting/small businesses cannot afford any distractions, any wasteful spending, so I am sure that in most cases they end up avoiding any possibility of a potential lawsuit, so they would rather not hire at all or only only basically young able white males or illegal immigrants rather than anybody else, because those are the groups with least amount of government protection.
Who really wants to hire an American or a European at this point? Asia - that's where it is, and it is GOOD for their standard of living, which will skyrocket upwards once Asia stops propping up all these failing economies (and they will once they diversify enough of their foreign currency and debt holdings.)
I didn't say there are no small companies in Europe. I said there is less opportunity in Europe because so many regulations basically weed out small business. Of-course there are small companies in Europe and there are self employed individuals, but if there were no regulations requiring that employees must get all the perks and supporting all the unions there would have been more economic activity in European countries. Eventually this will cost Europeans their businesses and capital and jobs and economies.
Well actually, I don't have FB account but if anybody wants to be MORE employable in USA now, they should get rid of theirs or never open one, at least not under their real name.
Also you could apply the same argument to the small business after all the Civil Rights Acts and other various cases that protect women/minorities from being fired - have fun working in all male, all white company, right?
Of-course there is an alternative, like in European countries: you end up with only large companies, they all are heavily subsidized and regulated, but your choices of employment are diminished and your ability to open your own business are extremely limited. This eventually leads to less and less economic activity and higher and higher levels of unemployment and reliance on government.
Well, actually USA is really in the same position - more and more gov't guaranteed/protected/subsidized monopolies and less and less private capital and enterprise.
With all the SS and inflation nonsense more people are leaving US to go work and open businesses somewhere else.
The decision in this story is really a very minor thing compared to all the other regulations, but while with other regulations employers could avoid hiring certain groups that are guaranteed government protection, this new decision sets a very bad precedent - anybody can have FB account and if you don't want to get fired or want a large settlement all you need is to post periodically how much of a low life scumbag your boss is all over the Internet.
Eventually it WILL lead to people working alone or in large gov't protected monopolies only.
No, you misunderstood. You do NOT love your job. You hate your job and you should post that on every forum and especially on FB (since it has worked in court). You should post it every week, just in case.
This way if you get fired you can always point at those postings and require that the employer either keeps you or pays you money, after all, you have uncle Sam's guarantee that you can't be fired. (that's what this ruling really means.)
Take advantage of this situation.
---
Now, sarcasm off. It's as if MORE reasons were needed never to hire Americans.
As always, everybody on the left misses the point. This, as all other regulations that can cause in employers getting sued, will have another chilling effect that will prevent more people from being hired in the first place.
Just like minorities are hired less by smaller companies for that same reason, that they can sue on various legal grounds guaranteed by the government if they are fired, same here.
You want to work for me? Great, what's the name?
Checking you on FB etc. You are there? Forget it. I am NOT hiring you.
How about this: do not say about your boss in public (and that's what FB is - a public forum) what you wouldn't be yelling out in the office.
However this is another chilling decision by the government and as every single other thing that gov't does when it creates more of these rules, when the employers can be taken to courts over firing people, this decision will only cause fewer people being employed.
If you are an employer, you'd think twice about employing people who have FB accounts now. Sure, that's a lot of people, so that's a lot of potential people who will NOT be hired.
Just like the entire fiasco of the Civil Rights Act: before the act, 85% of black youth (between ages of 16 and 24) had jobs. In fact their employment was much higher than employment of white youths. Past the Act, their employment was steadily declining and now 50% of black youths are unemployed. But who can argue that today there is more racism than before 1964? That would be quite a trick. No, instead what is happening is that small companies would rather not hire minorities at all rather than putting themselves into a position where they can be sued if they decide to fire that person.
When there is a government 'guarantee' of any kind, it becomes a moral hazard or a deterrent. It always backfires. In a country that is seeing higher and higher unemployment regulations about employment of people should be reduced (like all other business regulations) not increased.
Russia and Ukraine used to build airplanes for internal use only. I think some countries still buy their old planes, but the problem with Russia is that they are so corrupt, that any new business must immediately be profitable to the people in power through bribes, or it can go fuck itself basically.
Most known ex-USSR airplanes are IL and AN and TU and SU
but again, those 'companies' (they weren't really companies during USSR time) have been stagnating and mostly it's due to the bureaucratic nature of the industry in Russia, which cannot make a step on its own, it's all gov't dominated and monopolized and corrupt.
No, there are no such things as 'market distortions' unless the government is distorting it.
There is distorting force in the market that is not a government force. Market is by definition a system that is not RULED. So anything that is classified as distortion there would be something that is changing market by force.
There is not a single regulation that is put by government that doesn't distort the market, and if we are talking about market distortion that they are supposedly fixing, those are market distortions they have created.
It's like Glass Steagal - that was a regulation. You think the market was distorted by something else than the government?
No. The market WAS distorted. The government distorted it. It was the FDIC that the Glass Steagal was implemented to correct.
FDIC is the reason why banks can gamble with deposits. FDIC is the moral hazard and part of the problem, Glass Steagal was supposed to correct that distortion.
Like with everything else governments do - first they break it by their laws, then they 'correct' it by their laws. But corrections never work as they are meant to either, just like the original regulations don't work and distort the market.
So Glass Steagal could not have done the job in the system that is so distorted by the gov't, because FDIC and all other rules, and Fed printing money have created the situation where financial institutions are so heavily subsidized, monopolized and rich, that they could spend any amount of money to pay for removal of any regulation they do not like.
So you see, by distorting the markets, governments create a system that cannot be balanced, and no amount of regulation at that point can do anything, it will crash.
That's one of the inalienable rights even recognized by the Constitution, which is the document upon which the entire system of government in USA is set up.
However even under that 'right' the federal gov't as well as the separate States have killed plenty of people.
Some are judged by court, some are killed in undeclared wars (and once in a blue moon it's a declared war.)
In reality even murder of any one particular person is a personal matter and not federal or state matter. They make it their business because you are the 'constituency', somebody HAS to pay taxes and 'vote', right?
I am correct. Obviously they are doing this to get around the letter of the law, but they are not going around the intent and that's the only important thing.
All of these people who are on top of the US government food chain, including the president, the Congress, Senate, Supreme Court... they are all there with an explicit mandate to uphold the Constitution of the USA.
Clearly the Constitution of the USA has been violated by all of these people.
Actually a more apt question is: how come the PEOPLE of the USA are not throwing everybody out of the US government yet? (and out of Supreme Court, which has passed enough AntiConstitutional judgments that it really should be shutdown, as it is no longer upholding the US Constitution, but instead it is acting as an arm of the ideological party in power, and I really do not see difference between Republicans and Democrats in this regard, only Libertarians like Ron Paul can be relied upon.)
Absolutely not having poisonous water in the first place is THE preferred solution.
That's why you get the government OUT of business.
Completely.
No more limited liability for companies. No 10 Million dollar cap for deep water oil drilling.
No subsidies to any company.
Do you think people running a company that provided water wouldn't be at all concerned about the quality of their product if they had their own necks on the line?
Also saying that regulations prevent anything is completely wrong. Regulations exist only because government already has created the moral hazard of setting up laws such that there is very limited liability to people running various firms by the virtue of government protection.
There should be no government protection for anything against anything.
Including regulations that there should be no arsenic in bottled water.
That is because arsenic in bottled water is an issue with the water producer and if SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE is producing water with arsenic in it (which I don't remember anybody doing, but sure, whatever), it will become a problem for that manufacturer as that manufacturer is going to be taken to court (or should be).
And since there should be no government protection of any kind to anybody just based on the fact they have a company, there should be no protection against liability by government regulations.
So if we are not to have rules regulating against ridiculous things like arsenic in bottled water, there should be NO PROTECTION for ANYBODY, ANY COMPANY against liability, against lawsuits, against punishment.
If somebody DIES because of arsenic in bottled water, this company, must be investigated, the people in charge must face justice.
Justice, by the way, also is not a government mandate. Of-course here I am showing more than just minarchist ideas, but monopoly on justice and punishment that is in the hands of the government is insanely abused.
The Supreme Court of USA has long now stopped being the protector and upholder of the Constitution and became just another arm of the federal government. This is clear from all sorts of things they do not deem unconstitutional - from SS (which all lower courts have shown to be unconstitutional) to ridiculous things like Patriot Act, wireless wiretapping, etc.
--
If you are worried that there is lead in fumes around you, then it is up to you and others who are breathing those fumes to bring this to light, and then you have your day in court. But again, this can only work if there is no government protection of the companies and people in charge of companies.
I completely disagree. All regulations are bad and all taxes are bad. There is nothing in this world that needs or can be regulated in any useful manner or should be. All regulations over our lives are bad from perspective of every important freedom - economic freedom, freedom of speech.
Regulations distort the market, create monopolies, increase barriers to entry, destroy competition, distort market signals, which are the only meaningful signals whether to produce one particular item or another.
Many people attack speculators not understanding that in the see of empty noise, the speculators provide the wisdom of crowds to such important notions as price forming. If speculators are pushing prices up on one thing, it means there is space there for more production, there is demand. If speculators are pushing prices down on another thing (by selling or short selling) than it must be understood that the market is unwilling to buy that thing, it's unnecessary and many producers of that thing need to cease their operations immediately and reallocate resources to something useful.
All government regulations and taxes distort all of these signals.
For example minimum wage laws create unemployment by pricing out certain individuals and by destroying certain jobs. Those individuals will be then unemployed and gov't will be providing incentives for them to stay unemployed through welfare programs, also reallocating useful resources from market to people who will now not be producing, not adding anything useful in the economy, while they WERE adding something.
Income taxes remove ability of people to compete by starting their own businesses, they distort the markets by reducing number of productive resources and only serve as a way for governments to grow further. Since governments can only spend and cannot produce, the market is distorted towards more spending and less production and thus to higher prices. This in turn makes the gov't want to get even more money, they do so by printing and borrowing, eventually grinding economy to a halt by completely driving out all capital and leaving the society completely unproductive and dependent on government hand outs, which eventually dry out, as they either stop completely or become meaningless because the money that is given out is worth nothing.
This has been shown to be true over and over again, as one empire falls after another all due to government driving out productive capital and causing massive inflation and eventual deficits of products and people become poor as without production no amount of money can help, and Zimbabwe type hyper-inflation is the ultimate outcome for such events.
--
I am sure the majority will not agree, but hey, that's why it's a Minority Opinion, it doesn't make it false, it only means that majority is not interested in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Taxing production rather than consumption destroys economy. I left a comment about that here, I don't want to repeat, but the gist is this:
It is production that must be encouraged. Consumption is easy, production is hard. Wealth of an economy depends on what the economy produces and whether there is profit in it. Profit is direct signal that consumers like the product. Lack of profit is the signal to STOP doing whatever the investor is doing, because it's not the right thing.
Taking profit out of any product/service means taking out the measuring stick by which the product/service can be evaluated to see whether it's needed or not, whether it is the right thing to do and in which direction it is better to move.
Income taxes are the worst for economy in totality, they are the worst for poor as well and more so, because the rich can take capital and move it, which then makes some other place more wealthy and the place that lost capital becomes poorer. Poorer places means - fewer jobs, less manufacturing, less production.
Consumption levels do not go down if there is any way to consume, so if gov't puts out money (however it got that money) that money will be spent. But it will be spent on consumables rather than on investment and building production capacity. Poor subsidized people do not build production capacity, as you said, they spend everything they have on food/energy/shelter. Which is why they are hit the hardest of all things by lack of production but especially by inflation.
Government is the one that suffers from deflation the most, not poor people. For poor people deflation (shrinking of the money supply) is a good thing. As the money is more scarce, it gains more value and it becomes profitable to save it, which allows savings to be formed and savings are what capital is derived from. Savings = capital, and capital allows investment into production capacity. More production capacity and more efficiency brings prices down.
On the other hand governments prefer inflation, because governments always spend more money than can be provided by the economy (gov't is a spending itme, it's a luxury spending item, and as a spending item it must be cut when cuts are made because of slowing economy. Instead gov't is expanded by promises of improving the economy. But gov'ts can do nothing to improve economy except one thing: shrink. That's why Harding's cuts to gov't in 1921 stopped that recession quickly. But he cut gov't by 70%. He fired 70% of gov't, allowed capital to restructure, lowered income taxes. This is the only good thing a gov't can do - go away.)
Poor people need lower prices, but lower prices can only be brought about by decrease of monetary supply relative to size of production. So either increasing levels of production without printing more money, or decreasing the amount of money relative to existing production, or decreasing amount of available money faster than the decrease of production. In any case, the prices go down when there is more production (value) than money.
Gov'ts prefer inflation and rising prices, which is bad for poor people and bad for economy in general. It's clear why it's bad for poor people - they spend most money on food and energy and shelter. But why is it bad for economy in general? Because it destroys the value of money, and there is a potential for total destruction of value of money - hyper inflationary depression. This is achieved by excessive spending and borrowing and then by monetizing the debt without any relative increase of production capacity.
The production taxes are the worst, because they give incentives to move production out. They are also the worst because they remove capital FROM the productive private sector and put it INTO unproductive government hands, who spend it on consumables - wars, subsidies, bail outs, welfare, SS, etc.
Consumption taxes - that's the only correct way to fund governments. This prevents gov't from gro
It's amazing but not really, that most of /. participants have not a clue about economics.
The only correct way to fund a government is through consumption taxes. What exactly is taxed, how much, whether there is a formula to figure out how much you make and REFUND you because you do not make enough, etc., that's all fine.
But funding government from PRODUCTION or INCOME taxes is going to lead to a total disaster (and people are observing it now,) because taxing income is taxing money that is not consumed by the earner, but instead is used for something else, that is not consumption. However this also allows the government to grow very rapidly and to become very large (always bigger than the economy can afford.)
What economy needs is production, not consumption.
Consumption is a consequence of production. Without production there is no consumption. iPads first had to be created before they could be consumed and it was a risky move on Apple's part - they didn't know if there was a market for it, but that's how it's supposed to be with all products. Unlike what the governments do: Obama saying that he is going to make sure there WILL be consumers for Orion Energy (which just happens to be mostly owned by GE, ex-CEO of which just happens to be in government now.) Obama and Biden are just going to build 'high speed rail' even though US has no money and in fact USA used to have rail system that was the biggest in the world and that system was destroyed during the New Deal because of all the new roads that were put, while the rail was torn down and airlines were taxed - gov't made sure to totally annihilate profitability of those 3 modes of transportation, making sure it's all subsidized forever and thus controlled forever. Now they are going to build rail? With what money? Where is the profit that would at least indicate that the endeavor is the right move? They are going to build rail in US with all parts and all railroad cars built in US. USA has no production capacity for this, USA made rail road will be extremely expensive if compared to just buying the parts and cars from countries that already manufacture them. The end user tickets will have to be subsidized, they'll be monstrously expensive.
Anyway, economy is about production. Production only takes place if there is a profit motive and there is capital. Capital is money saved. It could be money borrowed (after all, USA used to borrow money in 19 century) but today all the money that's borrowed by US gov't goes directly to spending - military, SS, EI, welfare, corporate subsidies and bailouts, Medicare - none of this is investment. Doing huge projects like rail, while in debt for medical insurance and social security is a joke.
USA needs more capital. USA needs government to stop spending. USA needs gov't to stop collecting income taxes. USA needs to allow debt to restructure instead of monetizing it and destroying US dollars.
With the government like US has had since the last sane president - Harding, US is not going to restructure debt, it's not going to stop spending, it's not going to stop taxing, it's not going to stop printing/inflating. So USA is not going to see any economic growth and instead it will see a huge disaster when US dollar is printed to buy all the debt back and then some is printed to build this rail, etc.
You asked how many can I name. I named one that I am certain of. As to unions - they are non-government, thus it is not the same thing as government law.
Private unions are fine, that's again, a private matter between the employer and employee.
As to what is it that I would prefer - I do not prefer US or Europe, that's a false choice for me. They are not economically sound at all and the chickens are coming home to roost as more and more European nations are finding themselves unable to serve those ever increasing social obligations they have. They are in a better shape than the USA because of USA military spending. Otherwise they are all coming to a conclusion, which is not going to be preferable for them.
Switzerland. We have at will employment, the employment is a private matter based on contract and there is no gov't mandated minimum wage. It's all about contract between employer and employee and it has nothing to do with government.
Again, my argument is that the economies of European countries are also failing, especially for those countries that have very high gov't guarantees, 'social obligations', etc. The jobs will leave, there will be more poverty all due to lack of free market and loss of capital.
What's strange is that you believe that MOST European countries are this way. Germany and Switzerland - I agree. Most of Scandinavia - OK.
They are all pursuing more and more liberal business practices, reducing regulations, allowing cheap labor to be imported from other countries. I just took ICE 17, then DB and then Eurostar from Baden Baden through Belgium to London. Belgium of-course is the EU capital, so money is brought in through taxes. Germany is the producer and UK is following the footsteps of USA on the road of economic collapse through inflation, capital and job destruction and asset bubbles (now in housing and UK sovereign bonds - very similar road to US).
I am sure you are incorrect. Employers have ways to avoid hiring new people to deal with any new business. Efficiencies, outsourcing, possibly splitting company into more than 1 entity (I know a bit about that) to avoid regulations is another way to avoid regulations.
But at the end if some business has an option to hire additional help or to do with who they have and just force the existing people to do more work because the new hires will trigger some government regulations, they'll go with that option.
so they can figure out if the microbes on you are not radical terrorists and are politically acceptable?
I agree, you should be able to express your opinion all you want.
I disagree that government must step in and protect you from being fired by your employer if they disagree with your opinion.
The free speech idea is about your being protected from abuse by the government, who has power to jail and kill you. Your job is between you and your employer, it's a private matter and your employer cannot jail and kill you (unless they are also the government, of-course.)
Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the black youth in America had much higher employment rate than even the white people in that same age category. Unemployment was about 15% for that category.
After the Civil Rights Act the unemployment started going up, now it's 50% in that category.
There is a lesson, but people do not learn it - create incentives for employers not to hire you and they will not hire you.
Being comfortable - is that a 'basic human right' or something?
Any regulation that limits power of employer to fire an employee also limits the willingness of employer to hire more employees.
How many businesses do not go past 49 employees because of the medical insurance requirement? How many businesses do not hire minorities/women/people with disabilities, etc., because those are guaranteed government protection against basically being fired by private companies?
Starting/small businesses cannot afford any distractions, any wasteful spending, so I am sure that in most cases they end up avoiding any possibility of a potential lawsuit, so they would rather not hire at all or only only basically young able white males or illegal immigrants rather than anybody else, because those are the groups with least amount of government protection.
Who really wants to hire an American or a European at this point? Asia - that's where it is, and it is GOOD for their standard of living, which will skyrocket upwards once Asia stops propping up all these failing economies (and they will once they diversify enough of their foreign currency and debt holdings.)
I didn't say there are no small companies in Europe. I said there is less opportunity in Europe because so many regulations basically weed out small business. Of-course there are small companies in Europe and there are self employed individuals, but if there were no regulations requiring that employees must get all the perks and supporting all the unions there would have been more economic activity in European countries. Eventually this will cost Europeans their businesses and capital and jobs and economies.
Well actually, I don't have FB account but if anybody wants to be MORE employable in USA now, they should get rid of theirs or never open one, at least not under their real name.
Also you could apply the same argument to the small business after all the Civil Rights Acts and other various cases that protect women/minorities from being fired - have fun working in all male, all white company, right?
Of-course there is an alternative, like in European countries: you end up with only large companies, they all are heavily subsidized and regulated, but your choices of employment are diminished and your ability to open your own business are extremely limited. This eventually leads to less and less economic activity and higher and higher levels of unemployment and reliance on government.
Well, actually USA is really in the same position - more and more gov't guaranteed/protected/subsidized monopolies and less and less private capital and enterprise.
With all the SS and inflation nonsense more people are leaving US to go work and open businesses somewhere else.
The decision in this story is really a very minor thing compared to all the other regulations, but while with other regulations employers could avoid hiring certain groups that are guaranteed government protection, this new decision sets a very bad precedent - anybody can have FB account and if you don't want to get fired or want a large settlement all you need is to post periodically how much of a low life scumbag your boss is all over the Internet.
Eventually it WILL lead to people working alone or in large gov't protected monopolies only.
No, you misunderstood. You do NOT love your job. You hate your job and you should post that on every forum and especially on FB (since it has worked in court). You should post it every week, just in case.
This way if you get fired you can always point at those postings and require that the employer either keeps you or pays you money, after all, you have uncle Sam's guarantee that you can't be fired. (that's what this ruling really means.)
Take advantage of this situation.
---
Now, sarcasm off. It's as if MORE reasons were needed never to hire Americans.
As always, everybody on the left misses the point. This, as all other regulations that can cause in employers getting sued, will have another chilling effect that will prevent more people from being hired in the first place.
Just like minorities are hired less by smaller companies for that same reason, that they can sue on various legal grounds guaranteed by the government if they are fired, same here.
You want to work for me? Great, what's the name?
Checking you on FB etc. You are there? Forget it. I am NOT hiring you.
How about this: do not say about your boss in public (and that's what FB is - a public forum) what you wouldn't be yelling out in the office.
However this is another chilling decision by the government and as every single other thing that gov't does when it creates more of these rules, when the employers can be taken to courts over firing people, this decision will only cause fewer people being employed.
If you are an employer, you'd think twice about employing people who have FB accounts now. Sure, that's a lot of people, so that's a lot of potential people who will NOT be hired.
Just like the entire fiasco of the Civil Rights Act: before the act, 85% of black youth (between ages of 16 and 24) had jobs. In fact their employment was much higher than employment of white youths. Past the Act, their employment was steadily declining and now 50% of black youths are unemployed. But who can argue that today there is more racism than before 1964? That would be quite a trick. No, instead what is happening is that small companies would rather not hire minorities at all rather than putting themselves into a position where they can be sued if they decide to fire that person.
When there is a government 'guarantee' of any kind, it becomes a moral hazard or a deterrent. It always backfires. In a country that is seeing higher and higher unemployment regulations about employment of people should be reduced (like all other business regulations) not increased.
4. requirements dependent on physics that are not available in this universe.
- you misunderstand. The requirement is to augment the universe first, then all this stuff is trivial.
Russia and Ukraine used to build airplanes for internal use only. I think some countries still buy their old planes, but the problem with Russia is that they are so corrupt, that any new business must immediately be profitable to the people in power through bribes, or it can go fuck itself basically.
Most known ex-USSR airplanes are IL and AN and TU and SU
For example Antonov is known for this
but again, those 'companies' (they weren't really companies during USSR time) have been stagnating and mostly it's due to the bureaucratic nature of the industry in Russia, which cannot make a step on its own, it's all gov't dominated and monopolized and corrupt.
No, there are no such things as 'market distortions' unless the government is distorting it.
There is distorting force in the market that is not a government force. Market is by definition a system that is not RULED. So anything that is classified as distortion there would be something that is changing market by force.
There is not a single regulation that is put by government that doesn't distort the market, and if we are talking about market distortion that they are supposedly fixing, those are market distortions they have created.
It's like Glass Steagal - that was a regulation. You think the market was distorted by something else than the government?
No. The market WAS distorted. The government distorted it. It was the FDIC that the Glass Steagal was implemented to correct.
FDIC is the reason why banks can gamble with deposits. FDIC is the moral hazard and part of the problem, Glass Steagal was supposed to correct that distortion.
Like with everything else governments do - first they break it by their laws, then they 'correct' it by their laws. But corrections never work as they are meant to either, just like the original regulations don't work and distort the market.
So Glass Steagal could not have done the job in the system that is so distorted by the gov't, because FDIC and all other rules, and Fed printing money have created the situation where financial institutions are so heavily subsidized, monopolized and rich, that they could spend any amount of money to pay for removal of any regulation they do not like.
So you see, by distorting the markets, governments create a system that cannot be balanced, and no amount of regulation at that point can do anything, it will crash.
He is not going to get in power, that's the reason I actually trust the guy: he knows he won't get in power, so he is only there on principle.
That's one of the inalienable rights even recognized by the Constitution, which is the document upon which the entire system of government in USA is set up.
However even under that 'right' the federal gov't as well as the separate States have killed plenty of people.
Some are judged by court, some are killed in undeclared wars (and once in a blue moon it's a declared war.)
In reality even murder of any one particular person is a personal matter and not federal or state matter. They make it their business because you are the 'constituency', somebody HAS to pay taxes and 'vote', right?
I am correct. Obviously they are doing this to get around the letter of the law, but they are not going around the intent and that's the only important thing.
BUT BUT BUT
All of these people who are on top of the US government food chain, including the president, the Congress, Senate, Supreme Court... they are all there with an explicit mandate to uphold the Constitution of the USA.
Clearly the Constitution of the USA has been violated by all of these people.
Actually a more apt question is: how come the PEOPLE of the USA are not throwing everybody out of the US government yet? (and out of Supreme Court, which has passed enough AntiConstitutional judgments that it really should be shutdown, as it is no longer upholding the US Constitution, but instead it is acting as an arm of the ideological party in power, and I really do not see difference between Republicans and Democrats in this regard, only Libertarians like Ron Paul can be relied upon.)
Absolutely not having poisonous water in the first place is THE preferred solution.
That's why you get the government OUT of business.
Completely.
No more limited liability for companies. No 10 Million dollar cap for deep water oil drilling.
No subsidies to any company.
Do you think people running a company that provided water wouldn't be at all concerned about the quality of their product if they had their own necks on the line?
Also saying that regulations prevent anything is completely wrong. Regulations exist only because government already has created the moral hazard of setting up laws such that there is very limited liability to people running various firms by the virtue of government protection.
There should be no government protection for anything against anything.
Yes. All regulations are bad.
Including regulations that there should be no arsenic in bottled water.
That is because arsenic in bottled water is an issue with the water producer and if SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE is producing water with arsenic in it (which I don't remember anybody doing, but sure, whatever), it will become a problem for that manufacturer as that manufacturer is going to be taken to court (or should be).
And since there should be no government protection of any kind to anybody just based on the fact they have a company, there should be no protection against liability by government regulations.
So if we are not to have rules regulating against ridiculous things like arsenic in bottled water, there should be NO PROTECTION for ANYBODY, ANY COMPANY against liability, against lawsuits, against punishment.
If somebody DIES because of arsenic in bottled water, this company, must be investigated, the people in charge must face justice.
Justice, by the way, also is not a government mandate. Of-course here I am showing more than just minarchist ideas, but monopoly on justice and punishment that is in the hands of the government is insanely abused.
The Supreme Court of USA has long now stopped being the protector and upholder of the Constitution and became just another arm of the federal government. This is clear from all sorts of things they do not deem unconstitutional - from SS (which all lower courts have shown to be unconstitutional) to ridiculous things like Patriot Act, wireless wiretapping, etc.
--
If you are worried that there is lead in fumes around you, then it is up to you and others who are breathing those fumes to bring this to light, and then you have your day in court. But again, this can only work if there is no government protection of the companies and people in charge of companies.
I completely disagree. All regulations are bad and all taxes are bad. There is nothing in this world that needs or can be regulated in any useful manner or should be. All regulations over our lives are bad from perspective of every important freedom - economic freedom, freedom of speech.
Regulations distort the market, create monopolies, increase barriers to entry, destroy competition, distort market signals, which are the only meaningful signals whether to produce one particular item or another.
Many people attack speculators not understanding that in the see of empty noise, the speculators provide the wisdom of crowds to such important notions as price forming. If speculators are pushing prices up on one thing, it means there is space there for more production, there is demand. If speculators are pushing prices down on another thing (by selling or short selling) than it must be understood that the market is unwilling to buy that thing, it's unnecessary and many producers of that thing need to cease their operations immediately and reallocate resources to something useful.
All government regulations and taxes distort all of these signals.
For example minimum wage laws create unemployment by pricing out certain individuals and by destroying certain jobs. Those individuals will be then unemployed and gov't will be providing incentives for them to stay unemployed through welfare programs, also reallocating useful resources from market to people who will now not be producing, not adding anything useful in the economy, while they WERE adding something.
SS is a ponzi scheme and even the public trustees of SS and Medicare cannot explain the difference between those programs and a ponzi scheme. These also end up distorting the markets, reallocating resources from the productive populations to unproductive ones and removing competition and capital from economy.
--
Income taxes remove ability of people to compete by starting their own businesses, they distort the markets by reducing number of productive resources and only serve as a way for governments to grow further. Since governments can only spend and cannot produce, the market is distorted towards more spending and less production and thus to higher prices. This in turn makes the gov't want to get even more money, they do so by printing and borrowing, eventually grinding economy to a halt by completely driving out all capital and leaving the society completely unproductive and dependent on government hand outs, which eventually dry out, as they either stop completely or become meaningless because the money that is given out is worth nothing.
This has been shown to be true over and over again, as one empire falls after another all due to government driving out productive capital and causing massive inflation and eventual deficits of products and people become poor as without production no amount of money can help, and Zimbabwe type hyper-inflation is the ultimate outcome for such events.
--
I am sure the majority will not agree, but hey, that's why it's a Minority Opinion, it doesn't make it false, it only means that majority is not interested in it.
Oh, women are flaming assholes at least as often as men. But you are talking about a subset of men, those who contribute to wikipedia.
So I have a suggestion: start your own wikipedia.
Call it: vaginapedia.
This is genius and you should get right on it.