When Americans face a vote, we don't generally vote for the party, but the canidate. We tend to make finer distinctions among social, fiscal, and foreign policy stands, as well as other issues. That is one of the reasons our parties both have and can accept a range of views. That helps to make the parties stronger since they represent a wider segment of American society.
You are right in saying that under US-style systems, one votes for the candidate (whereas, you vote for the party under British-style systems). However, in the end, it's all about parties--even in USA. As far as citizens voting based on policy, that is basically implied. The econopolitical stance one takes will dictate policy--not the other way around. For example, without reading any campaign literature, I am pretty confident that a Republican is more likely to cut taxes than a Democrat; A Republican is more likely to cut back social programs, whereas Democrats likely won't; and so forth.
For example, your statement that, "The Democratic Party has had VERY FEW conservatives over the years" shows that you really don't have a clue about American political history. The Democratic party is not a traditional labour or liberal party. The Democratic party has not only had many conservatives over the years, but they have also been very influential. In fact, there was a significant portion of the Democratic party which was actually quite reactionary well into the '60s and early '70s.
Since the 1920's or thereabouts, the Democratic Party has been a left-leaning liberal party. Before that (say the 1800's), it was a conservative party. If I had to pick a point when the Democratic Party started becoming liberal, I would say after FDR. The key thing that happened in the early 1900's was that the Democratic Party went left whiel the Republican Party went right. The Democratic Party started embracing socialist ideals (like worker rights, government spending, unemployment insurance, women's rights, etc) while the Republican Party went hard to the right by embracing capitalist ideals (don't spend during depression, etc).
The Democratic party has been moving to the left for some time now. It is alienating what few conservatives it has remaining. That is why you see Senator Zell Miler endorsing President Bush, and forming an organization to rally Democrats for him. That is also why so many Democrats voted for President Reagan.
There have been SOME conservatives who have influenced Democratic Party policy but for the most part, liberals have held sway. For instance, conservatives within the Democratic Party were against granting equality to blacks and "coloured people" but their influence was weak. The opposite is true for the Republican Party (there are liberals within it but they are very weak). Whether you have conservatives within the Democratic Party or now will have little impact on policy.
I disagree with your assertion that Democrats voted for Reagan. Why is Reagan one of the most disliked Republicans if Democrats voted for him? Most people who voted for Reagan were conservatives or centrists. There were very few true Democrats.
As an institution the military must be apolitical. Individually soldiers are both free and officially encouraged to vote. Soldiers can take part in political activities as long as they don't do it in uniform. Their votes reveal their opinions. Younger soldiers are less likely to vote as are most young Americans.
Because soldiers work within a very strong authoratarian institution, there is great pressure for them not to express their opinions openly (even when not in uniform). This also happens in civilian institutions. For instance, when you work for some corporations, you can barely say anything in public. So yes, a person has "freedom" of speech but they will be penalized. The military is worse than many other aspects of life.
Since google is traded on the open market, he/she just has to go and buy a few. I'm assuming that the person is going to give the stock well after the actual IPO.
In addition, things like Patriot Act and Guantanomo Bay are more likely to be supported by conservatives than liberals. Although, this is really a issue of libertarianism vs authoratarianism and not necessarily liberal vs conservative per se.
Neocons (aka neoconservatives) are conservatives. I know that you paleos and Libertarians don't want to admit it but that's the reality. These guys share more with the right wing than the left wing... Besides, the fact that Bush (Christian Right) and Cheney (imperialist oil addict) controlling the show pretty much means it is all a conservative affair. After all, do you think Bush would support anything from the left wing?
Excuse me? Conservative as in advocating regime change? Conservative as in increasing government spending? Conservative as in taking choice away from the states (drinking age at 21, gay marriage in the constitution, etc)?
Conservative as in:
1. God/religion above all (attempting to illegalize homosexuality via the Constitution)
2. unilateralism (UN? What's that? )
3. govt spending on defense (conservatives tend to spend on "defense")
4. massive tax cuts for the wealthy (cutting dividend taxes will sure help everyone)
5. ignorance of widely accepted world standards and principles (can't attack a country that never attacked you? yeah right)
6. cutting back environmental regulations (head of the EPA resigning should say something)
7. attempting to privatize everything (eg. public parks)
8. canning "liberal" scientists (eg. the head of some international environmental body at the UN)
9. capitalism at all costs (eg. selling off Iraq piecemeal to the higgest bidder (who obviously isn't an Iraqi, since Iraqis aren't rich enough))
10. perpetual war for perpetual peace (you would never hear that coming out of the left wing)
11. Ariel Sharon is a man of peace (conservatives have a hard time grasping concepts like equality--after all, they were the ones in favour of slavery and segregation)
Having said all that, running massive deficits is not exactly conservative. But then again, given the choice, only a conservative to initiate a massive tax cut at the expense of a deficit...
I think that this quote, as much as anything, reveals your post as either a troll, or reckless. The military vote certainly was not unanimous for Bush.
That's a mistake. I didn't mean to say unanimous (nothing ever is). I meant to say majority...
The US doesn't have a Conservative party, and historically both parties have had both liberal and conservative wings.
The Republican Party has been the conservative party since the 1920's (or thereabouts). Both parties DO have SOME members from both wings. However, the VAST Democratic Party is liberal, while the vast majority of Republicans are conservative.
The Democratic party does seem to be trying to drive as many conservatives as possible out, though they may stay and simply vote Republican like the Reagan-Democrats until the Democratic party is bitch-slapped back to sensibility.
The Democratic Party has had VERY FEW conservatives over the years. Since USA is largely a two-party (or one party in some people's eyes) state, it gets kind of confusing when someone votes for the Democrats simply to kick the other party out even though they don't agree with them at all. In any case, the VAST majority of Democratic Party politicans are liberal, while the vast majority of Republican Party has conservative politicians.
...until the Democratic party is bitch-slapped back to sensibility.
The Democratic Party was even more liberal in the past. I'm not sure what you are talking about (with them going back to their senses). What's happening is good. Why would you want conservatives, who don't agree at all with liberalism or any other left wing ideologies, on your party? Similarly, why would the Republican Party want leftists in their party?
Your analysis also fails at the very center of the scandal - the lower enlisted ranks. Junior enlisted personnel, which oddly enough make up a majority of the military, have less pronounced political preferences.
I think that is misleading. The reason military personnel seem to be apolitical, when in fact they are not, is because the military cannot officially support any party. Therefore, it is very hard to get any opinion. Furthermore, the military is very authoratarian with punishments easily handed out to the lower levels. Talking with the media, reporting on events (non-classified), etc is not welcome.
As to your attempt to paint this as Donald Rumsfeld's doing, that is nonsense. The reason he knew about it was because the reports of the abuse came to him. The investigations started within days of the reports. A number of people had already been punished before the current series of media reports.
Cover-ups as usual. Of course, you won't believe any of it but the fact of the matter is... Rumsfeld said what happened was not torture when in fact ICRC says it is... ICRC and Amnesty International have pointed out that this is SYSTEMATIC and not isolated. The same thing is happening in Guantanomo Bay and Afghanistan (who knows what's going on in the military ships that hold some prisoners (namely US citizens)?). Many victims from outside Iraq have come forward... Rumsfeld knew of this many months in advance and yet it kept happening as recently as early this year (actually it may still have been going on until last month)...
I'm not saying that Rumsfeld came up with the torture techniques and how to implement them (this is clearly the work of CIA). All I'm saying is that he supported it.
You simply seem to be attempting to smear the Republican party and the administration.
I could say whatever I want... Smearing means absolutely nothing when it comes to politics... You can say whatever you want about the Democrats or anyone else for that matter too... If I am lying then I'm wrong but I am not lying or deceiving...
Kerry has been flip-flopping all over the place. He has also not said anything concrete. Most of what Kerry says is rhetoric.
I hate to say it but Kerry will probably end up being the worst Democratic president in recent memory (that's if he wins of course--I think Bush will win again:(:(:( ).
You have to start small and move from there. You have to start supporting and voting for the smaller parties like Greens, Libertarians, etc. Unfortunately, the US political system is designed for a one party or two party state. So I don't see much changing without a revolution. Yes, it's that bad:(
Because that's [growth--ed] what does determine a recession or a boom.
We are not going to agree on this since I'm not a capitalist. All I can say is that you are simply using it because that's what you have been taught. You won't agree with me but my opinion is that within a few hundread years, a better measure will replace growth. Social measures are far more important although capitalists don't care about it. To capitalists, a city with 10% crime rate is the same as another with 1% crime rate (assuming other factors are similar). I personally think that will not be the case in the future. A better example which I thing is a major flaw with capitalists is pollution. Capitalists don't consider pollution whereas I think it should be part of any measure.
Furthermore, I think changes will start impacting how growth rates are used. For instance, things like "jobless recovery" essentially indicates a flaw. I also think that the development of poor countries (as well as other things like newer technologies) will cause deflation in rich countries. Looking at growth rates in a deflationary envrionment will be strange.
All you do is calculate the minimum amount of work needed to feed, house, and clothe everyone, hire people to do that, and hire everyone else to move rocks back and forth all day. Then distribute the resources to everyone. Voila! 100% employment, 0% poverty, and a horrible society to live in!
That is GREAT!!! I mean it! I, as well as a majority of the world's population I'm sure, will love it. There is a flaw in your proposed system though. Who is going to pay everyone? You can't create jobs out of thin air. Employment is inexoricably linked to the economy.
Well, I was responding to your statement that the appreciated value of the company was equivilent to paying out a dividend. What if the statement above is not true, that is, the company does not have a higher return project in which to invest the cash? Then there is no equivilence.
If there is no higher return project to invest in, the company will pay it out as dividend. There are very few companies that hold large quantities of cash without a reason.
The entire point of dividends is that the company feels that there is more shareholder value in paying out the cash than investing it elsewhere. Bigger is not always better: there are may small-cap companies that are excellant investments, which nevertheless would have no ability to manage a huge amount of cash.
Not really sure what your point is... I agree with what you are saying. There ARE some small companies that don't reinvest. However, the vast majority of small companies do not pay dividends.
There are a lot of people that think that Microsoft is letting their huge cash reserves go to waste.
People can think whatever they want but what matters is that MS is holding onto the cash for future liabilities (from lawsuits). Do note that the consensus on whether MS should be NOT be holding cash is not unanimous. In any case, if someone thought MS was not giving out the cash properly, they shouldn't be investing in that company in the first place. This is especially true for small investors who have very little voting power. Small investors should always try to vote with their money rather than the vote*.
(* The difference, in case it is not clear, is that the money you invest is more noticeable than the 0.000001% of the vote you have through the common stock.)
Warren Buffett refuses to invest in any company that pays a dividend.
What Warren Buffet does is kind of irrelevant. Pointing out one person, albeit one of hte top investors of all time, doesn't mean anything. For example, I can probably find one respected investor that says to hold gold, while I can find another that says equity is the way to go, while yet another says to go for bonds. Picking one person doesn't mean anything. In any case, read my next point.
He is the most famous of a large number of serious investors who recognize the poorer return caused solely by the taxation of dividends.
I am NOT saying that dividends are taxed at the same rate. They are not. You pay more taxes on dividend income. Anyone who fills out tax returns (and has looked at the investment section) would know that. I know it. You know it. Almost everyone knows it. My point, however, is that this has little impact except for the wealthy and large investors. Of course, you may have the wealthy investor in mind (which you seem to) and he/she clearly would prefer lower dividend tax (or for that matter lower of any tax).
This essentially translates into two negatives, the investor in the large company gets a poorer return on his investment because it is harder for him to target his investments on the most efficient performers in a particular market.
If a large company is not investing its cash flow wisely, what are YOU investing in it? I don't see this as a problem with the company; rather it's your problem. For instance, why not invest in another company that is perhaps oriented towards one industry, or is a medium sized corporation?
The larger companies tend to be less efficient at providing customers with what they, the customers, want.
I don't want to give the impression that I'm defending corporations (since I don't like them from a leftist perspective) however I don't agree with your point. The large corporations are actually more efficient than the smaller ones. That's why they win. Why do consumers purchase stuff from the larger ones? I mean, the reason the large ones dominate is simply because the consumers take their business there. If what you were saying (i.e. customers not satisfied) were correct, then very few would go to a large corporation.
Rather, the saner approach is to focus on wealth creation, growing the pie so to speak. As long as people are permitted to engage in entrepeunurial economic activity without onerous burdens of excessive regulation, things will work out well.
You are clearly a capitalist somewhere on the right wing, and I'm a leftist. I think our argument will simply devolve into the classical left vs right argument from now on. If you feel like reading, go ahead but I don't expect you to change your opinion on anything below here.
It is my theory that free markets will lead to oligopolies and monopolies. What you call "onerous burdens of excessive regulation" is actually a good thing IMO. Things like anti-trust laws, FDA (federal drug administartion), etc all help society.
A case I like to cite is the luxury tax that was passed in the early 1990's during the presidency of Bus hthe elder. The idea was that rich people buying yachts and othe rtoys would be better able to pay taxes, and no poor person would be harmed. The yacht manufacturing industy in the U.S> effectively ceased to exist within a few months. The rich were not too inconvenienced, but alot of carpenters and shipwrights foudn themselves looking for other work...
I probably care about workers more than you but what you cite is perfectly ok with me. You know why? Well, it's because it is a luxury good. If the wealthy stop supporting something like that, I don't care. As the world becomes more egalitarian, luxury goods and all the jobs that depends on it will dissapear (at least that's my theory). There is a reason why we don't have anyone building palaces
Before I start, it seems that you are agreeing with some of what I say. Either that, or I don't understand your points well. To clarify, I am making two points (roughly the first point was made in the first post and the 2nd point in the latter post):
i. dividend taxes have little impact on the dividends that are actually paid out
ii. corporations that do not pay out dividends (but have positive cash flow) are reinvesting in higher yield projects
1) If what you say is true, why has Microsoft been sitting on a huge pile of cash for years, earning far less than their equity cost of capital? Any valuation of Microsoft must take into account that they're part operating company, part bag of cash. The bag of cash piece has been dragging down their valuation metrics for years.
Microsoft is sitting on cash due to potential future liabilities (mainly lawsuits). They will pay it out when the liabilities are settled. That's what they have been saying.
2) If what you say is true, why would banks pay dividends? The business of banks is investing: in debt or in equity. If banks can't find better investments than their own cost of capital (prety low, as it is) then who can?
Not sure what your point is here since you seem to be agreeing with me (I could be misunderstanding you though). According to what I am saying, banks CAN pay out dividends. They are doing that because they clearly aren't finding higher yield projects to undertake.
I don't think what you are saying about banking is correct. Banks do not make money by investing. Rather, they make money by lending. This is why banks do well during low interest rate periods and poorly during high interest rate periods. Banks borrow at a low rate (from the government) and lend it at a higher rate (to individuals and corporations). That's a bit oversimplified but I hope you agree with me.
If what is said above iss indeed the case, then I don't see your point about banks not giving out dividends. The reason they give back the money (via dividends) is because they clearly place a higher cost on that money than on the money they borrow from the goverment. The higher cost on generated cash flow is generally true for all companies. The money a company makes is not "free". Shareholders place a value on them. At a minimum, the money made by a corporation has a cost equal to the risk free interest rate. After all, if MY company makes money I can loan it out and get the risk free rate.
Maybe I just don't understand your point. In particular, I'm not sure why you say, "If banks can't find better investments than their own cost of capital (prety low, as it is) then who can?" What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying banks are the best money making business in the world? Banks are not infinite profit making machines...
3) If what you say is true, then why do so many public corporations have investor relations professionals, and why do the IR folk spend so much time meeting with buy-side analysts (those are the people who recommend investments to mutual funds and other institutional investors)?
What does this have to do with anything? This is simply marketing and sales. They are clearly trying to influence the funds in order for them to purchase the companies. As far as why they spend time with the analysts/funds/etc rather than the small retail investor, it's because they have more money.
4) If what you say is true, why do so many corporations maintain their sacrosanct dividend policy in the face of changes in their underlying business? (According to your theory, dividends should be changing all the time as investment opportunities come and go inside a corporation. This does not happen--probably because the market interprets a change in dividend policy rather more catastrophically than it might warrant.)
You mention signalling later on and that's why dividends don't fluctuate all over the place. Having said that, pref
Trying to link freedom and taxes is bizarre. I can see how capitalists would think so (since they consider taxes and hence social programs as evil), but the argument based on comparison is weird.
Anyway, there aren't any libertarian (left or right) countries. I don't think there ever can be. Libertarianism (as it originated on the left) is not a "system". Rather it is just a style of governance, if you will. My feeling is that you will always end up with a left/right econopolitical system that dominates libertarianism. For instance, I think you would always have a systme like anarchism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, etc being used, rather than "libertarianism". Most Americans who call themselves Libertarians are Right-Libertarians or Conservative-Libertarians. Therefore, it follows that conservatism will triumph over libertarianism. It is not a coincidence that the many Libertarians don't even support 50% of libertarian principles (like non-agression, legalization of drugs/prostitution/etc, etc). This is why 90% of what Libertarians seek will come from the left-wing that they hate. For instance, equality for homosexuals, and legalization of drugs will be due to the left-wing. In the end, Libertarians amount to nothing!!!
If it was just about energy, it wouldn't be a big deal and the Bush administration wouldn't try to keep in hidden. Instead, it is all about policies to impact the environment. The clueless masses should never find out how our environmental policies are "brainstormed" in some oil company headquarter right?
Because the plutocrats that rule earth don't care about that. Most of these "wars" and clamping down on liberties is simply to enhance their power. For instance, it is not uncommon for a poor country to significantly ramp up their police due to some exaggerated threat than spend that money on people starving daily. Well, it's the same thing in rich countries except the poverty level isn't as bad...
USA will switch to totalitarianism when another terrorist attack occurs. I am pretty sure that the plutocrats (the only ones that truly have power) will support a secrete police force--as long as they are not targetted.
It's too bad Kerry is the Democrat nominee because he wouldn't make much of a difference. Kerry isn't a liberal at all (check his voting history) and people voting from him and expecting a change are going to be shocked when he becomes President. For instance, what has Kerry said about the Abu Garib situation, the Iraqi war, the questionable economy, and Bush in general? Absolutely nothing!
I don't doubt for a minute that voting for the Patriot Act was largley due to political pressure. That seems to be the case for most Democrats. Voting against the "Patriot Act" would have been political suicide at the time.
What matters is what is right. If someone isn't wiling to stand up then they are no different from the others who vote wholeheartedly in favour. There is NO EXECUSE for Kerry to vote for the Patriot Act. The fact that he voted for it (and hasn't indicated it was a mistake) just goes to show that Kerry will be just as bad as Bush...
Voting for the lesser of the two evils will end up with you allying with the devil... Isn't that how USA has been run for the last 50 years or so? I mean, Usama bin Laden was a lesser evil than USSR and look where that got you...
First of all, most military people are conservatives. Hence they are more likely to be Republican than Democract (just like how most artists and scientists are Democrats, or how most in the investment community are Republicans or Libertarians). Granted, in a two party state like USA, the difference between Democrat and Republican is mostly irrelevant (people just vote for a different party for the sake of removing someone from power, rather than because they believe in the party).
Second, most of the senior military administration (the civilian side) ARE Republican. They are appointed/selected/promoted by the goverment. For instance, Donald Rumsfeld is a Republican. Others like Douglas Feith (Undersecretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (#2 in Defense), etc are Republican or appointed by the Republican government. We don't know if these neoconservatives are Republican but they are closer to the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party.
So, if all this is indeed due to a systematic strategy implemented from higher-ups, you can be sure that it has Republican fingerprints all over it. In fact, Rumsfeld has pretty much admitted as much (although not in strong terms). Rumsfeld has claimed that he knew of all these things a long time ago (long before Bush or anyone else saw it) and doesn't think it is torture (contrary to ICRC opinion).
In general, most military personnel are conservatives. Since USA only has one conservative party (not counting minor ones), it would be fair say that most of these guys are Republican. If you don't buy it, check out poll results. During the last election, the so-called "military vote" unanimously went to Bush. This has been the pattern for a while--although as I mentioned earlier, in two party (or one party) states, it can be misleading because people vote for an opposing party just to remove one from power (in general, that doesn't happen though).
Having said all this, I'm not talking about the case when there are major events unfolding (like a real war (current bogus "war" on terrorism doesn't count), switch to another econopolitical system (eg. switch to totalitarian system like fascism), conscription (in theory, conscripted militaries resemble the population makeup), etc). So there are a lot of exceptions. However, right now, I would say most of hte US military is conservative/Republican. The "military vote" will still go to Bush in this year's election (watch the results)...
ok, I was too strong. I should have said, 'rarely' instead of 'never'. I agree with your thought. However, my point still stands (with the weaker wording). If dividend taxes were as bad as the original poster was making them out to be, very few companies would pay dividends. Yet many companies pay dividends.
I completely disagree. From my understanding of finance, companies pay out dividends if they can't reinvest in higher yield projects. That's the theory and I have never read anything to the contrary anywhere. I have never heard anyone say that companies target themselves to certain individuals.
From what I understand, companies pay dividends when they can't reinvest. The reason large companies pay dividends is because they have money coming in, and have nothing else to do with their money. In contrast, small companies or certain sectors (like high-tech) do not pay dividends because they reinvest their money or don't have money coming in.
I really don't buy your argument that companies try to target their customers. If you look at data, you'll find fairly consistent patterns. For instance, utilities and banks pay high dividends. Hi-tech and junior mining rarely ever pay dividends. Small and medium sized companies rarely ever pay dividends either. And so forth. If what you were saying were true, you would get anamolies on a regular basis, yet they rarely occur. For instance, you would find a small company paying large dividends or a utility not paying dividends (both of which don't occur).
I don't buy your tax argument either (although I think we have different interests on this matter). A country like Sweden actually has higher TOTAL corporate taxes than USA. USA is one of the least taxed countries for corporations. Most left-leaning countries have higher taxes. If Sweden doesn't seem to have a higher rate, you are probably ignoring something (perhaps hidden employer taxes aren't being accounted for, or something).
According to theory, the company will only hold cash if it can reinvest it in higher return projects. Yes, some of these projects may be a bust but that's because they are more risky (hence potential for higher return). In addition, it isn't as bad as you are saying. At a minimum, the company will earn interest on its cash. A company like Micrsoft, which has huge cash, is probably earning more in interest than small tech company's total earnings.
Having said all this, companies CAN be as bad as you are implying. In such as case, you shouldn't be investing in them in the first place. In any case, that has nothing to do with the original arugment. After all, such companies will still keep the cash even if dividend taxes were lowered (I mean, if they are not acting in the interest of shareholders then what's to say they will when taxes are lowered?)
Suggestion that a particular tax structure leads to problems is not the same as trying to eliminate all taxes. Please resist the urge to paint your opponent into a simplistic box so that you can ignore his statements. If his arguments are bogus, simply point out their flaws, don't try to attack him personally for making them in the first place.
Ok.. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be that rude. I have a habit of being harsh with capitalists but that was uncalled for in this argument. Accept my apologies (the original poster that is)...
Taxes that are taken off one area are usually moved to another one (or matched with a cut in spending). Yes, this isn't always the case, as the last four years make apparent.
I think I refuted the original poster's arguments (such as claiming that old people are disproportionately impacted, etc). The tax cahnges he is calling for will have largely little impact.
Admittedly, dividend taxes, along with other factors, discourage companies from adopting a model of "become medium sized, continue to do good business and pay our profits out as dividends."
This is where you--and him--are wrong...just my opinion of course. Under capitalism, a corporation will ALWAYS attempt to grow to a large one. There are a ton of reasons for this but here are some key ones:
(i) Capitalism requires constant growth. The whole system is based on that. If a corporation (or for that matter a country, city, or whatever) doesn't grow, it will not survive. Why do capitalists use growth rates to determine recessions/boom/etc instead of unemployment rates or poverty levels or things like that? Well, it's because growth is all that matters. If YOUR company doesn't grow, I can guarantee you that no one will invest in it. Given two similar companies (one that pays dividend and doesn't grow vs another that grows but pays dividends), I'll guarantee you that the growing one will keep appreciating and becoming more powerful/wealthy.
(ii) There are a whole hoarde of reasons why large corporations are preferable to small corporations FOR THE OWNER (for society, it's another story). Typical benefits include economies of scale (Sony), market clout (Walmart), monopolization/oligopolization of the industry (Microsoft, Oracle, IBM), greater influence on government/public, and so on. All these factors are FAR MORE important than the tax on dividends. For instance, economies of scale alone is good enough to become larger.
So to sum up, I don't think the original poster is really calling for altering the tax structure (for instance, I don't think he is saying 'let's increase capital gains tax and lower dividend tax'). If he is representive of the people he quotes (Milton Friedman), I'm sure he is just calling for dismantling of the "socialist" government by elimininating most taxes (especially dividend taxes which benefit the wealthy more than anyone else).
If you are going to criticize someone seriously, you might want to use your name.
Anyway, the goverment DOES have an impact. It's not as large as some think but it does have an impact. Starting a war, for example, will definitely impact the economy. Similarly, running a massive deficit will impact the economy. The decline in the US$ can be directly attributed to Bush's deficit. And so on.
In addition, the Federal Reserve, which although independent, is influenced by the government policies. This will definitely have an impact. Adjusting interest rates definitely impacts the economy--every capitalist says so!
Slashdot Mirror
(NOT QUOTED IN ORDER)
When Americans face a vote, we don't generally vote for the party, but the canidate. We tend to make finer distinctions among social, fiscal, and foreign policy stands, as well as other issues. That is one of the reasons our parties both have and can accept a range of views. That helps to make the parties stronger since they represent a wider segment of American society.
You are right in saying that under US-style systems, one votes for the candidate (whereas, you vote for the party under British-style systems). However, in the end, it's all about parties--even in USA. As far as citizens voting based on policy, that is basically implied. The econopolitical stance one takes will dictate policy--not the other way around. For example, without reading any campaign literature, I am pretty confident that a Republican is more likely to cut taxes than a Democrat; A Republican is more likely to cut back social programs, whereas Democrats likely won't; and so forth.
For example, your statement that, "The Democratic Party has had VERY FEW conservatives over the years" shows that you really don't have a clue about American political history. The Democratic party is not a traditional labour or liberal party. The Democratic party has not only had many conservatives over the years, but they have also been very influential. In fact, there was a significant portion of the Democratic party which was actually quite reactionary well into the '60s and early '70s.
Since the 1920's or thereabouts, the Democratic Party has been a left-leaning liberal party. Before that (say the 1800's), it was a conservative party. If I had to pick a point when the Democratic Party started becoming liberal, I would say after FDR. The key thing that happened in the early 1900's was that the Democratic Party went left whiel the Republican Party went right. The Democratic Party started embracing socialist ideals (like worker rights, government spending, unemployment insurance, women's rights, etc) while the Republican Party went hard to the right by embracing capitalist ideals (don't spend during depression, etc).
The Democratic party has been moving to the left for some time now. It is alienating what few conservatives it has remaining. That is why you see Senator Zell Miler endorsing President Bush, and forming an organization to rally Democrats for him. That is also why so many Democrats voted for President Reagan.
There have been SOME conservatives who have influenced Democratic Party policy but for the most part, liberals have held sway. For instance, conservatives within the Democratic Party were against granting equality to blacks and "coloured people" but their influence was weak. The opposite is true for the Republican Party (there are liberals within it but they are very weak). Whether you have conservatives within the Democratic Party or now will have little impact on policy.
I disagree with your assertion that Democrats voted for Reagan. Why is Reagan one of the most disliked Republicans if Democrats voted for him? Most people who voted for Reagan were conservatives or centrists. There were very few true Democrats.
As an institution the military must be apolitical. Individually soldiers are both free and officially encouraged to vote. Soldiers can take part in political activities as long as they don't do it in uniform. Their votes reveal their opinions. Younger soldiers are less likely to vote as are most young Americans.
Because soldiers work within a very strong authoratarian institution, there is great pressure for them not to express their opinions openly (even when not in uniform). This also happens in civilian institutions. For instance, when you work for some corporations, you can barely say anything in public. So yes, a person has "freedom" of speech but they will be penalized. The military is worse than many other aspects of life.
I'll believe it when I see adequate evidence, no
Since google is traded on the open market, he/she just has to go and buy a few. I'm assuming that the person is going to give the stock well after the actual IPO.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What's the tulip trouble?
In addition, things like Patriot Act and Guantanomo Bay are more likely to be supported by conservatives than liberals. Although, this is really a issue of libertarianism vs authoratarianism and not necessarily liberal vs conservative per se.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Neocons (aka neoconservatives) are conservatives. I know that you paleos and Libertarians don't want to admit it but that's the reality. These guys share more with the right wing than the left wing... Besides, the fact that Bush (Christian Right) and Cheney (imperialist oil addict) controlling the show pretty much means it is all a conservative affair. After all, do you think Bush would support anything from the left wing?
Excuse me? Conservative as in advocating regime change? Conservative as in increasing government spending? Conservative as in taking choice away from the states (drinking age at 21, gay marriage in the constitution, etc)?
Conservative as in:
1. God/religion above all (attempting to illegalize homosexuality via the Constitution)
2. unilateralism (UN? What's that? )
3. govt spending on defense (conservatives tend to spend on "defense")
4. massive tax cuts for the wealthy (cutting dividend taxes will sure help everyone)
5. ignorance of widely accepted world standards and principles (can't attack a country that never attacked you? yeah right)
6. cutting back environmental regulations (head of the EPA resigning should say something)
7. attempting to privatize everything (eg. public parks)
8. canning "liberal" scientists (eg. the head of some international environmental body at the UN)
9. capitalism at all costs (eg. selling off Iraq piecemeal to the higgest bidder (who obviously isn't an Iraqi, since Iraqis aren't rich enough))
10. perpetual war for perpetual peace (you would never hear that coming out of the left wing)
11. Ariel Sharon is a man of peace (conservatives have a hard time grasping concepts like equality--after all, they were the ones in favour of slavery and segregation)
Having said all that, running massive deficits is not exactly conservative. But then again, given the choice, only a conservative to initiate a massive tax cut at the expense of a deficit...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think that this quote, as much as anything, reveals your post as either a troll, or reckless. The military vote certainly was not unanimous for Bush.
...until the Democratic party is bitch-slapped back to sensibility.
That's a mistake. I didn't mean to say unanimous (nothing ever is). I meant to say majority...
The US doesn't have a Conservative party, and historically both parties have had both liberal and conservative wings.
The Republican Party has been the conservative party since the 1920's (or thereabouts). Both parties DO have SOME members from both wings. However, the VAST Democratic Party is liberal, while the vast majority of Republicans are conservative.
The Democratic party does seem to be trying to drive as many conservatives as possible out, though they may stay and simply vote Republican like the Reagan-Democrats until the Democratic party is bitch-slapped back to sensibility.
The Democratic Party has had VERY FEW conservatives over the years. Since USA is largely a two-party (or one party in some people's eyes) state, it gets kind of confusing when someone votes for the Democrats simply to kick the other party out even though they don't agree with them at all. In any case, the VAST majority of Democratic Party politicans are liberal, while the vast majority of Republican Party has conservative politicians.
The Democratic Party was even more liberal in the past. I'm not sure what you are talking about (with them going back to their senses). What's happening is good. Why would you want conservatives, who don't agree at all with liberalism or any other left wing ideologies, on your party? Similarly, why would the Republican Party want leftists in their party?
Your analysis also fails at the very center of the scandal - the lower enlisted ranks. Junior enlisted personnel, which oddly enough make up a majority of the military, have less pronounced political preferences.
I think that is misleading. The reason military personnel seem to be apolitical, when in fact they are not, is because the military cannot officially support any party. Therefore, it is very hard to get any opinion. Furthermore, the military is very authoratarian with punishments easily handed out to the lower levels. Talking with the media, reporting on events (non-classified), etc is not welcome.
As to your attempt to paint this as Donald Rumsfeld's doing, that is nonsense. The reason he knew about it was because the reports of the abuse came to him. The investigations started within days of the reports. A number of people had already been punished before the current series of media reports.
Cover-ups as usual. Of course, you won't believe any of it but the fact of the matter is... Rumsfeld said what happened was not torture when in fact ICRC says it is... ICRC and Amnesty International have pointed out that this is SYSTEMATIC and not isolated. The same thing is happening in Guantanomo Bay and Afghanistan (who knows what's going on in the military ships that hold some prisoners (namely US citizens)?). Many victims from outside Iraq have come forward... Rumsfeld knew of this many months in advance and yet it kept happening as recently as early this year (actually it may still have been going on until last month)...
I'm not saying that Rumsfeld came up with the torture techniques and how to implement them (this is clearly the work of CIA). All I'm saying is that he supported it.
You simply seem to be attempting to smear the Republican party and the administration.
I could say whatever I want... Smearing means absolutely nothing when it comes to politics... You can say whatever you want about the Democrats or anyone else for that matter too... If I am lying then I'm wrong but I am not lying or deceiving...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Kerry has been flip-flopping all over the place. He has also not said anything concrete. Most of what Kerry says is rhetoric.
:(:(:( ).
I hate to say it but Kerry will probably end up being the worst Democratic president in recent memory (that's if he wins of course--I think Bush will win again
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You have to start small and move from there. You have to start supporting and voting for the smaller parties like Greens, Libertarians, etc. Unfortunately, the US political system is designed for a one party or two party state. So I don't see much changing without a revolution. Yes, it's that bad :(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Because that's [growth--ed] what does determine a recession or a boom.
We are not going to agree on this since I'm not a capitalist. All I can say is that you are simply using it because that's what you have been taught. You won't agree with me but my opinion is that within a few hundread years, a better measure will replace growth. Social measures are far more important although capitalists don't care about it. To capitalists, a city with 10% crime rate is the same as another with 1% crime rate (assuming other factors are similar). I personally think that will not be the case in the future. A better example which I thing is a major flaw with capitalists is pollution. Capitalists don't consider pollution whereas I think it should be part of any measure.
Furthermore, I think changes will start impacting how growth rates are used. For instance, things like "jobless recovery" essentially indicates a flaw. I also think that the development of poor countries (as well as other things like newer technologies) will cause deflation in rich countries. Looking at growth rates in a deflationary envrionment will be strange.
All you do is calculate the minimum amount of work needed to feed, house, and clothe everyone, hire people to do that, and hire everyone else to move rocks back and forth all day. Then distribute the resources to everyone. Voila! 100% employment, 0% poverty, and a horrible society to live in!
That is GREAT!!! I mean it! I, as well as a majority of the world's population I'm sure, will love it. There is a flaw in your proposed system though. Who is going to pay everyone? You can't create jobs out of thin air. Employment is inexoricably linked to the economy.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I am not sure if we are disagreeing on anything.
Well, I was responding to your statement that the appreciated value of the company was equivilent to paying out a dividend. What if the statement above is not true, that is, the company does not have a higher return project in which to invest the cash? Then there is no equivilence.
If there is no higher return project to invest in, the company will pay it out as dividend. There are very few companies that hold large quantities of cash without a reason.
The entire point of dividends is that the company feels that there is more shareholder value in paying out the cash than investing it elsewhere. Bigger is not always better: there are may small-cap companies that are excellant investments, which nevertheless would have no ability to manage a huge amount of cash.
Not really sure what your point is... I agree with what you are saying. There ARE some small companies that don't reinvest. However, the vast majority of small companies do not pay dividends.
There are a lot of people that think that Microsoft is letting their huge cash reserves go to waste.
People can think whatever they want but what matters is that MS is holding onto the cash for future liabilities (from lawsuits). Do note that the consensus on whether MS should be NOT be holding cash is not unanimous. In any case, if someone thought MS was not giving out the cash properly, they shouldn't be investing in that company in the first place. This is especially true for small investors who have very little voting power. Small investors should always try to vote with their money rather than the vote*.
(* The difference, in case it is not clear, is that the money you invest is more noticeable than the 0.000001% of the vote you have through the common stock.)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Warren Buffett refuses to invest in any company that pays a dividend.
What Warren Buffet does is kind of irrelevant. Pointing out one person, albeit one of hte top investors of all time, doesn't mean anything. For example, I can probably find one respected investor that says to hold gold, while I can find another that says equity is the way to go, while yet another says to go for bonds. Picking one person doesn't mean anything. In any case, read my next point.
He is the most famous of a large number of serious investors who recognize the poorer return caused solely by the taxation of dividends.
I am NOT saying that dividends are taxed at the same rate. They are not. You pay more taxes on dividend income. Anyone who fills out tax returns (and has looked at the investment section) would know that. I know it. You know it. Almost everyone knows it. My point, however, is that this has little impact except for the wealthy and large investors. Of course, you may have the wealthy investor in mind (which you seem to) and he/she clearly would prefer lower dividend tax (or for that matter lower of any tax).
This essentially translates into two negatives, the investor in the large company gets a poorer return on his investment because it is harder for him to target his investments on the most efficient performers in a particular market.
If a large company is not investing its cash flow wisely, what are YOU investing in it? I don't see this as a problem with the company; rather it's your problem. For instance, why not invest in another company that is perhaps oriented towards one industry, or is a medium sized corporation?
The larger companies tend to be less efficient at providing customers with what they, the customers, want.
I don't want to give the impression that I'm defending corporations (since I don't like them from a leftist perspective) however I don't agree with your point. The large corporations are actually more efficient than the smaller ones. That's why they win. Why do consumers purchase stuff from the larger ones? I mean, the reason the large ones dominate is simply because the consumers take their business there. If what you were saying (i.e. customers not satisfied) were correct, then very few would go to a large corporation.
Rather, the saner approach is to focus on wealth creation, growing the pie so to speak. As long as people are permitted to engage in entrepeunurial economic activity without onerous burdens of excessive regulation, things will work out well.
You are clearly a capitalist somewhere on the right wing, and I'm a leftist. I think our argument will simply devolve into the classical left vs right argument from now on. If you feel like reading, go ahead but I don't expect you to change your opinion on anything below here.
It is my theory that free markets will lead to oligopolies and monopolies. What you call "onerous burdens of excessive regulation" is actually a good thing IMO. Things like anti-trust laws, FDA (federal drug administartion), etc all help society.
A case I like to cite is the luxury tax that was passed in the early 1990's during the presidency of Bus hthe elder. The idea was that rich people buying yachts and othe rtoys would be better able to pay taxes, and no poor person would be harmed. The yacht manufacturing industy in the U.S> effectively ceased to exist within a few months. The rich were not too inconvenienced, but alot of carpenters and shipwrights foudn themselves looking for other work...
I probably care about workers more than you but what you cite is perfectly ok with me. You know why? Well, it's because it is a luxury good. If the wealthy stop supporting something like that, I don't care. As the world becomes more egalitarian, luxury goods and all the jobs that depends on it will dissapear (at least that's my theory). There is a reason why we don't have anyone building palaces
Before I start, it seems that you are agreeing with some of what I say. Either that, or I don't understand your points well. To clarify, I am making two points (roughly the first point was made in the first post and the 2nd point in the latter post):
i. dividend taxes have little impact on the dividends that are actually paid out
ii. corporations that do not pay out dividends (but have positive cash flow) are reinvesting in higher yield projects
1) If what you say is true, why has Microsoft been sitting on a huge pile of cash for years, earning far less than their equity cost of capital? Any valuation of Microsoft must take into account that they're part operating company, part bag of cash. The bag of cash piece has been dragging down their valuation metrics for years.
Microsoft is sitting on cash due to potential future liabilities (mainly lawsuits). They will pay it out when the liabilities are settled. That's what they have been saying.
2) If what you say is true, why would banks pay dividends? The business of banks is investing: in debt or in equity. If banks can't find better investments than their own cost of capital (prety low, as it is) then who can?
Not sure what your point is here since you seem to be agreeing with me (I could be misunderstanding you though). According to what I am saying, banks CAN pay out dividends. They are doing that because they clearly aren't finding higher yield projects to undertake.
I don't think what you are saying about banking is correct. Banks do not make money by investing. Rather, they make money by lending. This is why banks do well during low interest rate periods and poorly during high interest rate periods. Banks borrow at a low rate (from the government) and lend it at a higher rate (to individuals and corporations). That's a bit oversimplified but I hope you agree with me.
If what is said above iss indeed the case, then I don't see your point about banks not giving out dividends. The reason they give back the money (via dividends) is because they clearly place a higher cost on that money than on the money they borrow from the goverment. The higher cost on generated cash flow is generally true for all companies. The money a company makes is not "free". Shareholders place a value on them. At a minimum, the money made by a corporation has a cost equal to the risk free interest rate. After all, if MY company makes money I can loan it out and get the risk free rate.
Maybe I just don't understand your point. In particular, I'm not sure why you say, "If banks can't find better investments than their own cost of capital (prety low, as it is) then who can?" What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying banks are the best money making business in the world? Banks are not infinite profit making machines...
3) If what you say is true, then why do so many public corporations have investor relations professionals, and why do the IR folk spend so much time meeting with buy-side analysts (those are the people who recommend investments to mutual funds and other institutional investors)?
What does this have to do with anything? This is simply marketing and sales. They are clearly trying to influence the funds in order for them to purchase the companies. As far as why they spend time with the analysts/funds/etc rather than the small retail investor, it's because they have more money.
4) If what you say is true, why do so many corporations maintain their sacrosanct dividend policy in the face of changes in their underlying business? (According to your theory, dividends should be changing all the time as investment opportunities come and go inside a corporation. This does not happen--probably because the market interprets a change in dividend policy rather more catastrophically than it might warrant.)
You mention signalling later on and that's why dividends don't fluctuate all over the place. Having said that, pref
Trying to link freedom and taxes is bizarre. I can see how capitalists would think so (since they consider taxes and hence social programs as evil), but the argument based on comparison is weird.
Anyway, there aren't any libertarian (left or right) countries. I don't think there ever can be. Libertarianism (as it originated on the left) is not a "system". Rather it is just a style of governance, if you will. My feeling is that you will always end up with a left/right econopolitical system that dominates libertarianism. For instance, I think you would always have a systme like anarchism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, etc being used, rather than "libertarianism". Most Americans who call themselves Libertarians are Right-Libertarians or Conservative-Libertarians. Therefore, it follows that conservatism will triumph over libertarianism. It is not a coincidence that the many Libertarians don't even support 50% of libertarian principles (like non-agression, legalization of drugs/prostitution/etc, etc). This is why 90% of what Libertarians seek will come from the left-wing that they hate. For instance, equality for homosexuals, and legalization of drugs will be due to the left-wing. In the end, Libertarians amount to nothing!!!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If it was just about energy, it wouldn't be a big deal and the Bush administration wouldn't try to keep in hidden. Instead, it is all about policies to impact the environment. The clueless masses should never find out how our environmental policies are "brainstormed" in some oil company headquarter right?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Because the plutocrats that rule earth don't care about that. Most of these "wars" and clamping down on liberties is simply to enhance their power. For instance, it is not uncommon for a poor country to significantly ramp up their police due to some exaggerated threat than spend that money on people starving daily. Well, it's the same thing in rich countries except the poverty level isn't as bad...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Nader isn't running for the Green Party this year.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
USA will switch to totalitarianism when another terrorist attack occurs. I am pretty sure that the plutocrats (the only ones that truly have power) will support a secrete police force--as long as they are not targetted.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It's too bad Kerry is the Democrat nominee because he wouldn't make much of a difference. Kerry isn't a liberal at all (check his voting history) and people voting from him and expecting a change are going to be shocked when he becomes President. For instance, what has Kerry said about the Abu Garib situation, the Iraqi war, the questionable economy, and Bush in general? Absolutely nothing!
I don't doubt for a minute that voting for the Patriot Act was largley due to political pressure. That seems to be the case for most Democrats. Voting against the "Patriot Act" would have been political suicide at the time.
What matters is what is right. If someone isn't wiling to stand up then they are no different from the others who vote wholeheartedly in favour. There is NO EXECUSE for Kerry to vote for the Patriot Act. The fact that he voted for it (and hasn't indicated it was a mistake) just goes to show that Kerry will be just as bad as Bush...
Voting for the lesser of the two evils will end up with you allying with the devil... Isn't that how USA has been run for the last 50 years or so? I mean, Usama bin Laden was a lesser evil than USSR and look where that got you...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
First of all, most military people are conservatives. Hence they are more likely to be Republican than Democract (just like how most artists and scientists are Democrats, or how most in the investment community are Republicans or Libertarians). Granted, in a two party state like USA, the difference between Democrat and Republican is mostly irrelevant (people just vote for a different party for the sake of removing someone from power, rather than because they believe in the party).
Second, most of the senior military administration (the civilian side) ARE Republican. They are appointed/selected/promoted by the goverment. For instance, Donald Rumsfeld is a Republican. Others like Douglas Feith (Undersecretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (#2 in Defense), etc are Republican or appointed by the Republican government. We don't know if these neoconservatives are Republican but they are closer to the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party.
So, if all this is indeed due to a systematic strategy implemented from higher-ups, you can be sure that it has Republican fingerprints all over it. In fact, Rumsfeld has pretty much admitted as much (although not in strong terms). Rumsfeld has claimed that he knew of all these things a long time ago (long before Bush or anyone else saw it) and doesn't think it is torture (contrary to ICRC opinion).
In general, most military personnel are conservatives. Since USA only has one conservative party (not counting minor ones), it would be fair say that most of these guys are Republican. If you don't buy it, check out poll results. During the last election, the so-called "military vote" unanimously went to Bush. This has been the pattern for a while--although as I mentioned earlier, in two party (or one party) states, it can be misleading because people vote for an opposing party just to remove one from power (in general, that doesn't happen though).
Having said all this, I'm not talking about the case when there are major events unfolding (like a real war (current bogus "war" on terrorism doesn't count), switch to another econopolitical system (eg. switch to totalitarian system like fascism), conscription (in theory, conscripted militaries resemble the population makeup), etc). So there are a lot of exceptions. However, right now, I would say most of hte US military is conservative/Republican. The "military vote" will still go to Bush in this year's election (watch the results)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
ok, I was too strong. I should have said, 'rarely' instead of 'never'. I agree with your thought. However, my point still stands (with the weaker wording). If dividend taxes were as bad as the original poster was making them out to be, very few companies would pay dividends. Yet many companies pay dividends.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I completely disagree. From my understanding of finance, companies pay out dividends if they can't reinvest in higher yield projects. That's the theory and I have never read anything to the contrary anywhere. I have never heard anyone say that companies target themselves to certain individuals.
From what I understand, companies pay dividends when they can't reinvest. The reason large companies pay dividends is because they have money coming in, and have nothing else to do with their money. In contrast, small companies or certain sectors (like high-tech) do not pay dividends because they reinvest their money or don't have money coming in.
I really don't buy your argument that companies try to target their customers. If you look at data, you'll find fairly consistent patterns. For instance, utilities and banks pay high dividends. Hi-tech and junior mining rarely ever pay dividends. Small and medium sized companies rarely ever pay dividends either. And so forth. If what you were saying were true, you would get anamolies on a regular basis, yet they rarely occur. For instance, you would find a small company paying large dividends or a utility not paying dividends (both of which don't occur).
I don't buy your tax argument either (although I think we have different interests on this matter). A country like Sweden actually has higher TOTAL corporate taxes than USA. USA is one of the least taxed countries for corporations. Most left-leaning countries have higher taxes. If Sweden doesn't seem to have a higher rate, you are probably ignoring something (perhaps hidden employer taxes aren't being accounted for, or something).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
According to theory, the company will only hold cash if it can reinvest it in higher return projects. Yes, some of these projects may be a bust but that's because they are more risky (hence potential for higher return). In addition, it isn't as bad as you are saying. At a minimum, the company will earn interest on its cash. A company like Micrsoft, which has huge cash, is probably earning more in interest than small tech company's total earnings.
Having said all this, companies CAN be as bad as you are implying. In such as case, you shouldn't be investing in them in the first place. In any case, that has nothing to do with the original arugment. After all, such companies will still keep the cash even if dividend taxes were lowered (I mean, if they are not acting in the interest of shareholders then what's to say they will when taxes are lowered?)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Suggestion that a particular tax structure leads to problems is not the same as trying to eliminate all taxes. Please resist the urge to paint your opponent into a simplistic box so that you can ignore his statements. If his arguments are bogus, simply point out their flaws, don't try to attack him personally for making them in the first place.
Ok.. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be that rude. I have a habit of being harsh with capitalists but that was uncalled for in this argument. Accept my apologies (the original poster that is)...
Taxes that are taken off one area are usually moved to another one (or matched with a cut in spending). Yes, this isn't always the case, as the last four years make apparent.
I think I refuted the original poster's arguments (such as claiming that old people are disproportionately impacted, etc). The tax cahnges he is calling for will have largely little impact.
Admittedly, dividend taxes, along with other factors, discourage companies from adopting a model of "become medium sized, continue to do good business and pay our profits out as dividends."
This is where you--and him--are wrong...just my opinion of course. Under capitalism, a corporation will ALWAYS attempt to grow to a large one. There are a ton of reasons for this but here are some key ones:
(i) Capitalism requires constant growth. The whole system is based on that. If a corporation (or for that matter a country, city, or whatever) doesn't grow, it will not survive. Why do capitalists use growth rates to determine recessions/boom/etc instead of unemployment rates or poverty levels or things like that? Well, it's because growth is all that matters. If YOUR company doesn't grow, I can guarantee you that no one will invest in it. Given two similar companies (one that pays dividend and doesn't grow vs another that grows but pays dividends), I'll guarantee you that the growing one will keep appreciating and becoming more powerful/wealthy.
(ii) There are a whole hoarde of reasons why large corporations are preferable to small corporations FOR THE OWNER (for society, it's another story). Typical benefits include economies of scale (Sony), market clout (Walmart), monopolization/oligopolization of the industry (Microsoft, Oracle, IBM), greater influence on government/public, and so on. All these factors are FAR MORE important than the tax on dividends. For instance, economies of scale alone is good enough to become larger.
So to sum up, I don't think the original poster is really calling for altering the tax structure (for instance, I don't think he is saying 'let's increase capital gains tax and lower dividend tax'). If he is representive of the people he quotes (Milton Friedman), I'm sure he is just calling for dismantling of the "socialist" government by elimininating most taxes (especially dividend taxes which benefit the wealthy more than anyone else).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If you are going to criticize someone seriously, you might want to use your name.
Anyway, the goverment DOES have an impact. It's not as large as some think but it does have an impact. Starting a war, for example, will definitely impact the economy. Similarly, running a massive deficit will impact the economy. The decline in the US$ can be directly attributed to Bush's deficit. And so on.
In addition, the Federal Reserve, which although independent, is influenced by the government policies. This will definitely have an impact. Adjusting interest rates definitely impacts the economy--every capitalist says so!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Don't you only get overtime if you get wages as opposed to salaries?
Sivaram Velauthapillai