GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently August 25 19, 7:22 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: November 15 18, 3:43 pm 
Offline
just can't quit you.
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 4:33 pm
Posts: 24160
Location: Lost
Cutting through the snark and the name calling.

It is outrageous the games these big corporations play to make more profit.

The Government must do a better job making corporations pay their fair share.

With the silly numbers being thrown around, corruption is a certainty, how do we get businesses to pay their fair share, and guard against corruption when we are talking trillions of dollars?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 15 18, 3:59 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 24237
MAGA wrote:
A: The system is broken.
B: Then you should do XYZ to do your part in fixing the issue.
A: THAT'S NOT THE POINT! I'M ONLY ONE PERSON AND I'M NOT RICH! I CANT FIX IT MYSELF.

A: YOU NEED TO VOTE.
B: I'm only one person.
A: YOU NEED TO VOTE AND DO YOUR PART EVERY VOTE COUNTS!


The whole argument here is that changing government is easier than changing corporations and only one of those represents the interests of the people. So I think you’ve got it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 15 18, 4:09 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19613
Location: Low A Minors
I have argued that if my city or state is going to give money to a company to build a new facility, then the city or state should own a part of that facility, or they should get stock in that company valued at that amount. This is normally how companies raise capital! By selling stock! We are just giving them capital for nothing. In this case with Amazon, if New York gives them the $3 billion (or whatever it is) they would get that amount in Amazon stock. They could put it into the state pension fund or, do whatever they want with it. They could start some new fund where the profits would go to offset the increased housing costs or something.

We always look at the government side, and say "Well, this new development will bring in X in new tax dollars, so we can just give those to the company." We never look at the company's side and say "This new development will bring in X in new profit for this company, so that's how much they have to negotiate with."

I always go back to a recent one where Oscar Mayer threatened to leave my town, and take ~700 jobs away if we didn't give them subsidies. We gave them nearly $21 million in subsidies to build a new, more efficient factory that will only employ like 475 people.* So we paid them $21 million to cut 225 jobs. It is really hard to say we'd be better off without those 475 jobs, but we might! You could do an awful lot for those 700 people with $21 million. But weirdly, that money is never there for them, it's only there for the corporations.



*The breakdown was like $10 million from the city, plus a new road that will cost $6 million, and then $4.75 million from the state of Iowa.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 16 18, 11:20 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19613
Location: Low A Minors
https://theoutline.com/post/6587/nation ... -our-bitch

I actually do not like the idea of "nationalizing Amazon" as this article pushes (if we are doing something radical like that, I'd prefer the workers owned it). But I do agree with some of the things it says, like this:

Quote:
And Amazon gets to do basically whatever it wants because the fact is Amazon doesn’t have competition. It’s Walmart on steroids: instead of having to go to a physical store with physical employees to pick up products, we just have to turn on our computers, noted Price. When a company gets that ubiquitous, it can start to shape economic development itself — as Walmart was famous for doing, encouraging its suppliers to move production overseas to shave a few dollars off of labor costs (you know, wages). Like Walmart, Amazon’s success is due to its ability to force suppliers to cut costs; unlike Walmart, Amazon’s products show up on your doorstep, often courtesy of those public employees at the U.S. Postal Service, after you’ve ordered them on the publicly-developed internet. The argument has been that companies that put smaller competitors out of business succeed because they have “innovated,” yet Amazon began as an online book retailer that was able to undercut brick-and-mortar stores because it didn’t charge customers sales tax. And dodging taxes has remained central to its business model. How much have we subsidized the growth and dominance of Amazon through tax breaks, witting or unwitting?

Amazon is unique in another way; as Malcolm Harris noted at Medium, its success is because it behaves more like a planned economy than a profit-seeking entity in a competitive market:
Quote:
“In fact, to think of Amazon as a ‘market player’ is a mischaracterization. The world’s biggest store doesn’t use suggested retail pricing; it sets its own. Book authors (to use a personal example) receive a distinctly lower royalty for Amazon sales because the site has the power to demand lower prices from publishers, who in turn pass on the tighter margins to writers. But for consumers, it works! Not only are books significantly cheaper on Amazon, the site also features a giant stock that can be shipped to you within two days, for free with Amazon Prime citizensh…er, membership.”
The bigger it gets, the more it is able to force other companies to meet its demands, and the more efficient it becomes. And Amazon, Harris wrote, has ruthlessly invested in size above all, moving into new markets — sure, why not buy Whole Foods? — as quickly as it can. There’s an irony in all this: austerity has meant there are increasing areas for a megacorporation to offer its services, yet the continued tax giveaways to Amazon mean more austerity. They are creating the problems they purport to solve. So why don’t we solve the problem, and take it over?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 16 18, 12:25 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 24237


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 16 18, 12:33 pm 
Offline
Don't tone police me bro!
User avatar

Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Posts: 10475
Location: Lost in the Cloud
Amazon deal will disrupt plans for affordable housing on Long Island City sites

[expletive] the democrats


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 16 18, 12:43 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 24237
Newly elected State Senator in NY



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 16 18, 12:49 pm 
Offline
Perennial All-Star

Joined: April 18 06, 7:45 pm
Posts: 3636
Schlich wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
The least we can do is stop subsidizing them, subsidizing their workers' healthcare, etc. and letting the investor class keep all the profits.


And the most we could do would be to nationalize them and use their infrastructure gains to provide for the people!!!

OK just had to get that one in there somewhere

What Keenan says good. What Schlich says bad. Come on you’ve just said how government has created this problem, why give them more power?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 16 18, 12:51 pm 
Offline
Don't tone police me bro!
User avatar

Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Posts: 10475
Location: Lost in the Cloud
Diddy wrote:
Schlich wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
The least we can do is stop subsidizing them, subsidizing their workers' healthcare, etc. and letting the investor class keep all the profits.


And the most we could do would be to nationalize them and use their infrastructure gains to provide for the people!!!

OK just had to get that one in there somewhere

What Keenan says good. What Schlich says bad. Come on you’ve just said how government has created this problem, why give them more power?


Yeah OK I like pioneer's idea better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 16 18, 7:00 pm 
Offline
Perennial All-Star

Joined: April 18 06, 7:45 pm
Posts: 3636
Schlich wrote:
Diddy wrote:
Schlich wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
The least we can do is stop subsidizing them, subsidizing their workers' healthcare, etc. and letting the investor class keep all the profits.


And the most we could do would be to nationalize them and use their infrastructure gains to provide for the people!!!

OK just had to get that one in there somewhere

What Keenan says good. What Schlich says bad. Come on you’ve just said how government has created this problem, why give them more power?


Yeah OK I like pioneer's idea better.


Isn’t his idea basically stockholders? I’d prefer companies had profit sharing. I’m all in favor of doing away with these incentives for these companies and ball teams. Give that money back to the tax payers in a tax break. Goods will go up but taxes going down should offset it. I’m more then in favor of doing the same with ag subsidies. I just don’t hate these companies for asking for these breaks, it’s just the governments fault for giving them.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 33anda3rd and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group