« First « Previous Comments 64 - 80 of 80 Search these comments
If the Hilton's gave away 97%, then I have newfound admiration for them.
I'm still not convinced Paris Hilton has any grey matter in her pretty head, but I could be wrong as the only source of information I get is from the media.
Beauty brains and millions - what a combo.
Reign in reckless commodity trading, to lower the cost of energy, raw materials, and food.
Would be greater than any economic stimulus package those clowns in Washington could ever draft.
Then address any business regulations that affords large corporations limited competition, while prohibiting smaller companies from ever getting a foothold to compete, because regulation priced them out.
Just those two things right there would create economic conditions parallel to 1995 though 2000. Which showed us, how the economy booms and flourishes, when every desk clerk and office secretary is just as capable of starting a million dollar business as the current Clientele at the Sunday late-night FED window.
I know, I know, you're going to mention the "Tech Bubble".
Yet here we are as Tech heavy as ever, the difference now is, the CEO's and controlling interests are a who's who of the rich and powerful and always were. And they are cutting off their slice, long before the day traders can ever cash in on any profit gains.
How many jobs might be created if we cut corporate and personal tax rates across the board by 50% for 2 years?
How many jobs might be created if we cut corporate and personal tax rates across the board by 50% for 2 years?
Why would they create a job here , when they can create a job in China and still ship here with no restrictions??
To start I would get rid of all subsidies, this alone would balance the budget.
I would get rid of the FED and use a market based system to control money supply. Interest rates would be come from the market.
I would put the dollar on a gold standard.
I would abolish the alphabet soup fed agencies completely.
Taxes would be a flat tax
I would start a campaign to make everyone economically literate and in order to vote they would have to pass a test to that effect.
Is this politically possible nope, but I think the last one could be accomplished. You may laugh at this but consider that Thomas Paine sold 500,000 copies of "common sense" in 1776.
From there the tyranny of a democracy could be challenged.
How many jobs might be created if we cut corporate and personal tax rates across the board by 50% for 2 years?
Why would they create a job here , when they can create a job in China and still ship here with no restrictions??
China has to revalue the Yuan so manufacturing jobs are going to start leaving China.
To start I would get rid of all subsidies, this alone would balance the budget
Source?
I would get rid of the FED and use a market based system to control money supply. Interest rates would be come from the market.
I would put the dollar on a gold standard.
I would abolish the alphabet soup fed agencies completely.
Taxes would be a flat tax
That would make things infinitely worse.
I would start a campaign to make everyone economically literate and in order to vote they would have to pass a test to that effect.
lol--you don't like being able to vote?
Here is what is obvious to me, when you put extra money in the pockets of people they are inclined to spend it. Spending and consuming have become such a large part of our culture....
How many jobs might be created if we cut corporate and personal tax rates across the board by 50% for 2 years?
Why would they create a job here , when they can create a job in China and still ship here with no restrictions??
Seems to work for States who are poaching California jobs...
How many jobs might be created if we cut corporate and personal tax rates across the board by 50% for 2 years?
Why would they create a job here , when they can create a job in China and still ship here with no restrictions??
Seems to work for States who are poaching California jobs...
Many CEO's have stated it is not the cheap labor rate that is the main incentive to outsource, rather the regulations and restrictions (e.g. Steve Jobs).
Many CEO's have stated it is not the cheap labor rate that is the main incentive to outsource, rather the regulations and restrictions (e.g. Steve Jobs).
Of course that's what they say. Who's going to go on camera saying that they build factories in China because of the slave labor???
Many CEO's have stated it is not the cheap labor rate that is the main incentive to outsource, rather the regulations and restrictions (e.g. Steve Jobs).
Of course that's what they say. Who's going to go on camera saying that they build factories in China because of the slave labor???
Are you implying the regulations and restrictions are of minimal impact? Why did most of the high tech manufacturing that stayed within the US move to areas such as TX, OR, AZ, NM out from California?
Are you implying the regulations and restrictions are of minimal impact?
Yes, that's what I'm implying. Environmental regulations do have a cost to companies, but it's an order of magnitude less than labor cost. And while CA. usually leads the country in environmental matters, it's only a matter of time before other states catch up.
Why did most of the high tech manufacturing that stayed within the US move to areas such as TX, OR, AZ, NM out from California?
First, I'm not sure that's the case. But, if it were, my guess is that there is a larger pool of people willing to work for cheaper wages.
Well let me learn you something, one of the key skills in life is the ability to determine differences. This a basic tenet of logic. Do you see that Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian are different from the aforementioned?
Of course. Again--that was my point. You seem to believe that all rich folks are like Gates and Bezos. The reality is that there are a LOT of them like Paris Hilton.
Do you see the point now?
Yep. Those Walton Family members are RICH. Remind me, what inventions did they patent?
Are you implying the regulations and restrictions are of minimal impact?
Yes, that's what I'm implying. Environmental regulations do have a cost to companies, but it's an order of magnitude less than labor cost. And while CA. usually leads the country in environmental matters, it's only a matter of time before other states catch up.
Why did most of the high tech manufacturing that stayed within the US move to areas such as TX, OR, AZ, NM out from California?
First, I'm not sure that's the case. But, if it were, my guess is that there is a larger pool of people willing to work for cheaper wages.
Intel CEO: Government Strangling High-Tech Growth:
http://www.newsmax.com/ErnestIstook/heritagefoundationsmallbusiness/2010/08/30/id/368705
Intel CEO: Government Strangling High-Tech Growth:
http://www.newsmax.com/ErnestIstook/heritagefoundationsmallbusiness/2010/08/30/id/368705
Of course that's what they say. Who's going to go on camera saying that they build factories in China because of the slave labor???
Intel CEO: Government Strangling High-Tech Growth:
http://www.newsmax.com/ErnestIstook/heritagefoundationsmallbusiness/2010/08/30/id/368705
These are the same people screaming about a domestic STEM talent shortage to justify importing more labor. Which of course depresses STEM compensation and boosts profits. Which boosts executive bonuses.
Same goes for said CEOs bitching about Government in the same way teens bitch about how their parent's rules are ruining their lives.
« First « Previous Comments 64 - 80 of 80 Search these comments
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/11/10_ways_to_and_spur_job_growth_and_jumpstart_purchasing_power_partner/