Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

What does small business need to thrive?

ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:33:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
And how can we make it compatible with a livable wage for employees? The current tax code is a hot mess, obviously it needs an overhaul. What rate can small businesses handle, and how do we prevent big business from trampling them if they get the same rates to be "fair"? How much money do employees need to thrive, not merely survive, and have opportunities to grow?

This is a very broad question because I want to start in broad strokes and work down into the details with the big picture in mind.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 3:38:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 6:33:42 AM, ZenBear wrote:
And how can we make it compatible with a livable wage for employees? The current tax code is a hot mess, obviously it needs an overhaul. What rate can small businesses handle, and how do we prevent big business from trampling them if they get the same rates to be "fair"? How much money do employees need to thrive, not merely survive, and have opportunities to grow?

This is a very broad question because I want to start in broad strokes and work down into the details with the big picture in mind.

If you'd really like to make a difference, stop taxing business all together. The tax just gets passed onto the consumer anyways. A 'livable wage' cannot be set because the 'livable wage' is dynamic but in our current system I would say lower income wages are slightly lagging behind inflation. In order for small business to thrive it needs less or no state regulation, low or no taxes, and to be constantly working to serve the demand of it's customers. Tax and regulation is only going to serve to be a barrier of entry or in some way a disadvantage against large companies that have the money to influence politics.; which is really the enemy of a properly functioning market.
ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 3:57:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/12/2016 3:38:30 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/11/2016 6:33:42 AM, ZenBear wrote:
And how can we make it compatible with a livable wage for employees? The current tax code is a hot mess, obviously it needs an overhaul. What rate can small businesses handle, and how do we prevent big business from trampling them if they get the same rates to be "fair"? How much money do employees need to thrive, not merely survive, and have opportunities to grow?

This is a very broad question because I want to start in broad strokes and work down into the details with the big picture in mind.

If you'd really like to make a difference, stop taxing business all together. The tax just gets passed onto the consumer anyways. A 'livable wage' cannot be set because the 'livable wage' is dynamic but in our current system I would say lower income wages are slightly lagging behind inflation. In order for small business to thrive it needs less or no state regulation, low or no taxes, and to be constantly working to serve the demand of it's customers. Tax and regulation is only going to serve to be a barrier of entry or in some way a disadvantage against large companies that have the money to influence politics.; which is really the enemy of a properly functioning market.

So if we stop taxing business all together, then government revenue comes from consumers alone. Businesses are consumers too, so they will still take a hit when making purchases, so it's not like they're off scot-free. Not entirely unreasonable, but such a simple solution seems amateurish in conception. Rarely is life so simple, least of all economics.

Hand-waving "living wage" as dynamic is again simplistic. Yes, there are many variables, but it is far from impossible to get general figures. Whether or not a federal minimum wage is superior to a state or even city minimum is debatable.

Regulations exist because without them the lack of rules would be exploited. Regulations exist to hold the successful in check, to keep a snowball from turning into an avalanche that buries the nation. Without regulation those big companies would stomp out all competition and small business would cease to exist as monopolies take over. Sometimes those regulations go too far and begin to strangle small business, but that's a problem with the individual regulations. Taking political influence away from big business is a form of regulation that is badly needed.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 11:21:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 3:57:03 AM, ZenBear wrote:
At 6/12/2016 3:38:30 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/11/2016 6:33:42 AM, ZenBear wrote:


So if we stop taxing business all together, then government revenue comes from consumers alone. Businesses are consumers too, so they will still take a hit when making purchases, so it's not like they're off scot-free. Not entirely unreasonable, but such a simple solution seems amateurish in conception. Rarely is life so simple, least of all economics.


Well, I disagree. Economics isn't that complicated if you understand what you can reasonably predict or deduce and what you cannot. It is a science of human action above everything, and us humans can be pretty unpredictable at times. We know two things which I base my opinions on: supply and demand and division of labor.
We know these things to be true. I know that 'wealth' comes from the division of labor only, I will accept any debate on this subject. We also have known and understood the law of supply and demand for a couple hundred years now to some degree.
Prices reflect supply and demand and that is another debate I will accept. Yes these factors can get very complicated in predicting , and that is why I am for free markets rather than experimenting on the population by moving the levers of monetary and fiscal policy.

Hand-waving "living wage" as dynamic is again simplistic. Yes, there are many variables, but it is far from impossible to get general figures. Whether or not a federal minimum wage is superior to a state or even city minimum is debatable.


It isn't simplistic. A 'livable wage' from 1970 to now would be different on so many levels. Not only the dollar amount but the standards of living as well. It is a mistake to try and pin a number to something like that.

Regulations exist because without them the lack of rules would be exploited. Regulations exist to hold the successful in check, to keep a snowball from turning into an avalanche that buries the nation. Without regulation those big companies would stomp out all competition and small business would cease to exist as monopolies take over. Sometimes those regulations go too far and begin to strangle small business, but that's a problem with the individual regulations. Taking political influence away from big business is a form of regulation that is badly needed.

We are on opposite sides of the spectrum here. From the top: This is the idea, this is why we have government regulations. it's because enough people think they work. In reality the state and it's regulations are only a tool for 'big business' to exploit. Why do so many companies spend so much on lobbying government? Because it makes the best investment! That is our reality and the sooner the majority understands this the better.
I really have to bring attention to the word 'successful' in your next sentence. Do you not find it a strange concept to 'hold the successful in check'? Would that mean that to gain 'success' is to be a danger to society?
Our mending of the concept of state force and voluntary market exchange in our culture is a true disaster. In a free market which unfortunately is still really theory, but proven theory, exchange is voluntary, no questions about it. This implies that to engage in trade is a benefit to both parties. That would also imply that becoming 'successful' meant that you have given an equal or greater benefit to society. Now where we have a corrupt government being sold to the highest bidder, becoming 'successful' is seen in a different light. This is why I am an advocate for free markets. If there is no power capable of regulating trade there is nothing to corrupt. That means business can only gain power by delivering something of value to society by the fact that all exchange would then be voluntary.
ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 5:52:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 11:21:33 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
Well, I disagree. Economics isn't that complicated if you understand what you can reasonably predict or deduce and what you cannot. It is a science of human action above everything, and us humans can be pretty unpredictable at times. We know two things which I base my opinions on: supply and demand and division of labor.
We know these things to be true. I know that 'wealth' comes from the division of labor only, I will accept any debate on this subject. We also have known and understood the law of supply and demand for a couple hundred years now to some degree.
Prices reflect supply and demand and that is another debate I will accept. Yes these factors can get very complicated in predicting , and that is why I am for free markets rather than experimenting on the population by moving the levers of monetary and fiscal policy.

It isn't simplistic. A 'livable wage' from 1970 to now would be different on so many levels. Not only the dollar amount but the standards of living as well. It is a mistake to try and pin a number to something like that.

You say economics is predictable but a livable wage is somehow beyond our ability to deduce? Yes, a living wage is different now than it was in 1970, which is why the minimum wage is insufficient for our time.

I disagree that prices are solely dictated by supply and demand. Human error is an ever present entanglement. Human error can be exploited by those in the know to increase profits by inflating prices beyond what supply and demand would dictate.

We are on opposite sides of the spectrum here. From the top: This is the idea, this is why we have government regulations. it's because enough people think they work. In reality the state and it's regulations are only a tool for 'big business' to exploit. Why do so many companies spend so much on lobbying government? Because it makes the best investment! That is our reality and the sooner the majority understands this the better.
I really have to bring attention to the word 'successful' in your next sentence. Do you not find it a strange concept to 'hold the successful in check'? Would that mean that to gain 'success' is to be a danger to society?
Our mending of the concept of state force and voluntary market exchange in our culture is a true disaster. In a free market which unfortunately is still really theory, but proven theory, exchange is voluntary, no questions about it. This implies that to engage in trade is a benefit to both parties. That would also imply that becoming 'successful' meant that you have given an equal or greater benefit to society. Now where we have a corrupt government being sold to the highest bidder, becoming 'successful' is seen in a different light. This is why I am an advocate for free markets. If there is no power capable of regulating trade there is nothing to corrupt. That means business can only gain power by delivering something of value to society by the fact that all exchange would then be voluntary.

The issue of big business lobbying the government is a problem with our lobbying system, not with the entire concept of regulations. Take money out of politics and you'll solve that issue. Take away regulations is going way beyond the problem.

Successful people are a potential danger to society. As Spider Man would tell you, with great power comes great responsibility. Look at the Great Recession; rich, successful people screwed up and the entire economy tanked. Look at Enron, where a few rich, successful scumbags lied about their company's debt until everything imploded. Look at how big business spends millions of dollars on lobbying to buy favorable regulations; rich, successful pricks leveraging their success to manipulate the system to their advantage. Success is not sacred. Success is not the epitome of human ambition. Nikolai Tesla was never successful because his work was stolen by a rich, successful business man, but his work changed the world. Scientific advances are not always "successful" by way of monetary gain, but they are often of monumental importance for the well being of humanity.

Voluntary exchange does not guarantee equivalent exchange. Again, human error/manipulation comes into play. "Voluntary" trade can be coerced. Deal makers can be corrupted by bribes to make a poor deal that damages those they represent for their own individual gain. Success is not defined by how hard you work or what benefit you provide to society, but merely perception of these values.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 9:30:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Small businesses need a free market to thrive. Other than that, all they require is a leader that is capable and good workers.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 9:32:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 5:52:43 PM, ZenBear wrote:
At 6/13/2016 11:21:33 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
Well, I disagree. Economics isn't that complicated if you understand what you can reasonably predict or deduce and what you cannot. It is a science of human action above everything, and us humans can be pretty unpredictable at times. We know two things which I base my opinions on: supply and demand and division of labor.
We know these things to be true. I know that 'wealth' comes from the division of labor only, I will accept any debate on this subject. We also have known and understood the law of supply and demand for a couple hundred years now to some degree.
Prices reflect supply and demand and that is another debate I will accept. Yes these factors can get very complicated in predicting , and that is why I am for free markets rather than experimenting on the population by moving the levers of monetary and fiscal policy.

It isn't simplistic. A 'livable wage' from 1970 to now would be different on so many levels. Not only the dollar amount but the standards of living as well. It is a mistake to try and pin a number to something like that.

You say economics is predictable but a livable wage is somehow beyond our ability to deduce? Yes, a living wage is different now than it was in 1970, which is why the minimum wage is insufficient for our time.


I didn't say economics is predictable, I said, "economics isn't that complicated if you understand what you can reasonably predict or deduce and what you cannot. It is a science of human action above everything, and us humans can be pretty unpredictable at times.." and further explanation..
A minimum wage absolutely should not be forced on society. It benefits no one really, well maybe Walmart as they have been lobbying for a minimum wage hike.
It's immoral, it uses law as an offensive weapon against consumers and business owners for the sake of unskilled unproductive workers, which it will inevitably harm by raising the demand for the same unskilled jobs simultaneously sending the opposite price signal to employees to hire less. Ahh! It only increases unemployment and raises prices through the whole economy. Pointless and immoral and ignores every known economic law.


I disagree that prices are solely dictated by supply and demand. Human error is an ever present entanglement. Human error can be exploited by those in the know to increase profits by inflating prices beyond what supply and demand would dictate.


Real and perceived supply and demand.

We are on opposite sides of the spectrum here. From the top: This is the idea, this is why we have government regulations. it's because enough people think they work. In reality the state and it's regulations are only a tool for 'big business' to exploit. Why do so many companies spend so much on lobbying government? Because it makes the best investment! That is our reality and the sooner the majority understands this the better.
I really have to bring attention to the word 'successful' in your next sentence. Do you not find it a strange concept to 'hold the successful in check'? Would that mean that to gain 'success' is to be a danger to society?
Our mending of the concept of state force and voluntary market exchange in our culture is a true disaster. In a free market which unfortunately is still really theory, but proven theory, exchange is voluntary, no questions about it. This implies that to engage in trade is a benefit to both parties. That would also imply that becoming 'successful' meant that you have given an equal or greater benefit to society. Now where we have a corrupt government being sold to the highest bidder, becoming 'successful' is seen in a different light. This is why I am an advocate for free markets. If there is no power capable of regulating trade there is nothing to corrupt. That means business can only gain power by delivering something of value to society by the fact that all exchange would then be voluntary.

The issue of big business lobbying the government is a problem with our lobbying system, not with the entire concept of regulations. Take money out of politics and you'll solve that issue. Take away regulations is going way beyond the problem.


How would you take money out of politics? I have heard this many times and I even donated to a group called represent.us for over a year that has been trying successfully at times to do that very thing. But you can't. You cannot ever in a million years get money out of politics as long as there is an incentive. If you remove the state's ability to regulate trade, corruption ceases to exist. It is the only way.

Successful people are a potential danger to society. As Spider Man would tell you, with great power comes great responsibility. Look at the Great Recession; rich, successful people screwed up and the entire economy tanked.

Which would have been Impossible without the entire structure of the banking system that has been built on 'regulations'. This only proves my point. If you disagree with me I would urge you to spend the hundreds of hours of depressing research I have done on the subject of government corruption. I would disagree with me too if I didn't. For the last hundred years especially the banking system has been built by lobbyists. All of this corruption has been going on since the inception of the state.

Look at Enron, where a few rich, successful scumbags lied about their company's debt until everything imploded. Look at how big business spends millions of dollars on lobbying to buy favorable regulations; rich, successful pricks leveraging their success to manipulate the system to their advantage. Success is not sacred. Success is not the epitome of human ambition. Nikolai Tesla was never successful because his work was stolen by a rich, successful business man, but his work changed the world. Scientific advances are not always "successful" by way of monetary gain, but they are often of monumental importance for the well being of humanity.


So you imprison the ones that break the law or some other retribution, and you allow the market to solve it's own problems. Look at ebay or amazon, it is a regulated market, not regulated by the state, but by their own set of rules. If that kind of regulation is allowed to progress, a problem arises and a company solves it, they get the reward of business and so on. Problems arise the market solves. No need for government regulation, it literally has the opposite effect. Lobbyists own the government.

Voluntary exchange does not guarantee equivalent exchange. Again, human error/manipulation comes into play. "Voluntary" trade can be coerced. Deal makers can be corrupted by bribes to make a poor deal that damages those they represent for their own individual gain. Success is not defined by how hard you work or what benefit you provide to society, but merely perception of these values.

""Voluntary" trade can be coerced" I reject this statement. Something cannot be voluntary and coerced at the same time. Impossible. It is either one or the other.
Voluntary trade does not guarantee an equivalent exchange, but it guarantees that at the time the trade was an equivalent or else you wouldn't do it. Success should be seen as positive. I see things as an anarchist and I can never see things the way I used to again. I see how economic success has been tainted by the corruption of law, which in the hands of the state I believe to be inevitable. I can only say that humanity is not perfect and there will continue to be good and bad people. But if force and fraud is to be penalized instead of being rewarded (bailouts for instance) we have a good chance at limiting the examples you gave.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 6:06:13 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/12/2016 3:38:30 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
If you'd really like to make a difference, stop taxing business all together.

BillSPrestonEsq, you're a right-wing idiot and tool of the rich. If corps weren't taxed, it would only be fair to pass through their income and expenses to stock owners. How would you like to file a corporate-like tax return for every company for which you own stock? But, what your masters really mean by not taxing corporations is that no one pays taxes on corporate money to give the rich a tax shelter.

The tax just gets passed onto the consumer anyways.

Taxes on anything and everything get passed on, you right-wing idiot. You're almost as bad as the left-wing.

Tax and regulation is only going to serve to be a barrier of entry or in some way a disadvantage against large companies that have the money to influence politics.; which is really the enemy of a properly functioning market.

As far as that goes, finally you said something sensible. But, now, back up what you just said. Should we end anti-consent (anti-discrimination) laws?
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 7:30:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 6:06:13 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/12/2016 3:38:30 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
If you'd really like to make a difference, stop taxing business all together.

BillSPrestonEsq, you're a right-wing idiot and tool of the rich. If corps weren't taxed, it would only be fair to pass through their income and expenses to stock owners. How would you like to file a corporate-like tax return for every company for which you own stock? But, what your masters really mean by not taxing corporations is that no one pays taxes on corporate money to give the rich a tax shelter.


Ha ha wow that's one hell of an opening statement there. I'm an anarchist though so 'right wing' idiot or a tool for the rich I am not. The 'rich', or the rich you are referring to feed off the government which I oppose. I actually oppose taxation in general so your whole 'argument', if you'd like to call it that, about corporate masters or whatever is meaningless.


The tax just gets passed onto the consumer anyways.

Taxes on anything and everything get passed on, you right-wing idiot. You're almost as bad as the left-wing.


Yup they do just get passed on that's correct.

Tax and regulation is only going to serve to be a barrier of entry or in some way a disadvantage against large companies that have the money to influence politics.; which is really the enemy of a properly functioning market.

As far as that goes, finally you said something sensible. But, now, back up what you just said. Should we end anti-consent (anti-discrimination) laws?

Anti-consent? No idea what that is. Anti discrimination laws like what? Using force against anyone for any reason outside of self defense is immoral and should be 'illegal' in some form or another. People should be free to trade or not trade with anyone they like. If a racist doesn't want to do business with a certain race they will be almost guaranteed to be publicly ostracized and fail miserably. But I'm really not going to get in depth in a response to someone that started out calling me an idiot, I can't imagine why, but I just don't have an interest.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 8:45:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
The potential for revenue is largely dependant on the geographical area--the wealthier the place, the more likely the small business is to gain customer--providing that they're offering something that's needed or desired. Certainly areas with significant amounts of tourism are at an advantage.

Another helpful thing is identifying and minimizing competition--I.E offering something that fellow businesses in the same area, don't have themselves...at a more competitive price, etc.

Then there's the people that you employ. I would think it pretty logical to employ family members and/or people you know in the beginning of actually setting up that business; you'd need people whom you can trust and rely upon, and people who aren't necessarily expecting the same privileges that you get with other jobs. The red tape involved with owning your business can obviously serve as a massive restriction when it comes to establishing a good revenue and profit. In the early days of the business, I'd consider it wise to be quite frugal with the workforce.

Besides that, you'd need the obvious enthusiasm and motivation to make it...successful.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
LafayetteBis
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 6:06:19 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 9:30:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Human error can be exploited by those in the know to increase profits by inflating prices beyond what supply and demand would dictate.

We live, in Europe and the US, in a market-economy where small-business is just one component. In fact, if a country like the US allows too much market-integration then said markets become "controlled" by just two, or three large companies - which results in "Sticky Pricing". That is, companies do not compete - they settle into an arrangement where prices amongst the top two, three, four competitors all follow the market leader.

And there is no active conspiracy in the matter. That is, no pricing skulduggery arrangement made directly amongst the top countries in any given market, which would be illegal.

Small businesses are a bit different, but they too will fall into a pattern where, in any given geography in which they are active, they all practice more of less the same pricing.

The only way to distinguish themselves is by "offering a better service". Which is more a question of executing their profession with diligence and competence. Not just a great smile to customers coming in the door. "How can I help you" puts a lot of customers off that don't need help. A cheerful "Good morning!" will sometimes do very well.

This can be performed in many ways, but perhaps the most effective is - instead of just stacking the shelves with produce - showing a customer real concern regarding their needs and intelligently offering their competence when the occasion arises. Offering also (on the business premises) Information Sheets about products or services that enhances confidence necessary to pursue a further purchase of goods/services.

A smile is always a necessity but never really enough. Keeping aware of competition pricing is also a sine-qua-non - but that is typically inherent in any business that seeks to survive.

Many businesses put up signs showing their "dedication to customer service", but how often do they really think through what that particularly means to the customer coming through the front-door? Each small-business is different.

For small businesses, the "service" or "device" or "product" the customer needs may be very different. Where necessary, a means must be found to interact with the customer that helps make the sale. Most importantly, when a customer seems confused, just put them at ease by asking politely the right questions. That will open them up - if you show both interest in their need and a real desire to assist them.

And in a manner that will bring that customer back another day ...
calcanthum
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 6:45:49 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
On a governmental scale, the solution (well, part of it) is to revert the interpretation of our monopoly laws to what they were before the Reagan administration. Right now the courts decide these cases in favor of 'consumer efficiency', aka low prices. In this light monopolies are good, because big companies streamline the production process for their specific products/services. That's terrible for small businesses, though, and also for workers. Consumers are only half of the equation in a market, after all. (We often think of companies as the producers, but they're more like governments -- workers are the producers.)

I'd recommend reading these articles, if you have the time -- they might offer an interesting perspective:
"Free markets killed capitalism: Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Wal-Mart, Amazon and the 1 percent"s sick triumph over us all" (Salon article)
"Why Free-market Economics is a Fraud" (Washington Post)
"Why Free Markets are Difficult to Defend" (FEE)
ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 3:35:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 9:32:28 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
I didn't say economics is predictable, I said, "economics isn't that complicated if you understand what you can reasonably predict or deduce and what you cannot. It is a science of human action above everything, and us humans can be pretty unpredictable at times.." and further explanation..
A minimum wage absolutely should not be forced on society. It benefits no one really, well maybe Walmart as they have been lobbying for a minimum wage hike.
It's immoral, it uses law as an offensive weapon against consumers and business owners for the sake of unskilled unproductive workers, which it will inevitably harm by raising the demand for the same unskilled jobs simultaneously sending the opposite price signal to employees to hire less. Ahh! It only increases unemployment and raises prices through the whole economy. Pointless and immoral and ignores every known economic law.:


Can you present statistics proving that minimum wage hikes increase unemployment? I've heard the opposite, and seen stats proving the opposite.
(https://www.dol.gov...)

It's an intuitive concept; employers need to pay more for their workers, they have a finite budget for those workers, thus they hire fewer workers. The problem is, that finite budget isn't concrete, and businesses need these unskilled laborers for their business to function. Businesses have managed to pay their unskilled labor employees a far higher wage (relative to their time) in the past than they do now. It's not impossible to do so again, but business owners wont do that because they can get away with paying less; not because they have to, because they want to.

How would you take money out of politics? I have heard this many times and I even donated to a group called represent.us for over a year that has been trying successfully at times to do that very thing. But you can't. You cannot ever in a million years get money out of politics as long as there is an incentive. If you remove the state's ability to regulate trade, corruption ceases to exist. It is the only way.

Which would have been Impossible without the entire structure of the banking system that has been built on 'regulations'. This only proves my point. If you disagree with me I would urge you to spend the hundreds of hours of depressing research I have done on the subject of government corruption. I would disagree with me too if I didn't. For the last hundred years especially the banking system has been built by lobbyists. All of this corruption has been going on since the inception of the state.


I don't know. I'm not willing to give up that easily, though. Your research, while extensive I'm sure, is not infallible. I cannot and will not base my world view on one anonymous person's (ie you) unsubstantiated claims. I do not believe that removing taxation and regulation will have a positive effect because we see what unregulated business looks like every day in the form of gangs, cartels, etc. There will always be people willing to break the law and commit atrocities in the name of profit. Removing our legal means of punishing these acts is irresponsible at best.

So you imprison the ones that break the law or some other retribution, and you allow the market to solve it's own problems. Look at ebay or amazon, it is a regulated market, not regulated by the state, but by their own set of rules. If that kind of regulation is allowed to progress, a problem arises and a company solves it, they get the reward of business and so on. Problems arise the market solves. No need for government regulation, it literally has the opposite effect. Lobbyists own the government.

Regulations are laws, if we remove those regulations then these men will have done nothing illegal and thus we can't prosecute them.

There are many great businesses out there that are ethical and efficient, that offer a far higher wage than the set minimum and strive to take care of their employees as well as their customers, investors and executives. These businesses are the model by which others should set themselves. That being said, you can make a lot of money by refusing to pay your workers well and pocketing the profits. These businesses sometimes tank, but in doing so the only ones to suffer are the employees who worked for them. The owners/investors finagled the system to get more money out of it than they put in and walk away unscathed. They profited, they are "successful," and that's all that matters, even if that success comes at the expense of the economy as a whole.

""Voluntary" trade can be coerced" I reject this statement. Something cannot be voluntary and coerced at the same time. Impossible. It is either one or the other.
Voluntary trade does not guarantee an equivalent exchange, but it guarantees that at the time the trade was an equivalent or else you wouldn't do it. Success should be seen as positive. I see things as an anarchist and I can never see things the way I used to again. I see how economic success has been tainted by the corruption of law, which in the hands of the state I believe to be inevitable. I can only say that humanity is not perfect and there will continue to be good and bad people. But if force and fraud is to be penalized instead of being rewarded (bailouts for instance) we have a good chance at limiting the examp

If you reject the statement that voluntary trade can be coerced, then I reject the statement that all trade in a free market would be voluntary. Coercion will still exist, one sided deals will still exist, desperation and ignorance will still exist, all these factors will be played to the advantage of the less scrupulous for individual profit over holistic profit. Being successful does not necessarily mean that you have contributed an equal or greater benefit to society.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 2:06:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/8/2016 3:35:45 PM, ZenBear wrote:
At 6/25/2016 9:32:28 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

Can you present statistics proving that minimum wage hikes increase unemployment? I've heard the opposite, and seen stats proving the opposite.
(https://www.dol.gov...)


Well those really aren't stats now are they? That page was really difficult for me to read, no myths were busted, no numbers were given, just a bunch of claims obviously biased for political purposes. What does growth in the restaurant industry have to do with wages? I like how no data was actually given, or any claim about the overall take home wage for restaurant workers was made, just growth of the industry. That statement about industry growth may be true but is meaningless to proving anything about wages.
I also don't think that the small raises in minimum wage change much at all. Most people are not going to work for 7.25 in the first place. Raising in to 7.75 is not going to have much effect on the economy or employment. Raising it to 15 absolutely will have an effect on employment for those reasons you mentioned that are intuitive.
It is the logical outcome based on economic 'law' as we know it. Raising or lowering taxes 1% isn't going to have much of an effect, but doubling them will. There would still probably be same reaction but just unnoticeable, doubling it like with a 15 MW would create a shock. Only waste, unemployment, underemployment and inflation would result. 7.25 is close enough to the wage mostly every US citizen will choose on their own to not be sufficient. 15 not so much.

It's an intuitive concept; employers need to pay more for their workers, they have a finite budget for those workers, thus they hire fewer workers. The problem is, that finite budget isn't concrete, and businesses need these unskilled laborers for their business to function. Businesses have managed to pay their unskilled labor employees a far higher wage (relative to their time) in the past than they do now. It's not impossible to do so again, but business owners wont do that because they can get away with paying less; not because they have to, because they want to.


Business may need unskilled workers until a machine inevitably replaces them. This is not a bad thing. We don't need 'jobs', we need productivity. We need food, water, shelter, clothing, healthcare, even entertainment and the goal is to get these things in the most efficient way possible. People don't just need to be busy, that does not create wealth. People need to get skills, they need to fill the demand for higher paying jobs. The higher wage (at least in a free market) is a cue to the market that the job is particularly valuable. People need to be gaining skills and actually providing something for society, and the same time for themselves.


I don't know. I'm not willing to give up that easily, though. Your research, while extensive I'm sure, is not infallible. I cannot and will not base my world view on one anonymous person's (ie you) unsubstantiated claims. I do not believe that removing taxation and regulation will have a positive effect because we see what unregulated business looks like every day in the form of gangs, cartels, etc. There will always be people willing to break the law and commit atrocities in the name of profit. Removing our legal means of punishing these acts is irresponsible at best.


I certainly don't claim to be infallible, and continue to challenge my own beliefs for that reason. Unregulated business is not gangs and cartels. First off, not unregulated, just not regulated by government. Markets absolutely need regulation, but not a monopoly of regulation. Back to gangs.. gangs exist because of illegal drugs. Look at prohibition of alcohol, lots of gangsters, no prohibition, no gangsters.
The government has essentially created gangs by making drugs illegal, a different conversation sure, though you might guess where I stand on that (vices are not crimes). Anyways, it is not an example of an unregulated market since it is so regulated, it's completely illegal. A better example of an unregulated market would be the tech industry. That is the most unregulated market and happens to be the fastest growing as well. Cartels, well we have the biggest cartel ever to exist being the US banking system. The FED banking cartel is built on law and regulation. Why? Because the government has claimed by force a monopoly on it's regulation, same with the energy industry, healthcare, agriculture and pharmaceuticals. You know, the most corrupt industries in existence..

I'll have to reply to the rest in another post
EmmaBack
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 1:01:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
In order to thrive, any small business needs a solid marketing strategy. Personally, I turned to the guys from http://thecmoclub.com... for assistance with elaborating an effective marketing strategy for my business. It worked well:)