Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Question
Author Message
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,334
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Equating 'carbon emitters' to those schemes has a much smaller grounding in empirical science than those drivers and pollutants cited in the previous paragraph -- in terms of: a) whether the effect is actually true; and b) the scope of any such effect. There are orders of magnitude more uncertainty in the carbon emissions / climate change science that any of those discussed above.

The bigger problem with carbon dioxide regulation is that it has more far-reaching implications and costs for business than regulating pollutants like SO2 and NO2. For both individuals and businesses, to exist is to emit CO2.
01-05-2018 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #62
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 03:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 03:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But cap and trade will impose additional incremental costs. You’re not business friendly unless you are willing to offer something to offset. What do you have in mind for that?

I know the usual refrain from the left, “Oh they just make such huge profits that it wouldn’t hurt them to make less.” Except they don’t want to make less, and they have options where they don’t have to make less.

So we do cap and trade, which isn’t a terrible idea. How do you make it up to businesses?

With the massive reduction in corporate taxes, why do there now need to be other concessions?

Aren't we now on even footing with the rest of the industrialized world, so we should expect companies to take on similar burdens as they do elsewhere?

We are probably pretty close. Let’s say, strictly for the purpose of discussion, that we are there. So you’re proposing changes that will make us worse. What do you propose to do to get us back to par?
01-05-2018 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #63
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 03:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 03:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But cap and trade will impose additional incremental costs. You’re not business friendly unless you are willing to offer something to offset. What do you have in mind for that?

I know the usual refrain from the left, “Oh they just make such huge profits that it wouldn’t hurt them to make less.” Except they don’t want to make less, and they have options where they don’t have to make less.

So we do cap and trade, which isn’t a terrible idea. How do you make it up to businesses?

With the massive reduction in corporate taxes, why do there now need to be other concessions?

Aren't we now on even footing with the rest of the industrialized world, so we should expect companies to take on similar burdens as they do elsewhere?

We are probably pretty close. Let’s say, strictly for the purpose of discussion, that we are there. So you’re proposing changes that will make us worse. What do you propose to do to get us back to par?

I'm proposing changes that are worse than European countries? Or worse than our status quo?
01-05-2018 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #64
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

The question was are there any pro-business democrats left.

The discussion has focused on a useful topic, which is ways to accomplish social goals in a pro-business environment. I think some sort of economic model to deal with externalities like pollution is a good one. As for things like workers' issues, they can be addressed but with the understanding that for all these things there is a tradeoff.

I think lowering corporate taxes below world levels is one thing that could be traded for a number of other concessions. A consumption tax would help in a number of ways, providing some mild degree of trade protection, plus funding Bismarck universal private health insurance/care (lifting a major cost off businesses) and also reducing or eliminating the budget deficit (freeing up some capital markets).

But that is the crux of the tension between the the ideals of 'doing social good' and the pragmatics of 'doing business', are they not? And that is a main dividing point between libertarianism/conservative-economic agendas and liberal/progressive agendas.

I think it might be good to bifurcate the picture. Might make the amalgamation a bit easier to address:

For 'social good' (i.e. pure non-business associated social programs)
In the former school of thought, the thought seems to be in a good business environment the ample grain can be used to further good in the social context. Much like the Gates Foundation *is* the direct product of the business environment.

In the latter school of thought, the drive seems to most of the time to the use of government as the actor of change in terms of command/control type regimes and agendas, and the business being the largess that provides the largest pot to fund the social aspects of that agenda. (see Obamacare for that example....)


For business-type social good or regulatory processes

This is where the real friction lies. Pollution, OSHA, equal opportunity, etc. are all regulatory schemes built at direct intervention in business practice.

Some involve 'commons' issues (pollution), some involve health and well-being of employees (OSHA), and some are social agenda issues (equal opportunity).

And this is where the tension of power to act is an absolute struggle. The power of the business to make decisions affecting its path versus the power of the government to literally dictate not just goals, but fundamental steps at a micromanagement level to do so.

And this helps explain well why the term "business-friendly" is really just another way of saying "small-government" in the end.

No one would ever really call a Dem business friendly because they are generally advocating for legislation that requires government intervention, often times because there are no immediate market incentives for action, and thus no guarantee that companies would work to maintain the environment, public health, worker safety, worker well-being, etc.

However, there are more business-friendly solutions to these perceived problems as we've started to discuss, but no one counts any of the Dems that supported Cap-and-trade as being business friendly, even though that system allows some flexibility in how carbon emitters would handle regulation.

As for the first bolded: Most libertarians/economic-conservatives are adherents to a strong concept of private property rights and the Chicago School mold of economics. Each either impliedly or explicitly is a detraction from government power and government intrusion.

Most progressives/liberals view direct government command/control of 'solutions' as necessary. And most take a more Keynesian view of economic theory. And that is at the crux of the issue as well. It doesnt help that this school seems to view the private business sector not just as a tool to enforce the 'doctine de jour', but as the never ending piggy bank for what is deemed to be 'socially good' at the moment. And they make no bones about using governmental power to do this.

What you speak is really the crux of the major differences between libertarians/economic-conservatives/neo-liberal economics and the progressive/liberal outlook.

Quote:However, there are more business-friendly solutions to these perceived problems as we've started to discuss,

Some issues lend themselves to a economic-based solution. Most do not. Pollution just happens to be the major one that does, since the core function is turning an externality cost into a direct cost. Seems the emissions programs can emulate that at a fairly approximate level. I dont think such things as government mandates that *every* employer is on the hook financially for its employees health benefits can ever be shoehorned as anything *but* a prime example of the government not only forcing business to be its tool, but using business as the piggy bank to do it. I dont see how that approach could *ever* be classified as anything *near* business friendly.

As for the last bolded portion, the crux of the issue is that you now equate 'carbon emitters' as polluters. No one can doubt that SO2 and SO3 are driving causes of acid rain and other issues; nor can one doubt scientifically such things as the NOx links to physical manifestations; nor can one doubt the issues of CFC to ozone destruction.

Equating 'carbon emitters' to those schemes has a much smaller grounding in empirical science than those drivers and pollutants cited in the previous paragraph -- in terms of: a) whether the effect is actually true; and b) the scope of any such effect. There are orders of magnitude more uncertainty in the carbon emissions / climate change science that any of those discussed above.

To the bolded, that isn't true. Dupont (and others) tried as hard as they could to fight the science behind CFC ozone depletion. They started in the late 70s after the first paper linking CFC and ozone depletion was published, but continued well into the 90s.

Quote: DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. Chairman Scorer of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975)

The CEO of Pennwalt, the third largest CFC manufacturer in the U.S., talked of "economic chaos" if CFC use was to be phased out (Cogan, 1988). DuPont, the largest CFC manufacturer, warned that the costs in the U.S. alone could exceed $135 billion, and that "entire industries could fold" (Glas, 1989). The Association of European Chemical Companies warned that CFC regulation might lead to "redesign and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry..., smaller firms going out of business... and an effect on inflation and unemployment, nationally and internationally" (Stockholm Environment Institute, 1999).

https://www.wunderground.com/resources/c...eptics.asp
01-05-2018 04:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 04:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The question was are there any pro-business democrats left.

The discussion has focused on a useful topic, which is ways to accomplish social goals in a pro-business environment. I think some sort of economic model to deal with externalities like pollution is a good one. As for things like workers' issues, they can be addressed but with the understanding that for all these things there is a tradeoff.

I think lowering corporate taxes below world levels is one thing that could be traded for a number of other concessions. A consumption tax would help in a number of ways, providing some mild degree of trade protection, plus funding Bismarck universal private health insurance/care (lifting a major cost off businesses) and also reducing or eliminating the budget deficit (freeing up some capital markets).

But that is the crux of the tension between the the ideals of 'doing social good' and the pragmatics of 'doing business', are they not? And that is a main dividing point between libertarianism/conservative-economic agendas and liberal/progressive agendas.

I think it might be good to bifurcate the picture. Might make the amalgamation a bit easier to address:

For 'social good' (i.e. pure non-business associated social programs)
In the former school of thought, the thought seems to be in a good business environment the ample grain can be used to further good in the social context. Much like the Gates Foundation *is* the direct product of the business environment.

In the latter school of thought, the drive seems to most of the time to the use of government as the actor of change in terms of command/control type regimes and agendas, and the business being the largess that provides the largest pot to fund the social aspects of that agenda. (see Obamacare for that example....)


For business-type social good or regulatory processes

This is where the real friction lies. Pollution, OSHA, equal opportunity, etc. are all regulatory schemes built at direct intervention in business practice.

Some involve 'commons' issues (pollution), some involve health and well-being of employees (OSHA), and some are social agenda issues (equal opportunity).

And this is where the tension of power to act is an absolute struggle. The power of the business to make decisions affecting its path versus the power of the government to literally dictate not just goals, but fundamental steps at a micromanagement level to do so.

And this helps explain well why the term "business-friendly" is really just another way of saying "small-government" in the end.

No one would ever really call a Dem business friendly because they are generally advocating for legislation that requires government intervention, often times because there are no immediate market incentives for action, and thus no guarantee that companies would work to maintain the environment, public health, worker safety, worker well-being, etc.

However, there are more business-friendly solutions to these perceived problems as we've started to discuss, but no one counts any of the Dems that supported Cap-and-trade as being business friendly, even though that system allows some flexibility in how carbon emitters would handle regulation.

As for the first bolded: Most libertarians/economic-conservatives are adherents to a strong concept of private property rights and the Chicago School mold of economics. Each either impliedly or explicitly is a detraction from government power and government intrusion.

Most progressives/liberals view direct government command/control of 'solutions' as necessary. And most take a more Keynesian view of economic theory. And that is at the crux of the issue as well. It doesnt help that this school seems to view the private business sector not just as a tool to enforce the 'doctine de jour', but as the never ending piggy bank for what is deemed to be 'socially good' at the moment. And they make no bones about using governmental power to do this.

What you speak is really the crux of the major differences between libertarians/economic-conservatives/neo-liberal economics and the progressive/liberal outlook.

Quote:However, there are more business-friendly solutions to these perceived problems as we've started to discuss,

Some issues lend themselves to a economic-based solution. Most do not. Pollution just happens to be the major one that does, since the core function is turning an externality cost into a direct cost. Seems the emissions programs can emulate that at a fairly approximate level. I dont think such things as government mandates that *every* employer is on the hook financially for its employees health benefits can ever be shoehorned as anything *but* a prime example of the government not only forcing business to be its tool, but using business as the piggy bank to do it. I dont see how that approach could *ever* be classified as anything *near* business friendly.

As for the last bolded portion, the crux of the issue is that you now equate 'carbon emitters' as polluters. No one can doubt that SO2 and SO3 are driving causes of acid rain and other issues; nor can one doubt scientifically such things as the NOx links to physical manifestations; nor can one doubt the issues of CFC to ozone destruction.

Equating 'carbon emitters' to those schemes has a much smaller grounding in empirical science than those drivers and pollutants cited in the previous paragraph -- in terms of: a) whether the effect is actually true; and b) the scope of any such effect. There are orders of magnitude more uncertainty in the carbon emissions / climate change science that any of those discussed above.

To the bolded, that isn't true. Dupont (and others) tried as hard as they could to fight the science behind CFC ozone depletion. They started in the late 70s after the first paper linking CFC and ozone depletion was published, but continued well into the 90s.

Quote: DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. Chairman Scorer of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975)

The CEO of Pennwalt, the third largest CFC manufacturer in the U.S., talked of "economic chaos" if CFC use was to be phased out (Cogan, 1988). DuPont, the largest CFC manufacturer, warned that the costs in the U.S. alone could exceed $135 billion, and that "entire industries could fold" (Glas, 1989). The Association of European Chemical Companies warned that CFC regulation might lead to "redesign and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry..., smaller firms going out of business... and an effect on inflation and unemployment, nationally and internationally" (Stockholm Environment Institute, 1999).

https://www.wunderground.com/resources/c...eptics.asp

Lad, I am talking present tense as opposed to 'damn them they fought it in the past.'

And to be blunt the certainty was *not* as good in the '75 to mid 80s time frame is was in 90 and beyond. It was only around '89 or '90 that there was highly conclusive science that put the issue well to rest.

Further, the second paragraph isnt even a question of the scientific validity in distinction to your implied assertion that they questioned the scientific validity at that point in time ----- let alone now in 2018. Those are economic arguments. They are well within their rights and within the realm of normalcy to be making solely economic arguments at that point. But when you read your quote, I would not equate the comments in the second paragraph to an issue of "doubt[ing] the issues of CFC to ozone destruction."

But your inclusion does underlight another big difference between the groups in my comment. The libertarians/economic-conservatives/neo-liberal will always look and question the economic impact of an issue as a trade-off to the proposed rule/legislation/executive order whereas the progressive/liberal will be far more likely to state that no amount of trade-off is actually possible nor should it be contemplated. Big generalization on my part here, but that is a trend I do/have see[n] in my experience.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 04:25 PM by tanqtonic.)
01-05-2018 04:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #66
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 04:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 04:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But that is the crux of the tension between the the ideals of 'doing social good' and the pragmatics of 'doing business', are they not? And that is a main dividing point between libertarianism/conservative-economic agendas and liberal/progressive agendas.

I think it might be good to bifurcate the picture. Might make the amalgamation a bit easier to address:

For 'social good' (i.e. pure non-business associated social programs)
In the former school of thought, the thought seems to be in a good business environment the ample grain can be used to further good in the social context. Much like the Gates Foundation *is* the direct product of the business environment.

In the latter school of thought, the drive seems to most of the time to the use of government as the actor of change in terms of command/control type regimes and agendas, and the business being the largess that provides the largest pot to fund the social aspects of that agenda. (see Obamacare for that example....)


For business-type social good or regulatory processes

This is where the real friction lies. Pollution, OSHA, equal opportunity, etc. are all regulatory schemes built at direct intervention in business practice.

Some involve 'commons' issues (pollution), some involve health and well-being of employees (OSHA), and some are social agenda issues (equal opportunity).

And this is where the tension of power to act is an absolute struggle. The power of the business to make decisions affecting its path versus the power of the government to literally dictate not just goals, but fundamental steps at a micromanagement level to do so.

And this helps explain well why the term "business-friendly" is really just another way of saying "small-government" in the end.

No one would ever really call a Dem business friendly because they are generally advocating for legislation that requires government intervention, often times because there are no immediate market incentives for action, and thus no guarantee that companies would work to maintain the environment, public health, worker safety, worker well-being, etc.

However, there are more business-friendly solutions to these perceived problems as we've started to discuss, but no one counts any of the Dems that supported Cap-and-trade as being business friendly, even though that system allows some flexibility in how carbon emitters would handle regulation.

As for the first bolded: Most libertarians/economic-conservatives are adherents to a strong concept of private property rights and the Chicago School mold of economics. Each either impliedly or explicitly is a detraction from government power and government intrusion.

Most progressives/liberals view direct government command/control of 'solutions' as necessary. And most take a more Keynesian view of economic theory. And that is at the crux of the issue as well. It doesnt help that this school seems to view the private business sector not just as a tool to enforce the 'doctine de jour', but as the never ending piggy bank for what is deemed to be 'socially good' at the moment. And they make no bones about using governmental power to do this.

What you speak is really the crux of the major differences between libertarians/economic-conservatives/neo-liberal economics and the progressive/liberal outlook.

Quote:However, there are more business-friendly solutions to these perceived problems as we've started to discuss,

Some issues lend themselves to a economic-based solution. Most do not. Pollution just happens to be the major one that does, since the core function is turning an externality cost into a direct cost. Seems the emissions programs can emulate that at a fairly approximate level. I dont think such things as government mandates that *every* employer is on the hook financially for its employees health benefits can ever be shoehorned as anything *but* a prime example of the government not only forcing business to be its tool, but using business as the piggy bank to do it. I dont see how that approach could *ever* be classified as anything *near* business friendly.

As for the last bolded portion, the crux of the issue is that you now equate 'carbon emitters' as polluters. No one can doubt that SO2 and SO3 are driving causes of acid rain and other issues; nor can one doubt scientifically such things as the NOx links to physical manifestations; nor can one doubt the issues of CFC to ozone destruction.

Equating 'carbon emitters' to those schemes has a much smaller grounding in empirical science than those drivers and pollutants cited in the previous paragraph -- in terms of: a) whether the effect is actually true; and b) the scope of any such effect. There are orders of magnitude more uncertainty in the carbon emissions / climate change science that any of those discussed above.

To the bolded, that isn't true. Dupont (and others) tried as hard as they could to fight the science behind CFC ozone depletion. They started in the late 70s after the first paper linking CFC and ozone depletion was published, but continued well into the 90s.

Quote: DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. Chairman Scorer of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975)

The CEO of Pennwalt, the third largest CFC manufacturer in the U.S., talked of "economic chaos" if CFC use was to be phased out (Cogan, 1988). DuPont, the largest CFC manufacturer, warned that the costs in the U.S. alone could exceed $135 billion, and that "entire industries could fold" (Glas, 1989). The Association of European Chemical Companies warned that CFC regulation might lead to "redesign and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry..., smaller firms going out of business... and an effect on inflation and unemployment, nationally and internationally" (Stockholm Environment Institute, 1999).

https://www.wunderground.com/resources/c...eptics.asp

Lad, I am talking present tense as opposed to 'damn them they fought it in the past.'

And to be blunt the certainty was *not* as good in the '75 to mid 80s time frame is was in 90 and beyond. It was only around '89 or '90 that there was highly conclusive science that put the issue well to rest.

Further, the second paragraph isnt even a question of the scientific validity in distinction to your implied assertion that they questioned the scientific validity at that point in time ----- let alone now in 2018. Those are economic arguments. They are well within their rights and within the realm of normalcy to be making solely economic arguments at that point. But when you read your quote, I would not equate the comments in the second paragraph to an issue of "doubt[ing] the issues of CFC to ozone destruction."

But your inclusion does underlight another big difference between the groups in my comment. The libertarians/economic-conservatives/neo-liberal will always look and question the economic impact of an issue as a trade-off to the proposed rule/legislation/executive order whereas the progressive/liberal will be far more likely to state that no amount of trade-off is actually possible nor should it be contemplated. Big generalization on my part here, but that is a trend I do/have see[n] in my experience.

My point was to make it clear that the chemical industry did not immediately either agree with the science (they actively tried to discredit it at first), and they did not really support the international action publicly, and come out against it publicly for many years after it was signed.

We should always remember that there are ostriches that want to put their head in the sands or want to try and fight against the truth in order to save their own skin. Dupont did it initially with CFCs. Big tobacco did it with cancer. And so on.
01-05-2018 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #67
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 04:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 03:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 03:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But cap and trade will impose additional incremental costs. You’re not business friendly unless you are willing to offer something to offset. What do you have in mind for that?

I know the usual refrain from the left, “Oh they just make such huge profits that it wouldn’t hurt them to make less.” Except they don’t want to make less, and they have options where they don’t have to make less.

So we do cap and trade, which isn’t a terrible idea. How do you make it up to businesses?

With the massive reduction in corporate taxes, why do there now need to be other concessions?

Aren't we now on even footing with the rest of the industrialized world, so we should expect companies to take on similar burdens as they do elsewhere?

We are probably pretty close. Let’s say, strictly for the purpose of discussion, that we are there. So you’re proposing changes that will make us worse. What do you propose to do to get us back to par?

I'm proposing changes that are worse than European countries? Or worse than our status quo?

You really don’t want to answer my question, do you?

So let me restate. With the reduction in corporate taxes, we are probably close to a push with most of the developed world. Our corporate taxes are higher than some, lower than some. We do double tax dividends, which most do not, and we consider more capital gains to be taxable than most do. We do not have a consumption tax, which is probably a disadvantage. Our businesses have heavier health care costs but generally lighter burdens for other benefits. We probably have less currency risk and a stronger rule of law, although some people are spooked by our jackpot liability damages, and it doesn’t help when Sotomayor makes her “wise Latina” comments. We do have the geographic and demographic advantages suggested by analysts like Peter Zeihan. Europe probaly has stricter regulations, but faster and more reliable and more equitable processes for resolving regulatory disputes. We are the largest market in the world, with the EU not far behind. All in all, with the tax decrease we are about a push.

So your question is really moot. We are at a push with Europe, or at least close enough that worse than Europe pretty much equals worse than our status quo.

So if you are going to make things worse here, what are you going to do to offset that?
01-05-2018 05:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #68
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 04:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We should always remember that there are ostriches that want to put their head in the sands or want to try and fight against the truth in order to save their own skin. Dupont did it initially with CFCs. Big tobacco did it with cancer. And so on.

Leftists have done it with social policy for generations.
01-05-2018 05:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #69
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 02:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

I think it was "Why did it take so #$%^ing long for them to finish the Mopac express lanes?"

Took them a long time but they work like a charm, imo.

My commute is situated such that the construction wreaked havoc on my commute times but the toll lane doesn't actually help me now.

However, as a progressive, I am of course elated that they help the greater good. In a grumpy sort of way.

Most self-styled progressives that I know in Austin insist that toll roads are evil elitism (and probably other -isms as well).

Which of course seems like a point in their favor. :)
01-05-2018 05:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #70
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 05:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

I think it was "Why did it take so #$%^ing long for them to finish the Mopac express lanes?"

Took them a long time but they work like a charm, imo.

My commute is situated such that the construction wreaked havoc on my commute times but the toll lane doesn't actually help me now.

However, as a progressive, I am of course elated that they help the greater good. In a grumpy sort of way.

Most self-styled progressives that I know in Austin insist that toll roads are evil elitism (and probably other -isms as well).

Which of course seems like a point in their favor. :)

Only the rich can afford to take them. So they are "toll roads for the rich".

If toll roads were run by liberals, the newer and more expensive cars would pay higher tolls, older and cheaper cars less or nothing. It's only fair.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 05:38 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
01-05-2018 05:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #71
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 05:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 04:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 03:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 03:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But cap and trade will impose additional incremental costs. You’re not business friendly unless you are willing to offer something to offset. What do you have in mind for that?

I know the usual refrain from the left, “Oh they just make such huge profits that it wouldn’t hurt them to make less.” Except they don’t want to make less, and they have options where they don’t have to make less.

So we do cap and trade, which isn’t a terrible idea. How do you make it up to businesses?

With the massive reduction in corporate taxes, why do there now need to be other concessions?

Aren't we now on even footing with the rest of the industrialized world, so we should expect companies to take on similar burdens as they do elsewhere?

We are probably pretty close. Let’s say, strictly for the purpose of discussion, that we are there. So you’re proposing changes that will make us worse. What do you propose to do to get us back to par?

I'm proposing changes that are worse than European countries? Or worse than our status quo?

You really don’t want to answer my question, do you?

So let me restate. With the reduction in corporate taxes, we are probably close to a push with most of the developed world. Our corporate taxes are higher than some, lower than some. We do double tax dividends, which most do not, and we consider more capital gains to be taxable than most do. We do not have a consumption tax, which is probably a disadvantage. Our businesses have heavier health care costs but generally lighter burdens for other benefits. We probably have less currency risk and a stronger rule of law, although some people are spooked by our jackpot liability damages, and it doesn’t help when Sotomayor makes her “wise Latina” comments. We do have the geographic and demographic advantages suggested by analysts like Peter Zeihan. Europe probaly has stricter regulations, but faster and more reliable and more equitable processes for resolving regulatory disputes. We are the largest market in the world, with the EU not far behind. All in all, with the tax decrease we are about a push.

So your question is really moot. We are at a push with Europe, or at least close enough that worse than Europe pretty much equals worse than our status quo.

So if you are going to make things worse here, what are you going to do to offset that?

No, it has nothing to do about not wanting to answer your question.

How you viewed us as being "on par" was not at all clear. Since I was only talking about being on par with corporate tax rates, I assumed you were also looking at just corporate taxes. Therefore, it wasn't clear why you felt it was necessary to continue to give concessions to businesses to catch up on some areas we currently lag behind Europe.

But you were talking about the overall regulatory and tax environment, at which point you're saying we excel in some areas, they do in others, and it's an overall wash in the end.

So let's say I want the US to mandate that employers guarantee paternity leave, something that literally only a handful of countries that are part of the UN don't guarantee, we need to give some concession to companies? Let's cut tax rates by another 0.1% so they can make up the lose in productivity? Or how about the government provides some sort of match and it works like other social safety nets so the employer isn't on the hook for 100% of the pay during the time off? I'm open to plenty of options, I'm just not really sure what ones would be on the table, it's a pretty wide open world we live in.

But in the end, I guess I don't fully agree with the concept that we must do a quid pro quo, especially when we would not be legislating in exceedance of other western, industrialized nations.
01-05-2018 05:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #72
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 05:19 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 04:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We should always remember that there are ostriches that want to put their head in the sands or want to try and fight against the truth in order to save their own skin. Dupont did it initially with CFCs. Big tobacco did it with cancer. And so on.

Leftists have done it with social policy for generations.

I'm intrigued by what you mean.

Social issues like advocating for/against gay marriage? Or for/against the legalization of marijuana? What about things like the War on Drugs?

I'm guessing you're mainly talking about the welfare trap?
01-05-2018 05:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #73
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 05:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

I think it was "Why did it take so #$%^ing long for them to finish the Mopac express lanes?"

Took them a long time but they work like a charm, imo.

My commute is situated such that the construction wreaked havoc on my commute times but the toll lane doesn't actually help me now.

However, as a progressive, I am of course elated that they help the greater good. In a grumpy sort of way.

Most self-styled progressives that I know in Austin insist that toll roads are evil elitism (and probably other -isms as well).

Which of course seems like a point in their favor. :)

I don't like toll roads, but think the manage toll lines are a great solution for congestion (which I assume these Mopac lanes are?).

Toll roads require you to find alternative routes that are generally surface streets or to take really out of the way routes to get from one destination to another, without paying a toll. For example, to get to/from work I can either take the beltway a short distance for $1.25 each way, or I can weave my way through surface streets to get to I-10. Once on I-10 I can either choose to drive at ~30 mph between the Beltway and 610, or I can take the managed lanes and go 70 mph (and only spend $0.30 because I am counter-commuting). I appreciate having the highway speed, no light option on I-10, and really hate not having a similar option on the beltway.

With the managed lanes, you at least have the option of avoiding surface streets (which are generally not as well maintained) and have the hope of moving at a speed that isn't completely stop and go.
01-05-2018 05:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #74
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 05:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 05:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  I think it was "Why did it take so #$%^ing long for them to finish the Mopac express lanes?"

Took them a long time but they work like a charm, imo.

My commute is situated such that the construction wreaked havoc on my commute times but the toll lane doesn't actually help me now.

However, as a progressive, I am of course elated that they help the greater good. In a grumpy sort of way.

Most self-styled progressives that I know in Austin insist that toll roads are evil elitism (and probably other -isms as well).

Which of course seems like a point in their favor. :)

I don't like toll roads, but think the manage toll lines are a great solution for congestion (which I assume these Mopac lanes are?).

Toll roads require you to find alternative routes that are generally surface streets or to take really out of the way routes to get from one destination to another, without paying a toll. For example, to get to/from work I can either take the beltway a short distance for $1.25 each way, or I can weave my way through surface streets to get to I-10. Once on I-10 I can either choose to drive at ~30 mph between the Beltway and 610, or I can take the managed lanes and go 70 mph (and only spend $0.30 because I am counter-commuting). I appreciate having the highway speed, no light option on I-10, and really hate not having a similar option on the beltway.

With the managed lanes, you at least have the option of avoiding surface streets (which are generally not as well maintained) and have the hope of moving at a speed that isn't completely stop and go.

Up here in the Northland, lots of the tolls are for Express lanes for the major freeways. You miss the surface roads either way.

I guess I missed the posts where we decided who the business friendly Democrats were, by name. Can somebody bring me up to date on that?
01-05-2018 06:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #75
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 05:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, it has nothing to do about not wanting to answer your question.
How you viewed us as being "on par" was not at all clear. Since I was only talking about being on par with corporate tax rates, I assumed you were also looking at just corporate taxes. Therefore, it wasn't clear why you felt it was necessary to continue to give concessions to businesses to catch up on some areas we currently lag behind Europe.
But you were talking about the overall regulatory and tax environment, at which point you're saying we excel in some areas, they do in others, and it's an overall wash in the end.
So let's say I want the US to mandate that employers guarantee paternity leave, something that literally only a handful of countries that are part of the UN don't guarantee, we need to give some concession to companies? Let's cut tax rates by another 0.1% so they can make up the lose in productivity? Or how about the government provides some sort of match and it works like other social safety nets so the employer isn't on the hook for 100% of the pay during the time off? I'm open to plenty of options, I'm just not really sure what ones would be on the table, it's a pretty wide open world we live in.
But in the end, I guess I don't fully agree with the concept that we must do a quid pro quo, especially when we would not be legislating in exceedance of other western, industrialized nations.

I'm not quite sure why you didn't understand the "on par" comment. I pretty much spelled out all the details. I do the same with my undergraduate international business law students, and they seem to grasp it pretty clearly. We're better in some areas than other countries, worse in others. On balance, it's about par, depending on what factors are most important to a particular investment decision. I take the position that more investment, growth, and jobs are good things, and tend to improve the lot of the middle class, in particular. If you disagree with that basic position, then perhaps that is the reason for our differences.

So if we start at about a par overall with other countries, and we do something to make it relatively worse here than it was before, then we have made it worse than it is in other countries as well. That will drive investment, growth, and jobs to those other countries, to the extent that whatever we have made worse impacts a decision.

So if we start out at A (us) = B (them), and we change A to A-1, then A-1<B and we have to add a +1 to get back to equal with B. That -1 could be more leave and vacation or cap and trade (things which you have proposed and I actually think are good), so we have to come up with a +1 to offset it to get us back to a push. I would actually favor a +2 or +3 so the field clearly swings our way. And then maybe we could look at some of the other things you want to get us back down to par or slightly better. So I'm open to your social issues, but there clearly has to be a quid pro quo, which is what we have lacked all too often.

Here's how I would go after it. Regulatory reform would be huge for me. Europe generally has tougher, or at least as tough, regulations in most areas. But their regulatory process provide more reasonable and speedy and predictable results. And businesses prefer certainty and speed, and are willing to pay more to get them. I would go for increasing regulation of some areas that matter, in exchange for reducing or removing regulations in areas that don't matter, and going to procedures that had more due process protections. I'd do three things--subject rule making to congressional review, put in sunset review for all agencies and regulations every 10 years, and move adjudication of disputes from captive ALJs within the agencies to a separate article III administrative law court. Under that setup, jurisdiction and venue for all disputes would be in the district where the cause of action arose, rather than in the DC Circuit.

Then I would do a consumption tax and use the funds to 1) balance the budget, freeing up capital markets, 2) fund Bismarck universal private health insurance/care, removing a large cost from employers, 3) implement a guaranteed basic income, and 4) lower and flatten income tax rate structures (we could possibly eliminate the individual income tax altogether). With lower operating costs and increased availability of capital, plus the protective aspects of a consumption tax, this would make US businesses much better off.

In exchange for these, we could look at the reforms you want. We could end up far more attractive an investment destination than today, at the same time as we add some of the worker and social protections you want. That looks like a win-win to me. How about you?

The relevance of this to the original question is that this is how I would expect a business-friendly politician to think and act. Come to think of it, I can't think of many democrats or republicans who think that way, which is probably why I don't support either one.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 07:07 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
01-05-2018 06:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #76
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 05:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 05:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  I think it was "Why did it take so #$%^ing long for them to finish the Mopac express lanes?"

Took them a long time but they work like a charm, imo.

My commute is situated such that the construction wreaked havoc on my commute times but the toll lane doesn't actually help me now.

However, as a progressive, I am of course elated that they help the greater good. In a grumpy sort of way.

Most self-styled progressives that I know in Austin insist that toll roads are evil elitism (and probably other -isms as well).

Which of course seems like a point in their favor. :)

I don't like toll roads, but think the manage toll lines are a great solution for congestion (which I assume these Mopac lanes are?).

Toll roads require you to find alternative routes that are generally surface streets or to take really out of the way routes to get from one destination to another, without paying a toll. For example, to get to/from work I can either take the beltway a short distance for $1.25 each way, or I can weave my way through surface streets to get to I-10. Once on I-10 I can either choose to drive at ~30 mph between the Beltway and 610, or I can take the managed lanes and go 70 mph (and only spend $0.30 because I am counter-commuting). I appreciate having the highway speed, no light option on I-10, and really hate not having a similar option on the beltway.

With the managed lanes, you at least have the option of avoiding surface streets (which are generally not as well maintained) and have the hope of moving at a speed that isn't completely stop and go.

If you're willing to entertain the idea of having people pay to pollute, it seems you would also like the idea of having them pay for the construction costs and limited access privileges of expressways.
01-05-2018 07:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #77
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 07:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 05:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 05:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Took them a long time but they work like a charm, imo.

My commute is situated such that the construction wreaked havoc on my commute times but the toll lane doesn't actually help me now.

However, as a progressive, I am of course elated that they help the greater good. In a grumpy sort of way.

Most self-styled progressives that I know in Austin insist that toll roads are evil elitism (and probably other -isms as well).

Which of course seems like a point in their favor. :)

I don't like toll roads, but think the manage toll lines are a great solution for congestion (which I assume these Mopac lanes are?).

Toll roads require you to find alternative routes that are generally surface streets or to take really out of the way routes to get from one destination to another, without paying a toll. For example, to get to/from work I can either take the beltway a short distance for $1.25 each way, or I can weave my way through surface streets to get to I-10. Once on I-10 I can either choose to drive at ~30 mph between the Beltway and 610, or I can take the managed lanes and go 70 mph (and only spend $0.30 because I am counter-commuting). I appreciate having the highway speed, no light option on I-10, and really hate not having a similar option on the beltway.

With the managed lanes, you at least have the option of avoiding surface streets (which are generally not as well maintained) and have the hope of moving at a speed that isn't completely stop and go.

If you're willing to entertain the idea of having people pay to pollute, it seems you would also like the idea of having them pay for the construction costs and limited access privileges of expressways.

A few issues with this.

1) i do like the idea of paying to access expressways, just not when then entire expressway is tolled and I don’t have the option of using a similar, but slightly less efficient option (surface streets or alternative routes bring much less efficient). That’s why I preferred the manage lanes approach.

2) I’m not saying we shouldn’t have sent toll roads, I just don’t like them and prefer an alternative, yet very similar, approach

3) I don’t see these two issues being similar anyways. The “paying to pollute” idea is a way to try and get companies to, in essence, pay for the costs of their negative externalities, issues and economic losses that their activities cause but they would never be charged for themselves and which the commons would need to bear. Toll roads are about providing increased access to areas, and not about dealing with negative externalities of the actions of a company.

In reality, I wouldn’t prefer we raise taxes for a period and publicly fund mass transit or public roadways to deal with the issue of congestion, and find ways to continue to raise funds for maintenance via things like managed lanes.
01-05-2018 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 04:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My point was to make it clear that the chemical industry did not immediately either agree with the science (they actively tried to discredit it at first),

The science was fairly weak until the mid to late 80s. Using a comment from '75 is not really 'spot on' the attempt to tar and feather them for not agreeing with the science. Many did not at that point.

I guess any scientific assertion should be automatically accepted the instant it is made? That is the only stance in which the '75 statement should be viewed negatively. But, of course, taking that stance is really pretty much anti-scientific method, interestingly.

You frame their disagreement as nefarious. In '75 the CFC science was not strong enough, to be bluntly honest. Kind of cheesy to target them for asking that the case *actually* be proved up in '75, imo. I mean, the *temerity* of asking to make sure that the science is solid....

Quote:and they did not really support the international action publicly, and come out against it publicly for many years after it was signed.

So they should be disallowed from making a policy argument? Wow. I guess that policy arguments are verbotten. No offense, but not allowing a policy argument or to argue that a policy argument is not permitted to enter into the debate is much akin to present day religious right anti-abortionist mode of operation and debate.

And perhaps in the business sense that is a fundamental difference between libertarian/economic-conservative/neoliberal economic thought and progressive/liberal thought as it pertains to business issues. I guess in the latter point of view *any* policy consideration or economic consideration is considered double bad ungood thought? I mean, with all due respect, that is *exactly* the treatment you are giving it here to some extent.

Quote:We should always remember that there are ostriches that want to put their head in the sands or want to try and fight against the truth in order to save their own skin. Dupont did it initially with CFCs. Big tobacco did it with cancer. And so on.

Your comments about DuPont are disingenuous as it relates to the science comments when you realize and understand the timeline. And, you seem to want it to be double bad ungood to make a policy argument. Lad, with all due respect your comments as to the '75 timeframe are way off base. And, to be blunt, your implicit indictment of the *temerity* to make a policy argument is rather frightening.

Big tobacco? hard to defend pure paid for fraud. I guess you have that one. Your extension of it to DuPont and CFCs is way off base. And, to be blunt, a tad frightening.
01-05-2018 08:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 06:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess I missed the posts where we decided who the business friendly Democrats were, by name. Can somebody bring me up to date on that?

I can. Here is the list.

Did you get that?

I think we are having a discussion if the term 'business friendly Democrat' is even viable as reality in the first place.
01-05-2018 08:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #80
RE: Question
(01-05-2018 06:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not quite sure why you didn't understand the "on par" comment. I pretty much spelled out all the details. I do the same with my undergraduate international business law students, and they seem to grasp it pretty clearly. We're better in some areas than other countries, worse in others. On balance, it's about par, depending on what factors are most important to a particular investment decision. I take the position that more investment, growth, and jobs are good things, and tend to improve the lot of the middle class, in particular. If you disagree with that basic position, then perhaps that is the reason for our differences.
So if we start at about a par overall with other countries, and we do something to make it relatively worse here than it was before, then we have made it worse than it is in other countries as well. That will drive investment, growth, and jobs to those other countries, to the extent that whatever we have made worse impacts a decision.
So if we start out at A (us) = B (them), and we change A to A-1, then A-1<B and we have to add a +1 to get back to equal with B. That -1 could be more leave and vacation or cap and trade (things which you have proposed and I actually think are good), so we have to come up with a +1 to offset it to get us back to a push. I would actually favor a +2 or +3 so the field clearly swings our way. And then maybe we could look at some of the other things you want to get us back down to par or slightly better. So I'm open to your social issues, but there clearly has to be a quid pro quo, which is what we have lacked all too often.
Here's how I would go after it. Regulatory reform would be huge for me. Europe generally has tougher, or at least as tough, regulations in most areas. But their regulatory process provide more reasonable and speedy and predictable results. And businesses prefer certainty and speed, and are willing to pay more to get them. I would go for increasing regulation of some areas that matter, in exchange for reducing or removing regulations in areas that don't matter, and going to procedures that had more due process protections. I'd do three things--subject rule making to congressional review, put in sunset review for all agencies and regulations every 10 years, and move adjudication of disputes from captive ALJs within the agencies to a separate article III administrative law court. Under that setup, jurisdiction and venue for all disputes would be in the district where the cause of action arose, rather than in the DC Circuit.
Then I would do a consumption tax and use the funds to 1) balance the budget, freeing up capital markets, 2) fund Bismarck universal private health insurance/care, removing a large cost from employers, 3) implement a guaranteed basic income, and 4) lower and flatten income tax rate structures (we could possibly eliminate the individual income tax altogether). With lower operating costs and increased availability of capital, plus the protective aspects of a consumption tax, this would make US businesses much better off.
In exchange for these, we could look at the reforms you want. We could end up far more attractive an investment destination than today, at the same time as we add some of the worker and social protections you want. That looks like a win-win to me. How about you?
The relevance of this to the original question is that this is how I would expect a business-friendly politician to think and act. Come to think of it, I can't think of many democrats or republicans who think that way, which is probably why I don't support either one.

Bump. Lad?
01-05-2018 08:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.