I see this attitude on here!

[Bonestorm]

Holding cash is not investment. Earnings have been up because they've fired a ton of people and are getting those left over to do their work... productivity is up with less people, earnings are up, hiring isn't...

They aren't hiring because they feel no permanence of policy to protect them from the action of government that may decide at any moment that the money they have belongs to "the people"...

We need companies to feel that they can plan a future around some sort of permanent policy, or we will create for ourselves a replica of Japan's "lost decade"... Ours, however, appears to be set to last for a longer period.

They aren't hiring because they have no need to hire to meet existing demand. It's very simple and doesn't have anything to do with "permanence of policy to protect them" or any such nonsense.

We need companies to feel that if they produce more there will be demand to meet their increased production.

And your nonsensical teabaggery is getting tired, tired, tired.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ah... Yeah, "not" is an important word there and it changes everything... However just saying 'nonsense' says nothing about what I said other than you don't want to listen. If you have some sort of real data that can defeat what I surmise then have at it, but just saying "nonsense" is a cop-out.

Well, it is nonsense. In my view there is nothing of substance to respond to. You just string together a bunch of garbage that has absolutely no basis in fact. Additionally, I'm trying to keep it civil these days so I have decided not to engage pure wingnuttery anymore. It just isn't worth it.

 

[Damocles]

They aren't hiring because they have no need to hire to meet existing demand. It's very simple and doesn't have anything to do with "permanence of policy to protect them" or any such nonsense.

We need companies to feel that if they produce more there will be demand to meet their increased production.

And your nonsensical teabaggery is getting tired, tired, tired.

Yeah, because policy could never possibly change the action of a corporation, especially as congress has yet to extend tax cuts, are arguing not to, and are trying to get them to pay for still more health insurance.

Many, many companies hire into lower demand because of training time (especially for more technological companies) with an expectation of increased demand. Companies see no cause to expect increased demand and feel that they cannot plan for it while policy remains in flux. Set the policy one way or another and we will see movement, as long as there is no reassurance of some permanence hiring will remain slow at best.

 

[Damocles]

Well, it is nonsense. In my view there is nothing of substance to respond to. You just string together a bunch of garbage that has absolutely no basis in fact. Additionally, I'm trying to keep it civil these days so I have decided not to engage pure wingnuttery anymore. It just isn't worth it.

You see no "substance"... It was you or Onceler (can't remember which) who suddenly described trickle-down theory in response to my post about those stupid electronic cars that he gave a grant to and showed up trying to tout his "new economy"...

Seriously, trickle-down will only work in a more generic wholesale manner, trying to select the crappiest product to give grants to is no sign of good policy. It's a recipe for disaster and control.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yeah, because policy could never possibly change the action of a corporation, especially as congress has yet to extend tax cuts, are arguing not to, and are trying to get them to pay for still more health insurance.

Many, many companies hire into lower demand because of training time (especially for more technological companies) with an expectation of increased demand. Companies see no cause to expect increased demand and feel that they cannot plan for it while policy remains in flux. Set the policy one way or another and we will see movement, as long as there is no reassurance of some permanence hiring will remain slow at best.

I think it's hilarious that you demand facts and data from others while you offer nothing but rhetoric and word salad.

Here's a chart detailing the responses of small business owners regarding their single biggest problem:

Notice the relative constant of taxes as compared to the spike in poor sales. Unemployment is a demand problem, not a tax policy problem.

 

[Damocles]

I think it's hilarious that you demand facts and data from others while you offer nothing but rhetoric and word salad.

Here's a chart detailing the responses of small business owners regarding their single biggest problem:

Notice the relative constant of taxes as compared to the spike in poor sales. Unemployment is a demand problem, not a tax policy problem.

Your chart gives credence to my post, not taking away from it. The impermanence of current tax policy has effect in hiring.

Thanks for posting it. The idea that it is a constant issue where companies consistently say it is the reason they aren't hiring really solidifies what I said. I don't get why you posted something that shows that taxes are the one most companies say they aren't hiring, second to that is cost of labor, on down... While yes, there is a spike in what you want, it changes not one iota that the largest single factor that they say is taxes, second is cost of labor...

 

[Bonestorm]

Your chart gives credence to my post, not taking away from it. The impermanence of current tax policy has effect in hiring.

Thanks for posting it.

Ah, yes, the the Damocles stock response when confronted with data that doesn't support what he has said while offering none in support of his own argument.

No one has said that tax policy has no impact on hiring. You want to pretend that right now tax policy is sole impediment to hiring and that poor demand has nothing to so with it. What a careful look at that chart reveals is that tax policy has remained constant as a concern. If what you are arguing were true, we would expect to see a dramatic increase for taxes as the number one problem. But that's not what the chart shows.

Instead, the chart shows a dramatic increase in "poor sales" as the single biggest problem for small businesses and it is no surprise whatsoever that this spike correlates with the current recession.

 

[Bonestorm]

Or maybe you just don't know how to read the chart. Your edit suggests that is the case.

 

[Damocles]

Ah, yes, the the Damocles stock response when confronted with data that doesn't support what he has said while offering none in support of his own argument.

No one has said that tax policy has no impact on hiring. You want to pretend that right now tax policy is sole impediment to hiring and that poor demand has nothing to so with it. What a careful look at that chart reveals is that tax policy has remained constant as a concern. If what you are arguing were true, we would expect to see a dramatic increase for taxes as the number one problem. But that's not what the chart shows.

Instead, the chart shows a dramatic increase in "poor sales" as the single biggest problem for small businesses and it is no surprise whatsoever that this spike correlates with the current recession.

What are you talking about? The data supports what I stated, it is the single largest reason stated by those companies.

I thanked you for finding it. While low sales spike on the chart it in no way overcomes the number 1 stated reason, not even close. Taxes.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

What are you talking about? The data supports what I stated, it is the single largest reason stated by those companies.

I thanked you for finding it. While low sales spike on the chart it in no way overcomes the number 1 stated reason, not even close. Taxes.

That's the stated reason, because that's what they want to achieve in policy.

The low demand due to outsourcing and globalization is something they're not supposed to talk about.

 

[Bonestorm]

What are you talking about? The data supports what I stated, it is the single largest reason stated by those companies.

I thanked you for finding it. While low sales spike on the chart it in no way overcomes the number 1 stated reason, not even close. Taxes.

You should take a little bit more care in reading the chart.

 

[Bonestorm]

Since Damo apparently isn't a visual learner:

The biggest single problem facing America’s small businesses isn’t taxes or overregulation. It’s low demand, according to a new report released by the National Federation of Independent Business.

Thirty-one percent of small businesses surveyed by the N.F.I.B. said that “poor sales” are their company’s “single most important problem.” The other options included were competition from large businesses, insurance costs and availability, financing and interest rates, government requirements and red tape, inflation, quality of labor, cost of labor and “other.”

[snip

Much of the debate about how to spur growth and encourage hiring has focused on making the tax picture temporarily more business-friendly. But as you can see [well, not you, Damo], the portion of small businesses citing taxes as their superlative problem has remained about the same — mostly in the 17-22 percent range, say — for about a decade.

Additionally, lending help for small businesses is another key stimulative policy in play, and meanwhile financial and interest rate concerns are a comparably negligible concern.

By contrast, the share of companies saying the poor sales is their main challenge has about doubled since the downturn began.

Exactly how to address soft demand, though, is even more complicated and contentious than supply-side policies like cutting taxes or providing interest-free loans.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/whats-holding-back-small-businesses/?src=twr

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Nigel, all the libertarian/neocon fucker types will never say shit about globalization, their mouths are too firmly wrapped around large corporate cock to be able to utter the truth that globalization is destroying individuals and smaller businesses. They will continue insisting tax cuts are the only solution until the day they die.

 

[Damocles]

Since Damo apparently isn't a visual learner:





http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/whats-holding-back-small-businesses/?src=twr

Since Nigel doesn't quite gather the idea that the only number 1 idea that remains at number 1 all the time is still the number 1 idea even if another gains a bit on it. I'll explain it again. Taxes are still number 1, while something gains in ebb and flow it doesn't change that. It is flat inane to say that taxes do not motivate people. However, it isn't solely taxes that help give companies belief in the stability of policy. I stated two things here, but you have added another that helps out. Lending.

Businesses need several different policies to be relatively stable. Lending policy, tax policy, policy regarding benefits, regulatory policy... All of these and other while in flux cause companies to hold cash (including lending institutions) rather than spend it. This is in all areas, including hiring.

If they can continue to get higher productivity from less employees they will... Even when it makes sense to hire..

Let me give a solid numbers example. In Spring of '09 earning per share on the S&P was $7, today it is $67/share and is heading into record numbers soon. All this while not hiring... It makes sense when earnings grow at that rate to hire, however the instability of policy causes companies (Apple is a very good example, they have billions in cash, cash, not invested, just cash) to hold their cash rather than to bet on an uncertain future.

Pretending that when I say policy I mean only taxes shows a crippling limitation on your understanding not just in business, but actually in what words mean. While tax policy remains the number 1 concern of even small business, it is ALL of the uncertain policy that causes them to hold their cash.

If we want these businesses to begin hiring we need all of this to be relatively stable. Your chart showed that I am correct, all of the things I list are in there (even more than just the few examples I listed). Yes, lower demand has its effect but fluctuating policy has its effect too. Demand will increase when businesses are less uncertain about the future of policy. Obama's here, there, everywhere, all things to all people approach is causing a larger problem.

Pass the extension of taxes, fix the crappiest law ever passed (the health care debacle that doesn't even cover all the people reported to be the problem in the campaign), and set solid policy for lenders so they too can have some certainty and we'll be better off. Until some of this is done we will remain in stagnation...

 

[Canceled1]

Since Nigel doesn't quite gather the idea that the only number 1 idea that remains at number 1 all the time is still the number 1 idea even if another gains a bit on it. I'll explain it again. Taxes are still number 1, while something gains in ebb and flow it doesn't change that. It is flat inane to say that taxes do not motivate people. However, it isn't solely taxes that help give companies belief in the stability of policy. I stated two things here, but you have added another that helps out. Lending.

Businesses need several different policies to be relatively stable. Lending policy, tax policy, policy regarding benefits, regulatory policy... All of these and other while in flux cause companies to hold cash (including lending institutions) rather than spend it. This is in all areas, including hiring.

If they can continue to get higher productivity from less employees they will... Even when it makes sense to hire..

Let me give a solid numbers example. In Spring of '09 earning per share on the S&P was $7, today it is $67/share and is heading into record numbers soon. All this while not hiring... It makes sense when earnings grow at that rate to hire, however the instability of policy causes companies (Apple is a very good example, they have billions in cash, cash, not invested, just cash) to hold their cash rather than to bet on an uncertain future.

Pretending that when I say policy I mean only taxes shows a crippling limitation on your understanding of business, not only in what I said, but in what words mean. While taxes remain the number 1 concern of even small business, it is all of the uncertain policy that causes them to hold their cash.

I think it's patently obvious the only thing that motivates Nigel is the sound of his own voice and the vision of his own words. He's so busy listening to the committee(s) in his head you can't be certain exactly who he is responding to.

 

[Damocles]

Nigel, all the libertarian/neocon fucker types will never say shit about globalization, their mouths are too firmly wrapped around large corporate cock to be able to utter the truth that globalization is destroying individuals and smaller businesses. They will continue insisting tax cuts are the only solution until the day they die.

Let's make sure that no businesses will ever start up in the US by making it so there is no delay on taxation for any US business. That will fix it...



The suggestion that taking away deferment will fix businesses going elsewhere is one of the most foolish policies suggested by this Administration ever. It doesn't stop Americans from investing in business entirely elsewhere, since it isn't a US business there will be zero tax collected from the US... that fixes the deferment "problem"...

Stupid.. This Administration is absolutely clueless. That isn't protectionism, it has the same effect as somebody desperately TRYING to drive businesses elsewhere. If you want them to bring the business home, you need to make sure that they are not punished by higher government expense just by doing that... Instead this Administration offers to punish everybody so that no business will want to invest in the US...

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Let's make sure that no businesses will ever start up in the US by making it so there is no delay on taxation for any US business. That will fix it...



The suggestion that taking away deferment will fix businesses going elsewhere is one of the most foolish policies suggested by this Administration ever. It doesn't stop Americans from investing in business entirely elsewhere, since it isn't a US business there will be zero tax collected from the US... that fixes the deferment "problem"...

Stupid.. This Administration is absolutely clueless. That isn't protectionism, it has the same effect as somebody desperately TRYING to drive businesses elsewhere. If you want them to bring the business home, you need to make sure that they are not punished by higher government expense just by doing that... Instead this Administration offers to punish everybody so that no business will want to invest in the US...

taxes isn't the issue, you fucknut. Lagging demand due to jobs being outsourced and americans being poor is. Stop with your fucking bullshit for once.

 

[Damocles]

taxes isn't the issue, you fucknut. Lagging demand due to jobs being outsourced and americans being poor is. Stop with your fucking bullshit for once.

It's like you can't read. This particular post wasn't about hiring it was about AHZ and his desperate cry for protectionism. I say, protectionism is fine so long as it actually does incentivize business to stay at home rather than incentivizing business to invest elsewhere as the suggested POLICY of the Administration does.

The post preceding this one was about the POLICY that I spoke about earlier.

Now keep up with what you and I are talking about and we'll do a bit better.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

It's like you can't read. This particular post wasn't about hiring it was about AHZ and his desperate cry for protectionism. I say, protectionism is fine so long as it actually does incentivize business to stay at home rather than incentivizing business to invest elsewhere as the POLICY of the Administration does.

The post preceding this one was about the POLICY that I spoke about earlier.

No. these posts have been about you and your broken neocon idiot cry that all we can do is cut taxes. No amount of tax cuts will make up for 20 cent per hour slave labor overseas, and the anti-american fascists who use it.

 

[Damocles]

No. these posts have been about you and your broken neocon idiot cry that all we can do is cut taxes. No amount of tax cuts will make up for 20 cent per hour slave labor overseas, and the anti-american fascists who use it.

No, they haven't. They have been about Nigel's assumption that when I say "POLICY" then talk about more than one of them, since I am somewhat libertarian, I mean only taxation.

Then when I explain later you simply glide on past because the post is clearly above your education level. Then you post something stupid about protectionism, and when I use a direct example of stupid POLICY that would drive business away being promoted by this Administration, you attempt to fall back on your limited capacity of thought and say "taxes"...

It's like arguing with a tourrette's patient having a fit.

If you can keep up with the point you made (protectionism) and what I answered (protectionism fine so long as it keeps business here rather than drive it away in the name of protectionism)... we can hold an adult conversation. If you can't, please just twitch again.