FWIW, I actually do believe both sides of the coin are right in this. It just depends on how you're looking at it.
I don't believe that meg is right that her father received no help at all. That's a little too shortsighted for me to go along with.
I think she meant that the help is help he paid into either with time served or with taxes. I think it is different for different people what the term "Help" means.
Oh and I'm dying that Ayn Rand's philosophy was the politics of government for the past 30 years. That has got to be the most ridiculous assertion I've read on here in months. Let's see, we bailed out and/or created ongoing support programs for auto companies, banks, old people, sick people, poor people, energy companies, manufacturing companies, unions, homeowners, cities and states, children, and farmers, to name a few. Sounds just like John Galt's utopia.
I'm sorry, I guess my math is bad. 1980-2008. Oh, that's only 28 years. May bad.
Because before 2008 we had none of those things? Nope we had all of those things. Literally all of them.
Post by laurenpetro on Jul 19, 2012 12:51:32 GMT -5
tef, i'll admit to skimming some of the posts so i apologize if this was addressed, but i didn't see anything about socializing small business failure. all of the solicization that was mentioned was for extremely large businesses.
wasn't the whole debate at the time that wall street got the bailout but main street was left in the wind?
FWIW, I actually do believe both sides of the coin are right in this. It just depends on how you're looking at it.
I don't believe that meg is right that her father received no help at all. That's a little too shortsighted for me to go along with.
I think she meant that the help is help he paid into either with time served or with taxes. I think it is different for different people what the term "Help" means.
I think she meant that the help is help he paid into either with time served or with taxes. I think it is different for different people what the term "Help" means.
Here we go interpreting again...
Well, to be fair, if you pay taxes for road, schools, services, then it is not really help.
FWIW, I actually do believe both sides of the coin are right in this. It just depends on how you're looking at it.
I don't believe that meg is right that her father received no help at all. That's a little too shortsighted for me to go along with.
I think she meant that the help is help he paid into either with time served or with taxes. I think it is different for different people what the term "Help" means.
i think you're giving her too much credit. she barely aknowleged that the GI bill was involved.
tef, i'll admit to skimming some of the posts so i apologize if this was addressed, but i didn't see anything about socializing small business failure. all of the solicization that was mentioned was for extremely large businesses.
wasn't the whole debate at the time that wall street got the bailout but main street was left in the wind?
again, sorry if this was already talked about.
Tax write-offs hit all, not just large businesses. Yes, they dont really get bailed out (or I can not think of any at this moment), but they definitely have failure socialized by the tax code.
I think she meant that the help is help he paid into either with time served or with taxes. I think it is different for different people what the term "Help" means.
i think you're giving her too much credit. she barely aknowleged that the GI bill was involved.
The GI bill is not help for free. It is payment for a service. So, I think she does acknowledge it, but doesnt see it as help. But, carry on.
Caden - interesting POV on loans. I guess that is where cons and libs would disagree. Locally, our city/county have worked to create opportunities - like incubators, sbo loans, etc to business owners because they haven't had much help by way of banks. It just seems odd in some ways that some folks would be get out there and get it! And then, well, I hope you got all the $$ you need to get started. It's just odd to me. That's all.
You don't have to convert me to your way of thinking on this. We can just be like Wolf Blitzer and "Leave It There." hee hee
Well, to be fair, if you pay taxes for road, schools, services, then it is not really help.
Your money pays for it, but the government provides the service (as it stands). I wonder how it would be different if it was left to private services.
That is the agreement set in paying for the service (for which all benefit, not just me). If left to a private business, and a fee was paid for a service, it would be done or there would be issues (such as lawsuits for the above example of letting a house burn).
Caden - interesting POV on loans. I guess that is where cons and libs would disagree. Locally, our city/county have worked to create opportunities - like incubators, sbo loans, etc to business owners because they haven't had much help by way of banks. It just seems odd in some ways that some folks would be get out there and get it! And then, well, I hope you got all the $$ you need to get started. It's just odd to me. That's all.
You don't have to convert me to your way of thinking on this. We can just be like Wolf Blitzer and "Leave It There." hee hee
I'm not trying to be convincing, just to explain my POV. If there's a defect in the credit system, then I'm not entirely opposed to intervention. But when there isn't, I'd really like to know why no bank is willing to support a certain business. What's wrong with the local economic climate that people are too afraid to invest in good ideas, and what can be done to fix those things so that capital flows in the direction of consumer preference, not a bureaucrat's whim of what a city should want. And is it really that there would be no investment absent a gov't loan, or that people prefer the gov't loan b/c the terms are better, but would otherwise go through a bank. When I look for the benefits people say, "Well it helped the person who got the loan." But that's a shallow analysis at best. It's basically welfare if the idea isn't going to be successful, and not the most effective form. A real analysis would compare what else would have been done with the same money, and how it affected the flow of capital in that local economy.
Your money pays for it, but the government provides the service (as it stands). I wonder how it would be different if it was left to private services.
That is the agreement set in paying for the service (for which all benefit, not just me). If left to a private business, and a fee was paid for a service, it would be done or there would be issues (such as lawsuits for the above example of letting a house burn).
But there are some things that have to be handled by the commons.
There are some things that need everybody to pay in, so we can all benefit.
Heck, everybody on this board is all pro-vax, but you seem unwilling to apply the same logic to economics.
...we all need to get vaccines, so that there's herd immunity. Same is true of SOME services - - we all need to pay for them, so there's herd protection, not a patchwork of private fire departments and non-compliance that will end with the entire city in flames.
That is the agreement set in paying for the service (for which all benefit, not just me). If left to a private business, and a fee was paid for a service, it would be done or there would be issues (such as lawsuits for the above example of letting a house burn).
But there are some things that have to be handled by the commons.
There are some things that need everybody to pay in, so we can all benefit.
Heck, everybody on this board is all pro-vax, but you seem unwilling to apply the same logic to economics.
...we all need to get vaccines, so that there's herd immunity. Same is true of SOME services - - we all need to pay for them, so there's herd protection, not a patchwork of private fire departments and non-compliance that will end with the entire city in flames.
You are right. We ALL need to pay into these to get protection. Where did I say this was NOT the issue? ...
But there are some things that have to be handled by the commons.
There are some things that need everybody to pay in, so we can all benefit.
Heck, everybody on this board is all pro-vax, but you seem unwilling to apply the same logic to economics.
...we all need to get vaccines, so that there's herd immunity. Same is true of SOME services - - we all need to pay for them, so there's herd protection, not a patchwork of private fire departments and non-compliance that will end with the entire city in flames.
You are right. We ALL need to pay into these to get protection. Where did I say this was NOT the issue? ...
What are we even talking about now? No one thinks police/fire/defense/roads should all be privately owned and operated.
So if a business is successful, it's because of the roads, the teachers, the loan from the bank along with the SBO. But if it fails, it's just the SBO. Got it.
We haven't talked about failure at all in this thread, and I'd be interested to see the viewpoints on that. As is stands, lilm, your statement doesn't flow with the thread.
If a business succeeds on it's own, then does it fail on it's own? Isn't that the flipside of the coin?
Then, logically, if we say that a business depends on society to succeed, then isn't society letting down that business when it fails?
This is where I'm stuck and I've been trying to think how I want to word what I'm trying to say.
How I'm reading this, is if a business is successful, the Owner had "help." However it's defined - roads, infrastructure, educated employees, utilities, a mentor that inspired you, whatever. So if the Owner succeeds, he/she didn't get there on their own. Society helped them. Credit should be acknowledged to all. The mentor, the services provided by society helped the Owner succeed.
But if an Owner fails, how did the mentor and society factor into their failure?
I guess I'm trying to compare apples to apples the role "help" has in success vs. failure.
We haven't talked about failure at all in this thread, and I'd be interested to see the viewpoints on that. As is stands, lilm, your statement doesn't flow with the thread.
If a business succeeds on it's own, then does it fail on it's own? Isn't that the flipside of the coin?
Then, logically, if we say that a business depends on society to succeed, then isn't society letting down that business when it fails?
This is where I'm stuck and I've been trying to think how I want to word what I'm trying to say.
How I'm reading this, is if a business is successful, the Owner had "help." However it's defined - roads, infrastructure, educated employees, utilities, a mentor that inspired you, whatever. So if the Owner succeeds, he/she didn't get there on their own. Society helped them. Credit should be acknowledged to all. The mentor, the services provided by society helped the Owner succeed.
But if an Owner fails, how did the mentor and society factor into their failure?
I guess I'm trying to compare apples to apples the role "help" has in success vs. failure.
You don't think that, if a business fails, society doesn't end up paying for it, in part?
Losses get written off on taxes.
Out of work employees become eligible for government benefits.
Public services of all kinds (say, public schools take previously-privately-educated kids) pick up the slack.