4 ms·

"business-lobby" ? Does that mean "people in favor of profits, job creation, and value creation" ? Count me in to that lobby. Because, frankly, what's the al

by tjic 17y ago

"business-lobby" ? Does that mean "people in favor of profits, job creation, and value creation" ? Count me in to that lobby. Because, frankly, what's the alternative? Thinking that we have too much entrepreneurialism, value creation, innovation, and employment, and we should tax it more so that we end up with less of it?

iron_ball 17y ago
If other countries have lower taxes, why don't they have more entrepreneurialism, value creation, innovation, and employment than America?
- cwan 17y ago
  Taxes are obviously only a part of the equation but if you look at the trend lines, it's definitely not good. Taxes elsewhere have been falling significantly while those in the US have stayed the same. I do think other places in the world are seeing greater levels of entrepreneurialism (at least in the places I travel). The US is now nearing if not exceeding levels of unemployment in places like Canada and Europe.
  - evgen 17y ago
    The entrepreneurial rate in most countries had nowhere to go _but_ up, so this really tells us nothing more than the fact that a lot of countries have woken up and reduced the structural disincentives to entrepreneurship that had been in place. It is also not possible at this time for a country to be 100% entrepreneurs (or even close to that) and every additional percentage of entrepreneurship takes more and more effort. Corporate taxes, beyond the obviously bad levels you see at the extremes, are not as directly tied to either entrepreneurship nor unemployment rates as you would suggest (c.f. in the late 90s we had higher taxes and much lower unemployment numbers -- the reason why this was the case is easy to see in retrospect, but it is a simple and direct example of how your arguments are flawed.)
skorgu 17y ago
That's a nice straw man you're arguing against. Lobbying for less regulation, lower taxes and free markets is one position. Lobbying for increased oversight of potentially damaging behavior, increased transparency in industry, reduced rent seeking and universal standards of safety is another. The right mix is somewhere in between the two extremes of course and each side can point to massive failures of the other's philosophy. Implicitly framing one side as "people who don't like profits or jobs" is distasteful and frankly surprising to see here.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Lobbying for free markets necessarily implies eliminating rent seeking. You'll not that the only way that rent seeking is possible is when the government gets its claws into the industry. Government regulation becomes the tool of those it claims to watch. It happens every time: well-meaning regulators get subverted toward the ends of business lobbyists. Is there any reason to believe that something will suddenly turn this around so that the government is never suberted?
  - skorgu 17y ago
    I'm not sure that rent seeking requires gov't intervention, I suspect there are instances of monopoly- or oligarchy-driven rent-seeking behavior but I don't have the desire right now to do a comprehensive search. Fundamentally I don't disagree, and I think my comment is pretty clear. I'm not making a specific argument on where the balance of regulation ought to exist. I take issue only with the framing of the debate in terms that make it impossible to hold a conversation. No offense is meant towards anyone, I'd just prefer to keep the discussion at a bit more civil tone. We already have a reddit. Edit: nuked two paras that didn't come out right.
    - CWuestefeld 17y ago
      I concede the finer point. It's probably true that rent seeking can be accomplished with the intervention of government as such. I maintain that, because government is so accessible and because they carry such a big stick, the vast, vast portion of rent seeking is accomplished by subverting government regulation. That said, I'm up-voting your reply because it is a relevant argument. I just watched a TED video with Paul Romer where he talked about the effect of societal rules on development: not just governmental laws, but broader societal norms that might prevent progress.
biohacker42 17y ago
Because, frankly, what's the alternative? Lobbying to preserve your government made monopoly, to keep in place subsidies, to restrict competition, etc. It ain't all flowers and sunshine and free markets. It doesn't matter if it's big labor or big business or big government, they are all bad.
eli 17y ago
My point is just that the "35%" figure is extremely disingenuous. Your position is perfectly valid, but lets have a debate where the facts lead to a conclusion, not the other way around.

by tjic 17y ago

iron_ball 17y ago

If other countries have lower taxes, why don't they have more entrepreneurialism, value creation, innovation, and employment than America?

cwan 17y ago
Taxes are obviously only a part of the equation but if you look at the trend lines, it's definitely not good. Taxes elsewhere have been falling significantly while those in the US have stayed the same. I do think other places in the world are seeing greater levels of entrepreneurialism (at least in the places I travel). The US is now nearing if not exceeding levels of unemployment in places like Canada and Europe.
- evgen 17y ago
  The entrepreneurial rate in most countries had nowhere to go _but_ up, so this really tells us nothing more than the fact that a lot of countries have woken up and reduced the structural disincentives to entrepreneurship that had been in place. It is also not possible at this time for a country to be 100% entrepreneurs (or even close to that) and every additional percentage of entrepreneurship takes more and more effort. Corporate taxes, beyond the obviously bad levels you see at the extremes, are not as directly tied to either entrepreneurship nor unemployment rates as you would suggest (c.f. in the late 90s we had higher taxes and much lower unemployment numbers -- the reason why this was the case is easy to see in retrospect, but it is a simple and direct example of how your arguments are flawed.)

skorgu 17y ago

That's a nice straw man you're arguing against. Lobbying for less regulation, lower taxes and free markets is one position. Lobbying for increased oversight of potentially damaging behavior, increased transparency in industry, reduced rent seeking and universal standards of safety is another. The right mix is somewhere in between the two extremes of course and each side can point to massive failures of the other's philosophy. Implicitly framing one side as "people who don't like profits or jobs" is distasteful and frankly surprising to see here.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Lobbying for free markets necessarily implies eliminating rent seeking. You'll not that the only way that rent seeking is possible is when the government gets its claws into the industry. Government regulation becomes the tool of those it claims to watch. It happens every time: well-meaning regulators get subverted toward the ends of business lobbyists. Is there any reason to believe that something will suddenly turn this around so that the government is never suberted?
- skorgu 17y ago
  I'm not sure that rent seeking requires gov't intervention, I suspect there are instances of monopoly- or oligarchy-driven rent-seeking behavior but I don't have the desire right now to do a comprehensive search. Fundamentally I don't disagree, and I think my comment is pretty clear. I'm not making a specific argument on where the balance of regulation ought to exist. I take issue only with the framing of the debate in terms that make it impossible to hold a conversation. No offense is meant towards anyone, I'd just prefer to keep the discussion at a bit more civil tone. We already have a reddit. Edit: nuked two paras that didn't come out right.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    I concede the finer point. It's probably true that rent seeking can be accomplished with the intervention of government as such. I maintain that, because government is so accessible and because they carry such a big stick, the vast, vast portion of rent seeking is accomplished by subverting government regulation. That said, I'm up-voting your reply because it is a relevant argument. I just watched a TED video with Paul Romer where he talked about the effect of societal rules on development: not just governmental laws, but broader societal norms that might prevent progress.

biohacker42 17y ago

Because, frankly, what's the alternative? Lobbying to preserve your government made monopoly, to keep in place subsidies, to restrict competition, etc. It ain't all flowers and sunshine and free markets. It doesn't matter if it's big labor or big business or big government, they are all bad.

eli 17y ago

My point is just that the "35%" figure is extremely disingenuous. Your position is perfectly valid, but lets have a debate where the facts lead to a conclusion, not the other way around.