Support NeoGAF

[Fenderputty]

Wait you're actually being serious? I thought it was an elaborated troll.

Haha.

 

[dabig2]

I'd be willing to wait a little more long term for this insanity if Laffer and Wanniski 's ideologies over the past 30+ years weren't proven to be absolutely bullshit voodoo science and catastrophic failures from the onset.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

This isn't the Laffer I learnt about it in school is it? I thought he advocated the complete opposite. He brings shame to his family

 

[AbsolutBro]

Before everyone jumps all over me, I do think that there should be a safety net. Education, Healthcare, Housing, Internet, etc. We're advanced enough that we can fulfill those needs.

I'm clearly not understanding something. Where do you think the money to pay for this will come from if you cut taxes (and thus government income) repeatedly?

 

[Coriolanus]

Smart to say 10 years. Give two terms of horror where only *job creators* benefit, population finally boots the representative, new guy from different party takes over, starts fixing shit, economy finally starts improving. Time to come out and claim credit.

"SEE! IF YOUD ONLY STUCK WITH IT A LITTLE LONGER IT WOULDA BEEN AWESOME"

Proceed to claim whatever growth seen is tepid and would've been baller (how baller? super baller) if representative from old party still in power.

 

[Piecake]

Well now you're being dramatic. I'm insulted that you think that I don't care about people. I assessed this based on what you wrote below:


A race to the bottom? Please. Maybe it's anecdotal, but my class started out with 500 in our frosh class and our graduation class was around 15.

I've never ever EVER said that people should go without the necessities that I expect that people in our country should be without. If you're going to compare me to those mouth breathers on fox news, I'm going to quite frankly be insulted. Fuckers.

Short term. I don't expect to see results for a while. Do you? Why? [/QUOTE]

Then I simply don't think you understand the consequences of this 'experiment'. Drastically cutting taxes will mean that the state of Kansas will have to drastically cut services because it is illegal for a state to run deficits. I believe it when you say that you are for those services, but you can't have both when you massively cut taxes.

Do you think that cutting taxes will eventually result in increased tax revenue once those businesses start flocking in? Why do you expert it to work for a state when it failed to work for the United States during the Reagan and Bush II years?

I really don't get the point of your anecdote.

 

[Foffy]

Well I don't think he's wrong about how long it will take to see the effect. I think 10 years is being generous to be honest.

You have your head shoved completely up your ass if you think that all of a sudden factories, warehouses, and companies that are hiring are going to pop up in 2 years if they decide to move from where they are presently located. Just the logistics of moving equipment let alone dealing with the human element is mind boggling.

And that's for 1 company. All of a sudden you expected more to automatically set up shop? Are you insane?

Just wanted to chime in that current trajectories are really pushing that in the coming years, factories and warehouses all over this country will be hiring less (they're starting to higher less now, actually. Thank you based automation.), and probably companies, too. If those are what you or anyone is hoping will save Kansas, that it will be the companies that come on in thanks to tax cuts, those so called job creators to create this "prosperity"...Kansas is literally fucking doomed. It is becoming more economical for companies to fund the machinery to produce than it is to hire people, so even hiring people there may become less of something that actually happens. The data doesn't support any of that notion that companies are going to come in and totally create prosperity, no matter the timetable.

Kansas might be an interesting testing ground to see what might happen with a totally automated infrastructure and the mass poverty it creates, seeing as it's now a very interesting place to set up shop with increasingly cheaper technology. Either that or the typical minimum wage stagnation that's plagued most of this country. One way or another, I see nothing but unnecessary drudgery and suffering for the people in Kansas with cuts like this. They're fucked short term, and all but assured to be fucked long term one way or another, too. The states social services are going to start cratering in the storm term, and that may be so severe that in the long term, parts of the state either turn into more cases of a Flint, Michigan kind of environment or new warehouse facilities for Amazon's worker drones as people are dissolved from many industries. The latter problem is an issue that affects nearly half of this country, so Kansas may not be alone in misery for very long.

The problem in this case is it stems from trickle down economics, in that cutting the top makes it flow downwards and makes everybody rise. That's about as real as a flat earth is. When companies are in it to make as much money as possible, their goal is to obtain as much money as possible. That means avoiding as much bleeding - or in this case, trickling it - outside of their nest. This is almost common sense. If anything, companies are going to take advantage of this situation and the population one way or another. Those already doing well with our real life Monopoly game will be the only winners here, and for the record, that's a group of people only getting smaller, not larger. Throw in the reality that more things are getting automated and faster, and you have a very interesting volcano imposed on Kansas. I see no way that state is going to prosper; there's too much against it now.

If you really think this is a great idea, please, tell me how Kansas is going to prosper when many social functions of the state now have to be cut back. That's now. Isn't that already the beginning of suffrage?

 

[Oblivion]

Question: If trickle-down economics is really the best form of economics, then how come we don't have a single industrial, first world country that runs on it?

 

[RiccochetJ]

I like how one of the supposed main benefits of supply side is that businesses will move to you.

So you didn't actually create jobs at best, you just moved them from one state to another, and the US as a whole didn't get any new jobs.

Well, it's not just moving, it's also setting up to entice companies for expansion. A theoretical example I could use is, say Amazon is looking to set up a new distribution warehouse for the midwest and they're looking at Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma as possible areas. What Kansas is trying to do is to let Amazon know that it would be most beneficial for Amazon to set up shop in their state.

I'm clearly not understanding something. Where do you think the money to pay for this will come from if you cut taxes (and thus government income) repeatedly?

The idea is to create primary jobs which is companies where their source of revenue comes from outside the city/county/state/country. With that in place, then support jobs will be created, such as retail, food, entertainment etc. It's a numbers game where the idea is that just the sheer number of people who are working in the state and are paying into the reduced taxes offset the cuts that were made.

A good example is what we were seeing in North Dakota and the oil boom happening there. Now, a lot of people moved there to work in the oil field, but also what happened is there became a housing shortage. So contractors were/are working right now to build housing. Those people working there want food, clothing, entertainment etc. The population gets large enough and there needs to be schools, teachers need to be hired. Hospitals need to be built and doctors, nurses, administration to staff it.

Now, oil prices have dropped and you're seeing companies budget differently. How is that going to affect ND in the long term? I don't know. Short term, you're seeing layoffs and it's affecting the state. That's why you see politicians state that they need to diversify their economy and hopefully attract other primary jobs to be able to weather the downturn of a particular sector.

Just wanted to chime in that current trajectories are really pushing that in the coming years, factories and warehouses all over this country will be hiring less (they're starting to higher less now, actually. Thank you based automation.), and probably companies, too. If those are what you or anyone is hoping will save Kansas, that it will be the companies that come on in thanks to tax cuts, those so called job creators to create this "prosperity"...Kansas is literally fucking doomed. It is becoming more economical for companies to fund the machinery to produce than it is to hire people, so even hiring people there may become less of something that actually happens. The data doesn't support any of that notion that companies are going to come in and totally create prosperity, no matter the timetable.

Kansas might be an interesting testing ground to see what might happen with a totally automated infrastructure and the mass poverty it creates, seeing as it's now a very interesting place to set up shop with increasingly cheaper technology. Either that or the typical minimum wage stagnation that's plagued most of this country. One way or another, I see nothing but unnecessary drudgery and suffering for the people in Kansas with cuts like this. They're fucked short term, and all but assured to be fucked long term one way or another, too. The states social services are going to start cratering in the storm term, and that may be so severe that in the long term, parts of the state either turn into more cases of a Flint, Michigan kind of environment or new warehouse facilities for Amazon's worker drones as people are dissolved from many industries. The latter problem is an issue that affects nearly half of this country, so Kansas may not be alone in misery for very long.

The problem in this case is it stems from trickle down economics, in that cutting the top makes it flow downwards and makes everybody rise. That's about as real as a flat earth is. When companies are in it to make as much money as possible, their goal is to obtain as much money as possible. That means avoiding as much bleeding - or in this case, trickling it - outside of their nest. This is almost common sense. If anything, companies are going to take advantage of this situation and the population one way or another. Those already doing well with our real life Monopoly game will be the only winners here, and for the record, that's a group of people only getting smaller, not larger. Throw in the reality that more things are getting automated and faster, and you have a very interesting volcano imposed on Kansas. I see no way that state is going to prosper; there's too much against it now.

If you really think this is a great idea, please, tell me how Kansas is going to prosper when many social functions of the state now have to be cut back. That's now. Isn't that already the beginning of suffrage?

I don't necessarily think or know if it's a great idea, but I understand what they're trying to do. Short term, I don't think we'll see an immediate effect which is why I understand the 10 year statement.

You bring up a good point about automation. It really does throw a snag into the whole idea, because it benefits only the company and the state in that case. If this happens, what Kansas is doing will fail miserably.

Another thing I wanted to touch on is that for any of this to even work, we can't have bullshit like this.

 

[speculawyer]

The idea is to create primary jobs which is companies where their source of revenue comes from outside the city/county/state/country. With that in place, then support jobs will be created, such as retail, food, entertainment etc. It's a numbers game where the idea is that just the sheer number of people who are working in the state and are paying into the reduced taxes offset the cuts that were made.

We all get the idea . . . but it just does not work. Clinton raised some taxes . . . economy did fine. Bush slashed taxes economy crashed. Obama raised some taxes . . . economy did better. Now I'm not going to assert that raising taxes is good for the economy (I think you need the right balance) . . . but I think that is good evidence that slashing taxes does not magically help the economy like endlessly pushed.

A good example is what we were seeing in North Dakota and the oil boom happening there. Now, a lot of people moved there to work in the oil field, but also what happened is there became a housing shortage. So contractors were/are working right now to build housing. Those people working there want food, clothing, entertainment etc. The population gets large enough and there needs to be schools, teachers need to be hired. Hospitals need to be built and doctors, nurses, administration to staff it.

Now, oil prices have dropped and you're seeing companies budget differently. How is that going to affect ND in the long term? I don't know. Short term, you're seeing layoffs and it's affecting the state. That's why you see politicians state that they need to diversify their economy and hopefully attract other primary jobs to be able to weather the downturn of a particular sector.

That is a TERRIBLE example. North Dakota did well by digging up buried treasure. Well good for them but that has absolutely nothing to do with some voodoo economics on slashing taxes to raise revenue.

 

[Oblivion]

Yeah, it's important to factor in things like being fortunate enough to have oil buried in the state you're living in when touting the supposed positive effects of SSE in places like North Dakota and especially Texas.

 

[Jackben]

How long did it take for the Bush tax cuts to bring in that sweet sweet profit?

Right here, Coriolanus has the spin strategy down pat:

Smart to say 10 years. Give two terms of horror where only *job creators* benefit, population finally boots the representative, new guy from different party takes over, starts fixing shit, economy finally starts improving. Time to come out and claim credit.

"SEE! IF YOUD ONLY STUCK WITH IT A LITTLE LONGER IT WOULDA BEEN AWESOME"

Proceed to claim whatever growth seen is tepid and would've been baller (how baller? super baller) if representative from old party still in power.

 

[dabig2]

Yeah, it's important to factor in things like being fortunate enough to have oil buried in the state you're living in when touting the supposed positive effects of SSE in places like North Dakota and especially Texas.

Yeah, we'll see how long that "Texas miracle" lasts if prices remain low over the next year and two.

 

[RiccochetJ]

That is a TERRIBLE example. North Dakota did well by digging up buried treasure. Well good for them but that has absolutely nothing to do with some voodoo economics on slashing taxes to raise revenue.

I used ND as an example of how an economy built up around the whole buried treasure and all the secondary jobs that were created because of it. I also pointed out how it is now having massive problems due to the massive oil price drop.

Yeah, it's important to factor in things like being fortunate enough to have oil buried in the state you're living in when touting the supposed positive effects of SSE in places like North Dakota and especially Texas.

Like I said, I used ND as an example. That's exactly what happens when you have a strong primary market. That is what Kansas is trying to attract to their state without the benefit of having an in demand natural resource.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The problem with most economic analysis is that is seems to be done in a bubble.

It doesn't take into effect that Kansas is just one state and businesses and residents will start leaving if this continues, killing more tax revenue.

Their so many other things that come into play that these policy wonks totally miss. It's a huge disconnect from reality.

No, the microeconomics 101 graphs are absolutely true!

 

[Coriolanus]

Why would you compare a state with buried treasure to a state that does not have buried treasure?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Why would you compare a state with buried treasure to a state that does not have buried treasure?

Because the existence of treasure has no impact duh

 

[RiccochetJ]

Why would you compare a state with buried treasure to a state that does not have buried treasure?

To show what the effect of having a primary job market has around the local economy. If you want another example, take a look at Tucson.

There are 2 major factors driving Tucson's economy. The Air Force base and the University. Defense contractors that built up around there and are now one of the largest employers in the area along with the university.

 

[Oblivion]

To show what the effect of having a primary job market has around the local economy. If you want another example, take a look at Tucson.

There are 2 major factors driving Tucson's economy. The Air Force base and the University. Defense contractors that built up around there and are now one of the largest employers in the area along with the university.

Sounds like a great argument for Keynesian economics.

 

[sc0la]

There are only so many businesses that would up and move to Kansas (and also qualified employees) regardless of tax incentives. Because it's fucking Kansas. The coasts aren't bustling business hubs solely based on tax rates. Location matters.


Edit: also the funny thing, a "laffer curve" probably exists at the extreme upper ends of taxation. Where increasing the rate above a threshold lowers tax receipts instead of raising then. We are nowhere near those upper ends of taxation. Reallllllly fucking far from them.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Sounds like a great argument for Keynesian economics.

Sure. There's an investment in infrastructure (AFB), but there's also the monetary policy which is an incentive for the private sector to invest. And this is where I believe that the divide happens. Either the federal reserve reduces interest to encourage investment, or, alternatively, you can reduce the tax burden which is also intended to encourage investment.

Both are designed to reduce risk for investment. However, instead of nationwide (with the interest rates), states can individually make their own decisions and take on the risk themselves which is what we're seeing with Kansas. Now, it's a gamble for sure. You're drastically reducing your tax revenue with the hopes that it will be filled by eventually more people paying into the tax system and hopefully at a higher income bracket that comes with primary jobs. There's also the hope that wages will increase with the competition that happens between companies within the industry which is why I'm absolutely pissed at what Google and Apple were trying to do with their little agreement.

There are only so many businesses that would up and move to Kansas (and also qualified employees) regardless of tax incentives. Because it's fucking Kansas. The coasts aren't bustling business hubs solely based on tax rates. Location matters.

Sure it does, but it didn't stop people from flocking to ND causing a housing shortage. ND and Manitoba have some of the harshest winters I can think of.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Kansas seems like it has poor education and is rural enough to still harbor really idiotic beliefs in surprisingly large pockets. Yeah...I'd say this outcome is the least surprising thing I've read today. PEACE.

 

[Coriolanus]

Sure. There's an investment in infrastructure (AFB), but there's also the monetary policy which is an incentive for the private sector to invest. And this is where I believe that the divide happens. Either the federal reserve reduces interest to encourage investment, or, alternatively, you can reduce the tax burden which is also intended to encourage investment.

Both are designed to reduce risk for investment. However, instead of nationwide (with the interest rates), states can individually make their own decisions and take on the risk themselves which is what we're seeing with Kansas. Now, it's a gamble for sure. You're drastically reducing your tax revenue with the hopes that it will be filled by eventually more people paying into the tax system and hopefully at a higher income bracket that comes with primary jobs. There's also the hope that wages will increase with the competition that happens between companies within the industry which is why I'm absolutely pissed at what Google and Apple were trying to do with their little agreement.

And yet all examples provided were of things outside of the state creating the job market. Buried treasure, which kansas does not have, and federal money, which, kansas could have, but, by adopting (failed) right wing economics during a (in theory) left wing administration, will not have.

None of your examples support a race to the bottom model, which is what kansas is pursuing.

Add to this that there are several examples around the country of states going in exactly the other direction and doing well, sprinkle some "but this is only a reallocation of wealth, and not real creation" (which, really, is just another way to say race to the bottom) and... welp.

And yes, the cartel thing is scummy as fuck. You won't find anyone here that will disagree with you on that point. (well, crazy people might)

 

[sc0la]

Sure it does, but it didn't stop people from flocking to ND causing a housing shortage. ND and Manitoba have some of the harshest winters I can think of.

to be clear you are comparing a fossil fuel gold rush with a low marginal tax rate? People moved to the Yukon in the 1850s too.

I didn't say it would prevent all emigration, but Kansas could have 0% state tax and there are people and businesses that would never move there.

Edit: lol Collusion to keep wages down between two corporations = bad. Collusion to keep public funds down between the super rich and their bought/paid for government officials = a-okay.

 

[speculawyer]

I used ND as an example of how an economy built up around the whole buried treasure and all the secondary jobs that were created because of it. I also pointed out how it is now having massive problems due to the massive oil price drop.

But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[speculawyer]

Sounds like a great argument for Keynesian economics.

Yeah, this is the most scattershot argument I've ever seen.

 

[RiccochetJ]

And yet all examples provided were of things outside of the state creating the job market. Buried treasure, which kansas does not have, and federal money, which, kansas could have, but, by adopting (failed) right wing economics during a (in theory) left wing administration, will not have.

None of your examples support a race to the bottom model, which is what kansas is pursuing.

But that's the thing. Kansas is trying to entice primary industries to move or expand to their area. I was using two different examples, one driven by private industry and the second that is fulfilled by the government.

Add to this that there are several examples around the country of states going in exactly the other direction and doing well, sprinkle some "but this is only a reallocation of wealth, and not real creation" (which, really, is just another way to say race to the bottom) and... welp.

Well that really depends. If it becomes more cost effective to move, you will see companies move. Just google economic development and site selectors. ESRI has been focusing pretty hard on leveraging their GIS infrastructure to help site selectors aid companies that want to move. You'll see a trend/traffic on companies from the NE investigating the SE and midwest. The US Census website has a massive amount of data that makes it a invaluable resource and fairly lucrative business to leverage that data for people who know how to manipulate that data that decision makers can look at and make decisions.

And yes, the cartel thing is scummy as fuck. You won't find anyone here that will disagree with you on that point. (well, crazy people might)

God, I would hope not!

I just wanted to say that I really enjoy talking/arguing/yelling with all of you about this. So many times people on GAF have caused me to alter my thinking and I feel for the better. In this thread alone, there have been an amazing amount of good points made that I'm going to mull over.

Edit: lol Collusion to keep wages down between two corporations = bad. Collusion to keep public funds down between the super rich and their bought/paid for government officials = a-okay.

I never said nor implied that. That's insulting.

 

[mclem]

He's got a secret plan to fight inflation.

 

[RiccochetJ]

But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

If the price of tea in China drops, then there could be an increase in shipping and/or flights moving that sort of merchandise to the US. Depending on where the warehouses are, there could be an increase on the number of warehouses that store the merchandise.

As a result, and depending on the number of people required to move that merchandise, there will be a requirement for fuel, food, education, police, health, entertainment, infrastructure etc.

More jobs, more tax dollars coming in.

 

[Opiate]

One of the stupidest theories out there. What the fuck is wrong with Republicans? Cutting taxes CANNOT create infinite revenue.

It's not a stupid idea conceptually, Laffer just sets the curve way way lower than almost anyone else.

 

[RiccochetJ]

It's not a stupid idea conceptually, Laffer just sets the curve way way lower than almost anyone else.

Which is what should have happened from the start. Laffer set out realistic expectations instead of this stupid, "Results Now!" thing that people are anticipating. The economy is a massive behemoth and just the slightest shift could take years to see the results.

I want to reiterate that I have no idea if what Kansas is doing will work. But I understand what they're trying to do. I could say the same about taxes. You raise taxes and you will see an immediate result because the government has a sudden influx of cash, but behind the scenes these companies are looking to move or outsource. So 5 years down the road, you see them execute based on that investigation and planning based off of a thorough cost/benefit analysis.

 

[Sobriquet]

Prepare to have your mind blown.

Why is this guy talking about GAF on his blog? Which one of you is this?

NeoGAF posters are assuring everyone that there's "no way" Mitt Romney would run for President again. Like they would know.

 

[Piecake]

Which is what should have happened from the start. Laffer set out realistic expectations instead of this stupid, "Results Now!" thing that people are anticipating. The economy is a massive behemoth and just the slightest shift could take years to see the results.

I want to reiterate that I have no idea if what Kansas is doing will work. But I understand what they're trying to do. I could say the same about taxes. You raise taxes and you will see an immediate result because the government has a sudden influx of cash, but behind the scenes these companies are looking to move or outsource. So 5 years down the road, you see them execute based on that investigation and planning based off of a thorough cost/benefit analysis.

I am fairly certain that Opiate meant the Laffer Curve as conceptualized on a graph and the lower part meaning a much lower tax rate than anyone previously suggested.

 

[Mike M]

Why is this guy talking about GAF on his blog? Which one of you is this?

He's just some guy banned ten years ago who can't let it go.

 

[speculawyer]

Prepare to have your mind blown.

That guy is seriously an idiot. Here is some more of his wizardry:

Scientists tell you that homo sapiens have existed for 200,000 years. Take out Microsoft Excel. Enter 0.6 into cell A1. Enter 6000 into cell A2. Now enter a formula "=(1+A1/100)^A2" into cell A3. The result will show you that at a growth of 0.6% a year for 6,000 years, humanity would have a population of 3.87 quadrillion. For this reason, evolution is impossible.
http://ironknuckle2016.blogspot.com/2015/01/campaign.html?m=1

Wait . . . what? Why do you assume that early mankind grew at 0.6% per year when they had no medicine, wars, plagues, famines, natural disasters, etc. And what does any of that have to do with evolution?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Why is this guy talking about GAF on his blog? Which one of you is this?

LOL that avatar is hilarious.

 

[B-Dubs]

That guy is seriously an idiot. Here is some more of his wizardry:

Scientists tell you that homo sapiens have existed for 200,000 years. Take out Microsoft Excel. Enter 0.6 into cell A1. Enter 6000 into cell A2. Now enter a formula "=(1+A1/100)^A2" into cell A3. The result will show you that at a growth of 0.6% a year for 6,000 years, humanity would have a population of 3.87 quadrillion. For this reason, evolution is impossible.
http://ironknuckle2016.blogspot.com/2015/01/campaign.html?m=1

Wait . . . what? Why do you assume that early mankind grew at 0.6% per year when they had no medicine, wars, plagues, famines, natural disasters, etc. And what does any of that have to do with evolution?

Does his insanity even take into account that people die? Because I feel like it doesn't.

 

[dLMN8R]

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/6sn82w/sam-brownback-s-conservative-kansas-experiment

2:10 in the video.

When you cut taxes for business owners, it doesn't magically put money in the pockets of consumers. So consumers aren't spending any more money, businesses don't have more demand they need to fulfill, why would they hire more people if there's no increased demand to go with it?

 

[speculawyer]

Does his insanity even take into account that people die? Because I feel like it doesn't.

Yeah, that formula isn't even close to being right.

 

[sprsk]

I cant believe ironknuckle is still blogging about gaf.

 

[Coriolanus]

But that's the thing. Kansas is trying to entice primary industries to move or expand to their area. I was using two different examples, one driven by private industry and the second that is fulfilled by the government.

If by "private enterprise" you mean oil, that is a public, finite resource that the government allows specific companies to explore. That qualifies it as something fulfilled by the government. (or should be if a government isn't being fuckstupid about it. dunno how yall set up oil over yonder. *Norway* is kind of the gold standard there)

A better (but not really, since entirely reliant on pre-existing resources) example would be, say, Dubai. One hopes you wouldnt try to use it, given the whole host of horrendous issues it entails.

If you didn't mean oil, muh bad. Clarify.

Well that really depends. If it becomes more cost effective to move, you will see companies move. Just google economic development and site selectors. ESRI has been focusing pretty hard on leveraging their GIS infrastructure to help site selectors aid companies that want to move. You'll see a trend/traffic on companies from the NE investigating the SE and midwest. The US Census website has a massive amount of data that makes it a invaluable resource and fairly lucrative business to leverage that data for people who know how to manipulate that data that decision makers can look at and make decisions.

That i did. Ran into this. They got a magazine with their top 100 cities for expansion. Number of cities in kansas: 0
If after six years you can show only negatives...eh.

You'd keep running into the problem that other states that didn't adopt the policy are faring better without most of the drawbacks, btw, at which point one must ask "why eat shit now to maybe someday eat steak, if i can, instead, eat five guys now and maybe someday eat steak?"

I'd say that whatever politician is proposing the first method, which entails offloading the suffering solely on the lower strata of society (what with the rich not giving a fuck about public services because money) is either corrupt, stupid, sadistic or just generally an asshole, but hey.

 

[RiccochetJ]

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/6sn82w/sam-brownback-s-conservative-kansas-experiment

2:10 in the video.

When you cut taxes for business owners, it doesn't magically put money in the pockets of consumers. So consumers aren't spending any more money, businesses don't have more demand they need to fulfill, why would they hire more people if there's no increased demand to go with it?

No it doesn't. What it does is give businesses an incentive to stick around instead of moving to what could be perceived as greener pastures. It also gives an incentive for other businesses to move to your location and reduces the risk for someone who may want to try and open a business.

 

[Coriolanus]

No it doesn't. What it does is give businesses an incentive to stick around instead of moving to what could be perceived as greener pastures. It also gives an incentive for other businesses to move to your location and reduces the risk for someone who may want to try and open a business.

Businesses only move to new locales if there is demand. Cutting taxes to businesses does not create demand.

Otherwise you're in a third world setup, where the goods are manufactured there, sure, but shipped out, and then most of the profits are not left in the state.

 

[B-Dubs]

No it doesn't. What it does is give businesses an incentive to stick around instead of moving to what could be perceived as greener pastures. It also gives an incentive for other businesses to move to your location and reduces the risk for someone who may want to try and open a business.

But then you've got places like Texas that have done exactly this and all of their growth has been in the service industry (fast food jobs) and through oil prices. You want to make a company want to stay in your state yes, but poaching them from other states doesn't do any good for anyone due to what you had to do to get them to move in the first place.

 

[Mike M]

I cant believe ironknuckle is still blogging about gaf.

I can't believe he's still blogging about his equation purporting to show that evolution was impossible. I distinctly remember that from ages ago.

 

[RiccochetJ]

If by "private enterprise" you mean oil, that is a public, finite resource that the government allows specific companies to explore. That qualifies it as something fulfilled by the government. (or should be if a government isn't being fuckstupid about it. dunno how yall set up oil over yonder. *Norway* is kind of the gold standard there)

The oil itself isn't. The land itself is which is why you see politicians talking about opening up national forests etc for drilling. It's also why you see arguments in government about fracking and drilling underneath private residences.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Businesses only move to new locales if there is demand. Cutting taxes to businesses does not create demand.

Otherwise you're in a third world setup, where the goods are manufactured there, sure, but shipped out, and then most of the profits are not left in the state.

Not to existing businesses, but it gives them an incentive to stay. It also gives the incentive for primary industries to expand or move shop into the state.

If goods are manufactured and purchased within that area, where the merchandise goes is insignificant. The money is coming into that area which fuels all the secondary industries to support the primary industry.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

I know when I get paid I prefer my payment be cut because taking in less money will actually mean I'm making more, it might not be today, it might not be next year but ten years down the line I'll actually take in more money!

 

[dLMN8R]

No it doesn't. What it does is give businesses an incentive to stick around instead of moving to what could be perceived as greener pastures. It also gives an incentive for other businesses to move to your location and reduces the risk for someone who may want to try and open a business.

And where are all these mythical businesses that were supposed to show up in the last four years?

And what clientele and demand are these businesses supposed to serve when there's no increased demand, as consumers don't actually have any more money to spend?

 

[RiccochetJ]

I know when I get paid I prefer my payment be cut because taking in less money will actually mean I'm making more, it might not be today, it might not be next year but ten years down the line I'll actually take in more money!

Well you're gambling. You're taking on the job with the expectation that you're going to significantly increase your pay over time.

It's a risk you take. You could have just stayed with your current job and be happy with the salary freeze or the 1% salary bump.

And where are all these mythical businesses that were supposed to show up in the last four years?

And what clientele and demand are these businesses supposed to serve when there's no increased demand, as consumers don't actually have any more money to spend?

Well it appears that you're operating on the assumption that other sates are not trying to poach businesses on a daily basis. What Kansas is doing is doing exactly that. They're trying to poach, or to incentivise companies that are looking to expand to their area. There's nothing mythical about it.