another republican meme destroyed:the us has onerous regulation

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Free Thinker, Oct 25, 2011.

  1. another republican meme destroyed. and in forbs magazine no less:" the us has onerous regulation and that is why companies are not hiring".

    US Businesses Not Being Strangled By Regulation And Taxation, World Bank Says
    With the economies of the U.S. and Europe sputtering along on fumes, politicians are quick to blame regulation and taxation as the main cause of a lackluster business environment. Yet, according to the World Bankfs 212 page gDoing Business 2012 report, released on Wednesday, there is less red tape for setting up shop in the U.S. than there is in all of Europe, Latin America, Africa and most of Asia

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...d-by-regulation-and-taxation-world-bank-says/
     
  2. For a guy who claims to have run a successful business you seem to lack any kind of understanding about how the business and the economy works.

    It is not necessarily the total amount of regulations/taxation that have a huge effect on business, as businesses are able to adjust when given enough time. The sure way to cause disasters is when you make sharp moves in a short period of time. For example, when glass stegall was lifted it all of a sudden opened the floodgates for banks to do whatever they want. People love to bitch about lack of regulations as if it was a cause of the bubble but the fact of the matter is there was more onerous regulations on banks in 2008 then there was in 1980, even after the repeal of glass stegall.

    Which one do you think would be more destructive to an economy, moving the corporate tax rate from 16%(if it was 16% to begin with) to 32% or moving the corporate tax rate from 32% to 33%? Obviously doubling the 16% tax rate would be far more destructive, even though the second option ends up with a higher top tax rate.

    On the flip side which one do you think would be more stimulative? moving the tax rate from 32% to 16% or moving it from 16% to 15%? Again in this example the tax rate would be higher in the first option but it would be a hell of alot more stimulative to cut the tax rate in half then it would be to drop it by 1% as business would have already had time had time to adjust to a lower rate in the second option.

    The biggest problem with what Obozo has done is not that they have turned America into the most unfriendly business climate in the world, its that they drastically increased the level of regulatons from where the previous benchmark was, and they did it over a short time frame in a weak economy. Businesses are now stuck needing time to adjust to the extra burden Obama has caused and see what it does to their bottom line.
     
  3. cstfx

    cstfx

    You really trust what the World Bank has to say?
     
  4. thanks for setting the world bank straight with that brilliant piece. maybe they should look at consulting you next time.
    maybe i could point out a couple places where your right wing ideology is showing through as total bs:

    1."there was more onerous regulations on banks in 2008 then there was in 1980, even after the repeal of glass stegall." yea right. except for the part about 40 to 1 leverage and unregulated derivitives.

    2. "moving the corporate tax rate from 16%(if it was 16% to begin with) to 32%" what was the corporate tax rate in the 90? what is it now?

    3. "drastically increased the level of regulatons from where the previous benchmark was, and they did it over a short time frame in a weak economy."
    what regulations outside the banking industry have been drastic?

    no. the problem is the us is too friendly to business. it allows business to transfer jobs and profits overseas at will and gives them a tax break to do it.
     
  5. what incentive would they have to make the us look good? if anything they would rain on our parade.
    the real problem we have is people on et that have probably never had more than a job working for someone else mouthing their brilliance about the terrible us business climate because they listened to fox news last night.
     
  6. You Pelosi, Obama, and Reid are right, Higher taxes, and regulations is clearly what creates jobs. If only those evil republicans didnt exist.

     
  7. you and ole george bush have the answer. tax breaks for the rich. incentivise companies to move jobs overseas. how is that working out? we still have the same tax rates bush but in. obama has only lowered taxes. how has that worked? lets see. companies have record cash and profits. companies pay the lowest taxes in 50 years yet they dont hire here. all job creation has been overseas.
     
  8. 1. Thx for proving my point for me, when the banks were allowed to leverage up very quickly we saw an incredible bubble over a short time frame.

    2. Didnt address my point as i already stated that it is drastic increases/decreases in the tax rate that can be stimulative or detrimental, the 1990 tax rate has nothing to do with my point.

    3.What regulations have been drastic?!?! are you an idiot?? how bout Obama care. How bout the multitude of attacks by the EPA on business, how bout dodd frank. The new consumer protection agency....

    You Pelosi, Obama, and Reid are right, Higher taxes, and regulations is clearly what creates jobs. If only those evil republicans didnt exist.

     
  9. Like the useful idiots Free Thinker and the World Bank are,

    they don't look at Obamacare's impact on doing business,
    they don't look at what states businesses are moving to and from, and
    they don't ask why businesses are moving offshore, particularly to China.

    Notice also that Free Thinker is no longer in the business that he claims to have been in. [​IMG]
     
    #10     Oct 25, 2011