ernest_t_bass;1777146 wrote:In my opinion, we are where we are simply because of greed, but such is the capitalistic way. If a business makes $50 billion, they MUST make $51 billion the next year. We are where we are because more, more, more.

like_that;1777152 wrote:I don't see the problem with wanting to make more money. The majority of us do it with our jobs, why do you think it would change at the highest level? I hate how Bernie (and many others) are building a culture where you should be ashamed of making a lot of money.

like_that;1777152 wrote:I don't see the problem with wanting to make more money. The majority of us do it with our jobs, why do you think it would change at the highest level? I hate how Bernie (and many others) are building a culture where you should be ashamed of making a lot of money.

ernest_t_bass;1777154 wrote:It is what it is. I'd consider myself pro-capitalism... I'm just stating what I think the problem is. If a business could make $10 billion by staying the US, but could make $15 billion by moving overseas, most would choose to move overseas for the extra $$$. In reality, $10 billion is more than enough probably, but more, more, more will always cause the businesses to move no matter what.

ernest_t_bass;1777154 wrote:It is what it is. I'd consider myself pro-capitalism... I'm just stating what I think the problem is. If a business could make $10 billion by staying the US, but could make $15 billion by moving overseas, most would choose to move overseas for the extra $$$. In reality, $10 billion is more than enough probably, but more, more, more will always cause the businesses to move no matter what.

SportsAndLady;1777158 wrote:That's awful logic. Where do you draw the line? Do you say well if you can make $1B here but $2B overseas, it's okay to move your jobs overseas? You're not pro capitalism if you want our government to intervene and say they must bring their business back to the states.

like_that;1777139 wrote:Well the discussion turned into Bernie sanders and your defense of him, thus why the conversation surrounded you. I take this response as you either deflecting because you can't handle the heat of your logic, or you know if you were a business owner raising the minimum wage would not work.

I've provided my views plenty of times, and you responded in a smug manner. That is your schtick though. The tl;dr version of it is less government, less regulation, and if the government were to regulate how about incentive businesses instead of going out of their ways to fine them. States do it all the, thats a major reason why NCR moved from Dayton (Dayton's last fortune 500 company) to Georgia.

like_that;1777141 wrote:And raising the min wage will just decrease jobs, increase prices at businesses, and ultimately encourage businesses to leave. It especially is going to be a complete failure when you have people purposely working only part time hours so they can still collect unemployment, which allegedly is already being done in Seattle.

You can always suck up your pride and bring the businesses back. Most US businessmen would be happy to bring back their business to the states.

Con_Alma;1777159 wrote:The business exists to increase shareholder equity. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be socially responsible in doing so but they do have an obligation to make decisions that benefit the shareholders.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777180 wrote:Not all businesses have shareholders. So that blows this idea out of the water. Businesses exist to provide product and or services and make a profits. Publically traded businesses exist to make as much money as possible. Which is why we are where we are right now with unemployment.

ernest_t_bass;1777160 wrote:Show me where I said I want govt. intervention. I gave my opinion on what I think has lead to this (greed). Show me where I said it. I'll wait.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777069 wrote:I support a candidate who supports a 15 dollar minimum wage because our businesses have left an entire generation with minimum wage service jobs and our economy will fucking suck of we don't have people who can afford anything. So yeah. We need to give people money so they can afford to buy things. That's how our economy works after all.

Con_Alma;1777181 wrote:Private businesses have shareholders too. Sole proprietors have a share holder too. LLCs have shareholders too. What business doesn't have a shareholder that impacts the economy? They are an exception not the rule.

QuakerOats;1777184 wrote:Who the hell is "We". If you want to pay somebody $15 an hour to wash dishes, then open your own God damn restaurant and do it ............... see how long you last.


We have the highest corporate income tax rate in the world and that is why over $2 trillion in offshore profits are where they are - overseas. We have the greatest amount of regulation in the world, and that is the other reason there is $2 trillion of profit sitting overseas. And now, you want to add insult to injury and force job creators to pay $15/hour in industries where you will go broke in 6 six months trying to do so, and then no one will have a job. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777188 wrote:You're not disputing anything. Not every business has shareholders to answer to. More cases than not in America , the owner is the only person who has shares in their company. Their sole jobs is to provide a product or serviceable to make enough money to stay in business.

SportsAndLady;1777183 wrote:Lol how else would we bring back jobs from overseas?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777188 wrote:More cases than not in America , the owner is the only person who has shares in their company.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777178 wrote:Yeah it's a matter of sucking up your pride and bringing jobs back. It's that easy.

SportsAndLady;1777195 wrote:Can't see how that is true..most companies are funded by a general partner(s), capital investor(s), a loan from a bank, etc. They may not have "shares" but they are definitely people people who care how successful the business is and can directly benefit or suffer depending on that success.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777198 wrote:What are percentages of small businesses vs large corporations in America?

ernest_t_bass;1777194 wrote:I'm sure there are a number of different ways. I guess government intervention is one of those ways. But I never called for it, or said it was needed. I'm just pointing that out... don't spin words, and shit.

Con_Alma;1777200 wrote:...heavily weighted towards small businesses.

SportsAndLady;1777201 wrote:I'm not spinning words. Most would just assume by wanting corporations to move assets and production to the states that would require the government to do so.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777204 wrote:Exactly. And would you say there are more small businesses with no share holders or businesses with shareholders in america?