Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (199605)	11/3/2001 4:38:22 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

those who can afford to pay more should. In general, those who are making more are also using a larger share of services, especially protection. Their house is protected by the same fire department but is much more valuable and probably a more complex structure to protect. They are a more likely target of burglers with more to lose and so get a greater benefit from the police protection. They drive heavier cars and so crush the pavement or in the case of a business drive trucks that take an imense toll on the infrastructure. It's not 100% coorelated with income but it's in the first order of magnitude. TP

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (199605)	11/3/2001 5:13:39 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 769670

<<is that some of these companies will take their half-billion and build a new plant in Shanghai.>> That might be but when Kodak opened a plant in Mexico they had to hire more Americans to supply the Mexican plant. Since you're so worried about loosing jobs to overseas markets you might want to look at the unions. In the early 70s Arrow Shirt Co. was 85% domestic and 15% imported. The union wanted a raise from Arrow and Arrow made them an offer. Union turned it down and came back with another demand. Arrow laid it out, if they went with the union contract they would have to go 85% imported and 15% domestic to remain competitive. Union didn't budge so a few workers made a quarter an hour more, by God they got their union wage, while 10s of thousands of their brothers stood in the unemployment line.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (199605)	11/3/2001 8:25:32 PM
From: Little Joe	Respond to of 769670

"The problem with rebating hundreds of millions of dollars for Big Business (as proposed by the economic recovery bill that passed the House 216-214 last week) is that some of these companies will take their half-billion and build a new plant in Shanghai." This is a legitimate concern. We have done too much of this. Little joe

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (199605)	11/4/2001 9:29:39 AM
From: Thehammer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I don't buy the argument that a business doesn't pay taxes. What do you think are the economic consequences of higher costs to corporation? What decisions do they make when faced with additional costs. There are a lot of "ifs" imbedded in this equation such as the nature of competition in the particular industry, the state of the economy, the profit / loss profile of the company. Nevertheless the usual reaction is to look at the factors they can control such as other costs or revenue. Generally in a "good economic" climate they would pass the added costs along to the consumer. In a "poor economic" climate the reaction would be to cut other costs and usually the largest and most controllable cost is payroll. (This has negative implications if you are an employee) Bottom line: Victims and those folks who cater to the them view life as a zero sum game (someone wins and someone loses.) Invariably they seek to "stick it" to the winners and ultimately wind up impaling themselves.