[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

You're sure doing a good job of convincing us otherwise.

No, that's you trying to make true what you want to be.

I believe things because they are true, not the other way around like you.

No evidence of that being true.

 

[bripat9643]

Mergers and acquisitions.

Your boogeyman story is merely another monster in the Republican closet.

They really don't work anymore.

Mergers "restrain trade" only in the imaginations of the gullible. There is no objective criteria that defines when a company is guilty of restraining trade. It's purely up to the arbitrary prejudices of the judge presiding on the case.

If Congress passed a law saying that the number pie = 3.5, numbskulls like you would insist that was indeed the value of pie.

You don't know what M&As are, but you are an expert in them.

You have a conservative sized ego.

You're a king sized jackass, PMS. The fact that I don't know what the acronym you invent refers to doesn't mean I don't know what Mergers and Acquisitions are.

If you had any good arguments, you'd post them instead of the cheap shots you're so fond of.

 

[originalthought]

Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd. What is legal and illegal is by government definition. By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits. By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly. By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.

Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.

Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot. You haven't "proven" anything.

How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies.

According to you and PMZ...
Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
Monopolies are illegal

The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.

But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.

Because you are attempting to define things that are defined by law, economics science, and business accounting. That, and you embellish other peoples presentation. And you are refusing to accept the reality which has been determined by others smarter than you. I detect a certain lack of allowing feedback, acknowledging the determination of definitions by the experts in the field. I am pretty sure you are neither a lawyer or an economist. Rejecting what has already been defined is a mental issue, in part the Dunn-Kruger effect.

No where did anyone say that the government prevents all monopolies. I simply pointed out the fact that they are illegal by US Law. And, the legality, the enforcement, sanctioning, and the creation of monopolies by the US government aren't at odds with each other. Surely you realize that the government can and does allow for patent rights which create monopolies until the patent runs out. Then, if conditions are right, as for Alcoa, a natural monopoly may ensue. This gets tried in court under anti-trust law, establishing the monopoly to be at odds with the law and therefore illegal. That the government creates monopolies doesn't mean that they also determine monopolies to be illegal.

By your reasoning, seat belts in automobiles don't prevent injuries because injuries occur while people are wearing a seat belt.

Yes, monopolies are created by the free market. You seem to be starting with the premise that the free market can't create monopolies and then attempting to force some false logic to make it so. How you manage this is beyond me.

That monopolies are created in the free market is well established and a simple search for description of monopolies will yield this information. One has to intentionally ignore the information presented by economists, the US government, and business. That the Federal Reserve might be considered a monopoly doesn't negate that the free market creates monopolies naturally or that the Supreme Court has found companies in violation of anti-trust laws on multiple occasions.

The Federal Reserve doesn't create the US currency that is used in the private economy and market place. The Federal Reserve creates money in the reserve accounts of reserve banks. It is called "outside money". The money we use is created by private banks as business loans, consumer loans, etc. It is called "inside money". Inside and outside money don't mix. The money supply created by private banks, outside money, is larger than the money supply created by the Federal Reserve. The last measure of M2 is 10,947.7 Billions of Dollars. The last measure of the monetary base is 3,682.285 Billions of Dollars. Historically, M1, the money used for purchases of goods and services, has been 1.5 to 3 times the monetary base.

The specific ratio is shown here;

It is M1/Mb. M1, the inside money used in exchanges, the money in circulation, is always more than Mb. And as the Federal Reserve only creates outside money, Mb, at the very least we can say that the difference, (M1-Mb), is clearly not created by the Federal Reserve.

Still, it is certainly incorrect to say that the Federal Reserve creates US currency when they create far less than the functioning money supply. All the Federal Reserve does is make outside money available through the reserve banking system. The private banks then creates money based on demand. It is correct to say that the money supply is created by the private banking system because, in fact, it is. It would be incorrect to say that the Treasury Department creates money in the US economy because, while it does print and mint, that money only becomes inside money when a private bank decides to do so. It may be better said that money creation is done by the combined behavior of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the private banking system. If we have to pick one to speak of as being the major source, it would be the private banking system. As M1 is inside money and Mb is outside money, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually create the money inside the economy.

The Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply.This fact, that the Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply goes right back to the central point brought about this discussion. Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly. And there in lies the point. Money has no purpose except in exchange. It is far more a public good than anything else.

There is one concept that is clearly missing from your considerations, the concept of "and". Governments AND the free market creates monopolies. Governments sanction AND suppress monopolies. Monopolies are illegal in the US by Federal law AND health insurance companies were exempt from anti trust laws.

Private banks AND the Federal Reserve create money. The government AND the free market create monopolies. Monopolies are illegal in Federal law AND some monopolies are not illegal.

Whatever you have come to believe is simply wrong. And you have created false logic based on false or a lack of information


Understanding Inside Money and Outside Money | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM

First of all PMZ did say that government prevents monopolies. Then you said they are illegal, except when the government allows, as in the case of the Federal Reserve. I get that you are a Statist, and that whatever the State says, you're ok with that. If the State says that this monopoly is illegal, that's ok with you, and if the state says this monopoly is legal, you are ok with that too. I am not. I think the State should stay out of economics. My point was to show you the contradiction, but you are too blinded to beleive only the State, youcannot see it.

The free market does not allow for monopolies, all monopolies that have existed, existed with the help of some kind of government law (protcetions, tarifss, etc). I can find a number of economist to support me, just as you can find a number of economist to support yourself. But that doesn't mean both of us, and the economist we use, are corect. Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct. This is protectionism.

The money we use is not created by the banks, it's created by the Treasury Department. They are the ones who print the money. And it is the Federsal Reserve that determines the money supply. If you want to throw in the banks too, ok then this is a Cartel not a monopoly, but they practice the same way.

The biggest crock you spwed as though it were facts is this one, "Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly." Well then what the hell is going on????? What a crock! Look at the value of the dollar when the federal reserve was created and look at the value of the dollar now. Since the Fed Res was created the dollar has lost nearly all it's value, and the Fed Res monetary policy is directly realted to the great depression and the rescent depression. There have been over 10 recession since the creation of the Fed Res. in 1913. I dont think a recession every 10 years is good enough to say that, "Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly." it seems pretty repeatedly when you look at the facts. The value of the dollar has decreased as the supply of money has increased greatly, far greater than the increase of the GDP. Sorry, but it seeems that you are the one who is living outside of reality.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg

 

[RKMBrown]

First of all PMZ did say that government prevents monopolies. Then you said they are illegal, except when the government allows, as in the case of the Federal Reserve. I get that you are a Statist, and that whatever the State says, you're ok with that. If the State says that this monopoly is illegal, that's ok with you, and if the state says this monopoly is legal, you are ok with that too. I am not. I think the State should stay out of economics. My point was to show you the contradiction, but you are too blinded to beleive only the State, youcannot see it.

The free market does not allow for monopolies, all monopolies that have existed, existed with the help of some kind of government law (protcetions, tarifss, etc). I can find a number of economist to support me, just as you can find a number of economist to support yourself. But that doesn't mean both of us, and the economist we use, are corect. Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct. This is protectionism.

IOW you are against property rights of individuals. You are a bigger idiot than he is. Edited to add bold emphasis.

 

[originalthought]

Because you are attempting to define things that are defined by law, economics science, and business accounting. That, and you embellish other peoples presentation. And you are refusing to accept the reality which has been determined by others smarter than you. I detect a certain lack of allowing feedback, acknowledging the determination of definitions by the experts in the field. I am pretty sure you are neither a lawyer or an economist. Rejecting what has already been defined is a mental issue, in part the Dunn-Kruger effect.

No where did anyone say that the government prevents all monopolies. I simply pointed out the fact that they are illegal by US Law. And, the legality, the enforcement, sanctioning, and the creation of monopolies by the US government aren't at odds with each other. Surely you realize that the government can and does allow for patent rights which create monopolies until the patent runs out. Then, if conditions are right, as for Alcoa, a natural monopoly may ensue. This gets tried in court under anti-trust law, establishing the monopoly to be at odds with the law and therefore illegal. That the government creates monopolies doesn't mean that they also determine monopolies to be illegal.

By your reasoning, seat belts in automobiles don't prevent injuries because injuries occur while people are wearing a seat belt.

Yes, monopolies are created by the free market. You seem to be starting with the premise that the free market can't create monopolies and then attempting to force some false logic to make it so. How you manage this is beyond me.

That monopolies are created in the free market is well established and a simple search for description of monopolies will yield this information. One has to intentionally ignore the information presented by economists, the US government, and business. That the Federal Reserve might be considered a monopoly doesn't negate that the free market creates monopolies naturally or that the Supreme Court has found companies in violation of anti-trust laws on multiple occasions.

The Federal Reserve doesn't create the US currency that is used in the private economy and market place. The Federal Reserve creates money in the reserve accounts of reserve banks. It is called "outside money". The money we use is created by private banks as business loans, consumer loans, etc. It is called "inside money". Inside and outside money don't mix. The money supply created by private banks, outside money, is larger than the money supply created by the Federal Reserve. The last measure of M2 is 10,947.7 Billions of Dollars. The last measure of the monetary base is 3,682.285 Billions of Dollars. Historically, M1, the money used for purchases of goods and services, has been 1.5 to 3 times the monetary base.

The specific ratio is shown here;

It is M1/Mb. M1, the inside money used in exchanges, the money in circulation, is always more than Mb. And as the Federal Reserve only creates outside money, Mb, at the very least we can say that the difference, (M1-Mb), is clearly not created by the Federal Reserve.

Still, it is certainly incorrect to say that the Federal Reserve creates US currency when they create far less than the functioning money supply. All the Federal Reserve does is make outside money available through the reserve banking system. The private banks then creates money based on demand. It is correct to say that the money supply is created by the private banking system because, in fact, it is. It would be incorrect to say that the Treasury Department creates money in the US economy because, while it does print and mint, that money only becomes inside money when a private bank decides to do so. It may be better said that money creation is done by the combined behavior of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the private banking system. If we have to pick one to speak of as being the major source, it would be the private banking system. As M1 is inside money and Mb is outside money, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually create the money inside the economy.

The Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply.This fact, that the Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply goes right back to the central point brought about this discussion. Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly. And there in lies the point. Money has no purpose except in exchange. It is far more a public good than anything else.

There is one concept that is clearly missing from your considerations, the concept of "and". Governments AND the free market creates monopolies. Governments sanction AND suppress monopolies. Monopolies are illegal in the US by Federal law AND health insurance companies were exempt from anti trust laws.

Private banks AND the Federal Reserve create money. The government AND the free market create monopolies. Monopolies are illegal in Federal law AND some monopolies are not illegal.

Whatever you have come to believe is simply wrong. And you have created false logic based on false or a lack of information


Understanding Inside Money and Outside Money | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM

First of all PMZ did say that government prevents monopolies. Then you said they are illegal, except when the government allows, as in the case of the Federal Reserve. I get that you are a Statist, and that whatever the State says, you're ok with that. If the State says that this monopoly is illegal, that's ok with you, and if the state says this monopoly is legal, you are ok with that too. I am not. I think the State should stay out of economics. My point was to show you the contradiction, but you are too blinded to beleive only the State, youcannot see it.

The free market does not allow for monopolies, all monopolies that have existed, existed with the help of some kind of government law (protcetions, tarifss, etc). I can find a number of economist to support me, just as you can find a number of economist to support yourself. But that doesn't mean both of us, and the economist we use, are corect. Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct. This is protectionism.

The money we use is not created by the banks, it's created by the Treasury Department. They are the ones who print the money. And it is the Federsal Reserve that determines the money supply. If you want to throw in the banks too, ok then this is a Cartel not a monopoly, but they practice the same way.

The biggest crock you spwed as though it were facts is this one, "Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly." Well then what the hell is going on????? What a crock! Look at the value of the dollar when the federal reserve was created and look at the value of the dollar now. Since the Fed Res was created the dollar has lost nearly all it's value, and the Fed Res monetary policy is directly realted to the great depression and the rescent depression. There have been over 10 recession since the creation of the Fed Res. in 1913. I dont think a recession every 10 years is good enough to say that, "Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly." it seems pretty repeatedly when you look at the facts. The value of the dollar has decreased as the supply of money has increased greatly, far greater than the increase of the GDP. Sorry, but it seeems that you are the one who is living outside of reality.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg

IOW you are against property rights of individuals. You are a bigger idiot than he is.

Why?

 

[bripat9643]

Mergers and acquisitions.

Your boogeyman story is merely another monster in the Republican closet.

They really don't work anymore.

Mergers "restrain trade" only in the imaginations of the gullible. There is no objective criteria that defines when a company is guilty of restraining trade. It's purely up to the arbitrary prejudices of the judge presiding on the case.

If Congress passed a law saying that the number pie = 3.5, numbskulls like you would insist that was indeed the value of pie.

You don't know what M&As are, but you are an expert in them.

You have a conservative sized ego.

You can't even make up new ad hominems. You just keep recycling the old ones. That's why you're a jackass.

 

[RKMBrown]

First of all PMZ did say that government prevents monopolies. Then you said they are illegal, except when the government allows, as in the case of the Federal Reserve. I get that you are a Statist, and that whatever the State says, you're ok with that. If the State says that this monopoly is illegal, that's ok with you, and if the state says this monopoly is legal, you are ok with that too. I am not. I think the State should stay out of economics. My point was to show you the contradiction, but you are too blinded to beleive only the State, youcannot see it.

The free market does not allow for monopolies, all monopolies that have existed, existed with the help of some kind of government law (protcetions, tarifss, etc). I can find a number of economist to support me, just as you can find a number of economist to support yourself. But that doesn't mean both of us, and the economist we use, are corect. Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct. This is protectionism.

The money we use is not created by the banks, it's created by the Treasury Department. They are the ones who print the money. And it is the Federsal Reserve that determines the money supply. If you want to throw in the banks too, ok then this is a Cartel not a monopoly, but they practice the same way.

The biggest crock you spwed as though it were facts is this one, "Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly." Well then what the hell is going on????? What a crock! Look at the value of the dollar when the federal reserve was created and look at the value of the dollar now. Since the Fed Res was created the dollar has lost nearly all it's value, and the Fed Res monetary policy is directly realted to the great depression and the rescent depression. There have been over 10 recession since the creation of the Fed Res. in 1913. I dont think a recession every 10 years is good enough to say that, "Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly." it seems pretty repeatedly when you look at the facts. The value of the dollar has decreased as the supply of money has increased greatly, far greater than the increase of the GDP. Sorry, but it seeems that you are the one who is living outside of reality.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg

IOW you are against property rights of individuals. You are a bigger idiot than he is.

Why?

How hard are you gonna work for the rest of us when there are no property rights and we can take everything you create.

 

[originalthought]

IOW you are against property rights of individuals. You are a bigger idiot than he is.

Why?

How hard are you gonna work for the rest of us when there are no property rights and we can take everything you create.

Whoa. Who says patent rights equate to property rights? I recenlty changed my view on this, because I beleive in seperation of the State and the Economy. Can we debate this rather than you calling my an idiot.

You have only stated that patent rights are individual propert rights, you have not backed up this claim.

 

[dcraelin]

Good article on the propaganda about the high taxes paid by US corporations

The Great Corporate Tax Shift » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[RKMBrown]

Why?

How hard are you gonna work for the rest of us when there are no property rights and we can take everything you create.

Whoa. Who says patent rights equate to property rights? I recenlty changed my view on this, because I beleive in seperation of the State and the Economy. Can we debate this rather than you calling my an idiot.

You have only stated that patent rights are individual propert rights, you have not backed up this claim.

Backed up the claim that patents are property? Or backed up the claim that individuals hold rights? HUH?

Separation of state and what? First you say you are against property rights, then you say you are for property rights, then you say separation of law from the economy. ROFL you are all over the map.

Definition of Idiot: 2. A foolish person.

 

[originalthought]

Good article on the propaganda about the high taxes paid by US corporations

The Great Corporate Tax Shift » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

"US corporations don’t pay the nominal corporate tax rate of 35% today; they pay an effective (i.e. actual) rate of only 12%. The additional effective state-wide corporate income tax they pay amounts to only a 2% or so—not the 10% they claim. And the effective corporate tax on offshore earnings is only another 2.2% or so—not the 20% average they’ll complain. So the total US tax for US corporations is barely 16%–not the 35% plus 10% (state) plus 20% (offshore) nominal tax rate. And however you cut it, the story is the same: US corporations’ share of total federal tax revenues have been in freefall for decades. The share of corporate taxes as a percent of GDP and national income has halved over the decades. And corporations since 2008 have realized record level profits during the ‘Obama Recovery’—while their taxes as a percent of profits since 2008 is half that of the average paid as recently as 1987-2007. Okay, more detail on all that in parts 2 and 3 to follow"

I'm not saying true or false, but where are the sources to back up those claims?

 

[RKMBrown]

Good article on the propaganda about the high taxes paid by US corporations

The Great Corporate Tax Shift » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

The problem with corporate taxes is the way they are collected. They encourage the corporation to move their production elsewhere. We should move corporate taxes to the products and services sold here. Thus taxing them whether they are here or in China. Thus taking away a large % of the benefit of producing product in china then selling here. Thus encouraging production here for the higher profit items.

 

[originalthought]

How hard are you gonna work for the rest of us when there are no property rights and we can take everything you create.

Whoa. Who says patent rights equate to property rights? I recenlty changed my view on this, because I beleive in seperation of the State and the Economy. Can we debate this rather than you calling my an idiot.

You have only stated that patent rights are individual propert rights, you have not backed up this claim.

Backed up the claim that patents are property? Or backed up the claim that individuals hold rights? HUH?

Separation of state and what? First you say you are against property rights, then you say you are for property rights, then you say separation of law from the economy. ROFL you are all over the map.

Definition of Idiot: 2. A foolish person.

Where did I say I was against property rights? Quote me.

 

[PMZ]

Mergers "restrain trade" only in the imaginations of the gullible. There is no objective criteria that defines when a company is guilty of restraining trade. It's purely up to the arbitrary prejudices of the judge presiding on the case.

If Congress passed a law saying that the number pie = 3.5, numbskulls like you would insist that was indeed the value of pie.

You don't know what M&As are, but you are an expert in them.

You have a conservative sized ego.

You're a king sized jackass, PMS. The fact that I don't know what the acronym you invent refers to doesn't mean I don't know what Mergers and Acquisitions are.

If you had any good arguments, you'd post them instead of the cheap shots you're so fond of.

The fact that you think that I invented the acronym is evidence enough that you are uninformed about the topic.

Typical ranting about what you wish was true.

 

[PMZ]

Some property is owned by some, or one, of us. Some property is owned by all of us.

In a typical condo, for instance, there are individually owned and jointly owned assets.

It's plain common sense.

 

[PMZ]

Good article on the propaganda about the high taxes paid by US corporations

The Great Corporate Tax Shift » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

"US corporations don’t pay the nominal corporate tax rate of 35% today; they pay an effective (i.e. actual) rate of only 12%. The additional effective state-wide corporate income tax they pay amounts to only a 2% or so—not the 10% they claim. And the effective corporate tax on offshore earnings is only another 2.2% or so—not the 20% average they’ll complain. So the total US tax for US corporations is barely 16%–not the 35% plus 10% (state) plus 20% (offshore) nominal tax rate. And however you cut it, the story is the same: US corporations’ share of total federal tax revenues have been in freefall for decades. The share of corporate taxes as a percent of GDP and national income has halved over the decades. And corporations since 2008 have realized record level profits during the ‘Obama Recovery’—while their taxes as a percent of profits since 2008 is half that of the average paid as recently as 1987-2007. Okay, more detail on all that in parts 2 and 3 to follow"

I'm not saying true or false, but where are the sources to back up those claims?

Certainly corporations aren't on average having any trouble with profits now after achieving the high unemployment that they treasure.

 

[RKMBrown]

Whoa. Who says patent rights equate to property rights? I recenlty changed my view on this, because I beleive in seperation of the State and the Economy. Can we debate this rather than you calling my an idiot.

You have only stated that patent rights are individual propert rights, you have not backed up this claim.

Backed up the claim that patents are property? Or backed up the claim that individuals hold rights? HUH?

Separation of state and what? First you say you are against property rights, then you say you are for property rights, then you say separation of law from the economy. ROFL you are all over the map.

Definition of Idiot: 2. A foolish person.

Where did I say I was against property rights? Quote me.

I went back and added bold emphasis to your stated lack of support of rights to property.

 

[RKMBrown]

Good article on the propaganda about the high taxes paid by US corporations

The Great Corporate Tax Shift » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

"US corporations don’t pay the nominal corporate tax rate of 35% today; they pay an effective (i.e. actual) rate of only 12%. The additional effective state-wide corporate income tax they pay amounts to only a 2% or so—not the 10% they claim. And the effective corporate tax on offshore earnings is only another 2.2% or so—not the 20% average they’ll complain. So the total US tax for US corporations is barely 16%–not the 35% plus 10% (state) plus 20% (offshore) nominal tax rate. And however you cut it, the story is the same: US corporations’ share of total federal tax revenues have been in freefall for decades. The share of corporate taxes as a percent of GDP and national income has halved over the decades. And corporations since 2008 have realized record level profits during the ‘Obama Recovery’—while their taxes as a percent of profits since 2008 is half that of the average paid as recently as 1987-2007. Okay, more detail on all that in parts 2 and 3 to follow"

I'm not saying true or false, but where are the sources to back up those claims?

Certainly corporations aren't on average having any trouble with profits now after achieving the high unemployment that they treasure.

Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?

 

[PMZ]

"US corporations don’t pay the nominal corporate tax rate of 35% today; they pay an effective (i.e. actual) rate of only 12%. The additional effective state-wide corporate income tax they pay amounts to only a 2% or so—not the 10% they claim. And the effective corporate tax on offshore earnings is only another 2.2% or so—not the 20% average they’ll complain. So the total US tax for US corporations is barely 16%–not the 35% plus 10% (state) plus 20% (offshore) nominal tax rate. And however you cut it, the story is the same: US corporations’ share of total federal tax revenues have been in freefall for decades. The share of corporate taxes as a percent of GDP and national income has halved over the decades. And corporations since 2008 have realized record level profits during the ‘Obama Recovery’—while their taxes as a percent of profits since 2008 is half that of the average paid as recently as 1987-2007. Okay, more detail on all that in parts 2 and 3 to follow"

I'm not saying true or false, but where are the sources to back up those claims?

Certainly corporations aren't on average having any trouble with profits now after achieving the high unemployment that they treasure.

Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?

That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country. In the case of unemployment, those perspectives are mutually exclusive.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't know what M&As are, but you are an expert in them.

You have a conservative sized ego.

You're a king sized jackass, PMS. The fact that I don't know what the acronym you invent refers to doesn't mean I don't know what Mergers and Acquisitions are.

If you had any good arguments, you'd post them instead of the cheap shots you're so fond of.

The fact that you think that I invented the acronym is evidence enough that you are uninformed about the topic.

Typical ranting about what you wish was true.

It doesn't matter who invented it. Only a jackass without any facts or logic would make an issue of it.