Why again do left wingers believe taxing corporations more is helpful to the middle class?

[bripat9643]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Reaganomics didn't work. That's why he jacked up taxes on the rich 2 years later.

It worked marvelously. That's why libs called the 80s "the decade of greed."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

Higher profits means more jobs, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Reaganomics didn't work. That's why he jacked up taxes on the rich 2 years later.

It worked marvelously. That's why libs called the 80s "the decade of greed."

The Reagan administration got a huge tax cut passed in 1981. It was supposed to magically balance the budget.
Within a year the Reagan administration realized that it had made a fiscally disastrous mistake, and in 1982 passed the biggest tax increase in history.

 

[bripat9643]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

Higher profits means more jobs, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

Thanks for spewing your economic ignorance into the forum. How do higher profits allow corporations to lower wages?

 

[bripat9643]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Reaganomics didn't work. That's why he jacked up taxes on the rich 2 years later.

It worked marvelously. That's why libs called the 80s "the decade of greed."

The Reagan administration got a huge tax cut passed in 1981. It was supposed to magically balance the budget.
Within a year the Reagan administration realized that it had made a fiscally disastrous mistake, and in 1982 passed the biggest tax increase in history.

It wasn't magically supposed to balance the budget, moron. No one in the Reagan administration ever made that claim.

 

[NightFox]

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.
.

Probably not, they also don't appear to know that corporations just pass the cost of taxes along in the form of higher prices, lower wages for employees and lower returns to investors.

Look, this is really simple. A corporation is not taxed on shit until that corporation pulls the money out of the business. If they want to build a factory, they build it with pretax money. If they want to pass out raises, they pass them out with pretax money. If they want to cut prices to stimulate demand, the lost profits come from pretax money. Anything that a company spends money on that the company does best, you know, what it is in the business to do, comes from pretax money.

Now, after tax money is the money companies use to pay their shareholders, or most of the time, buy back their damn stock. Basically, the company is saying, hey--we don't have any profitable investments to make right now in our business, and we think all you stockholders are too damn stupid to know what to do with any dividends, so we are going to purchase up some stock to burn in a bonfire at the back of headquarters. And that's what they are doing. Now I don't know about what the stockholders would do with it, honestly, I don't give a shit. But I do know this, even the government. Yes, the damn government, can put that money to use, perhaps rebuilding infrastructure, in a far more productive manner than building bonfires with stock certificates.

Uh-huh and where does the money come from to pay corporate taxes? The corporate money forest? risk/reward determines capital flows and the reward portion of the equation is also known as profit potential, if you dent profit potential you stunt capital formation in the sector in question thus in order to compete for capital companies will reduce wages and increase prices to maintain competitive returns, of course they're still forced to generate less returns (lower profit potential) because they have to shovel what would otherwise be productive resources to the tax man so investor returns are less than they would otherwise be.

TANSTAFL

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." -- Frédéric Bastiat

About that risk/reward thing, why is it you only focus on the reward side?

Because the reward side is what draws capital investment and capital investment is what increases productivity which is what drives higher wages and lower prices; taxing production is just asinine because you're hampering economic growth, if you must tax something tax consumption. Granted the corp tax side of the equation is the lesser of the two factors stunting economic growth potential (the regulatory regime has a greater overall impact) but it's something that can be fixed more easily and not only do you lift the burden on capital you also eliminate all the lawyer and accountant costs that are incurred for CIT filing.

Federal corporate income taxes should be zero, they only account for around 11% of federal revenues anyways and the benefits of eliminating them spread to EVERYONE.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

increased profits means more liquidity in the economy
more liquidity in the economy means more and faster movement of money
more movement of money means more demand for products and services
more demand for products and services means more jobs

 

[NightFox]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

increased profits means more liquidity in the economy
more liquidity in the economy means more and faster movement of money
more movement of money means more demand for products and services
more demand for products and services means more jobs

Point of order; IMHO liquidity isn't a problem, our monetary system produces liquidity on demand (and no I'm not saying that a debt driven monetary system is a good idea but it is what it is) and the demand side isn't the problem either since our domestic demand exceeds our domestic output capacity in most sectors.

You make a good point with respect to monetary velocity but IMHO the best way to increase that is to increase productivity since that is what puts more discretionary income into the pockets of consumers while at the same time increasing domestic output. The other problem we have is that Wall Street has morphed from a vehicle to raise capital for productive enterprise into essentially a giant casino where the participants bet on future price action instead of raising capital to build factories and that casino is eating the seed corn of the productive economy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

increased profits means more liquidity in the economy
more liquidity in the economy means more and faster movement of money
more movement of money means more demand for products and services
more demand for products and services means more jobs

It's a zero sum game. If you don't get the tax revenue from the corporations you have to get it somewhere else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

Higher profits means more jobs, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

Thanks for spewing your economic ignorance into the forum. How do higher profits allow corporations to lower wages?

They try to lower wages so they can get higher profits. They try to reduce the size of the work force so they can get higher profits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Reaganomics didn't work. That's why he jacked up taxes on the rich 2 years later.

It worked marvelously. That's why libs called the 80s "the decade of greed."

The Reagan administration got a huge tax cut passed in 1981. It was supposed to magically balance the budget.
Within a year the Reagan administration realized that it had made a fiscally disastrous mistake, and in 1982 passed the biggest tax increase in history.

It wasn't magically supposed to balance the budget, moron. No one in the Reagan administration ever made that claim.

https://reaganlibrary.archives.gov/archives/speeches/1981/20581c.htm

 

[Mac1958]

Just checking back on the thread, knowing it would be replete with binary thinking....

Corporate tax rates can't be the only part of the overall picture. They don't stand by themselves in this equation.

1. Two year tax moratorium on repatriated corporate dollars
   
2. Lower corporate tax rates to 15% with a 5% META (Minimum Effective Tax Rate, my term, gawd I'm good)
3. Add four new, higher personal income tax brackets with corresponding METAs (my plan would top out at 59.9%)

Then, through communication and cooperation - those are things American adults used to do when confronted with problems and tasks - we look at what may be the bigger issue, and that is rules on how corporations control their cash flow. Can a corporation keep its tax savings in cash while firing people? Can it pay CEOs a zillion times more than it pays its employees? Would it be smart to put controls on stock options? Could it be required to re-invest to some degree? (Check out how Real Estate Investment Trusts, REITs, work, for example, and METAs would probably address that to a point)

This macro issue would have to be addressed and worked out, if there are any adults left.

Or we can just scream at each other like children on a playground. That's working out great.
.

 

[NightFox]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

increased profits means more liquidity in the economy
more liquidity in the economy means more and faster movement of money
more movement of money means more demand for products and services
more demand for products and services means more jobs

It's a zero sum game. If you don't get the tax revenue from the corporations you have to get it somewhere else.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor and go back to the kiddie table since you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

Economies are not a static entity, good economic policy that encourages production results in a growing economy which benefits all participants including the tax collector, bad economic policy like we have now penalizes production (growth) and encourages only consumption and speculation (shrinkage).

So no in either case it's not a "zero sum game", it's either going growing or shrinking and reactionaries like you are constantly advocating policies which lead to the latter and thus are the folks that are responsible for the fact that real wages have been stagnate for so long, have trade imbalances that would make a drunken sailor commit suicide, and a financial sector that is nothing more than a giant casino. Congratulations your work is done here now go fuck up somebody Else's economy and leave the grown ups alone to figure out how to clean up your mess.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

increased profits means more liquidity in the economy
more liquidity in the economy means more and faster movement of money
more movement of money means more demand for products and services
more demand for products and services means more jobs

It's a zero sum game. If you don't get the tax revenue from the corporations you have to get it somewhere else.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor and go back to the kiddie table since you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

Economies are not a static entity, good economic policy that encourages production results in a growing economy which benefits all participants including the tax collector, bad economic policy like we have now penalizes production (growth) and encourages only consumption and speculation (shrinkage).

So no in either case it's not a "zero sum game", it's either going growing or shrinking and reactionaries like you are constantly advocating policies which lead to the latter and thus are the folks that are responsible for the fact that real wages have been stagnate for so long, have trade imbalances that would make a drunken sailor commit suicide, and a financial sector that is nothing more than a giant casino. Congratulations your work is done here now go fuck up somebody Else's economy and leave the grown ups alone to figure out how to clean up your mess.

What a babblefest of ignorance.

If you eliminate the corporate tax you lose billions in revenue. No, that revenue does not magically appear somewhere else. That revenue can only be made up by taxing somewhere else.

The myth of tax cuts paying for themselves has been debunked so many times that only the economically retarded still believe in it.

 

[NightFox]

Corporate tax rates can't be the only part of the overall picture. They don't stand by themselves in this equation.
.

They're not Mac, they're actually the smallest part of the picture but they're also the easiest to fix (get rid of them). The (vastly) larger issues are the insanely excessive costs of the existing regulatory regime and a debt driven monetary system that puts complete control of where money flows and where it doesn't into the hands of private banks (for further clarification see the "Crash of '08" and how bankers shoveled money into the housing sector creating a speculation bubble and unsustainable debt levels that eventually burst).

 

[Mac1958]

Corporate tax rates can't be the only part of the overall picture. They don't stand by themselves in this equation.
.

They're not Mac, they're actually the smallest part of the picture but they're also the easiest to fix (get rid of them). The (vastly) larger issues are the insanely excessive costs of the existing regulatory regime and a debt driven monetary system that puts complete control of where money flows and where it doesn't into the hands of private banks (for further clarification see the "Crash of '08" and how bankers shoveled money into the housing sector creating a speculation bubble and unsustainable debt levels that eventually burst).

Some of this stuff drives me a little nuts. These arguments are so shallow and partisan-based that I don't even know if they're serious.

Yes, indeed, we're awash in (often redundant) regulations right now, and that has to be a part of this process. However, volume of regulations (more or fewer) is less important than efficiency and effectiveness. We can't go too far in de-regulation either, as that was a big part of the problem with derivatives. And still is.
.

 

[NightFox]

If you eliminate the corporate tax you lose billions in revenue. No, that revenue does not magically appear somewhere else. That revenue can only be made up by taxing somewhere else.

LOL, Apparently critical thinking and math aren't your strong suits (not surprised)

Riddle me this Jethro, if you tax 10% of an economy of X size do you get more or less if you tax 10% of an economy of X * 2 size?

Try not to pass out while you think it over.

 

[NightFox]

Corporate tax rates can't be the only part of the overall picture. They don't stand by themselves in this equation.
.

They're not Mac, they're actually the smallest part of the picture but they're also the easiest to fix (get rid of them). The (vastly) larger issues are the insanely excessive costs of the existing regulatory regime and a debt driven monetary system that puts complete control of where money flows and where it doesn't into the hands of private banks (for further clarification see the "Crash of '08" and how bankers shoveled money into the housing sector creating a speculation bubble and unsustainable debt levels that eventually burst).

Some of this stuff drives me a little nuts. These arguments are so shallow and partisan-based that I don't even know if they're serious.

Try being a bit more specific... I'm not arguing anything from a partisan basis since I don't believe any party is actually interested in addressing any of the structural issues within our economy, they're only interested in keeping the current ponzi scheme going for as long as possible because the power brokers in the political parties are the ones that benefit from it.

Yes, indeed, we're awash in (often redundant) regulations right now, and that has to be a part of this process. However, volume of regulations (more or fewer) is less important than efficiency and effectiveness. We can't go too far in de-regulation either, as that was a big part of the problem with derivatives. And still is.
.

What do you think is driving money into derivatives? Might it have something to do with the fact that it's more profitable to speculate on future price action than to invest in productive enterprise? and might that be because our current regulatory regime, tax policy and monetary system tend to penalize production and reward consumption and speculation?

I'm not arguing for de-regulation just for the sake of de-regulation; this can be done solely on the basis of cost-benefit where each and every regulation on the books is examined to determine whether the benefits outweigh the negative economic consequences and if they don't eliminate it. We don't do that today, we book regulations and then constantly add more regulations in an attempt to "fix" all the negative consequences of previous regulation; just look at this "health care law" imbroglio if you want a current example, more regulation (Obamacare) --> unintended negative consequences --> more regulation to "fix" those (Trumpcare or whatever the fuck they end up calling it) --> unintended negative consequences..... welcome to the hamster wheel.

 

[Mac1958]

Corporate tax rates can't be the only part of the overall picture. They don't stand by themselves in this equation.
.

They're not Mac, they're actually the smallest part of the picture but they're also the easiest to fix (get rid of them). The (vastly) larger issues are the insanely excessive costs of the existing regulatory regime and a debt driven monetary system that puts complete control of where money flows and where it doesn't into the hands of private banks (for further clarification see the "Crash of '08" and how bankers shoveled money into the housing sector creating a speculation bubble and unsustainable debt levels that eventually burst).

Some of this stuff drives me a little nuts. These arguments are so shallow and partisan-based that I don't even know if they're serious.

Try being a bit more specific... I'm not arguing anything from a partisan basis since I don't believe any party is actually interested in addressing any of the structural issues within our economy, they're only interested in keeping the current ponzi scheme going for as long as possible because the power brokers in the political parties are the ones that benefit from it.

Yes, indeed, we're awash in (often redundant) regulations right now, and that has to be a part of this process. However, volume of regulations (more or fewer) is less important than efficiency and effectiveness. We can't go too far in de-regulation either, as that was a big part of the problem with derivatives. And still is.
.

What do you think is driving money into derivatives? Might it have something to do with the fact that it's more profitable to speculate on future price action than to invest in productive enterprise? and might that be because our current regulatory regime, tax policy and monetary system tend to penalize production and reward consumption and speculation?

I'm not arguing for de-regulation just for the sake of de-regulation; this can be done solely on the basis of cost-benefit where each and every regulation on the books is examined to determine whether the benefits outweigh the negative economic consequences and if they don't eliminate it. We don't do that today, we book regulations and then constantly add more regulations in an attempt to "fix" all the negative consequences of previous regulation; just look at this "health care law" imbroglio if you want a current example, more regulation (Obamacare) --> unintended negative consequences --> more regulation to "fix" those (Trumpcare or whatever the fuck they end up calling it) --> unintended negative consequences..... welcome to the hamster wheel.

Believe me, I'm neck-deep in regulations as an advisor, but they're uneven.

CMOs and their evil twin CDOs were largely unregulated, and even Greenspan himself strongly argued against them - even though he admits that, with his extensive background in mathematics, he didn't understand them! And they're being sold to investors, hedge funds, charities, states and municipalities globally?

And the ratings agencies? Wheeeeee! AAA! Just keep paying us to give you that AAA! Holy shit.

These things were at the heart of the Meltdown, and they were purchased (and pushed!) because they were so "safe" and the "returns" were so good. And, because commissions were usually 2% to 3%, big moneymakers for the brokers.

That is financial malfeasance of pretty much the worst sort. That's why regulations that are both efficient and effective are so badly needed.
.

 

[NightFox]

Corporate tax rates can't be the only part of the overall picture. They don't stand by themselves in this equation.
.

They're not Mac, they're actually the smallest part of the picture but they're also the easiest to fix (get rid of them). The (vastly) larger issues are the insanely excessive costs of the existing regulatory regime and a debt driven monetary system that puts complete control of where money flows and where it doesn't into the hands of private banks (for further clarification see the "Crash of '08" and how bankers shoveled money into the housing sector creating a speculation bubble and unsustainable debt levels that eventually burst).

Some of this stuff drives me a little nuts. These arguments are so shallow and partisan-based that I don't even know if they're serious.

Try being a bit more specific... I'm not arguing anything from a partisan basis since I don't believe any party is actually interested in addressing any of the structural issues within our economy, they're only interested in keeping the current ponzi scheme going for as long as possible because the power brokers in the political parties are the ones that benefit from it.

Yes, indeed, we're awash in (often redundant) regulations right now, and that has to be a part of this process. However, volume of regulations (more or fewer) is less important than efficiency and effectiveness. We can't go too far in de-regulation either, as that was a big part of the problem with derivatives. And still is.
.

What do you think is driving money into derivatives? Might it have something to do with the fact that it's more profitable to speculate on future price action than to invest in productive enterprise? and might that be because our current regulatory regime, tax policy and monetary system tend to penalize production and reward consumption and speculation?

I'm not arguing for de-regulation just for the sake of de-regulation; this can be done solely on the basis of cost-benefit where each and every regulation on the books is examined to determine whether the benefits outweigh the negative economic consequences and if they don't eliminate it. We don't do that today, we book regulations and then constantly add more regulations in an attempt to "fix" all the negative consequences of previous regulation; just look at this "health care law" imbroglio if you want a current example, more regulation (Obamacare) --> unintended negative consequences --> more regulation to "fix" those (Trumpcare or whatever the fuck they end up calling it) --> unintended negative consequences..... welcome to the hamster wheel.

Believe me, I'm neck-deep in regulations as an advisor, but they're uneven.

CMOs and their evil twin CDOs were largely unregulated, and even Greenspan himself strongly argued against them - even though he admits that, with his extensive background in mathematics, he didn't understand them! And they're being sold to investors, hedge funds, charities, states and municipalities globally?

You're making my point for me; the lack of regulation wasn't the problem since the "regulators" didn't even understand what was going on, heck nobody in the regulatory state was sounding any alarm bells prior to the crash, quite the opposite, everybody (including the Top Banker at the Fed at the time) was assuring the public that all was rosey. The only people sounding alarm bells were independent analysts and a handful of Wall Street execs (Schiff comes to mind) and they were largely laughed at when they predicted the crash.

The root of the problem is that the risk-reward for speculation is a better bet than the risk-reward for investing in actually building things and providing services that benefit consumers and until you fix that all the regulation in the universe isn't going to do any good (actually it just makes things worse), especially given that our system is rife with moral hazard where losses on speculation are socialized and profits are privatized while any "penalties" imposed for regulatory malfeasance directly benefit regulatory agencies (they get to keep any "penalty money" while the poor customers and investors of whatever entity was "penalized" get to foot the bill for 'em).

That is financial malfeasance of pretty much the worst sort. That's why regulations that are both efficient and effective are so badly needed.
.

We had regulations and that didn't do any good, those responsible for writing regulations don't understand the interaction of the variables that the regulations they write are altering and those enforcing the regulations either don't know what the hell is really going on or look the other way because it's in their own best interests to do so, remember Madoff? Regulators were warned specifically about what he was doing TEN YEARS before they actually did anything about it, regulators were warned about the impending crash of '08 three years before it happened and didn't raise a peep, so what good would more regulations have done?