The purpose of a corporation is to make money.

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
A tax on business in nothing more than a tax on consumers. Businesses merely pass the cost of any and all taxes on to consumers. If anything, business taxes do little more than make the US less competitive on the world market, meaning jobs are lost.

If there was real competition, there is no profit, and thus corporations pay no taxes.

(That is the definition of a competitive market, if there is profit, another competitor will enter the market thereby reducing the profit, this pattern continues until the profit is zero).

Impossible. Competition drives differentiating innovation between competitors to keep profits up. Plus, should profits decrease significantly to near zero, capital is driven out of that market and into another, more profitable, market. No one works for free (although not all forms of compensation are monetary). This fact is what makes capitalism the most efficient economic system possible. It focuses on the collective motivations of individuals instead of pretending that it is possible to predict the needs of a "larger scheme" that doesn't exist.

i don't think you know what an economic profit is either. it's not that they work for free. but rather that taken into account their economic costs, including opportunity costs, they're making no profit. consumers are getting all the surplus. again, you can make an accounting profit.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kyzen
I understand the desire of a business to want to constantly increase profits, but there comes a point when a responsible business needs to sit back and look at how much their business is impacting the economy and lives of its customers. It's even more important for them to do so when there is relatively little competition to worry about. If a gargantuan entity like the oil companies can't see fit to take this responsibility on themselves, then there comes a point when the government needs to step in and address the problem, or at least the publics concerns. When we read the news every quarter and continue to see these same companies continue to report bigger and bigger earnings, while our wallets take bigger and bigger hits for their product, it's a perfectly natural response to be pissed off at them, and perfectly logical for the average person to draw a correlation between the amount they are spending, and the amount these companies are earning.

Oh, and for the record, I haven't driven my car anywhere within 15 miles of home in the last 3 months; with the exception of a few trips to Home Depot where my bike or legs just wouldn't cut it for carrying a ton of wood home. I'm saving money on gas, and I'm not spending as much on groceries (since I'd have to carry it all back) 😛

If you don't like what they're doing, stop buying what they're selling. That's the only difference between capitalism and socialism, you realize that, right? Capitalism gives you a choice to buy or not buy. In every socialism that has ever been practiced (I could give a sh!t about unrealistic theories), the rich get richer while the poor are forced to buy from the rich at gunpoint.
Meanwhile, it would be irresponsible for these corporations to NOT make a profit. I could go on for days explaining why this is so, but by your posts I can tell that you probably won't get it. Let me use a simple example. Do you like the electric lightbulb? Have you ever stopped to consider just how much profit that made Edison and his company (GE)?

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
Quit bitching about ExxonMobil. You would be really happy if you were a stockholder right now. Why should they feel bad about making money? It's the CEO's No. 1 job to do just that. As long as it is legal, they should do it.

This is not 100% true. There is an increasing trend among corporations to be more "socially responsible" some are even writing such principles into their bylaws. Additionally, some corporations place a higher value on employee happiness than the bottom line, however to my knowledge, ExxonMobil does not fall into either of those categories.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: D1gger

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
A tax on business in nothing more than a tax on consumers. Businesses merely pass the cost of any and all taxes on to consumers. If anything, business taxes do little more than make the US less competitive on the world market, meaning jobs are lost.

If there was real competition, there is no profit, and thus corporations pay no taxes.

(That is the definition of a competitive market, if there is profit, another competitor will enter the market thereby reducing the profit, this pattern continues until the profit is zero).

That is a little too simplistically stated. There has to be room in any business model for profit or there would be no motive for the business to exist. The factors which effect the entry of another competitor into the market is the cost to enter, either in the form of too much capital required, or availability of the raw materials / expertise / equipment, which make it unattractive for other competitors to enter the market unless the profit levels are sufficiently high to offset the barriers to entry.

a truly competitive market has no cost to enter. yes, it is simplistic, but that is the definition of a truly competitive market. they're not reality. some people who advocate capitalism don't seem to realize that a lot of the models on which capitalism is based are not reflective of reality whatsoever.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Vic
Impossible.

I realize that there is very little true competition in the world. My point is that the companies that are taxed the most are often the least competitive companies (ie they have substantial monopolistic characteristics and much less characteristics of true competition). A company which has much greater competition would have less profit, and thus the tax is much less.

Amused's point is the one that is overly simplistic. If there were significant world market competition, then there would not have been large profits and thus there would not have been large taxes.

The single largest force that reduces competition in the business place is not lack of capital, but government regulation.

Your point was overly simplistic as well. It failed to take into account that no 2 companies and products are ever perfectly even on the competitive playing field because of innovation and brand recognition.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
A tax on business in nothing more than a tax on consumers. Businesses merely pass the cost of any and all taxes on to consumers. If anything, business taxes do little more than make the US less competitive on the world market, meaning jobs are lost.

If there was real competition, there is no profit, and thus corporations pay no taxes.

(That is the definition of a competitive market, if there is profit, another competitor will enter the market thereby reducing the profit, this pattern continues until the profit is zero).

It is important to note that this is only true of the long term, and only if the company does not differentiate its products. On the short term a company can be profitable on a single product in a purely competitive market.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so, no, businesses don't merely pass the tax straight through.

I've stated that fact in other threads and just get flamed. If you can successfully take them on, then heres a beer from me. :beer:

the other day i got flamed in p&n trying to disprove the opposite of what Amused just said. i believe the statement was something like, businesses can't pass on any taxes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Vic
Obviously the line is drawn between choice and coercion. You don't have to buy gas and oil. Or at least not so much. I look at all this gas price bitching as the same as heroin addicts bitching over the price of heroin.
It's almost summer. The weather's nice. Get out of your cars.

Gas prices always brings out the lamest of defenses. Not everyone has the luxory of living next to their workplace and their grocery store. Gas is a necessary requirement for most people's lives, whether *you* want to admit it or not. Gas is not an addiction like heroin.

And yet people lived for thousands of years without it. Amazing.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kyzen
I understand the desire of a business to want to constantly increase profits, but there comes a point when a responsible business needs to sit back and look at how much their business is impacting the economy and lives of its customers. It's even more important for them to do so when there is relatively little competition to worry about. If a gargantuan entity like the oil companies can't see fit to take this responsibility on themselves, then there comes a point when the government needs to step in and address the problem, or at least the publics concerns. When we read the news every quarter and continue to see these same companies continue to report bigger and bigger earnings, while our wallets take bigger and bigger hits for their product, it's a perfectly natural response to be pissed off at them, and perfectly logical for the average person to draw a correlation between the amount they are spending, and the amount these companies are earning.

Oh, and for the record, I haven't driven my car anywhere within 15 miles of home in the last 3 months; with the exception of a few trips to Home Depot where my bike or legs just wouldn't cut it for carrying a ton of wood home. I'm saving money on gas, and I'm not spending as much on groceries (since I'd have to carry it all back) 😛

If you don't like what they're doing, stop buying what they're selling. That's the only difference between capitalism and socialism, you realize that, right? Capitalism gives you a choice to buy or not buy. In every socialism that has ever been practiced (I could give a sh!t about unrealistic theories), the rich get richer while the poor are forced to buy from the rich at gunpoint.
Meanwhile, it would be irresponsible for these corporations to NOT make a profit. I could go on for days explaining why this is so, but by your posts I can tell that you probably won't get it. Let me use a simple example. Do you like the electric lightbulb? Have you ever stopped to consider just how much profit that made Edison and his company (GE)?

When you have an understanding of business and economics besides teenage angst and blind political ideology, come back to us and we can talk then.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
Quit bitching about ExxonMobil. You would be really happy if you were a stockholder right now. Why should they feel bad about making money? It's the CEO's No. 1 job to do just that. As long as it is legal, they should do it.

The question is, where do you draw the line between simply making a healthy profit and price gouging?

Price gouging is only possible if one supplier has pricing power in the marketplace.

There is no oil monopoly; no one company can singlehandedly set prices. Capitalism involves competition. With competition price gouging isn't possible.

With India and China getting as oil-hungry as the United States, the oil companies have the same supply but higher demand. Prices go up.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
a truly competitive market has no cost to enter. yes, it is simplistic, but that is the definition of a truly competitive market. they're not reality. some people who advocate capitalism don't seem to realize that a lot of the models on which capitalism is based are not reflective of reality whatsoever.

Ideological models are never real. That's the beauty of capitalism. It doesn't depend on them.

 

[FoBoT]

oil companies are taxed at the highest coporate rate, taxing them more will just drive the price of their products HIGHER

most of the Democrats ideas will actually drive gas prices higher

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: DaiShan
It is important to note that this is only true of the long term, and only if the company does not differentiate its products. On the short term a company can be profitable on a single product in a purely competitive market.

Like was pointed out above, a truely competitive market doesn't really exist. But lets put this in perspective:
1) What did Exxon do that differetiated its product? Exxon gained short term due to the inability of competition to enter in the short time that oil has been high. Ie there are other reasons a company can make money without differentiating in the short term.
2) Specifically what world competition would take Exxon jobs if we taxed Exxon and other oil companies?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kyzen
I understand the desire of a business to want to constantly increase profits, but there comes a point when a responsible business needs to sit back and look at how much their business is impacting the economy and lives of its customers. It's even more important for them to do so when there is relatively little competition to worry about. If a gargantuan entity like the oil companies can't see fit to take this responsibility on themselves, then there comes a point when the government needs to step in and address the problem, or at least the publics concerns. When we read the news every quarter and continue to see these same companies continue to report bigger and bigger earnings, while our wallets take bigger and bigger hits for their product, it's a perfectly natural response to be pissed off at them, and perfectly logical for the average person to draw a correlation between the amount they are spending, and the amount these companies are earning.

Oh, and for the record, I haven't driven my car anywhere within 15 miles of home in the last 3 months; with the exception of a few trips to Home Depot where my bike or legs just wouldn't cut it for carrying a ton of wood home. I'm saving money on gas, and I'm not spending as much on groceries (since I'd have to carry it all back) 😛

If you don't like what they're doing, stop buying what they're selling. That's the only difference between capitalism and socialism, you realize that, right? Capitalism gives you a choice to buy or not buy. In every socialism that has ever been practiced (I could give a sh!t about unrealistic theories), the rich get richer while the poor are forced to buy from the rich at gunpoint.
Meanwhile, it would be irresponsible for these corporations to NOT make a profit. I could go on for days explaining why this is so, but by your posts I can tell that you probably won't get it. Let me use a simple example. Do you like the electric lightbulb? Have you ever stopped to consider just how much profit that made Edison and his company (GE)?

When you have an understanding of business and economics besides teenage angst and blind political ideology, come back to us and we can talk then.

Odd that my statement had the proof of real experience behind it and yours did not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
oil companies are taxed at the highest coporate rate, taxing them more will just drive the price of their products HIGHER

most of the Democrats ideas will actually drive gas prices higher

It's not a partisan issue. Any government regulation beyond that of basic law enforcment (i.e. to prosecute theft, fraud, robbery, murder, etc.) will always drive prices higher. It's an economic necessity, if only because there are now more mouths to feed.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
oil companies are taxed at the highest coporate rate

Then add in billions of tax breaks, and they are no longer at the highest tax bracket.

Note: I have nothing against oil companies. They were in the right market at the right time and deserve to get profits. They aren't evil. I only question the need for further governmental support of oil companies (through tax breaks) at this point in time (given their large profits and the US budget deficit).

 

[kyzen]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kyzen
I understand the desire of a business to want to constantly increase profits, but there comes a point when a responsible business needs to sit back and look at how much their business is impacting the economy and lives of its customers. It's even more important for them to do so when there is relatively little competition to worry about. If a gargantuan entity like the oil companies can't see fit to take this responsibility on themselves, then there comes a point when the government needs to step in and address the problem, or at least the publics concerns. When we read the news every quarter and continue to see these same companies continue to report bigger and bigger earnings, while our wallets take bigger and bigger hits for their product, it's a perfectly natural response to be pissed off at them, and perfectly logical for the average person to draw a correlation between the amount they are spending, and the amount these companies are earning.

Oh, and for the record, I haven't driven my car anywhere within 15 miles of home in the last 3 months; with the exception of a few trips to Home Depot where my bike or legs just wouldn't cut it for carrying a ton of wood home. I'm saving money on gas, and I'm not spending as much on groceries (since I'd have to carry it all back) 😛

If you don't like what they're doing, stop buying what they're selling. That's the only difference between capitalism and socialism, you realize that, right? Capitalism gives you a choice to buy or not buy. In every socialism that has ever been practiced (I could give a sh!t about unrealistic theories), the rich get richer while the poor are forced to buy from the rich at gunpoint.
Meanwhile, it would be irresponsible for these corporations to NOT make a profit. I could go on for days explaining why this is so, but by your posts I can tell that you probably won't get it. Let me use a simple example. Do you like the electric lightbulb? Have you ever stopped to consider just how much profit that made Edison and his company (GE)?

As was stated previously, gas is not a "luxury item" anymore. People need it to get to work, the grocery store, their kids to school, sometimes to their job. You can't say to stop buying what they're selling.

I'm glad you think you have me pegged based off a few internet message board posts. You're really amazing. Every now and then I'm pretty sure the person I'm arguing with is a complete moron who's so full of himself that he would tell you the sky was not blue, and argue it to the death... but I try not to bother bringing up peoples shortcomings.

You should brush up on your reading comprehension though; I never suggested that I didn't want corporations to make money, or that capitalism was bad. I understand that on the most basic of levels a corporation needs to make money in order to sustain itself; breaking even is OK, but in order to expand and grow it needs profits. However many big oil companies make so much money that it would be nearly impossible to intelligently invest all of it in a year. And though I agree that all attempted Socialistic societies managed to cement in the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" system, what's going on here isn't too much different. Gas is a necessity for much of society. And the oil companies aren't doing much to encourage the use of an alternative fuel, or make their product more easily available. Instead they continue to charge more and more for it - it's at the point where the average kid out of high school or in college has to work 1-2 days at minimum wage (or just above) merely to fill his tank.

I don't support unchecked profiteering.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
Quit bitching about ExxonMobil. You would be really happy if you were a stockholder right now. Why should they feel bad about making money? It's the CEO's No. 1 job to do just that. As long as it is legal, they should do it.

You're right, I want to get rid of monopoly laws too. Those stupid things just get in the way of true Capitalism. And while we are at it, let's do away with those little price fixing rules. I mean, if companies want to get together and mark up their prices, we as consumers just need to quit buying their products. It's as simple as that. Stupid laws. :roll:

And can we start another thread about Enron? I'm getting tired of people b!tching about them too.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kyzen
I don't support unchecked profiteering.

And you're implying that I do? Nice straw man.

Provided there is at least some level of competition and adequate regulation, "unchecked" profiteering is impossible by definition.

And while I agree that our society cannot live without oil and gas, I will stand by my point that there is no reason that people need to consume (and waste) as much of it as they do. Nor, in a society as wealthy as ours, is there any excuse for how close so many people live to the edge of financial disaster. That type of behavior is acceptable among the very poor, but not among the middle classes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
You're right, I want to get rid of monopoly laws too. Those stupid things just get in the way of true Capitalism. And while we are at it, let's do away with those little price fixing rules. I mean, if companies want to get together and mark up their prices, we as consumers just need to quit buying their products. It's as simple as that. Stupid laws. :roll:

And can we start another thread about Enron? I'm getting tired of people b!tching about them too.

Name one single monopoly that has ever existed in the history of the US without direct government involvement, support, license, and sanction. Name one. Just one. I dare you.

 

[everman]

Companies are entitled to all revenues they generate legally. However I'm opposed to large subsidies, let market forces determine market prices.

 

[kyzen]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Vic
Obviously the line is drawn between choice and coercion. You don't have to buy gas and oil. Or at least not so much. I look at all this gas price bitching as the same as heroin addicts bitching over the price of heroin.
It's almost summer. The weather's nice. Get out of your cars.

Gas prices always brings out the lamest of defenses. Not everyone has the luxory of living next to their workplace and their grocery store. Gas is a necessary requirement for most people's lives, whether *you* want to admit it or not. Gas is not an addiction like heroin.

And yet people lived for thousands of years without it. Amazing.

Societies in the past were structured around one city; most amenities were very close by, people didn't have the same responsibilities they do now. Most of your arguments have been really well thought out and intelligent. This isn't one of those. This is like saying "Oh people survived without running water for thousands of years."

Yeah, this is true, but the quality of life lived now is much better than it was then.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kyzen

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Vic
Obviously the line is drawn between choice and coercion. You don't have to buy gas and oil. Or at least not so much. I look at all this gas price bitching as the same as heroin addicts bitching over the price of heroin.
It's almost summer. The weather's nice. Get out of your cars.

Gas prices always brings out the lamest of defenses. Not everyone has the luxory of living next to their workplace and their grocery store. Gas is a necessary requirement for most people's lives, whether *you* want to admit it or not. Gas is not an addiction like heroin.

And yet people lived for thousands of years without it. Amazing.

Societies in the past were structured around one city; most amenities were very close by, people didn't have the same responsibilities they do now. Most of your arguments have been really well thought out and intelligent. This isn't one of those. This is like saying "Oh people survived without running water for thousands of years."

Yeah, this is true, but the quality of life lived now is much better than it was then.

This was exactly my point. And what did YOU do, personally, that gives you any right to exert control over those who made your quality of life so much better than it otherwise would have been?

 

[Ornery]

Not everyone has the luxory of living next to their workplace and their grocery store.

Oh, give me a break! Everybody chooses where to live and work, and most of the mega mile commuters on this board made the choice to have more house for their money, rather than live in a smaller home near work. They get ZERO sympathy from me for that CHOICE.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vic
and adequate regulation

That is the real sticking point among the people in this thread. What is adequate regulation? If I understand Amused, he wants absolutely no regulation. Correct me if I'm wrong Amused. I don't know kyzen at all, but I'd assume he wants a large amount of regulation. Where is the balance? That question is difficult to answer.

One answer is universal though: anytime in history the level of regulation was changed (increased or decreased), the cost to consumers has increased dramatically and/or the quality of product has decreased dramatically. Why? Companies take the law change as an excuse to take short term profits and the cost of complying with the change adds extra burdens which are passed on to consumers. Thus regulation changes should be slow, deliberate, and well thought out. The ideas spewed by all politicians in all parties now seem to be the exact opposite. They seem to be knee-jerk reactions instead.