Abc News: Geithner Won’t Rule Out New Taxes For Middle Class

[UNTflyer]

I don't want to cut out anything but give incentives for innovative companies seeking better ways to do things.

We don't need the government to do that.... the motive is profit, and there is no profit in green energy.

Cutting taxes in order to spur consumer spending. yes I understand! Let's do it. It is a basic disagreement between Dems and Rep's. I think investing in better technologies and getting our workforce educated will spur this movement.

First, you are contradicting yourself. Cut taxes AND spend money? That only makes you half a Democrat.

And... government does not "invest." Government "investment" is a code word for "tax and spend".

Edited August 4, 2009 by UNTflyer

[CMJ]

And... government does not "invest." Government "investment" is a code word for "tax and spend".

So SPENDING money on things like roads isn't also an INVESTMENT?

[meangreendork]

Because I don't know better.

Fixed.

The 0-60mph in 3.9sec, perfect torque curve, 244mi range, 248HP Tesla Roadster would like a word with you.

And just for reference, the 2009 Nissan GT-R can go 0-60 in 3.9sec, and the 2010 Shelby GT500 takes 4.3sec to go 0-60.

The engineering data from the Tesla will be adopted into more consumer-grade cars and made more affordable. The Tesla is really a great foundation for electric cars.

Edited August 4, 2009 by meangreendork

[oldguystudent]

So SPENDING money on things like roads isn't also an INVESTMENT?

Right up there with military, fire and police departments. We've already privatized the prison system, let's hit these up next.

[eeally]

We don't need the government to do that.... the motive is profit, and there is no profit in green energy.

First, you are contradicting yourself. Cut taxes AND spend money? That only makes you half a Democrat.

And... government does not "invest." Government "investment" is a code word for "tax and spend".

How is there no profit in Green Energy? Qualify that statement. Gov is not going to run "Green Energy" it gives tax breaks and incentives to produce the technology. A company would not exist if it were not making a profit.

As far as investment goes.....what does it hurt if a group of people want to invest their own money to try to utilize different energy sources. All we are saying is cut them a break on the tax structure so they can continue without the burden of a large overhead. yes they might fail, but if someone does re-invent an electric car that is up to UNTflyers standards for an automobile then our investment will have paid off.

It pays off by lowering demand for Petro, cleaner for enviroment, company that created product sells patent or creates new company supplying vehicle's thus growing the economy via jobs, less $ out of country, and so on........that my friends is called an investment.

thus your grandkids can come visit you in their new electric car.......

[UNTflyer]

How is there no profit in Green Energy? Qualify that statement. Gov is not going to run "Green Energy" it gives tax breaks and incentives to produce the technology. A company would not exist if it were not making a profit.

Or unless it is being subsidized by the taxpayers - see Amtrak as the perfect example.

As far as investment goes.....what does it hurt if a group of people want to invest their own money to try to utilize different energy sources.

Nothing at all.

All we are saying is cut them a break on the tax structure so they can continue without the burden of a large overhead.

That's where we have the problem. That tax break is money from my pocket.

It pays off by lowering demand for Petro, cleaner for enviroment...

And here we come to the REAL reason... you want to eliminate fossil fuels because for some reason you have a problem with using naturally made fuel for fuel.

[UNTflyer]

Right up there with military, fire and police departments. We've already privatized the prison system, let's hit these up next.

Excellent suggestion... private for-profit highways are being built faster, cheaper, and more durable than the awarding of government contracts.

[oldguystudent]

Excellent suggestion... private for-profit highways are being built faster, cheaper, and more durable than the awarding of government contracts.

The NTTA has responded to a drastic drop in lane quantity demanded by raising prices 30%. Genius. That aside, as much as I talk crap about police, I sure as hell wouldn't want my street patrol to be profit motivated. There's a hell of a lot more money in handing out minor traffic tickets than there is in catching and prosecuting penniless meth heads and thieves. That is, of course, unless the privatized prisons are giving out bonuses for felons. For fire departments, I can almost see it working like the careflight helicopter system, but who takes care of grass fires on public land?

The military? All I can say is Blackwater. Maybe they are efficient, but maybe they're a little too efficient. The profit motive, like nature, is devoid of morals. There are some areas where I'm willing to give up some streamlining in exchange for a little humanity.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

The profit motive, like nature, is devoid of morals. There are some areas where I'm willing to give up some streamlining in exchange for a little humanity.

Well said.

[Censored by Laurie]

The profit motive, like nature, is devoid of morals. There are some areas where I'm willing to give up some streamlining in exchange for a little humanity.

Signature worthy. Well spoken.

[UNTflyer]

The profit motive is not devoid of morals.

Here's an excerpt from a great article called "The Morality of Profit"

For centuries, if not millennia, people have been suspicious of profit, thinking that profit to one person must mean a loss to someone else. Exchange, people have thought, must be "zero-sum," that is, if someone gains, someone or some group of people must have lost an amount equal to those profits. Profit, then, would simply be evidence that theft has occurred. Those who promoted this view failed to see that both sides could benefit from an exchange because both sides place different, and equally valid, values on the object traded.

In a market exchange, if I voluntarily hand over dollars in exchange for, say, prescription drugs, it is evidence that I expect to be better off with the drugs than with the dollars. If the drug manufacturer voluntarily hands over the drugs in exchange for the dollars, it is evidence that they expect to be better off with the dollars than with the drugs. Both expectations can be fulfilled. Furthermore, how much better off I become relative to how much better off the manufacturer becomes is a matter of complete ethical indifference. If I am willing to pay $5,000 for the prescription and the manufacturer is willing to accept anything over $1, then there is a wide range of prices that would make us both better off. I'd be willing to pay anything less than $5,000, and the manufacturer would be willing to accept anything over $1. If the price is actually $4,951, do the manufacturer's $4,950 (495,000 percent) profits constitute unethical "profiteering"? Or, to turn this around, if I would be willing to pay $5,000 for a drug (say, one that restores my ability to work or significantly extends my life), but I only have to pay $50, I get a "profit" of $4,950. Am I "profiteering"? Why do consumer advocates want to condemn high profits in one case but not the other?

Beyond this basic argument for the ethics of free pricing and profits, we can see that profit is necessary, even required as evidence of good stewardship. Profit is evidence that the action taken by the entrepreneur created more benefits than costs. It is a here-and-now reward for doing something that is beneficial to other people.

There are those who will argue that one should never "make a profit from someone else's suffering." Certainly the presence of hardship or suffering provides an opportunity to exercise charity, and it would be wrong to always pass up such opportunities for ministering to another person in need. However, to disallow profit from meeting intense human needs is to eliminate the most significant motivating force that prompts relief of those needs. Most hunger is relieved not by people donating charitably to a community pantry, diaconal fund, or international aid organization, but by profit-seeking entrepreneurs in the normal course of business. The vast majority of the time, the profit motive gets food to where it is needed. Charity deals with the exceptions to the rule.

And, if we are to be honest, we all occupy ourselves with relieving suffering in some way. A pharmaceutical company profits from relieving the illness that would result without their drugs. A construction business profits from relieving the hardship that would exist without shelter. I, as a college professor, make a profit from relieving the ignorance of my students. My wife, who works part-time as a nurse, makes a profit from relieving illness and injury. (Employees, of course, are unaccustomed to thinking of their wage as being partly "profit," but in fact any wage that is larger than their next-best use of their time and abilities contains profit.)

In a world with a wide variety of human needs and limited resources with which to meet them and limited knowledge about which needs are most severe, we should actually be thankful for the existence of profit. Profits serve as an important signal, with higher profits saying, in effect, "More resources are needed over here," and lower profits or losses saying, "Filling this need is less urgent right now." Because humans are not omniscient, these signals are vital to good stewardship.

----------------------------------

Gordon Gecko put it in much simpler terms:

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

Edited August 5, 2009 by UNTflyer

[oldguystudent]

Signature worthy. Well spoken.

I am duly honored fine sir.

[FirefightnRick]

The profit motive, like nature, is devoid of morals. There are some areas where I'm willing to give up some streamlining in exchange for a little humanity.

Yeah, humanity, like late term Abortions the president supports. Planned Parenthood also compliments you: WELL DONE SIR!!! YUCKITY YUCK YUCK!!!!

Rick

Edited August 5, 2009 by FirefightnRick

[oldguystudent]

Like late term Abortions the president supports. Planned Parenthood also compliments you: WELL DONE SIR!!! YUCKITY YUCK YUCK!!!!

Rick

Your constant personal attacks are becoming incomprehensible Rick. I seriously don't even know what about me it is that you're trying to insult anymore.

[FirefightnRick]

Your constant personal attacks are becoming incomprehensible Rick. I seriously don't even know what about me it is that you're trying to insult anymore.

Personal attacks?, what personal attacks? You act like I was the first to call you or any of your posts SAD or something?

Wow, I didn't know "mocking" was a personal attack these days?

Rick

Edited August 5, 2009 by FirefightnRick

[Censored by Laurie]

Your constant personal attacks are becoming incomprehensible Rick. I seriously don't even know what about me it is that you're trying to insult anymore.

If Californians were a race, FFRick would be George Wallace.

[keith]

The profit motive, like nature, is devoid of morals. There are some areas where I'm willing to give up some streamlining in exchange for a little humanity.

Well said.

Signature worthy. Well spoken.

I think I finally understand the problem here....oldguystudent, BeanCounterGrad'03 and Censored by Laurie - you believe, at the core of your being, that the profit motive is fundamentally evil? Is that it?

Keith

[CMJ]

I think I finally understand the problem here....oldguystudent, BeanCounterGrad'03 and Censored by Laurie - you believe, at the core of your being, that the profit motive is fundamentally evil? Is that it?

Keith

I don't want to speak for them, but I think what they were getting at, is large corporations will sometimes cut corners on safety, etc to maximize profit. Like say the fact that Detroit went decades before putting seatbealts in cars(sometimes fighting tooth and nail actually) despite folks as early as the late 40's thinking they were a good idea. PG&E polluting drinking water in small California towns, thinking no one would call them on it.

I believe that's where the "no morality" in profit motive comes from. A CEO has a duty to try and make money for his investors, even if that means doing things "shady". That's why it's always nice to have SOME government regulations to at least keep an eye on things.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

I don't want to speak for them, but I think what they were getting at, is large corporations will sometimes cut corners on safety, etc to maximize profit. Like say the fact that Detroit went decades before putting seatbealts in cars(sometimes fighting tooth and nail actually) despite folks as early as the late 40's thinking they were a good idea. PG&E polluting drinking water in small California towns, thinking no one would call them on it.

I believe that's where the "no morality" in profit motive comes from. A CEO has a duty to try and make money for his investors, even if that means doing things "shady". That's why it's always nice to have SOME government regulations to at least keep an eye on things.

Pretty much...fundamentally evil is too harsh and not what I believe. When it comes to profit motive, morality takes a back seat at best.

Corporations and other businesses do the right thing all the time (especially when times are good) and I applaud them for it. But I believe its the humans (and their inherent want to do the "right thing") running the business that provide the morals, not the motive to make profit.

That, Keith, is what I fundamentally believe at the core of my being.

Cody

[UNTflyer]

I don't want to speak for them, but I think what they were getting at, is large corporations will sometimes cut corners on safety, etc to maximize profit. Like say the fact that Detroit went decades before putting seatbealts in cars(sometimes fighting tooth and nail actually) despite folks as early as the late 40's thinking they were a good idea. PG&E polluting drinking water in small California towns, thinking no one would call them on it.

I believe that's where the "no morality" in profit motive comes from. A CEO has a duty to try and make money for his investors, even if that means doing things "shady". That's why it's always nice to have SOME government regulations to at least keep an eye on things.

And the only reason that government regulation being a good idea, and I agree, is that true free market capitalism requires perfect information for all parties. We don't have that, so we come as close as possible.

[UNT90]

Funny. Everyone seems to forget that corporations are nothing more than a large group of people that are organized by a common purpose. The leaders of that corporation set the profit path for that corporation to follow. Most people are good. Some people are not. Most corporations are good. Some corporations are not.

To say all corporations are just greed driven with no morals is basically saying the same thing about any group of people (race, religion, gender, etc...). It is a form of corporate discrimination, if you will.

Before you call these people greedy, why don't you see if you can find the name of the CEO and do a little online investigation into his philanthropic givings. I bet most of the anti-corporate on here would be shocked (But that doesn't fit their agenda, so they will never bother with these details).

It all comes down to the people involved at that top of that organization. Since I doubt anyone on here is personal friends with one of these CEOs, you really have no idea about the character of these CEOs.

But it sure is fun to demonize something which is foreign to us, isn't it?

[Censored by Laurie]

Funny. Everyone seems to forget that corporations are nothing more than a large group of people that are organized by a common purpose. The leaders of that corporation set the profit path for that corporation to follow. Most people are good. Some people are not. Most corporations are good. Some corporations are not.

The problem I see is that profit motivation for insurance companies cause them to deny as many claims as possible and not insure those who may need it most. I don't think you can view a health insurance provider and their business model in the same light as say a Chili's b/c Chili's doesn't directly affect the health and well being of their clients (indirectly, certainly...).

To say all corporations are just greed driven with no morals is basically saying the same thing about any group of people (race, religion, gender, etc...). It is a form of corporate discrimination, if you will.

I do love when you talk hyperbole to me.

Before you call these people greedy, why don't you see if you can find the name of the CEO and do a little online investigation into his philanthropic givings. I bet most of the anti-corporate on here would be shocked (But that doesn't fit their agenda, so they will never bother with these details).

I'm a huge anti-chain, anti-corporate guy...but I used to work for, and still get my morning coffee at Starbucks for that very reason. I'm well aware of corporate philanthropic giving.

It all comes down to the people involved at that top of that organization. Since I doubt anyone on here is personal friends with one of these CEOs, you really have no idea about the character of these CEOs.

I bet Dietrich Mateschitz is a cocky dick with frosted tip hair.

But it sure is fun to demonize something which is foreign to us, isn't it?

What's your opinion of Muslims?

[UNT90]

The problem I see is that profit motivation for insurance companies cause them to deny as many claims as possible and not insure those who may need it most. I don't think you can view a health insurance provider and their business model in the same light as say a Chili's b/c Chili's doesn't directly affect the health and well being of their clients (indirectly, certainly...).

I do love when you talk hyperbole to me.

I guess you think the federal government will be less likely to deny claims?!?! I am willing to bet that you, my friend, have never worked for the federal government.

Expected something better from you than the "hyperbole" response. Not really sure why.

Interesting you are familiar with the Starbucks CEO, so you purchase their product. Could you tell me one CEO that you boycott because of his lack of philanthropic giving?

[Censored by Laurie]

I guess you think the federal government will be less likely to deny claims?!?! I am willing to bet that you, my friend, have never worked for the federal government.

Honestly, yes...the purpose of this program is not to generate revenue, but to provide what many believe to be a neccesity.

We're friends?

Expected something better from you than the "hyperbole" response. Not really sure why.

Levity, sir. Is none permitted while were trying to save the world?

Interesting you are familiar with the Starbucks CEO, so you purchase their product. Could you tell me one CEO that you boycott because of his lack of philanthropic giving?

Where did I say I boycott any? More of a personal preference.

It goes beyond philanthropic giving. Starbucks treats their employees wonderfully and their purchasing practices are not in accordance with what would be considered purely profit motivated. A company like Wal-Mart can't say that.

[keith]

Pretty much...fundamentally evil is too harsh and not what I believe. When it comes to profit motive, morality takes a back seat at best.

Corporations and other businesses do the right thing all the time (especially when times are good) and I applaud them for it. But I believe its the humans (and their inherent want to do the "right thing") running the business that provide the morals, not the motive to make profit.

That, Keith, is what I fundamentally believe at the core of my being.

Cody

This is very interesting....Thanks for responding Cody.

A follow-up question for you or anyone else who wants to jump in.

Would you say one's feelings about economic systems influences their political feelings or vice versa? In other words, is one dominant to the extent that it drives the other or are they too intertwinded to think of them separately? I guess where I was going with this is that there is a lot of banter back and forth in this forum that seems overtly political in nature (democratic vs republican, liberal vs conservative, etc.). I'm wondering if, deep down, these debates are really about different economic philosophies and they are just masquerading as political.

Keith