What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0


Is your point that WI has denied its citizens $7.4M in wages, benefits and Govt services? Because apparently Costco is perfectly happy investing in the IL store at that profit level, as they would have been well informed of the costs of doing business there going into it and still made the decision to build the store. Assuming anything in that is accurate, sounds like R policies are fattening the pockets of the globalists you fear!
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Is your point that WI has denied its citizens $7.4M in wages, benefits and Govt services? Because apparently Costco is perfectly happy investing in the IL store at that profit level, as they would have been well informed of the costs of doing business there going into it and still made the decision to build the store. Assuming anything in that is accurate, sounds like R policies are fattening the pockets of the globalists you fear!

Yeah, it seems they really let a lot of details out. And if their profit (clear profit) is 600,000 a year what's wrong with that exactly?
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Yeah, it seems they really let a lot of details out. And if their profit (clear profit) is 600,000 a year what's wrong with that exactly?

One a $33MM initial investment, and then add in the operating costs, $600M is not a good margin. It takes only a few small things to turn that $600M into a negative value. The room for error in the Milwaukee location is far greater at $8MM profit on that same $33MM capital investment. Why would a company knowingly build or invest in IL if they know that they can do that much better in WI, not in absolute values but in general?

If you're going to set higher fees and taxes on a company, you need a carrot to get them into your state. You need to show a higher standard of living, a higher per capita income, and thus a higher availability of discretionary spending in order to increase sales enough to offset those higher fees and taxes.

Investors look at rates of return, not simply a hard $600M, unless they have a long-term plan in an undeveloped area or some emotional attachment to sway them away from analyzing the hard facts.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

One a $33MM initial investment, and then add in the operating costs, $600M is not a good margin. It takes only a few small things to turn that $600M into a negative value. The room for error in the Milwaukee location is far greater at $8MM profit on that same $33MM capital investment. Why would a company knowingly build or invest in IL if they know that they can do that much better in WI, not in absolute values but in general?

If you're going to set higher fees and taxes on a company, you need a carrot to get them into your state. You need to show a higher standard of living, a higher per capita income, and thus a higher availability of discretionary spending in order to increase sales enough to offset those higher fees and taxes.

Investors look at rates of return, not simply a hard $600M, unless they have a long-term plan in an undeveloped area or some emotional attachment to sway them away from analyzing the hard facts.

Well, eventually they're going to run out of customers cause no one's going to have anymore discretionary income. We can certainly be a 3rd World country or a serfdom. That might make them happy I suppose.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

One a $33MM initial investment, and then add in the operating costs, $600M is not a good margin. It takes only a few small things to turn that $600M into a negative value. The room for error in the Milwaukee location is far greater at $8MM profit on that same $33MM capital investment. Why would a company knowingly build or invest in IL if they know that they can do that much better in WI, not in absolute values but in general?

Major retailers chase buyers first and profits come from that. They will fill both markets - market saturation is critical and needed for SGA expenses. Its called site location 101.

The market in Wisconsin is a fairly high end market (on the level of say Maple Grove). Chicago's Melrose Park is as poor as Minnesota's poorest county which is mostly the Blue Earth reservation. Why are you even comparing these stores? Frankly, I'm surprised you believe these numbers in the first place.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Major retailers chase buyers first and profits come from that. They will fill both markets - market saturation is critical and needed for SGA expenses. Its called site location 101.

The market in Wisconsin is a fairly high end market (on the level of say Maple Grove). Chicago's Melrose Park is as poor as Minnesota's poorest county which is mostly the Blue Earth reservation. Why are you even comparing these stores? Frankly, I'm surprised you believe these numbers in the first place.

Good info. Thanks.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Major retailers chase buyers first and profits come from that. They will fill both markets - market saturation is critical and needed for SGA expenses. Its called site location 101.

The market in Wisconsin is a fairly high end market (on the level of say Maple Grove). Chicago's Melrose Park is as poor as Minnesota's poorest county which is mostly the Blue Earth reservation. Why are you even comparing these stores? Frankly, I'm surprised you believe these numbers in the first place.

I wasn't making the comparison, it was in the link provided earlier in the thread by jerphisch(?) that Scooby quoted.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

I wasn't making the comparison, it was in the link provided earlier in the thread by jerphisch(?) that Scooby quoted.

Oh OK. I guess I read...

The room for error in the Milwaukee location is far greater at $8MM profit on that same $33MM capital investment. Why would a company knowingly build or invest in IL if they know that they can do that much better in WI, not in absolute values but in general?
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Oh OK. I guess I read...

So the part where I was repeating, and adding a very small amount of data for context, with what was in the link upon which Scooby was commenting, that's considered a comparison initiated and executed by me?
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Somebody gets it.

We can confidently expect the Trump administration and its Republican Congressional allies to cut taxes on corporations; to slash taxes on the highest earners; and to roll back the financial regulations that improved the overall safety of our financial system, in part by restraining Wall Street’s ability to speculate. All of Donald Trump’s primary economic policies will have the effect of increasing, not decreasing, inequality. These policies will make the rich richer. They will give the government less tax revenue that could be distributed to the poor and middle class. And they will justify it with the old promise of “unleashing economic growth,” which most respected economists believe is a canard. Trump, a billionaire who reportedly plans to hold on to his business while he is in office, has assembled the wealthiest cabinet in American history. The administration’s tax cuts could personally enrich the Trump family and his cabinet by hundreds of millions of dollars or more, assuming they do not provoke another financial crisis before he leaves office. Larry Kudlow, the CNBC talking head who is reportedly the leading contender to head Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, is a longtime advocate of tax cuts on high earners, corporations, and capital gains, all policies that will benefit the rich and not the poor or middle class. Kudlow has even advocated a 15% flat tax, a policy that would amount to gift-wrapping tens of millions of dollars and handing it to Donald Trump’s cabinet members each year. It is safe to say that in the annual economic report that Kudlow publishes four years from now, the chapter on reducing inequality will be much different, if it even exists.

I state all of this simply to encourage us all to look at Trump’s policies through a specific lens. It was the grotesque rise in inequality that made Americans angry enough to elect a man like Donald Trump, and in exchange they will get a set of policies that will make that inequality much, much worse. It is akin in many ways to the fight against climate change: what we need is a radical departure from the norm; what we are getting is a determined plan to do more of what created the problem in the first place.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0


Platinum, led by Mark Nordlicht, for years was known for producing exceptionally high and consistent returns by taking an usually aggressive approach to investing and fund management, as outlined by a Reuters Special Report in April.

I stopped reading right there. As P.T. Barnum probably never said, "a sucker is born every minute".
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

I stopped reading right there.

Madoff City. How can anybody not realize a sure thing is only a sure thing for the guy running it?

They were modest, though. $1B is nothing. Madoff stole $65B, while the banks stole $13T.
 
Last edited:
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

I stopped reading right there. As P.T. Barnum probably never said, "a sucker is born every minute".

You can have consistent returns or you can have high returns. You can't have both. It's almost an economic law at this point.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Madoff City. How can anybody not realize a sure thing is only a sure thing for the guy running it?

They were modest, though. $1B is nothing. Madoff stole $65B, while the banks stole $13T.

They should pretty much rename "Ponzi scheme" to "Madoff scheme". $65B over 20+ years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $220M (adjusted for inflation) over 8 months.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0


I'll take your word for it, although it was not very apparent in the article you posted. The "equality" meme kept shifting around, so that he wasn't always talking about the same thing even though he was using the same word.


There was absolutely no evidence offered to indicate that income inequality is a problem for those who are not envious of others' success. Income inequality tends to get worse during recessions and tends to ameliorate during periods of economic growth, which is pretty straightforward. To avoid a tl;dr moment, I'll follow up on those thoughts shortly.

While income inequality doesn't seem that problematic an economic issue, wealth inequality certainly is. It genuinely puzzles me why Progressives are so vocal about the former and so silent about the latter, when the severity of the problems are the reverse.

There are some dramatic real-life experiments that show how a redistribution of wealth can lead to an improved rate of growth and better overall living standards, notable Henry VIII's break with the Catholic Church in the 1530s putting England on a new growth trajectory, or land reform in Mexico in the 1920s and 1930s leading to much better living standards for the general population.

A broader distribution of wealth in a society really does seem to foster entrepreneurial activity, economic growth, and improved standards of living far better than having all the wealth concentrated in a few places.


It is notable that the Koch brothers over the past several years had teamed up with the Obama White House to foster entrepreneurship in minority communities, and to reform prison sentencing guidelines.

President [Obama], during an N.A.A.C.P. convention last summer, spoke appreciatively of the [Koch] brothers’ efforts on prison sentencing. When the audience responded scornfully to the mention of the Kochs, Obama scolded them: “No—you’ve got to give them credit. You’ve got to call it like you see it.”

The Kochs have also launched a nonprofit group, the Libre Initiative, whose aim is to “equip the Hispanic community with the tools they need to be prosperous.” The organization reaches out to Latino voters by offering free services, ranging from Spanish-language driver’s education to English-proficiency classes. This fall, the group handed out Thanksgiving turkeys in Florida. Other organizations controlled by the Kochs are offering “healthy life style” tips to low-income Americans, such as advice on cooking inexpensive nutritious meals. Koch Industries and Charles Koch’s private foundation have donated twenty-five million dollars to the United Negro College Fund; much of the money has been earmarked for educating black students who are interested in studying “how entrepreneurship, economics, and innovation contribute to well-being.”

Whether you agree with them or not, they do recognize that wealth inequality is a societal problem and they are doing something constructive about it. As are many other ultra-wealthy people, all of whom seem to have a Foundation voluntarily to redistribute some of their own wealth to others.
 
Last edited:
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

While some Progressives denounce income inequality, they offer no evidence why it is a problem.
-- some income inequality is actually desirable; that is just another way of saying "incentives matter": you want better outcomes, pay people to produce them!
-- some income inequality is inevitable: John wants to leave early, Harry gladly works overtime.
-- income inequality statistics are flawed: they merely look at income cohorts without noticing that actual individual people move up and down between cohorts all the time.
-- everyone has income "inequality" in their own lifetime! isn't it reasonable that people who have already developed better training, skills, and expertise would earn more than someone who is still learning and developing in those areas?
-- income inequality statistics are distorted: they exclude transfer payments. If someone else is paying for your food and housing, why is that not counted as "income" to you? the result is that "low income" people's incomes are artificially low.
-- income inequality statistics are distorted: changes in a person's wealth are counted as "income" even though they are not making any more money than they were before. the result is that "high income" people's incomes are artificially high.


Income inequality is a natural result of a market economy: some people like money more than other people do; some people like non-financial rewards more than other people do, and they make their choices accordingly. Some people have a relatively short window in which they are in their peak earning years (e.g., athletes); other people can have a much longer window for peak earning years.

It is really not as big a problem as people make it out to be.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top