Obama's Anti-Business Policies Are Our Economic Katrina

[DarrinS]

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina.html?PageNr=3





The growing divide and tension between the Obama administration and the business world is a cause for national concern. As Clive Crook wrote in the Financial Times, Obama is "a president under business attack." He is certainly under sharp criticism and for good reason: He has lost the confidence of much of the business community, whose worries over taxes, the dramatically increased costs of new regulation, and a general perception that the administration is hostile toward them and may take yet harsher steps, are holding back investment and growth. In the midst of a weak economy accompanied by levels of unemployment unprecedented since the Great Depression, it is critical that the government in Washington appreciate that confidence is an imperative if the business community is to invest, take risks with start-ups, and altogether get the economy going again to put the millions of unemployed back to productive work.


This is what businessmen do when they are free to conduct business. For example, in the two decades of the 1980s and 1990s, the United States created 73 million new private sector jobs—while simultaneously losing some 44 million jobs in the process of adjusting its economy to international competition. That was a net gain of some 29 million jobs. A stunning 55 percent of the total workforce at the end of these two decades was in a new job, some two-thirds of them in industries that paid more than the average wage. By contrast, continental Europe, with a larger economy and workforce, created an estimated 4 million jobs in the same period, most of which were in the public sector (and the cost of which they are beginning to regret).

How could America achieve this? It is because of the get-up-and-go culture that reflects individualism, courageous entrepreneurialism, pragmatism, adaptability, and innovation. This adventurous spirit outlived the passing of the frontier and still inspires and nourishes millions, including our young and our newcomers. No other country has a population so habituated to self-help, self-improvement, and even self-renovation in a manner that carries over into business life.

The unique historical conditions of America encouraged a remarkable management culture. The anthropologist, Lionel Tiger, showed that the style of American corporate management was a response to the opportunities of a huge internal market, but also the obstacles presented by vast distances and diverse populations. We created a monetized market economy inspired by a belief in technology and scientific management, governed not by kinship and custom but by contracts freely agreed upon and law passed by assent.

Over the years, the transformation of American industry has been nothing short of phenomenal. U.S. companies replaced large, mass-produced consumer products with sophisticated goods derived from intellectual output and knowledge-based interests, the fastest-growing segment of the world's economy. Management was assisted by a level of labor flexibility that is the envy of both Europe and Asia. Europe struggles with the legacy of the steam age in the form of craft, union, and management demarcations that limit management's role. In Asia, management is often stifled by large, oligopolistic networks and government mandates.

American managers consistently led the world in investing in new technologies and providing high-tech training to exploit them. We were the first to realize the importance of computers and information technologies and invested massively in them, spending twice as much per capita on info-tech as Western European firms and more than six times the global average. In fact, U.S. companies are the major suppliers of the information age's silicon, brains, and sinews.

No other country has met the requirements of an emerging economic system that needed people to be mobile both physically and psychologically. No other country shares America's belief in numbers and statistics as a basis for rational decision-making. No other country invests so much in business training and the retraining of its people—on top of having the world's best graduate and undergraduate business schools. No other country forms as many small companies year after year that compete with flexibility, rapid response, openness, innovation, and the ability to attract the best people. And as new products and services are developed, American businesses' unique marketing and advertising skills establish their success at home and abroad. Our system, in which ideas freely percolate at all levels, is tantamount to a giant information-processing machine. It enhances our capacity to absorb, adapt, and manage ongoing revolutions in technology, information, and logistics, which are too dynamic and complex to be handled by a top-down system.

The energy in business is matched by a unique and remarkable world of finance capital that over decades has identified the multiple sources of entrepreneurial funding. For example, our IPO process provides capital to service a merit-based, diversified financial environment and to fund young talent, new ideas, and the risks associated with high-tech, high-growth, high-concept companies.

Further, we enjoy a public policy framework that articulates not just what the government does, but what the government does not do. Our government is not involved in the formulation of industrial policy or in mandating funding or other support to specific industries and companies. It is the private sector that makes the overwhelming majority of strategic and tactical business decisions and thus makes the best decisions for allocating resources.

So it is no surprise that America's economy is even better suited for today's rapidly changing, knowledge-based world than it was for the mass-production industrial economy. But—and here's the heart of the current concern—the Great Recession has resulted in great damage to this superb record. Having expanded economically at a healthy clip for most of the last 70 years, generating higher incomes and wealth for American households, our country has in the last several years faced a stall and then a decline in prosperity. It is tantamount to a lost decade: chronic high unemployment, zero net job creation, and middle-income households slammed by a drop in their net worth and their incomes, adjusted for inflation. It's the first decline of median incomes and net worth since figures have been compiled starting some 50 years ago.

The unique danger today is the possibility that we may face longer-term stagnation as a consequence of relying too heavily on borrowed money. When the housing and credit bubbles burst in 2007 and 2008, the unemployment rate soared to double digits and caused a cascade of shock throughout the credit markets and the banking system. Washington's ability to initiate a resurgence is now limited by the long-term dangers of our deficits and our debts.

But one unfortunate pattern that has emerged in the last 18 months is to lay all the blame for our difficulties only on the business community and the financial world. This quite ignores the role of Congress in many areas, but most glaringly in forcing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration to back loans to people who could not afford them. And not to mention the role of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which in 2004 sanctioned higher levels of leverage for financial firms, from 12 times equity to over 30 times equity.

This predilection to blame business is manifest in the unnecessary and provocative anti-business sentiment revealed by President Obama in a recent speech that was supposed to be seeking the support of the business community for a doubling of exports over the next five years. "In the absence of sound oversight," he said, "responsible businesses are forced to compete against unscrupulous and underhanded businesses, who are unencumbered by any restrictions on activities that might harm the environment, or take advantage of middle-class families, or threaten to bring down the entire financial system." This kind of gratuitous and overstated demonization of business is exactly the wrong approach. It ignores the disappointment of a stimulus program that was ill-designed to produce the jobs the president promised—that famous 8 percent unemployment ceiling.

But it's not just the rhetoric that undermines the confidence the business community needs to find if it is to invest. Consider the new generation of regulatory rules, increased bureaucracy, and higher taxes created by the Obama administration. For example, the new financial regulation bill includes nearly 500 "rule-makings," studies, and reports, compared with just 14 in total for the controversial Sarbanes-Oxley bill, passed after the financial scandals of Enron and WorldCom. The disillusionment has spread to the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which represents small businesses that normally account for roughly 60 percent of job creation.

The chief economist of the NFIB, William Dunkelberg, put it clearly: Small business owners "do not trust the economic policies in place or proposed." He also said, "The U.S. economy faces hurricane force headwinds and the government is at the center of the storm, making an economic recovery very difficult."

Our economic Katrina, in short.

[boutons_deux]

"lay all the blame for our difficulties only on the business community and the financial world."

yep. And assholes like this are paid by the corps and financial sector to shift the blame to Congress, who are just doing the corps' and financial sector's bidding.

Does this asshole think the Repugs would be any more business friendly?

The Repugs would run up the deficit spending tax dollars cleaning up BP's disaster, then cut back on child health insurance and lunches.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think we should go back and try the republican way when it comes to the economy...oh wait..:(

[DarrinS]

"lay all the blame for our difficulties only on the business community and the financial world."

yep. And assholes like this are paid by the corps and financial sector to shift the blame to Congress, who are just doing the corps' and financial sector's bidding.

Does this asshole think the Repugs would be any more business friendly?

The Repugs would run up the deficit spending tax dollars cleaning up BP's disaster, then cut back on child health insurance and lunches.



This asshole is a lifelong Democrat.

[admiralsnackbar]

Big business won't feel confident until the Joe Blows who ARE employed (rich, middle class, or poverty-line) start spending money again.

How is it pro-business to cripple the consumer class with the lion's share of taxes while major corporations get subsidized and under-taxed (be it due to policy, or clever off-shore accounting) . Businesses make money off consumers last I checked, and they expand employment as demand grows.

[DarrinS]

Big business won't feel confident until the Joe Blows who ARE employed (rich, middle class, or poverty-line) start spending money again.

How is it pro-business to cripple the consumer class with the lion's share of taxes while major corporations get subsidized and under-taxed (be it due to policy, or clever off-shore accounting) . Businesses make money off consumers last I checked, and they expand employment as demand grows.



American corporations are undertaxed? :downspin:

[Winehole23]

Big business is hurt by Obama's policy of "blaming" and so calls him Katrina in return.

(snooze bar)

[DMX7]

This asshole is a lifelong Democrat.

...on social issues. He's your typical pro-business at any expense billionaire.

I love how repugs who can't stand anything "elitist" cite the Ivy League educated business school grads like they're common folk just looking out for the little guy, just trying to make sure the economy works for everyone.

[DMX7]

American corporations are undertaxed? :downspin:

2/3 of businesses don't even pay federal income tax. And big businesses like Exxon Mobile dodge taxes like Keanu Reeves dodges bullets in The Matrix.

[boutons_deux]

Do you really want me to bitch slap this shill Zuckerman?

[DarrinS]

2/3 of businesses don't even pay federal income tax. And big businesses like Exxon Mobile dodge taxes like Keanu Reeves dodges bullets in The Matrix.


What's the US corporate tax rate compared to the rest of the world? Get back to me when you find out.

[DMX7]

What's the US corporate tax rate compared to the rest of the world? Get back to me when you find out.

What does that have to do with how much they ACTUALLY PAY in taxes? Get back to me when you find out.

[DarrinS]

2/3 of businesses don't even pay federal income tax



Can you prove this?

[Winehole23]

This meme takes after the "apology tour" meme. It is similarly pathetic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pathetic).

[DMX7]

Can you prove this?

"Most corporations doing business in the United States pay no federal income tax to the federal government ... The report says that two thirds of both American companies and foreign companies doing business in the United States end up avoiding all income tax obligations to the federal government despite corporate sales totaling $2.5 trillion."

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/08/gao-23-of-corpo.html

[DarrinS]

"Most corporations doing business in the United States pay no federal income tax to the federal government ... The report says that two thirds of both American companies and foreign companies doing business in the United States end up avoiding all income tax obligations to the federal government despite corporate sales totaling $2.5 trillion."

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/08/gao-23-of-corpo.html


Do you know what "transfer pricing" means as it relates to taxes? Basically, a corporation can transfer taxable profits to their own subsidiaries in lower-tax countries. Can't blame them for using existing laws. Do you think raising corporate taxes will fix this problem?

[DarrinS]

This meme takes after the "apology tour" meme. It is similarly pathetic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pathetic).


Wrong thread?

[DMX7]

Do you know what "transfer pricing" means as it relates to taxes? Basically, a corporation can transfer taxable profits to their own subsidiaries in lower-tax countries. Can't blame them for using existing laws. Do you think raising corporate taxes will fix this problem?

No, raising taxes isn't going to do shit. And neither is lowering them untill you can get undercut the tax havens, which is never going to happen.

Of course, Obama and Senator Levin are trying to do something about it, but they'll predictably have their ass handed to them by the multi-national corporations which OWN Washington.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/international-taxes/109613-sen-levin-to-begin-campaign-stopping-abusive-tax-shelters

[CosmicCowboy]

OK, Y'all win.

Obama's pro-business.

[DarrinS]

OK, Y'all win.

Obama's pro-business.

:lol

[Winehole23]

OK, Y'all win.

Obama's pro-business.On health care and financial reform Obama never took off the kid gloves vis-a-vis the regulated industries; quite the reverse, in fact.

[Winehole23]

Besides "blaming," to what policies does the banner of the OP refer? Please be as specific as you can.

[spursncowboys]

2/3 of businesses don't even pay federal income tax. And big businesses like Exxon Mobile dodge taxes like Keanu Reeves dodges bullets in The Matrix.
do you know how much they pay in taxes annually or is this what you are regurgitating from al franken, when he's not nappin?

[spursncowboys]

On health care and financial reform Obama never took off the kid gloves vis-a-vis the regulated industries; quite the reverse, in fact.
he never had a real plan. He paraded around generalities.

[Winehole23]

he never had a real plan. He paraded around generalities.On health care, Obama sat down with the Pharma and insurance lobbies and did the deal, before talk had even begun about it in Congress. The Senate basically delivered the broad strokes of the President's negotiations with the principals ex ante.

On financial reform Obamas subs worked relentlessly to weaken the new rules. The result: a weak, messy bill. ("Just what the oligarchy ordered.")

[DMX7]

do you know how much they pay in taxes annually or is this what you are regurgitating from al franken, when he's not nappin?

Who is "they"? Exxon, big businesses, or every corporation in America?

[spursncowboys]

Who is "they"? Exxon, big businesses, or every corporation in America?

Exxon, and if you can prove 2/3's of businesses.

[DMX7]

Exxon, and if you can prove 2/3's of businesses.

http://www.grist.org/article/exxon-mobil-paid-no-federal-income-tax-in-2009/

I already posted the answer to the second part of your question.


"Most corporations doing business in the United States pay no federal income tax to the federal government ... The report says that two thirds of both American companies and foreign companies doing business in the United States end up avoiding all income tax obligations to the federal government despite corporate sales totaling $2.5 trillion."

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/08/gao-23-of-corpo.html

[LnGrrrR]

I call bullshit on this article.



But one unfortunate pattern that has emerged in the last 18 months is to lay all the blame for our difficulties only on the business community and the financial world. This quite ignores the role of Congress in many areas, but most glaringly in forcing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration to back loans to people who could not afford them. And not to mention the role of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which in 2004 sanctioned higher levels of leverage for financial firms, from 12 times equity to over 30 times equity.


What, no mention of the ridiculous idea behind CDS's? The total value of all the CDS at the end of... 2007, I believe, was more than the amount of money circulating in the known world.

What about all the rosy predictions from the majority of financial analysts? Is it any wonder that people are pissed off at them?

Look, if I run a business, and I predict nothing but great things for the future, and the people who rely on my business get wiped out when my predictions go wrong, should they just say, "Well, predictions are hard, no worry." Of course not.

[DarrinS]

I call bullshit on this article.


What, no mention of the ridiculous idea behind CDS's? The total value of all the CDS at the end of... 2007, I believe, was more than the amount of money circulating in the known world.


What do you think were in those CDS's that made them so toxic?

[boutons_deux]

This article is just this asshole meeting his quota of articles, parroting the Repug/conservative/hate media talking points. Absolutely nothing original.

[Wild Cobra]

do you know how much they pay in taxes annually or is this what you are regurgitating from al franken, when he's not nappin?
DMX7 just dodges the truth like Keanu Reeves dodges bullets in The Matrix.

[Wild Cobra]

2/3 of businesses don't even pay federal income tax. And big businesses like Exxon Mobile dodge taxes like Keanu Reeves dodges bullets in The Matrix.
can you show me an example of that 2/3rds please.

[CosmicCowboy]

can you show me an example of that 2/3rds please.

You don't want to sniff at that claim too close. He just pulled it straight out of his ass.

[Wild Cobra]

"Most corporations doing business in the United States pay no federal income tax to the federal government ... The report says that two thirds of both American companies and foreign companies doing business in the United States end up avoiding all income tax obligations to the federal government despite corporate sales totaling $2.5 trillion."

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/08/gao-23-of-corpo.html
Now that's different. Corporations outside the USA don't pay US income taxes, because they are not US corporations. That's why we need a consumption based tax system rather than a p[productivity based tax system.

I wonder what they "2/3rds" becomes when you take out the non-USA companies?

I'll bet all pay taxes, except those who had losses.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.grist.org/article/exxon-mobil-paid-no-federal-income-tax-in-2009/

I already posted the answer to the second part of your question.

That article is an article based on the Huffington post article. the facts are different.

You should really verify facts before spouting other peoples propaganda, making yourself the fool-tool.

From Exxon's 2009 Income Statement, numbers in $millions:

Total Other Income/Expenses Net
Earnings Before Interest And Taxes 35,325
Interest Expense 548
Income Before Tax 34,777
Income Tax Expense 15,119
Minority Interest (378)

Net Income 19,280

If I look at earnings, and taxes paid, they paid 42.8% in state, federal, and other taxes combines. Are you saying none of this was federal taxes?

Previous two years:

From Exxon's 2008 Income Statement:

Total Other Income/Expenses Net
Earnings Before Interest And Taxes 82,423
Interest Expense 673
Income Before Tax 81,750
Income Tax Expense 36,530
Minority Interest (1,647)

Net Income 45,220

From Exxon's 2007 Income Statement:

Total Other Income/Expenses Net
Earnings Before Interest And Taxes 70,874
Interest Expense 400
Income Before Tax 70,474
Income Tax Expense 29,864
Minority Interest (1,005)

Net Income 40,610

2008 has their tax rate at 44.3%.

2007 has their tax rate at 42.1%

All looks normal to me.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't want to sniff at that claim too close. He just pulled it straight out of his ass.
You're right. i don't want to sniff that out.

[spursncowboys]

That article is an article based on the Huffington post article. the facts are different.

You should really verify facts before spouting other peoples propaganda, making yourself the fool-tool.

From Exxon's 2009 Income Statement, numbers in $millions:

Total Other Income/Expenses Net
Earnings Before Interest And Taxes 35,325
Interest Expense 548
Income Before Tax 34,777
Income Tax Expense 15,119
Minority Interest (378)

Net Income 19,280

If I look at earnings, and taxes paid, they paid 42.8% in state, federal, and other taxes combines. Are you saying none of this was federal taxes?

Previous two years:

From Exxon's 2008 Income Statement:

Total Other Income/Expenses Net
Earnings Before Interest And Taxes 82,423
Interest Expense 673
Income Before Tax 81,750
Income Tax Expense 36,530
Minority Interest (1,647)

Net Income 45,220

From Exxon's 2007 Income Statement:

Total Other Income/Expenses Net
Earnings Before Interest And Taxes 70,874
Interest Expense 400
Income Before Tax 70,474
Income Tax Expense 29,864
Minority Interest (1,005)

Net Income 40,610

2008 has their tax rate at 44.3%.

2007 has their tax rate at 42.1%

All looks normal to me.

40% of their profits? god that is disgusting!! And the libs who have never had a real job, had to cut paychecks, want to tax more from them.

[LnGrrrR]

What do you think were in those CDS's that made them so toxic?

I'll answer this DarrinS style.

How toxic could CDS's have been viewed if people in the finance industry were trading for them?

[LnGrrrR]

I'm sure DarrinS is fully aware of the faulty logical premises on which CDS's worked (or rather, didn't).

[Wild Cobra]

40% of their profits? god that is disgusting!! And the libs who have never had a real job, had to cut paychecks, want to tax more from them.
Yep.

Then they wonder why the tax base is moving to other countries where they don't get so heavily taxed, effectively reducing the receipts from them to zero for us.

[DMX7]

Now that's different. Corporations outside the USA don't pay US income taxes, because they are not US corporations. That's why we need a consumption based tax system rather than a p[productivity based tax system.

I wonder what they "2/3rds" becomes when you take out the non-USA companies?

I'll bet all pay taxes, except those who had losses.

Yes, they do, you dumb fuck.

Did you really think Sony, Lenovo, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Porsche, etc. aren't responsible for any taxes here just because they're foreign companies?

You pay taxes for the business you do here, it doesn't matter if you're foreign.

"The report discloses that each year from 1998 to 2005, an average of 68% of the foreign companies doing business in the U.S. paid zero federal income taxes. During the same period 66% of U. S. domestic corporations paid no federal income taxes to the federal government."

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/08/gao-23-of-corpo.html

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, they do, you dumb fuck.

Did you really think Sony, Lenovo, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Porsche, etc. aren't responsible for any taxes here just because they're foreign companies?

You pay taxes for the business you do here, it doesn't matter if you're foreign.

"The report discloses that each year from 1998 to 2005, an average of 68% of the foreign companies doing business in the U.S. paid zero federal income taxes. During the same period 66% of U. S. domestic corporations paid no federal income taxes to the federal government."

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/08/gao-23-of-corpo.html
Well, here's the report.

Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S. Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005 (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf)

I would like to see an actual example of one of these corporations. Sadly, no example is given.

25% of the largest? Funny, I have never seen a zero tax liability with those I have searched in the past. I would think that one in four would pop up.

Another concern. Why a 2008 report, and not a 2010 report? Could the corrections to the report show past data inaccurate by chance? Could the 2010 report, if it exists, show corporations getting tax payer dollars from the Obama corporate tax credits?

I would like to know a few USA companies to look up and verify. In farther reading, I see that no examples are given. If you read the report, it is based on initial tax return data, only statistically reported by the IRS:


To meet these objectives, we analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Statistics of Income (SOI) samples of corporate tax returns for tax years 1998 through 2005. These SOI samples were based on returns as filed, and did not reflect IRS audit results or any net operating loss carrybacks from future years. The data that we report are estimates based on the SOI sample.

Now considering how the tax system works, many corporations made little or no profit during these years. no profit = no tax liability.

I think if you wish to continue with the 2/3rds aspect of this report, you should find us an example of such a corporation. Show is their annual report reflecting the data.

[Wild Cobra]

Did you really think Sony, Lenovo, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Porsche, etc. aren't responsible for any taxes here just because they're foreign companies?
No, and what you say isn't completely accurate. Does Sony, BMW, Mercedes, and Porsche have physical profitable locations in the states? Levono will pay their taxes through the part that IBM owns of them. Toyota actually has a USA manufacturing facility. They paid 28.5% in their fiscal year ending march 2010, and 36.7% for 2008. For 2009, they got back 11% of a $5.2 billion loss, thanks to corporate tax credits... The democrats just love tax credits!

You pay taxes for the business you do here, it doesn't matter if you're foreign.

OK, tell me. What do any of those companies outside of Levono and Toyota have to do with employing people here in the states to pay taxes?

Only two of your six had USA income statements. Sony and Toyota. Sony paid for FY's ending in September, 36.8% for 2009, 27.4% for 2008, and 29.4% for 2007. Porsche is a subsidiary of Volkswagen. Please get your facts strait.

I searched six companies before using the ones you supplied. Of the six I looked up, only LSI didn't pay taxes for a year. For 2007, they paid $11.3 million on a $2,444.5 million loss. Paid $28.7 million on a 559.6 million loss for 2008. After the democrats corporate tax credits, they got back 83.1 million for a $108.9 million loss for 2009.

It sure would be nice to see an example that actually fits what the report says.

Correction...

Mercedes has an income statement under Daimler. How can I look things up when you don't know the parent company name? Anyway, they paid 47.1% in 2007, 39% in 2008, and paid $346 million for a $2.3 billion loss in 2009.

[spursncowboys]

I imagine it would be nice if you didn't have to spend time searching their wild notions they get from huffpos.

[DMX7]

No, and what you say isn't completely accurate. Does Sony, BMW, Mercedes, and Porsche have physical profitable locations in the states? Levono will pay their taxes through the part that IBM owns of them. Toyota actually has a USA manufacturing facility. They paid 28.5% in their fiscal year ending march 2010, and 36.7% for 2008. For 2009, they got back 11% of a $5.2 billion loss, thanks to corporate tax credits... The democrats just love tax credits!

OK, tell me. What do any of those companies outside of Levono and Toyota have to do with employing people here in the states to pay taxes?

Only two of your six had USA income statements. Sony and Toyota. Sony paid for FY's ending in September, 36.8% for 2009, 27.4% for 2008, and 29.4% for 2007. Porsche is a subsidiary of Volkswagen. Please get your facts strait.

I searched six companies before using the ones you supplied. Of the six I looked up, only LSI didn't pay taxes for a year. For 2007, they paid $11.3 million on a $2,444.5 million loss. Paid $28.7 million on a 559.6 million loss for 2008. After the democrats corporate tax credits, they got back 83.1 million for a $108.9 million loss for 2009.

It sure would be nice to see an example that actually fits what the report says.

Correction...

Mercedes has an income statement under Daimler. How can I look things up when you don't know the parent company name? Anyway, they paid 47.1% in 2007, 39% in 2008, and paid $346 million for a $2.3 billion loss in 2009.

Just stop already.

You don't even understand the concept.

Employment, Physical location, etc.??? Nothing to do with whether or not a company is responsible for taxes here.

You're completely off the mark.

[spursncowboys]

Just stop already.

You don't even understand the concept.

Employment, Physical location, etc.??? Nothing to do with whether or not a company is responsible for taxes here.

You're completely off the mark.

I don't think you understand.

[DMX7]

I don't think you understand.

...And considering you're usually wrong, that's a good thing! :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Just stop already.

You don't even understand the concept.

Employment, Physical location, etc.??? Nothing to do with whether or not a company is responsible for taxes here.

You're completely off the mark.
If just the products are coming here, then the maker is not responsible for the taxes. The retailer who makes the profit is.

What is it you think I don't understand? I'll bet you're wrong.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll answer this DarrinS style.

How toxic could CDS's have been viewed if people in the finance industry were trading for them?

Still waiting DarrinS.

[spursncowboys]

...And considering you're usually wrong, that's a good thing! :lol
Wrong? Such as?

[DarrinS]

I'll answer this DarrinS style.

How toxic could CDS's have been viewed if people in the finance industry were trading for them?


Congratulations. Your hindsight vision is 20/20.

[LnGrrrR]

Congratulations. Your hindsight vision is 20/20.

You were the one who was arguing that the problem was all those banks being forced to loan to people with bad credit. And yet, banks were seemingly excited about it, to the point where they traded for these commodities using legalized gambling, ie CDS's.

Tell me Darrin, if there weren't any CDSs, would we have this issue of overrated credit scores? How about massive debt on the part of banks, would we have that? I ask because you're obviously the financial guru, able to distill entire financial crises into a few sentences. Please, enlighten us, oh matahari.

[LnGrrrR]

I guess I should just "go to google" to see how CDS's work. I wonder, has DarrinS followed his own advice yet?

[Winehole23]

I guess I should just "go to google" to see how CDS's work. I wonder, has DarrinS followed his own advice yet?He's not a real big reader, in case you haven't caught on. I tend to doubt he'd follow his own advice. I don't.

[Winehole23]

Dude can barely remember what he says from post to post.

[spursncowboys]

You were the one who was arguing that the problem was all those banks being forced to loan to people with bad credit. And yet, banks were seemingly excited about it, to the point where they traded for these commodities using legalized gambling, ie CDS's.

Tell me Darrin, if there weren't any CDSs, would we have this issue of overrated credit scores? How about massive debt on the part of banks, would we have that? I ask because you're obviously the financial guru, able to distill entire financial crises into a few sentences. Please, enlighten us, oh matahari.

I didn't see DarrinS post that. Are you saying that there were no side effects towards telling banks to loan to bad credit ppl and not cover their backsides with GOE's like Freddy and Fanny?

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't see DarrinS post that. Are you saying that there were no side effects towards telling banks to loan to bad credit ppl and not cover their backsides with GOE's like Freddy and Fanny?

SnC, I'll ask you what I ask him. If there were such real backsides, how come all these financial types were actively trading FOR these CDS's? If they were viewed as such a negative, why would they do that?

Or perhaps, some dumbass thought he could manage away risk by putting a BUNCH of high-risk accounts into one pool, and just assume some of them would pay every month, making it "low-risk". And then, a few banks started using this method to give loans, so other dumbass banks thought they had to do so to compete?

And then, those banks realized they were making a mint, since the rates on these high-risk accounts were higher than the low-risk ones, and started trading them to other banks who needed money?

Let's face it, if they were "covering their backsides", they would have just made a small bet to recoup some of the money. That didn't happen. Banks put TONS of bets down, to the point where there were more bets than loans. On top of that, they sliced and diced all these loans into so many packages that it became nearly impossible to a) separate them and b) determine the ACTUAL VALUE of them. All due to the idea that risk could be magically reduced.

Now I laid it out in laymen's terms above, but that is essentially what happened. Blaming it on the high-risk people who took out the loans is like blaming the coin for landing tails when you bid a million that it would come up heads.

[spursncowboys]

SnC, I'll ask you what I ask him. If there were such real backsides, how come all these financial types were actively trading FOR these CDS's? If they were viewed as such a negative, why would they do that?

Or perhaps, some dumbass thought he could manage away risk by putting a BUNCH of high-risk accounts into one pool, and just assume some of them would pay every month, making it "low-risk". And then, a few banks started using this method to give loans, so other dumbass banks thought they had to do so to compete?

And then, those banks realized they were making a mint, since the rates on these high-risk accounts were higher than the low-risk ones, and started trading them to other banks who needed money?

Let's face it, if they were "covering their backsides", they would have just made a small bet to recoup some of the money. That didn't happen. Banks put TONS of bets down, to the point where there were more bets than loans. On top of that, they sliced and diced all these loans into so many packages that it became nearly impossible to a) separate them and b) determine the ACTUAL VALUE of them. All due to the idea that risk could be magically reduced.

Now I laid it out in laymen's terms above, but that is essentially what happened. Blaming it on the high-risk people who took out the loans is like blaming the coin for landing tails when you bid a million that it would come up heads.

It could be all the banks knew they would be backed up for their high risks by the govt. Either that or they never expected the economy would go as far as it did. There were alot of people who thought the 90's , tech driven, markets would never go down again. Kramer said the economy would never stop growing. I saw the quote in Intelligent Investor, revision 7, and can't remember the true quote but that sounds good enough. Then after 01 crash, there was a popular thought that the market was under-priced. That it was already rock bottom.
I don't think you laid it out easily. If you have a specific example, it would really help.

[LnGrrrR]

It could be all the banks knew they would be backed up for their high risks by the govt. Either that or they never expected the economy would go as far as it did. There were alot of people who thought the 90's , tech driven, markets would never go down again. Kramer said the economy would never stop growing. I saw the quote in Intelligent Investor, revision 7, and can't remember the true quote but that sounds good enough. Then after 01 crash, there was a popular thought that the market was under-priced. That it was already rock bottom.
I don't think you laid it out easily. If you have a specific example, it would really help.

Like I said, alot of financial people are obviously idiots. :lol Except for the ones who figured that the gov't would bail them out; the'yre geniuses who deserve to be placed in front of a firing squad.

I'll try to look for a specific example. In the meantime, here's some info.

http://spaniardintheworks.blogspot.com/2008/09/idiots-guide-to-financial-mess.html

The link is admittedly biased, but it will get you started. I'd find a better one but I've got homework to do :lol

[Yonivore]

nevermind...pointless