Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Reply

Walton Family has 1 out of every 1000 dollars in America

  • lars said... (original post)

    a lot of bullshit...

    This is like arguing with a retarded brick wall.

    - You ignored the data I posted showing that job creation overseas is outpacing domestic job creation by American companies.

    - You ignored the data I posted that showed that companies are not lacking for cash and not hiring yet still believe that having even more cash would lead to job creation.

    - You support your positions overseas investment based on weak rationale using words like "I bet" and "I would be surprised" instead of actually doing the research. (ex. most investment experts suggest between 15-25% of one's portfolio be in overseas investments. Some suggest as high as 35%)

    - You have apparently altered your position and have correctly pointed out that poor demand is what is suppressing job creation, but yet refuse to retreat from your suggestion that if only they had more cash they would create jobs.

    These items illustrate perfectly how when reality conflicts with your ideology you choose to ignore the reality and cling even more tightly to your ideology. Or even more bizarrely, simultaneously acknowledge reality and yet refuse to adjust your ideological belief system accordingly even though they conflict.

    So why am I continuing to argue with an ideologue suffering from cognitive dissonance? That's probably the best question asked this entire thread.

  • ming said... (original post)

    This is like arguing with a retarded brick wall.

    - You ignored the data I posted showing that job creation overseas is outpacing domestic job creation by American companies.

    - You ignored the data I posted that showed that companies are not lacking for cash and not hiring yet still believe that having even more cash would lead to job creation.

    - You support your positions overseas investment based on weak rationale using words like "I bet" and "I would be surprised" instead of actually doing the research. (ex. most investment experts suggest between 15-25% of one's portfolio be in overseas investments. Some suggest as high as 35%)

    - You have apparently altered your position and have correctly pointed out that poor demand is what is suppressing job creation, but yet refuse to retreat from your suggestion that if only they had more cash they would create jobs.

    These items illustrate perfectly how when reality conflicts with your ideology you choose to ignore the reality and cling even more tightly to your ideology. Or even more bizarrely, simultaneously acknowledge reality and yet refuse to adjust your ideological belief system accordingly even though they conflict.

    So why am I continuing to argue with an ideologue suffering from cognitive dissonance? That's probably the best question asked this entire thread.

    I know its hard to get through to you. You are so stuck in your limited mentality that basic concepts are hard for you.

    Please show me evidence that 15%-35% of domestic wealth is being moved overseas? By your guestimate "most investment experts suggest 15-25%" Well I can tell you my financial experts at Schwab says no more than 5% overseas in emerging markets. and if I want a very very aggressive exposure no more than 10%. But I will wait for some real numbers that show some 25% of US investments are made in emerging markets.

    Here is one analyst..who is promoting emerging markets view: "The biggest problem for investors at the moment appears to be a reluctance to embrace emerging markets. Yet just 10% of these investors had an exposure to China, 7% had exposure to India, 4% to Latin America, and 2% an exposure to Africa."

    OR

    “It's safe to say that, based on emerging markets' share of the global (gross domestic product), most public institutions have a tremendous (home country) bias,” said Mr. Scott. “Emerging market countries are contributing north of 40% of global GDP, yet most public institutions are invested primarily in the developed markets.”

    I'm pretty much done with this thread. But let me point out to you how you have a twisted view..tainted by liberalism and hatred for businesses. For example. You complain that dollars going overseas and invested overseas creating 1.4 million jobs compared to only a 1 million jobs here. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps that is happening because some 2 trillion in profits are STAYING overseas and being invested overseas NOT in the US. That is quite a stimulus package of 2 trillion. You think that might be the reason??? Not that people are putting 5 or 10% of a wealth portfolio in overseas markets. Certainly, that might be a small part of it. But even you have to admit that those personal investments are dwarfed by the 2 trillion US profits that stay overseas and is invested overseas. So clearly your focus on the individual wealthy investor putting a small portion of his portfolio in emerging markets is not the real problem.

    Furthermore, you seem content to keep that 2 trillion overseas and keep that foreign job creation going..because its better to punish companies that already have too much money in your mind. Of course you get to keep complaining about job creation that results in foreign markets. Nice logic. It just points out your liberal bias..and your mess of contradictions. Complain about foreign job creation but lets punish companies by not allowing money to flow back US to be invested here which would create jobs. So long as you get to punish companies and individuals for making money you are just fine sacrificing US investment and the potential for jobs through a huge long term stimulus.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by lars 3 years ago

  • lars said... (original post)

    I know its hard to get through to you. You are so stuck in your limited mentality that basic concepts are hard for you.

    Please show me evidence that 15%-35% of domestic wealth is being moved overseas? By your guestimate "most investment experts suggest 15-25%" Well I can tell you my financial experts at Schwab says no more than 5% overseas in emerging markets. and if I want a very very aggressive exposure no more than 10%. But I will wait for some real numbers that show some 25% of US investments are made in emerging markets.

    Here is one analyst..who is promoting emerging markets view: "The biggest problem for investors at the moment appears to be a reluctance to embrace emerging markets. Yet just 10% of these investors had an exposure to China, 7% had exposure to India, 4% to Latin America, and 2% an exposure to Africa."

    OR

    “It's safe to say that, based on emerging markets' share of the global (gross domestic product), most public institutions have a tremendous (home country) bias,” said Mr. Scott. “Emerging market countries are contributing north of 40% of global GDP, yet most public institutions are invested primarily in the developed markets.”

    I'm pretty much done with this thread. But let me point out to you how you have a twisted view..tainted by liberalism and hatred for businesses. For example. You complain that dollars going overseas and invested overseas creating 1.4 million jobs compared to only a 1 million jobs here. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps that is happening because some 2 trillion in profits are STAYING overseas and being invested overseas NOT in the US. That is quite a stimulus package of 2 trillion. You think that might be the reason??? Not that people are putting 5 or 10% of a wealth portfolio in overseas markets. Certainly, that might be a small part of it. But even you have to admit that those personal investments are dwarfed by the 2 trillion US profits that stay overseas and is invested overseas. So clearly your focus on the individual wealthy investor putting a small portion of his portfolio in emerging markets is not the real problem.

    Furthermore, you seem content to keep that 2 trillion overseas and keep that foreign job creation going..because its better to punish companies that already have too much money in your mind. Of course you get to keep complaining about job creation that results in foreign markets. Nice logic. It just points out your liberal bias..and your mess of contradictions. Complain about foreign job creation but lets punish companies by not allowing money to flow back US to be invested here which would create jobs. So long as you get to punish companies and individuals for making money you are just fine sacrificing US investment and the potential for jobs through a huge long term stimulus.

    I do like how you equate "overseas" to "emerging markets", even though overseas can be European, Japanese, S. Korean, Singaporean (?), or even Tawainese companies. Factor those in and it's easy to reach ming's number.

    And you also know that you pay a tax to expatriate your money from most of those "emerging markets" as well. So that's another disincentive for companies as well. (That's a major reason a lot of countries offer such low corporate tax rates, they'll ding you when you try to take it out.)

  • MSULordyoda said... (original post)

    I do like how you equate "overseas" to "emerging markets", even though overseas can be European, Japanese, S. Korean, Singaporean (?), or even Tawainese companies. Factor those in and it's easy to reach ming's number.

    And you also know that you pay a tax to expatriate your money from most of those "emerging markets" as well. So that's another disincentive for companies as well. (That's a major reason a lot of countries offer such low corporate tax rates, they'll ding you when you try to take it out.)

    But that's not his point of increasing dollars going overseas. People are not taking money out of the US to invest in the shrinking Euro zone and places like greece and Japan. Money is chasing return..specifically in emerging markets like Korea, China, Brazil, India and even Singapore. Those are all emerging markets. But you are just looking for ways to say Im wrong..when in fact I am correct.

    It really doesn't matter anyway..because the individual investor is not the driver its a very small % of the total..its 2 trillion in corporate money that can't be brought back that really drives the growth..If you want those dollars to come back you need to reform the corporate tax system and encourage the money to return, make a level field and make companies whole when they get dinged taking it out. Did you see the article I linked from the NYTimes? That pretty much spells out the solution to the concerns you are raising. Trillions that would come back will then help the US economy to grow which will bring the individual investor back because they would rather get return here in a growing US market than to risk dollars overseas in emerging markets.

    Ming gave up trying trying to prove me wrong. You should too. Ming was too busy trying to argue its better to punish those who are wealthy and companies who make money..he would rather do that than bring the money back to the US and create jobs and new economic activity.

  • lars said... (original post)

    Ming gave up trying trying to prove me wrong. You should too. Ming was too busy trying to argue its better to punish those who are wealthy and companies who make money..he would rather do that than bring the money back to the US and create jobs and new economic activity.

    I gave up arguing with a "religious zealot". You have a frustrating combination of ideological stubbornness and ample free time and I don't have the energy nor the desire to waste any more of MY time looking up and sourcing facts and data (that you happily ignore anyway) trying to penetrate your impenetrable armor of ideological fanaticism.

    Right-wing politics is a religion and religion is right-wing politics. The fusion is complete.

  • ming said... (original post)

    I gave up arguing with a "religious zealot". You have a frustrating combination of ideological stubbornness and ample free time and I don't have the energy nor the desire to waste any more of MY time looking up and sourcing facts and data (that you happily ignore anyway) trying to penetrate your impenetrable armor of ideological fanaticism.

    Right-wing politics is a religion and religion is right-wing politics. The fusion is complete.

    Religious zealot? Exactly when and where did religion come into this discussion. I never discussed it. Just more excuses. Policies are not religion. Some work and some don't . I showed how they work and how your liberal agenda for punishing wealth and profits is no solution.

  • lars said... (original post)

    Religious zealot? Exactly when and where did religion come into this discussion. I never discussed it. Just more excuses. Policies are not religion. Some work and some don't . I showed how they work and how your liberal agenda for punishing wealth and profits is no solution.

    I'm not surprised that you missed the metaphor. You ARE a religious zealot, you just don't get that your religion has nothing to do with "god".

  • lars said... (original post)

    Ming gave up trying trying to prove me wrong. You should too. Ming was too busy trying to argue its better to punish those who are wealthy and companies who make money..he would rather do that than bring the money back to the US and create jobs and new economic activity.

    Ming proved you wrong so long ago that he doesn't need to keep trying. Your complete and utter lack of knowledge about economics is surpassed only by your arrogant assumption that right wing conservative economic policies have been successful when the present economic situation clearly shows they haven't.

  • lars said... (original post)

    But that's not his point of increasing dollars going overseas. People are not taking money out of the US to invest in the shrinking Euro zone and places like greece and Japan. Money is chasing return..specifically in emerging markets like Korea, China, Brazil, India and even Singapore. Those are all emerging markets. But you are just looking for ways to say Im wrong..when in fact I am correct.

    It really doesn't matter anyway..because the individual investor is not the driver its a very small % of the total..its 2 trillion in corporate money that can't be brought back that really drives the growth..If you want those dollars to come back you need to reform the corporate tax system and encourage the money to return, make a level field and make companies whole when they get dinged taking it out. Did you see the article I linked from the NYTimes? That pretty much spells out the solution to the concerns you are raising. Trillions that would come back will then help the US economy to grow which will bring the individual investor back because they would rather get return here in a growing US market than to risk dollars overseas in emerging markets.

    Ming gave up trying trying to prove me wrong. You should too. Ming was too busy trying to argue its better to punish those who are wealthy and companies who make money..he would rather do that than bring the money back to the US and create jobs and new economic activity.

    Again, US corporations are sitting on records amount of cash domestically and not doing a damn thing with it. How is repatriating money going to make them suddenly start hiring and expanding?

    And in addition to lowering corporate tax rates, you're now in favor of additional credits to these companies that have to pay an expatriation tax? Holy shit....ming is right, you are a religious zealot.

  • MSULordyoda said... (original post)

    Again, US corporations are sitting on records amount of cash domestically and not doing a damn thing with it. How is repatriating money going to make them suddenly start hiring and expanding?

    And in addition to lowering corporate tax rates, you're now in favor of additional credits to these companies that have to pay an expatriation tax? Holy shit....ming is right, you are a religious zealot.

    Jebus...this has been spelled out over and over in the thread. If you would only read. Did you even read the NY times article? Why is it whenever libs get proved wrong they resort to name calling? Its a sign of desperation.

  • lars said... (original post)

    Jebus...this has been spelled out over and over in the thread. If you would only read. Did you even read the NY times article? Why is it whenever libs get proved wrong they resort to name calling? Its a sign of desperation.

    Since no libs have been proved wrong, it would seem that you are the desperate one who is trying to convince everyone his lie is the truth. liars, failed again.