Greed, it isnt just for the rich anymore.

redivider

Well-Known Member
I guess you chose to ignore the part where it was a man made lake with marina spots engineered around it to begin with.

And you chose to ignore the part where it is additional legislation requiring massive environmental impact research on top of the previous man-made design that prevents any economic activity from occurring in a location where it was expressly designed to happen.

This type of thing is occurring more and more due to legislation that makes businesses cost too much to start or take too long or both. Apple computers could no longer be started in a garage according to the founders of the company. Do you think they made that statement up?

Have you ever started or tried to start a business?
Facebook started in a guy's dorm room and now that guy is the youngest billionaire in history. those guys are lying though their grin while riding their lambos to their helipad as their 180 foot yacht with 200 crewmen that costs 30million per year just to keep a float waits for them in the French Riviera....

but don't worry, it's the stifling regulation that's keeping them having more money that you'll ever see...

I can direct you to several consulting firms that will do environmental impact + economic feasibility studies for 20k. if you think 20k is a lot of money, building a marina costs what, for shits and giggles lets say 1 million.... if you think 20k is what's holding these companies back you are completely delusional.... it's that the vast majority of the people living in that sector of the US don't have enough money to buy boats to have demand for a marina....

seriously fucked up in the head crazy my man.....
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
You...dont....get....it....

I am going to take the part where I asked you whether you have ever tried to start or run a business and it was ignored as a "no".

Carry on.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
And nobody has yet to spend the money required. And thus lack of economic opportunity.

It is the regulation that inhibits the business.

You are presuming that the marina was indeed a good business opportunity, maybe it wasn't and everyone else saw it, there were too many other marinas, the business climate wasn't right, there weren't enough boats to support such an endeavor. If there was a decent opportunity there then any business man would take a chance with his 30k if he saw a profit.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
You...dont....get....it....

I am going to take the part where I asked you whether you have ever tried to start or run a business and it was ignored as a "no".

Carry on.
i actually have... the most surprising regulation was the one that said I had to put down the sign in front of the store because i hadn't paid the tax.... or risk getting fined....

point is what makes a business feasible is DEMAND, not startup costs.... if there's enough demand it's worth starting a business..

there isn't enough demand in that area to take the 30k dollar plunge for the marina to be built. plain and simple economics....
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
even in a hypothetical world where starting a business had ZERO start-up costs, if there isn't demand for it, the business won't be worth starting....

good luck proving that wrong mr. anti-regulation capitalist....
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
i actually have... the most surprising regulation was the one that said I had to put down the sign in front of the store because i hadn't paid the tax.... or risk getting fined....

point is what makes a business feasible is DEMAND, not startup costs.... if there's enough demand it's worth starting a business..

there isn't enough demand in that area to take the 30k dollar plunge for the marina to be built. plain and simple economics....
So startup costs have nothing to do with businesses actually starting up.

Gotcha...
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
I have no problem with regulations as long as they're reasonable. But the regulator should pay. Your idea, you pay. Otherwise leave me the hell alone. You think CO2 causes man made global warming, good for you. You're still an idiot. But then you want free money for your made up bullshit? Not only that, but since you know your ideas are bullshit, you want me to pay to prove you wrong? No one understands the stupidity?
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
So startup costs have nothing to do with businesses actually starting up.

Gotcha...
you can try and blame start up costs as the reason businesses fail....

if demand was high enough to make up for those high start up costs there wouldn't be an issue...... but it isn't.... it isn't a supply side issue... it's a demand side issue..... you can start up all the businesses you want and claim it'll help the economy but it'll just be a waste of time if the demand isn't there.... ask the Dept of Energy how well their helping Solyndra with it's start-up costs went.... there wasnt demand for their product... so it failed. plain and simple....
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
you can try and blame start up costs as the reason businesses fail....

if demand was high enough to make up for those high start up costs there wouldn't be an issue...... but it isn't.... it isn't a supply side issue... it's a demand side issue..... you can start up all the businesses you want and claim it'll help the economy but it'll just be a waste of time if the demand isn't there.... ask the Dept of Energy how well their helping Solyndra with it's start-up costs went.... there wasnt demand for their product... so it failed. plain and simple....
By your logic since there is no effect on costs for businesses then taxes should be tripled on corporations to 135% of profit.

All the corporations have to do is just raise their prices.

Voila, the deficit and economy problems are solved instantly...

Oh wait.

You generalize about something on a sliding scale.

If you increase the cost of making a product or service there is less incentive for people to try to make that product or service because the margin and thus the profit is smaller. You seem to indicate that the cost of a product has nothing to do with it if demand is high enough. You are not taking into account any market forces.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
???????????????????????????????????????

you are making up 'market forces' without any actual evidence to back it up. taxes should be increased on plenty of corporations... they wouldn't stop selling their stuff just because they had to pay a bit more in taxes... that's a lie they want you to believe....

how am I generalizing about it? it's simple economics, and the lack of demand is due to an extraction of historically high disposable income from the middle class into the hands of a select few.... the concentration of more income in less hands has led to less money spent which pretty much means a decrease in demand.... without demand for a product, even if the government offers to help finance your start up costs, the business will fail....... specific example: SOLYNDRA. call that a generalization again....
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
???????????????????????????????????????

you are making up 'market forces' without any actual evidence to back it up. taxes should be increased on plenty of corporations... they wouldn't stop selling their stuff just because they had to pay a bit more in taxes... that's a lie they want you to believe....

how am I generalizing about it? it's simple economics, and the lack of demand is due to an extraction of historically high disposable income from the middle class into the hands of a select few.... the concentration of more income in less hands has led to less money spent which pretty much means a decrease in demand.... without demand for a product, even if the government offers to help finance your start up costs, the business will fail....... specific example: SOLYNDRA. call that a generalization again....
SOLYNDRA was an abomination. The federal government is not supposed to pick and choose corporations that get huge government backed loans. How is that possibly a balanced playing field. Lets not even get into the fact that these loans were channeled and protected by large Obama donation bundlers.

And to add to my point. Bricktop already explained that he avoided a new business due to startup costs. Lately I have chosen to start businesses with lower gross incomes and thus profits due to the actions our government has and is continuing to take.

I am not making up market forces, I am living them and hearing about them daily. The real unemployment number is about 16% right now. People are hurting and struggling and you are trying to tell me that regulation isnt a market force when more and more is being created and less and less jobs are the result.

You might have an argument if we were in an economic boom right now.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
oh cry me a fucking river.... your assertion that startup costs are the main reason people won't start a business is bullshit. i already showed you an example which half a billion dollar start-up failed because of a lack of demand for its product because demand is historically low right now, it wasn't the start up costs...

that's the reason HE avoided his business venture, what about the other prospects? maybe they just don't think the lake is large enough for 3 marinas... ever thought about that?? maybe feasibility studies show that it wouldn't be a worthwhile investmet.... who knows... I already pointed out that HE wants to say it's the 30k worth of surveys......... not the several millions of dollars worth of work that goes into building a marina..... i don't buy it for one second...lolol
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
oh cry me a fucking river.... your assertion that startup costs are the main reason people won't start a business is bullshit. i already showed you an example which half a billion dollar start-up failed because of a lack of demand for its product because demand is historically low right now, it wasn't the start up costs...

that's the reason HE avoided his business venture, what about the other prospects? maybe they just don't think the lake is large enough for 3 marinas... ever thought about that?? maybe feasibility studies show that it wouldn't be a worthwhile investmet.... who knows... I already pointed out that HE wants to say it's the 30k worth of surveys......... not the several millions of dollars worth of work that goes into building a marina..... i don't buy it for one second...lolol
You and Obama share the same ideas apparently. He seems to think that regulation doesnt mean anything either. It is working sooo well for the economy right now. Well, except in reality.

The only people who are saying that regulation doesnt hurt business are you and the politicians. You have fun with that, not really worth trying to prove to you the sky is blue.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I tire of the whimpering that comes from failed business people. Regulations are not what cause businesses to fail unless ALL of the businesses in that sector failed. If some companies can manage the regulations and some cannot that indicates that the companies that failed couldn't handle the change and they were never as viable as the whimperers claimed. You all seem to forget that a major portion of regulation is not concerned with helping or hurting business but helping individuals who don't want to breath shitty air or purchase dangerous products.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
You and Obama share the same ideas apparently. He seems to think that regulation doesnt mean anything either. It is working sooo well for the economy right now. Well, except in reality.

The only people who are saying that regulation doesnt hurt business are you and the politicians. You have fun with that, not really worth trying to prove to you the sky is blue.
read 'em and weep:

October 26, 2011 2:17 pm ET — Jamison Foser



When Gallup asked small business owners earlier this month what would cause them to hire new employees in the next year, a plurality (27 percent) said an increase in sales or revenues. Rounding out the top three responses: 20 percent pointed to an overall improvement in the economy, and 17 percent indicated that the need to support growth or expansion plans would cause them to hire new employees. In other words: Greater demand for their goods and services would lead to new hiring. The same poll found that "lack of consumer demand" was the third most frequently mentioned "problem facing small business owners like you today."
Now here's how Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) describes that poll:
A recent Gallup poll showed that nearly one quarter of small business owners believe that excessive government regulation is the most important problem facing small business owners today. [...] They also identified: poor leadership, the government, or the president as the primary problem (9%), consumer uncertainty regarding the economy (15%), or the new Obamacare policies (5%). All told, if we objectively look at the information collected by Gallup, this means that nearly half of small business owners in America believe that government regulation is to blame for the stark environment that they now face.
Notice anything missing? Right — Burton omitted the poll's findings about the importance of consumer demand to small businesses. That's typical of congressional Republicans, who have been pretending they aren't aware of the concept of demand. And other GOPers, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) and Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA) have touted Gallup's finding that government regulation topped small business owners' list of complaints. (Republicans, it should be noted, have not been so quick to cite the National Federation of Independent Business' findings that more small business owners named "poor sales" as their biggest problem than anything else.)
But Burton didn't merely omit "lack of consumer demand" from his list of problems identified by small businesses (while including problems mentioned less frequently). In "objectively" concluding that "nearly half of small business owners" think "government regulation is to blame" for economic woes, Burton is adding together "excessive regulation" (22 percent), "poor leadership, the government, or the president" (9 percent), "consumer uncertainty" (15 percent) and "Obamacare" (5 percent.) That comes to a total of 51 percent, or slightly more than half. But Burton's bad math isn't as striking as his dishonesty: He's including "consumer confidence" under the heading of "government regulation," which is nonsense — it fits more naturally with "lack of consumer demand." Nor is there any reason to categorize "poor leadership, the government, or the president" as a concern about "government regulation." So, really, 27 percent of respondents gave an answer that could plausibly be summarized as a concern about "government regulation" — tying the number who identified "consumer confidence" or "lack of demand."
Burton's rhetorical sleight of hand is illustrative of the Republican tendency to hear (or pretend to hear) 'excessive regulations' no matter what they're actually told. And what they've been told, over and over again, by business owners and economists and the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Treasury Department and even the small business lobby is that regulations aren't killing job creation — lack of demand is.
OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
How many articles do I need to link to that refute your post?

Then how many articles are you going to post back?

Where does it end?

You found someone who wrote a poll to tell them what they wanted to hear??? SAY IT AINT SO!!!

*sigh*
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Omg the goverment shouldnt think of investing in private enterprise

the transcontinental railway was an abomination
Are they attempting to build another? I know the railway from Nevada (Reid's state) to California will be a boondoggle, that's for sure.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Verdict is still out on solydra
filing for bankruptcy doesnt mean the goverment lost every loan they gauranteed.

Solydra has assets and infrastructure
and i am sure that what brought them dow which was illegal dumping of solar panels from china will change the outlook of their future
You dont understand.... The government illegally suborned it's loan to the investors. Which means the investors get paid first (something that is never supposed to happen with government loans).

So yeah, the taxpayer is going to get squat...
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
No what I understand is the USA (us) gauranteed the loans

There is an order in which the loans get paid off. Normally the government would be first. In this case it is not. There will not be enough money left over to pay the government back.
 
Top