Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on October 10, 2012 By Draginol In Business

This week, the hard hitting reporters from Gawker bring you:

“The CEO Who Built Himself America’s Largest House Just Threatened to Fire His Employees if Obama’s Elected” [actual headline]

http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected

This bad BAD man also has a LARGE house. What a monster.

[editor’s note: Sure, we could have simply stated that this man sent an email to his employees explaining that if the company’s taxes go up that it will reduce working capital which could result in job cuts but we’re all about the page views]

UPDATE:

Now that everyone has finished writing their hate male to this guy we have the actual email. Unfortunately, it’s long and nuanced so we have taken the liberty of highlighting the parts that should make you very VERY mad.

“Huge mansion. Huge fortune. Profitable company. What could David Siegal have to complain about? Well, the demonization of the 1% by Barack Obama, for one thing. This truly amazing email went out to all Westgate employees yesterday. Bolding is ours.”

Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]

To All My Valued Employees,

As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.

I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.

Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.

Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore – to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel

COMING UP NEXT on “THE BAD BAD CEO”

The BAD BAD CEO who went on a VACATION to a FOREIGN COUNTRY while raising insurance premiums on his employees.

Remember readers: Rich, Successful people are BAD people and we will continue to dig deep to show you just how terrible they are. How dare people start their own businesses and believe they have any rights to express their opinions.  We will continue our hard-hitting reporting that we expect will damage those businesses through ill-informed boycotts by making sensational, irrelevant headlines.


Comments (Page 10)
on Nov 19, 2012

Borg999
One thing I would like to address is the notion that increased taxes will force a business to let existing employees go. The math simply doesn't hold up.

Simply put, if a company's profit is $250K before a tax increase, and $200K after the tax increase, all other factors held constant, the business still has sufficient funds to meet the payroll for it's current employees.

Employee salary and benefits are not a tax deductible expense. Companies are not taxed on PROFIT, they are taxed on a"taxable income" which is gross income - approved deductions.

The approved deduction are being decried as "loopholes" but actually exist to force companies into doing things they don't want and the government considers to be good. For example, most going green projects are at least partially tax deductible. Employee costs are not approved deductions (they SHOULD be though).

So a company which makes 250k, out of which 200k is taxable income, resulting in say 80k paid in taxes. So that leaves 250-80 = 170k post tax income from which they must then deduct expenses like employee salaries, if their expenses were 180k then they lost 10k that fiscal year despite earning 250k with only 180k expenses. The result is to fire people until they are profitable again.

Things get a LOT worse for companies that have multi year projects. You need to pay expenses for 3 years before you have a product that can be sold. The sales are then giving you a sudden flush of cash which puts you at a high tax bracket and you can only deduct expenses happening this year (and of course, employees don't count) and you miss out on many deductions from previous years.

Also, companies heavily source goods and services from other companies. Tax increases are often passed on to the customer which might very well be another company. So a company that had 250k income and 180k expenses can now find itself with 260k expenses due to a serious increase in cost of goods which they use to produce their own goods and services with. At that point firing/pay cuts occur to bring them back into profitability.

The problem is that you assume the tax code is built to be logical and sensible and written by intelligent people who want companies to succeed. Its not, its a mish mash of laws with often contradictory intent designed to do things like "punish the evil rich poeople", "give a break to a necessary industry (necessary = congressmen who pushed it have invested in it), "encourage better healthcare/pensions/unions/etc" "encourage environmentally sound behavior", "get as much money as possible", and so on and so forth.

on Nov 19, 2012

Borg999
There is no way a corp would pay $50K income tax on a net income of $2K.

Make up your mind...is it 'net income' or 'profit'?

They aren't the same thing, lad...

on Nov 19, 2012

Yes, you are correct, it's taxable income.

Revenues minus deductible expenses, exemptions, and credits. Depending on the the various deductions you are eligible for, taxable income may or may not be lower than accounting net income.

 

But I stand by my statement. Unless you had really bad tax planning, you would not pay $50K in  taxes on 2K of taxable income.

on Nov 19, 2012

employee salaries aren't a tax deductible expense on income in the US??????

on Nov 19, 2012

Borg999
One thing I would like to address is the notion that increased taxes will force a business to let existing employees go. The math simply doesn't hold up.

Simply put, if a company's profit is $250K before a tax increase, and $200K after the tax increase, all other factors held constant, the business still has sufficient funds to meet the payroll for it's current employees.

You're assuming profits work like salaries. They're not.  They're inconsistent.

Let's make up a company called..say SpaceDock. And let's say they make a video game called Mystic Wizard that is released in say October. Most of their revenue for that game will be come in the first 90 days. 

Let's say SpaceDock doesn't have another game schedule for release until March of 2014.  That means they have to live on the nest egg of Mystic Wizard's profits for over a year.  If the government takes more of the capital they saved up, they will have to cut costs somewhere. Employees are often the biggest expense. 

Most businesses work this way.  They make a big deal/contract/sale in Year 1 and have to live on that profit until year 3 or 4 when their next big deal comes in.  They rely on the capital produced in year 1 to hold them through until year 3.  Every cent that gets taken means less money for those lean years.

on Nov 19, 2012

taltamir


Employee salary and benefits are not a tax deductible expense. Companies are not taxed on PROFIT, they are taxed on a"taxable income" which is gross income - approved deductions.


The approved deduction are being decried as "loopholes" but actually exist to force companies into doing things they don't want and the government considers to be good. For example, most going green projects are at least partially tax deductible. Employee costs are not approved deductions (they SHOULD be though).

So a company which makes 250k, out of which 200k is taxable income, resulting in say 80k paid in taxes. So that leaves 250-80 = 170k post tax income from which they must then deduct expenses like employee salaries, if their expenses were 180k then they lost 10k that fiscal year despite earning 250k with only 180k expenses. The result is to fire people until they are profitable again.

 

First, employee salaries are deductible.

http://taxguide.completetax.com/text/Q13_2670.asp

"As a general rule, a business can claim a tax deduction for the salary, wages, commissions, bonuses, and other compensation it pays to its employees. In fact, if you have employees, it's likely that your deductions for employee compensation will be one of your largest deductible expenses."


The "approved" deductions under the tax code are very similar to the expenses a business uses to calculate accounting net income. In many cases, they are more generous than GAAP. A good example of this would be MACRs depreciation (Tax code) vs. straight line deprecation (GAAP)

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Deducting-Business-Expenses


In the example we've been using, $250K is net income which is revenues minus expenses, so salaries and other SG&A expenses have already been deducted.

In the example included in your last post, expenses are effectively being deducted twice. 

 

Here's what it should look like.

 

Revenue 1,000

Exp          (750) - SG&A including salaries

Net income 250

Tax           (100) @40%

After tax inc 150

 

Yes, I know that taxable income and net income are rarely the same, but this shows that the business would not be operating at a loss. Not from the perspective of cash basis, accounting basis, or tax basis.

on Nov 19, 2012

Alstein
You're right on what money does in a bank- the money from a CD doesn't just go into a bank, it goes into loans, at around a 10:1 ratio.   However, a more rapid money multiplier still ends up with the money in the bank, where it then goes into loans.   I'm not a fan of Austrian economics at all, it's about as useful as a Hapsburg is today. 

Money is a tool to consume things or to invest in new things. One isn't "better" than the other. They're simply different. I'll bring that back up in a second:


You're absolutely right and I agree with you about the not pissing away money.  Even if you don't have great opportunities- as long as you have some opportunity (I had a really bad time of it in my 20s, every job I had the business closed quickly, led to lots of unemployment, it got so bad I entered the military just to get a stready job- but by 35 I've turned out ok)    That said, my experiences made me appreciate the government safety net (even if it was the military in my case, that's still a government benefit- just one you pay for in other ways).   Without government, I'd be in dire straits today, and I wouldn't be paying taxes today, and my life would not be as good.  I'll admit I piss a bit of money away, but I always pay myself first.  I got a bit of late start (I couldn't save anything for retirement until 26, and it was a pittance until 30) but I do put enough aside that if things go smoothly I'll be in good shape by 50. 

In this particular conversation, this isn't an argument for or against taxes. We are talking about the consequences of taxation. From those consequences we have to decide whether the perceived benefits are worth it.

 


Ultimately, society has to be able to afford the products you make in order for you to profit off those products.  The problem with everyone investing is that if no one consumes, then those investments can't become profitable.

The market forces a balance between consumption and investment whether we like it or not.  However, the government taking investment capital and forcing it to be used as consumption is a zero-sum game. It not only doesn't create wealth but actually results in making us all poorer.

If you believe that it is a good idea for the government to take investment capital and give it to someone else to consume you then have to accept that it is a good idea for the government to break the windows of businesses in order to create a demand in glass making and window repair.  No one gets wealthier in that scenario. Society, as a whole, ends up poorer.

One reason why the current economic conditions have been recovering so slowly is folks are effectively investing (paying down debt) instead of consuming, and this has chipped away hard at domestic demand.  (this is a demand-side recession)

No. This is not why we have a weak economy. The biggest reason we have a weak economy is uncertainty.  People don't like to invest unless they can calculate the return on that investment.  Should I invest in bonds? Should I invest in mutual funds? Should I invest in start-ups? I don't know.  

Uncertainty keeps capital sidelined.  We would have been better off if the Bush tax cuts had simply expired and been done with it. But we keep dragging our feet on a decision which keeps capital sidelined.  


 

Not everyone can be successful, but most people can achieve a decent existance.  I think I've managed to do the latter.  That said, I do think investing in society is also an investment - ultimately, you're investing the money in programs for two reasons: first to increase the ability to your citizens to become wealth producers later, and to keep society stable- a large mass of folks who see no hope in the current system is dangerous- just look at where Mubarak is sitting now, or the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece, among many historical examples.

I would quibble with your definititon of success.  I don't think rich people are better than poor people.  I think we all make decisions based on what we think will make us happier in the long run.  

My friends who graduated with the same degree as I did but chose the safer route aren't less successful than I am.  I have a lot more money but that is only one measurement of success.  I missed out on my kids growing up. I take a lot of abuse (As you may have noticed) due to fabricated claims by people who want something from me, there's a lot of downsides to the choices I've made.

What I will say, however is that the government forcibly trying to take the property of one person to give to another is wrong. Not just morally but it makes us all poorer.  We tried that path for thousands of years.  We have the life style we have because for the past couple of centuries, we created a system where people were free to do something and enjoy the fruits of their labor without people coming and confiscating their assets by force to give to other favored groups.
 


In my case, it's not that I'm envious of your success, I just feel that successful folks are best off sacrificing some of their short-term success for the ability to have a system that allows them and others to succeed in the long-term.  You can take this too far (see 75% tax idea in France), but we're nowhere close to this point in this country (and much of our problem nationally comes from inefficiencies in some areas like healthcare and an overbloated defense department)

I guess it depends on how poor you want to be. Every cent you take away from investment capital that the market thought was needed to turn into consumption (or vice versa) is a cent that is lost forever.

 

on Nov 19, 2012

Frogboy

Quoting Borg999, reply 130One thing I would like to address is the notion that increased taxes will force a business to let existing employees go. The math simply doesn't hold up.

Simply put, if a company's profit is $250K before a tax increase, and $200K after the tax increase, all other factors held constant, the business still has sufficient funds to meet the payroll for it's current employees.

You're assuming profits work like salaries. They're not.  They're inconsitent.

Let's make up a company called..say SpaceDock. And let's say they make a video game called Mystic Wizard that is released in say October. Most of their revenue for that game will be come in the first 90 days. 

Let's say SpaceDock doesn't have another game schedule for release until March of 2014.  That means they have to live on the nest egg of Mystic Wizard's profits for over a year.  If the government takes more of the capital they saved up, they will have to cut costs somewhere. Employees are often the biggest expense. 

Most businesses work this way.  They make a big deal/contract/sale in Year 1 and have to live on that profit until year 3 or 4 when their next big deal comes in.  They rely on the capital produced in year 1 to hold them through until year 3.  Every cent that gets taken means less money for those lean years.

 

Ok, I guess it's different in the Software industry. In the industries where I've work, revenues are fairly consistent. Yes, there is seasonality, but not the "feast or famine" you described above. But I still think a revolving line of credit could help with the cash flow issues.

Getting rid of employees has its costs though. Training new staff, learning curves, head hunter fees, relocation package expenses, unemployment insurance, etc - as well as the intangibles like a blow to moral, and potential decrease in productivity when people see their coworkers leave.

on Nov 20, 2012

Frogboy





Money is a tool to consume things or to invest in new things. One isn't "better" than the other. They're simply different. I'll bring that back up in a second:



The market forces a balance between consumption and investment whether we like it or not.  However, the government taking investment capital and forcing it to be used as consumption is a zero-sum game. It not only doesn't create wealth but actually results in making us all poorer.

If you believe that it is a good idea for the government to take investment capital and give it to someone else to consume you then have to accept that it is a good idea for the government to break the windows of businesses in order to create a demand in glass making and window repair.  No one gets wealthier in that scenario. Society, as a whole, ends up poorer.



No. This is not why we have a weak economy. The biggest reason we have a weak economy is uncertainty.  People don't like to invest unless they can calculate the return on that investment.  Should I invest in bonds? Should I invest in mutual funds? Should I invest in start-ups? I don't know.  

Uncertainty keeps capital sidelined.  We would have been better off if the Bush tax cuts had simply expired and been done with it. But we keep dragging our feet on a decision which keeps capital sidelined.  




I would quibble with your definititon of success.  I don't think rich people are better than poor people.  I think we all make decisions based on what we think will make us happier in the long run.  

My friends who graduated with the same degree as I did but chose the safer route aren't less successful than I am.  I have a lot more money but that is only one measurement of success.  I missed out on my kids growing up. I take a lot of abuse (As you may have noticed) due to fabricated claims by people who want something from me, there's a lot of downsides to the choices I've made.

What I will say, however is that the government forcibly trying to take the property of one person to give to another is wrong. Not just morally but it makes us all poorer.  We tried that path for thousands of years.  We have the life style we have because for the past couple of centuries, we created a system where people were free to do something and enjoy the fruits of their labor without people coming and confiscating their assets by force to give to other favored groups.
 


In my case, it's not that I'm envious of your success, I just feel that successful folks are best off sacrificing some of their short-term success for the ability to have a system that allows them and others to succeed in the long-term.  You can take this too far (see 75% tax idea in France), but we're nowhere close to this point in this country (and much of our problem nationally comes from inefficiencies in some areas like healthcare and an overbloated defense department)

I guess it depends on how poor you want to be. Every cent you take away from investment capital that the market thought was needed to turn into consumption (or vice versa) is a cent that is lost forever.

 

 

 

a) The window-breaking thing would be stupid government policy.  They have a right to be stupid, but I advocate for smarter government policy.  Governments effectively have a right to do anything their citizens won't fight to stop.  I do agree that uncertainty is a negative on growth.  Tying it in to my other theory- I have uncertainty over my job lasting long enough for me to pay off my house, so I keep savings.   If I consumed my savings, that money would be pumped into the economy, and another person would likely be employed, who would then consume more, pumping more money into the economy. 

 

The reason we're getting uncertainty from the government is because each side believes the current uncertainty is better than having the other guy's plan implemented.   This is the impact of the polarization of American politics and the death of centrism that has been a trend in recent American history (you can debate how far back it goes).  

 

I don't think rich is better than poor as well, but I do believe on the whole your life is better than mine, though I am not unhappy.  If I had to be self-critical, I'd say I made an average hand with the cards I was given.  You received similar (maybe slightly worse) cards and played them differently.  I do agree with you entirely that those who took the safer route aren't necesarily less successful, it's a choice I made myself.  Economic theory also states that folks make choices to benefit their happiness in the short or long term, modified by things such as discount rate and risk tolerance.

 

c)  It is necessary for governments to take things by force.  How else are you going to pay for things like defense?  All the cookie sales in the world won't buy an army, and without an army, someone would just march in and take your stuff because they could.   If you accept that, then you have to accept that governments have a responsibility to maximize societal benefit.  I do agree that you that governments shouldn't do stupid things, we just disagree on what is stupid.  The reason for our success is that our government wasn't stupid about taking things by force that wasn't necessary, combined with the stupidity of other governments and natural resources giving us huge competitive advantages over time, and allowing for individuals to maximize the fruits of their labor more than other countries.

 

What I advocate I do because I want individuals to get the most out of the fruits of their labor, as a society.   Without those government safeguards, capitalism warps and starts inhibiting others to enjoy the fruits of their labor.   Robber Barons are an historical example of this, and I'd say the broadband industry is a current example (90% profits on broadband revenue)

 

Even the most libertarian of economists (and I've heard this from Alan Greenspan's mouth, and he's very much on the libertarian side of the scale, regardless of what you think about his policies) accepts that the government has a place to step in where the free market fails.  I just have a much more expansive defintion of failed market than you do.  

 

d) I disagree that consumption cents are lost forever.  That money consumed does become someone else's revenue, and that revenue does turn into investment.   Your business is founded on consumption.  All money not consumed is invested (barring irrational behaviors such as burning cash).  Even paying down debt leads to investment, as that reduces the bank's debt servicing, which allows it to create more loans.  This is where I've been coming from with my previous statements, and why I say consumption is a better driver of the economy (within reason) then direct investment.  The more money is consumed before it ends up in investment, the more benefit society gets from that money.

 

I do understand where you're coming, and I understand that the side of things I'm advocating can be taken to excess, in which case I'd start agreeing with you.  If I had made your choices, I could easily see myself feeling the same way you do.

on Nov 20, 2012

LORD-ORION

You are ridiculous if your position is that productivity and profits to the wealthy over the past 30 years justify a decrease in taxes after watching the results from 2004 until now.

on Nov 20, 2012

main cause of lack of growth/jobs is the wage freeze on employees by EVERYONE. By inflation alone this systematically impoverishes the working class, thus decreasing the consumer base significantly.

 

(over last 30 years, very low taxes for rich yet not many new jobs/ definitely no increased wages for the majority of the working class (at least not nearly as fast an increase as inflation/cost of living for instance)

on Nov 21, 2012

The current economic slow down has a lot of reasons.

The most obvious has to do with uncertainty.  Uncertainty in the middle class because the value of their most valuable asset -- their homes -- has been wiped out.  Uncertainty with companies who aren't hiring due to increased regulations, the unknown effects of the health care law and raised taxes.

Uncertainty is an economic killer.

on Nov 21, 2012

Frogboy
Uncertainty is an economic killer.

It's not doing my health any good either.

on Nov 21, 2012

Frogboy
The current economic slow down has a lot of reasons.

The most obvious has to do with uncertainty.  Uncertainty in the middle class because the value of their most valuable asset -- their homes -- has been wiped out.  Uncertainty with companies who aren't hiring due to increased regulations, the unknown effects of the health care law and raised taxes.

Uncertainty is an economic killer.

 

And where did the housing crash come from? The pop of the housing/loan bubble created by Bill Clinton's loan deregulations. And why did he do that? Because people could no afford their homes due to the lack of jobs, and wage freezes put forth by the Reagan administration.

 

Bill Clinton only put a temporary band-aid on the damage that Reagan did, by INCREASING deregulation further rather than fight against Reaganomics. Both bushes, as far as I can tell, simply carried the reigns economically speaking ... so by the time it went from Reagan->Bush->Clinton->Bush ... the full effects of Reagan's administration became felt, primarily with the collapse of the housing "market" -> which was really just selling debt back and forth for higher and higher amounts. Debt that would never be paid.

Reagan's effects on the economy

1. Long term effects of continued Reaganomics = bad.

2. America was De-industrialized during this period. Since there was supposedly "high demand, and low amounts of investments" during this period, which led to reaganomics, I am not sure why factories were closed down. (wouldn't factories be a good thing during times of high demand?) But no, they were losing the corporations some money, and even if it could have been turned around in a few years (like Japanese companies have been known to do), the American corporations have a LEGAL obligation to their investors ... >.> ... so they "had" to strip down, etc, with a lack of government support (bailouts), thus losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. Factory jobs, production jobs, export jobs. So yes, we were de-industrialized (especially in the care industry iirc), and we became an import nation shortly thereafter.

 

In this case certainty was an economic killer, certainty that Reagan Administration's policies were good all around (including economically),possibly due to his success vs the Soviets and overall popularity in general. (many polls see him being seen as best president in last 50 years, or second best. Aggregate of polls sees him still as third best in the last 50 years, behind JFK and LBJ)

on Nov 21, 2012

Tasunke
(many polls see him being seen as best president in last 50 years, or second best. Aggregate of polls sees him still as third best in the last 50 years, behind JFK and LBJ)

OK, this is supposedly a Forum re BUSINESS, not politics -------> http://forums.wincustomize.com/414995 but surely you jest!