From: eclipse@netcom.com (Brian McCullough)
Newsgroups: rec.humor,talk.politics.misc,logic.bizarre
Subject: Re: Clinton doesn't understand business (was: A SAD JOKE!)
Date: 7 Oct 92 08:15:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

lxf8351@hertz.njit.edu (lawrence finkel cis stnt) writes:
: In article <JASON.92Sep21132751@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
: >In article <1992Sep21.134132.3014@cbnews.cb.att.com> webdw@cbnews.cb.att.com (bruce.d.woods) writes:
: >-> Forgive me Professor Clinton, I'm just a student,
: >-> but I'd like to summarize your recent lectures:
: >-> 
: >-> (1)  Only businesses create jobs - a given since
: >-> governments can only reallocate jobs via the power
: >-> of taxation and incentives.
: >-> 
: >-> (2)  Your objective is to grow the economy and create
: >-> more jobs.
: >-> 
: >-> (3)  You plan to levy more/higher taxes on businesses
: >-> and the "wealthy" investors.
: >-> 
: >-> (4)  You plan to require business pay more health care
: >-> and other costs associated with social programs that
: >-> will become new requirements for business.
: >-> 
: >-> My question Professor is, how do you expect business to
: >-> create more, better paying jobs at the same time you are
: >-> reducing the resources available for business to do so?
: >
: >	That's exactly what hit me while reading some of Clinton's
: >plans.  Having never been involved with business, he has no concept
: >what makes a business grow and hire more people.  Investment of
: >profits is the only way for a company to grow, and taxes and
: >regulation cuts profits.  In a time of recession, business growth is
: >the key to recovery.
: >
: >	I would like to challenge someone who plans to vote for
: >Clinton to logically refute this.
: >--
: >Jason C. Austin
: >j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov
: 
: How do you refute the brutally obvious?
: 
: Having ran a business myself (an Air conditioning contracting firm, 
: for 8 years ) I know what its like to lose sleep, worrying about wether I 
: could get enough work to keep my employees busy and keep food on their tables. 
: Neither Clinton nor Gore have ever had the need to meet a payroll, pay
: for office space, provide workers compensation insurance, etc. I believe
: that, before anyone attempts to meddle with the business structure of America,
: they should at very least have some real world experiance.
: -- 
: #-----------------------------------------------------------------------------#
: #                     Lawrence Finkel: lxf8351@hertz.njit.edu                 #
: #   "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."   #
: #-----------------------------------------------------------------------------#

You are providing only half of the equation.  Business must be allowed to
function freely to remain prosperous and create jobs, to be sure.  But
business unchecked and unregulated will eventually reduce jobs and lower
workplace conditions to a level anywhere from exhaustive to nightmarish.

The tendency of any business is to cut unnecessary spending.  Fine so far.
As has been stated above, the costs of running one make that imperative.
The problem is that many businesses don't stop when they get to the essen-
tials, but cut past that to the point of eliminating jobs until their re-
maining employees are stretched to the limits physically and mentally.

At this point two reactions start to build.  First, the additional fatigue 
and stress weighing on the remaining employees lower their productivity, 
no matter how hard they try to counter it.  Exhausted people don't function
at peak efficiency.  Second, those people whose jobs have been cut stop 
spending money, since they don't have it to begin with, and incoming busi-
ness drops.  The average business responds by cutting down still further,
thus worsening the situation.  This syndrome was first noted in the early
years of the Great Depression, by the way.

A similar logic applies to taxation.  Most businesses need a source of 
trained, skilled workers.  This usually means a college, university, or
trade school.  But these institutions require more support than the stu-
dents themselves can pay -- especially if they or one of their parents
has lost a job due to an employer's desire to "run lean."  The govern-
ment will have to help out from time to time, and anyone who benefits
should help shoulder the cost. That's not fun, granted, but it's better
than the alternative.

I have suffered greatly in recent years under employment with a company
that operates under these forms of shortsightedness.  I am more than
willing to give the Clinton / Gore plan a try.  If Mr. Bill does what he
says he will do, the biggest shock will come to the least honest busi-
nesses.  If not, and he causes an unusual amount of pain and suffering
in the business community, well, I and the other common working folk have
had the pain and suffering from twelve years of Reaganism to shoulder;
pardon my saying so, but if it is to continue, I think it's your turn.

Here, for your consideration, is a counterargument (a formal point-
by-point rebuttal would oversimplify the matter) to your original ar-
gument, presented by a man who is DEFINITELY voting for Bill Clinton
this fall.  And now ...

GET THIS THREAD THE HELL OUT OF REC.HUMOR!


-- 
Brian C. McCullough                                eclipse@netcom.com
Opinions ventured here are those of myself only.
"Love to eat them mousies, mousies what I love to eat!
"Bite they little heads off, nibble on they tiny feet!"
                                 -B. Kliban
Newsgroups: rec.humor