Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#31

Post by Prrometheus »

mattmaroon wrote: post #29
mattmaroon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most economists disagree with your assertions.

For proof of that btw: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index... http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm... "Even among Republican [economist]s Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject

It is my unsupported opinion that economists have Bush fatigue just like everybody else, and are eager to see the regime of permanent deficits and trillion dollar wars out on the streets. Obama does appear at times to be thoughtful, and his advisors are centrists. I think economists are hoping for a second Clinton, which would certainly be better than a third Bush. I hope they are right.

It is my unsupported opinion given my anecdotal interactions with people that the following quote is the explaining factor of The Economist piece:

'Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good.

The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.'

On that, I whole-heartedly agree with them.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#32

Post by MaysonL »

mattmaroon wrote: post #29
mattmaroon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most economists disagree with your assertions.

For proof of that btw: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index... http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm... "Even among Republican [economist]s Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject

Note also, that on the list "100 Economists for McCain" there are actually only 90 names...

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#33

Post by davidw »

vaksel wrote: post #4
newaccountname2 wrote: post #3

>We absolutely have to cut the corporate tax. Our current tax rate is about 38%. Even Germany has a 25% rate. This is so disingenuous; Germany also has a 19% VAT, and also has stronger regulations on industry. >If we had a lower corporate tax rate with the ability to expense capital expenditures, guess what? We'd buy more triple sevens. He wants to be able to write off the purchase of planes as expenses? What? They a…

yeah regulation in europe is insane. You fire someone in Europe you have to continue paying their full salary for a whole year or until they get a new job. Here its wham bam thank you mam, don't forget your box and enjoy living on $1500 a month that you get from unemployment.

The reason I hate seeing politics here is that it's usually not up to the usual standards of discourse about hacking and startups.

To use your post as an example, in a few brief lines, you sum up something where there is a glimmer of truth, but there is so much more to be said on the subject that what you have written is basically inaccurate. There are, in reality, three broad models in 'Europe'. The 'southern' model: Spain, and Italy (which I know quite well) don't give you a lot of government unemployment benefits, but it's very difficult to fire someone. France and Germany give you lots of benefits if you're fired, and it's also difficult. In Denmark, it's easier to fire people, but the obligation to care for fired employees is viewed as a collective one, payed for with taxes, rather than a burden that falls exclusively on the employer in question.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#34

Post by davidw »

Prrometheus wrote: post #14
lutorm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Trade: small win for Obama. Taxes: small win for Obama. Subsidies: small win for Obama. Healthcare: big win for Obama. Energy: insanely large win for Obama. Foreign policy: insanely large win for Obama. Civil rights: big win for Obama. In fact, I seriously doubt the mental state of any intelligent person thinking of voting for McCain.... but then again, that's just my opinion . Not fact.

Most economists (~90%) think free trade is a huge net positive for the world. Paul Krugman, the most prominent living left-wing economist, is a unabashed supporter of trade. Obama demonizes it. Krugman is much closer to McCain than Obama on free trade. Obama wants to raise taxes because there is no place to cut a $3 trillion budget. In fact, he wants to add many new expenditures to that budget. Many smart people seem…

Ok, ok, I'm going to break down and talk politics for once:

Here's the difference, for me, in a nutshell.

Smart Democrats, like Krugman (and Bill Clinton for that matter), can be reasoned with and see the light about things like free trade, and can discuss economic freedoms with regards to their philosophical vision for society. You may not always agree with that vision, but generally if you find someone bright, you can argue with them and get them to consider your point of view, and maybe even change their position. On the other hand, the current Republican party is dominated by Sarah Palin types. They are convinced that God has told them a variety of things, such as evolution is wrong, that we were right to invade Iraq in her case, that torture is ok because we're the good guys, and so on. You can't argue with that kind of mentality - there is no room for it, because it is in no way connected to logic.

It's that anti-reason, anti-science, anti-intellectual, "god told me so" approach to the world that I think is absolutely poisonous.

Really though, can we just 'flag' these sorts of articles and avoid the subject entirely? We'd waste less time doing something unproductive.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#36

Post by DanielBMarkham »

timr wrote: post #23
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mailed a FedEx letter once. I don't believe that running successful business is like winning the lottery. If I did, I wouldn't spend so much time learning about how to form and run startups. FedEx is a tremendous success story. Created an entire business niche where none existed before. You can either have more of that or less of it. I know where I stand.

I agree. We should promote entrepreneurship by doing things like funding universal health coverage -- with the money we save from rolling back the corporate welfare state. Giving more money to companies that are already successful doesn't encourage innovation; it encourages hoarding.

How about we don't "give" money to anybody? Maybe let them keep more of the money they've already earned?

Since when did the entire economic output of the country become ours to decide how to allocate? Did I miss the revolution?

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#37

Post by ovi256 »

vaksel wrote: post #25
vaksel wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah regulation in europe is insane. You fire someone in Europe you have to continue paying their full salary for a whole year or until they get a new job. Here its wham bam thank you mam, don't forget your box and enjoy living on $1500 a month that you get from unemployment.

here is the reference http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displays... if links doesn't work the main pic: http://media.economist.com/images/na/2008w39/Sacking.jpg WTF with all the downvoting? First it was +5 now its 0. If you don't believe the post...google to find out if its true or not

I downvoted you because I know you (and the Economist) are wrong. I'm in Paris, and I've seen downsizing at a startup. They've fired dozens of people with a week's notice, and 2 or 3 months severance pay, AS PER their contracts.

It's NOT THE LAW that imposes this (the law imposes nil severance), but the contracts - they had this clause. Furthermore, severance pay is only due for termination that is outside the employee's control. That is, if the employer downsizes.

If you don't come to work or hit you boss, you can be fired INSTANTLY with NO severence pay - like anywhere in the world. This is rare however, I've seen it only once for supposedly sub-par performance.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#38

Post by DanielBMarkham »

ovi256 wrote: post #37
vaksel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here is the reference http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displays... if links doesn't work the main pic: http://media.economist.com/images/na/2008w39/Sacking.jpg WTF with all the downvoting? First it was +5 now its 0. If you don't believe the post...google to find out if its true or not

I downvoted you because I know you (and the Economist) are wrong. I'm in Paris, and I've seen downsizing at a startup. They've fired dozens of people with a week's notice, and 2 or 3 months severance pay, AS PER their contracts. It's NOT THE LAW that imposes this (the law imposes nil severance), but the contracts - they had this clause. Furthermore, severance pay is only due for termination that is outside the employ…

Very interesting.

We always hear of standard benefits for workers in France, like extended yearly vacation time.

How does that work? Is it possible that by working for a startup under a contract that your experience is different than the rest of your countrymen?

Just trying to figure out the discrepancies.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#39

Post by davidw »

davidw wrote: post #33
vaksel wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah regulation in europe is insane. You fire someone in Europe you have to continue paying their full salary for a whole year or until they get a new job. Here its wham bam thank you mam, don't forget your box and enjoy living on $1500 a month that you get from unemployment.

The reason I hate seeing politics here is that it's usually not up to the usual standards of discourse about hacking and startups. To use your post as an example, in a few brief lines, you sum up something where there is a glimmer of truth, but there is so much more to be said on the subject that what you have written is basically inaccurate. There are, in reality, three broad models in 'Europe'. The 'southern' model…

Actually, that's just one reason. Other problems include:

* Attracting people who care more about talking about politics than other things, which creates a negative feedback loop.

* 'Pack' voting down of whoever is currently unpopular with the current groupthink. This is reinforced by the people above.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#40

Post by yummyfajitas »

netcan wrote: post #30
Prrometheus wrote: post #6

That's pretty much the case against Barack Obama: Trade (BIG BIG BIG win for McCain), Taxes (small win for McCain), Subsidies (big win for McCain), Healthcare (big win for McCain: got to address cost, not access), and Energy (slight win for McCain). Barack on the other hand is better on avoiding World War III, Big Brother, and Theocracy. It's a depressing choice.

Question. As a non American, I wonder what brings US to a (relatively) extreme position on Health. Technicalities aside, most places consider health as part of the suite of public responsibilities. Does a significant portion of the opposition to the public assuming responsibility for health also oppose the public assuming responsibility for education? I ask because it seems a close parallel.

The parallel is pretty weak. Publicly funded education is for children, while publicly funded health care would be delivered to adults.

We also consider preventing sex with children to be a legitimate function of the government, while preventing sex with adults is a matter of personal privacy.

Post reply on HN