Let's look past all the facts and evidence to the contrary that I have been putting up of late and focus on some small business owners themselves. First, I worked for a small business before I became a teacher. We were a small, four person multimedia company that handled medium sized businesses first forays into online commerce back in the mid to late 1990s. I had left an ad firm where I worked to help out two friends of mine who were the owners of the business.
Not once did I hear any discussion about the government inhibiting them from making money. The onus was on all of us to grow the business and we certainly never played the victim card and blamed the government. Our concern was getting more clients and in order to do that, we wanted to see state and federal policies that supported consumer spending which would lead to more revenue for our clients and, in turn, more money to spend with us. It wasn't taxes or fear of possible future regulation that altered our decisions. It was customers coming through the door.
This is also true for our very own John Waxey, an owner of a manufacturing concern in Wisconsin that makes a product that helps with shipping and commerce. His company does about 20 million a year in business. I had the occasion to chat with him recently when I visited his cottage.
"How's the company doing?" I asked.
"Never better," he replied. "In fact, we are moving in to a new facility to accommodate all our new business."
"So, Barack Obama and the Democrats aren't destroying your company?"
"No," he chuckled. "We do well when our clients have more customers. Then they come and spend money with us."
John's family has owned this business for his entire life, thirty three years of which he has been my best friend. So, to say that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to small business (or any size business for that matter) is wrong. That being said, no one should take our lives and anecdotes as gospel. Perhaps we are outliers? Biased?
No, not so much...because of this little thing called How The Free Market Actually Fucking Works. Yesterday, I was perusing the MPR site for some post-mortem on the recently ended state government session and I came across this. House Republican Majority Leader Matt Dean was a guest on the program and they took a call from a small business owner named Andy.
Here is the audio below. Start it at the 13 minute mark.
Giving tax breaks to small business owners leading to more hiring is NOT how the free market works? Representative Dean (a REPUBLICAN...GASP!!) doesn't know how the free market works? That it's actually more consumer spending leads to more hiring? Oh, Andy. Don't you dare question one of the central creeds of their rigid dogma! Only THEY are Sacred Keepers of the Free Market. Don't you know you're just going to get glassy-eyed nonsense for an answer?
And that's just what happened. Rep. Dean (sounding as if he was both under hypnosis and attempting to hypnotize Andy) gave a response which (ahem) can best be described as hand waving. Shocking, I know, that someone from the right is actually doing the very thing that I am wrongfully and continually accused of doing. And doing it to someone who actually owns a small business! Well, he owns a hair salon so he's probably gay anyway so he doesn't really know what he's talking about, right?
What all of this perfectly illustrates is how the right really doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to this stuff. If small businesses are given tax breaks without new customers coming through the door, why would they hire anyone? They're just going to sit around just as Andy described.
But no. Oh no. It's taxes. It's supply side. Never aggregate demand. They are only interested in making sure that their ideology is pure and, in behaving in this manner, they completely ignore the core of what drives growth in this country.
Watch as consumer spending magically disappears in my hat!
33 comments:
My dad ran a small janitorial service and complained about the government all the time. The real problem was that he paid his workers cash to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, stiffing his workers' future retirement benefits. He got caught and had to pay back taxes for years. He couldn't compete against bigger companies because he was always in the lone wolf mindset, which meant he couldn't bid on big jobs like major department stores and franchises with multiple outlets.
Small businesses are exempt from many of the regulations that big businesses have to contend with (often labor regulations). That does mean that growing a small business to a big business will require dealing with more regulations.
If you can't hack the transition from small to big it speaks more to your management and business skills than the onerousness of the regulations, which other companies are dealing with.
So you are saying, that if the government took LESS, then everyone would have MORE to spend on things they want?
I think you are right.
Plus then all you uptight, white bread, cracker ass, Republicans could stop bitching about having to spend your money on welfare for us disenfranchised common folk.
I'd be a lot more impressed by your posts, Mark, if you didn't constantly resort to blatant misrepresentation of your commenters' arguments and positions. Not to mention your endless commission of fallacy of composition: some Republican is an idiot, therefore all Republicans are idiots. And yet, you are fully cognizant of what bullshit this line of reasoning is because you strenuously object when someone points out one of the many and sundry idiocies that various Democrats have said or done. And when your double standard is pointed out (which was the whole point of trying to hang the albatross around your neck in the place), you essentially claim, "Nuh-uhhh! It's like, totally different, man!" "Why?" "Because you're incapable of recognizing my brilliance. And a poopy-head sucker of corporate cock, you fascist." And then the little yippee-dog posse joins in, "Stop picking on Markney! Leave Markney aloone!"
if you didn't constantly resort to blatant misrepresentation of your commenters' arguments and positions.
No, that's actually what Haplo9 said. I'm sure when (or if) he comes on here, he will repeat how little skill I have or knowledge in small business. If I only believed as he believed, all would be well.
But your post has inspired me to settle (once and for all) the trifecta of tactics. Coming soon!
Ha ha, what a maroon! Yeah, give us the trifecta of tactics oh knowledge giver!
>not only do I not know what I'm talking about when it comes to small business but that people like me and other Democrats/liberals/etc are actively seeking to destroy small business and, indeed, the free market.
Wow - that's all I ever said on the subject huh? Well, if you say so, I know you aren't prone to mischaracterization. (Ha ha, that's a joke, get it?)
Anyway, I'm pretty sure those threads took place at least a year ago, though I could be wrong. I recall forming that opinion about you in response to various eye rolling posts from you that asserted, among other things:
- Why don't businesses hire people when the economy is bad? Don't they know they're just making things worse? (As if hiring someone is something a business should do just because some politician or teacher thinks they should.)
- The job of a corporate executive is easy. They take a lot of money and just run companies into the ground anyway. (Having worked with a number of corporate executives, I have to disagree. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but executives tend to get to those positions because they work very, very hard, and have to make decisions that have very far reaching consequences for the company. I would not want to be a corporate executive.)
- Your persistent habit, which is what really bothered me, of blithely assuming that building and maintaining a successful business is some kind of cakewalk that anyone can do. Then, based on that belief, you then advocate for whatever flavor of the month regulation/tax/whatever is popular at the moment, somehow thinking that, "hey, no biggie, businesses won't change their behavior, or leave, or reduce hiring, because if they do, it's easy to build another." Some questions I'd like to ask your friend John: was it easy to create your business? Could just about anyone else step in and take over his role and have it be as successful? Did you create your business to contribute to the welfare of the United States, or did you create your business in order to do better for yourself and yours?
>Giving tax breaks to small business owners leading to more hiring is NOT how the free market works?
Hrm. I don't recall advocating that, and I wouldn't agree with it. So.. Why are you trying to tie that guy to me? I'd certainly be ok with across the board tax breaks, because, as you are no doubt aware, broad based tax breaks tend to put more money in peoples pockets. Of course with government budgets how they are, some serious cutting would have to take place first before that would be financially wise. Of course, there are multiple ways to put money in consumer's pockets, and one other way would be for the govt to borrow it and give it to them. Which of course, leads to the question - is it better to let people keep more of their own money to stimulate demand, or to take it from one group of people/borrow it and give it to a different group of people to stimulate demand? Would businesses react differently to one type of demand increase versus another?
The first two are ridiculous mis-characterizations.
And I have no idea from where the third point comes. Clearly, operating a small business is no cakewalk and requires 60-80 hour weeks on a fairly regular basis. I know because I was once a part of one. My beef here is the constant playing of the victim card and blaming the government by some small business owners (the ones that wank to Bill Whittle on a regular basis).
I'll see if John is up for answering your questions.
- is it better to let people keep more of their own money to stimulate demand, or to take it from one group of people/borrow it and give it to a different group of people to stimulate demand? Would businesses react differently to one type of demand increase versus another?
I knew it was only a matter of time before we got to a "Are you with us or with the terrorists?" question. At least you are consistent, Hap. I'll give you that.
I reject that it has to be either/or. We're not borrowing from one group and giving it to another (but I do love the usual and quite nauseating insinuation here). Essentially, we are borrowing from ourselves and giving it to ourselves because we are all part of a society (as opposed to rugged individualists).
This is sort of a preview of an upcoming post but here's a question for you to consider. Was the Grand Coulee Damn a good idea or not, given the context of your question?
>The first two are ridiculous mis-characterizations.
Glad to hear you say it. I have my doubts as to whether you really believe it, but it was something like a year ago. Maybe you've changed.
>I knew it was only a matter of time before we got to a "Are you with us or with the terrorists?" question. At least you are consistent, Hap. I'll give you that.
Right, asking about hypotheticals is exactly like what you said. You're a real peach Mark.
>Essentially, we are borrowing from ourselves and giving it to ourselves because we are all part of a society (as opposed to rugged individualists).
You see everyone, it's just one big collective, so it doesn't really matter if you harm one part of it to try to help another part. Because its collective. And stuff.
Btw - you didn't answer my question - why are you trying to tie that guy to me/everyone? As you do that constantly, hows about an answer?
You see everyone, it's just one big collective, so it doesn't really matter if you harm one part of it to try to help another part. Because its collective. And stuff.
This is great example of the problem with your bias. Because we live in society where people need each other and the government for support and partnership, then we must be The Borg. Good grief...
why are you trying to tie that guy to me/everyone?
You have frequently set yourself up on here as knowing more about the free market than I (or anyone else left of the far right) do. You have done this based on the fact that you are small business owner and have mentioned repeatedly how bad taxes are just as Rep Dean mentions. You have also poo pooed the fact that 70 percent of this economy is consumer spending which, in turn, means that we have demand issues not supply side issues.
>You have done this based on the fact that you are small business owner and have mentioned repeatedly how bad taxes are just as Rep Dean mentions.
I see. So the fact that Rep Dean and I have sort of said similar things, that means that I support everything he says. Well, you don't change much, do you.
>Because we live in society where people need each other and the government for support and partnership, then we must be The Borg.
No, I just think your tendency to rationalize anything and everything by repeating little platitudes like "we live a society where people need each other", writ large, is one reason we end up with bloated, ineffective government. And is a rather naked appeal to emotion rather than to reason, but I think you're well past being able to tell the difference.
>(or anyone else left of the far right) do.
No, just you.
>You have also poo pooed the fact that 70 percent of this economy is consumer spending which, in turn, means that we have demand issues not supply side issues.
Mischaracterization. I disagreed with your prescriptions for increasing said spending, not that said spending exists.
Regarding the Coulee Dam - I would say the benefits outweighed the costs, especially given its wartime use. (Yes, believe it or not, the government can spend money that produces economic benefit.) Does that mean that all infrastructure spending is valuable? Hows about John Murtha's airport:
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-23/politics/murtha.airport_1_stimulus-funds-faa-spokeswoman-laura-brown-airport?_s=PM:POLITICS
Good idea or not?
with bloated, ineffective government.
Seriously, I would be wealthy beyond imagination if I had a dime for every time I heard a conservative say this. And, again, the projection/flipping! Saying something like this is, in fact, "repeating a little platitude." I'll give you guys credit...you are so clever at doing this.
But it's really a bunch of whiny, adolescent bullshit. People who complain about bloated and ineffective government will be the very fucking first ones to bitch when spending is cut that affects them...and that includes you, Hap.
The fact is that government is a key partner in our economy. The roads our trucks travel on, the planes we fly, the water we drink....these aren't platitudes. This is what a society needs in order to survive and the government is an integral factor whether you like it or not. Now, being a key factor doesn't immediately translate into a totalitarian state and a collective so, please, chill the fuck out.
especially given its wartime use. (
It was much more than that. One could argue that it created wealth, no? Stay tuned for a longer post on this in the future.
I haven't looked into the Murtha airport although I know it's been making the rounds on all the right wing blogs for the past 3 years as an example of government waste. I'll take it on faith that it is. So what? The government isn't perfect and is certainly capable of waste.
My point here is that you don't have to let your emotions (paranoia?) drive you to bitch about government to the point of where this perception leads to erosion. The government serves very necessary purposes (not just "catching bad guys," according to Glenn Beck) and the continual narrative of it as "bloated and ineffective" is doing damage. That's exactly why we have the problems we do today.
a product that helps with shipping and commerce
I call bullshit. You can't even describe what he actually manufactures? Why not a link to his company website - won't give him a little free advertising? And he posts here - supposedly?
Thinking that government spending should grow less than 7% per year regardless of other factors equals "erosion of government". Right. Gotcha.
And Mark complaining about someone else's hypothesized hypocrisy is just a little too rich for words. It is to laugh. And laugh. And laugh.
This is funny:
I say: Mark, that platitude of yours is just a cheap appeal to emotion.
Mark says: No you! You just said a platitude! And it's projection and flipping and stuff!
Ok dude, whatever.
>People who complain about bloated and ineffective government will be the very fucking first ones to bitch when spending is cut that affects them...and that includes you, Hap.
A meaningless statement, and untrue. It's just as valuable for me to say that people who want to see spending to go up will be the first to bitch when their taxes go up.
>The fact is that government is a key partner in our economy. The roads our trucks travel on, the planes we fly, the water we drink....these aren't platitudes. This is what a society needs in order to survive and the government is an integral factor whether you like it or not.
Does that mean that every single thing that the government does is integral to our economy and valuable? That we should just go along with whatever statists like yourself want because to do otherwise is to go against society? Of course not. You're just flogging your usual dead horse: "you think parts of the government don't need to exist or can be reduced? You must hate roads, water, and law and order!"
>It was much more than that. One could argue that it created wealth, no?
Yes indeed.
>So what? The government isn't perfect and is certainly capable of waste.
The point Mark, is that if you're able to understand that the government is capable of wasting resources, just as it is capable of using those resources wisely, then the obvious question that comes from that is how do you tell the difference between them? Isn't it possible that the Murtha airport is the norm for government spending, rather than the exception? Or lets go back to the Grand Coulee dam if you want. Let's assume the damn was hugely valuable economically, and a wondeful idea. (Which is mostly true, IMO.) Does that mean we should build damns like the Coulee everywhere we can? If not, why not?
>continual narrative of it as "bloated and ineffective" is doing damage. That's exactly why we have the problems we do today.
Really? The problems we have today are because meanies like me talk down to the government? I mean, really? I suspect what you really mean is that we have the problems we have today because meanies like me aren't voting Democrat like they should. But hey, feel free to explain how that statement of yours isn't completely idiotic.
Apparently, dam = damn for me. :)
I was wondering if you were having a Sierra Club freudian slip there Hap. ;-)
Oh and you forgot to get all personal and nasty with M - you have to remember that that is all we really have.
Yo' Eric - you catch all this? Got anything to add?
Not really. I'm already commenting on too many threads as it is and Mark seems to be saying the same things I would.
This is funny:
I say: Mark, that platitude of yours is just a cheap appeal to emotion.
Mark says: No you! You just said a platitude! And it's projection and flipping and stuff!
No, this is MORE funny.
Step 3: As the silly liberal sputters out a comment which will likely be along the lines of "But wait, that's what you are doing" laugh, point at them and reply, "BWAAHAHAHA! That's your response? 'No, YOU are!' Hahahahahaha! What a child!"
Too predictable, Haplo 9
>No, this is MORE funny.
Oh damn! I stepped right into a trap, and a YDP called me on it!
I wonder if you've noticed though - isn't it interesting to note that by immediately turning the platitude comment around at me, Mark was able to avoid talking about or even support the statement that I called out as a platitude? That's weird, isn't it? Just who is it doing all this flipping that Mark complains about incessantly, anyway?
Does that mean that every single thing that the government does is integral to our economy and valuable?
No. But it doesn't mean they stink at nearly everything either as you have admitted to thinking the past.
That we should just go along with whatever statists like yourself want because to do otherwise is to go against society?
Oh, Good Lord....
You don't like the federal government. I get it. Grow up. Stop acting like a pissed off juvenile who just can't accept the fact that their parents put a roof over their head and help them out on occasion.
then the obvious question that comes from that is how do you tell the difference between them?
Because I have common sense enough to realize that the government, while not perfect, is necessary. And it's more necessary that you might like. It seems to me that you are only interested in pointing out the "fraud, waste, and abuse" while ignoring how much of a partner the government is to industry and, indeed, the global marketplace...especially today.
There are always going to be mistakes like the Murtha airport. Again, so what? That mean we have to throw the baby out with the bath water?
Does that mean we should build damns like the Coulee everywhere we can? If not, why not?
Of course not. For the life of me, I will never understand the right's propensity for such a bizarre and warped perception that borders on psychotic exaggeration of how moderates or liberals approach government. You wonder why I make the judgments that I do? Statements like this.
I think I need to keep repeating this over and over again until you get it: The problem is your perception, Hap. Not me. And you have been living inside of a group think bubble for so long that you've convinced yourself you are right.
Obviously, any rational person would look at projects like this on a case by case basis and decide their merit. Please stop buying into the myth about Democrats, Hap. It's such a load of shit.
The problems we have today are because meanies like me talk down to the government
The right has been very successful at painting the government as being "bloated and ineffective" when, honestly, it's nowhere near that bad. In doing this, the blame for our problems seems to conveniently shift away from the more accurate perpetrators (the ones that are also fueling this message) and the result is half of a country thinking that the government...the very government that is a partner to them in many ways...is evil.
yeah its not bloated and ineffective, just ask the people trying to do budgets for the state of california or the state of illinois.
>Because I have common sense enough to realize that the government, while not perfect, is necessary. And it's more necessary that you might like. It seems to me that you are only interested in pointing out the "fraud, waste, and abuse" while ignoring how much of a partner the government is to industry and, indeed, the global marketplace...especially today.
What a mess. Mark, you're not saying anything substantive. You're just saying pretty sounding words: "partner", "global marketplace", "necessary" without explaining exactly what they mean. What is this "partner" that the government is, and how does being a "partner" define what its role should be? Does being a "partner" justify anything and everything the government might want to do? If the government is "necessary", (which parts of it are, I would agree) does that mean all parts of it are necessary? If not, how do we tell which parts are necessary and which are not? Your (snicker) common sense? What if your common sense happens to be quite a bit different than other peoples?
>For the life of me, I will never understand the right's propensity for such a bizarre and warped perception that borders on psychotic exaggeration of how moderates or liberals approach government.
Not surprisingly, you misunderstand. Yes, the question is obviously an exaggeration. But the purpose is to get you to think about your position. Why do you answer no? You haven't articulated any principle or reason that would make you say no. Your common sense? Once sounds good, but subsequent dams don't sound good, just because? All you're saying is "I wouldn't support spending money that way because.. well, I wouldn't. Just because." Tell me - when a politician says "I'm going to use tax money to pay for y", is your criteria for evaluating y anything more than whether it sounds good to you? Because honestly, thats the only common thread I can see in your answers to these questions, other than frustration at being asked them - you know the difference between wasted resources and not wasted resources because .. you know it when you see it. Or something.
>The problem is your perception, Hap. Not me. And you have been living inside of a group think bubble for so long that you've convinced yourself you are right.
The funny thing is that I'm not making a particular claim here, except a rather nebulous claim that the government isn't nearly as good at allocating resources as you seem to think it is. Thats it. Other than that, I'm trying to get you to explain why you think it is so good at allocating resources. And your response is nothing more than pablum about partners and the government being necessary. If pretty sounding rhetoric like that is all your position is based on, then say so, and I'll stop bothering you. Until then, I'll keep asking you for more details.
>Obviously, any rational person would look at projects like this on a case by case basis and decide their merit.
Great - so what criteria would the government use to evaluate the merit of a project? The criteria of "makes a profit" is out, since this isn't the private sector and the government doesn't have to show a profit. So what criteria does the government use? What incentives are driving it?
>Please stop buying into the myth about Democrats, Hap. It's such a load of shit.
I don't know why you would think that anything I have said doesn't apply to Republicans. It most certainly does.
Mark, you're not saying anything substantive. You're just saying pretty sounding words:
Well, we know what this really means:)
. Other than that, I'm trying to get you to explain why you think it is so good at allocating resources.
I have, repeatedly, Hap and you choose not to listen and are, once again, playing your testing games. Now, when I don't answer them, you can conveniently say that I don't know what I'm talking about. Do you honestly think I don't understand what you are doing?
Until then, I'll keep asking you for more details.
And I'll keep offering them until you start listening. Indeed, this entire blog and its many posts offer answers, details and explorations into all of the questions you have asked here.
How is it my fault that you aren't paying attention?
Haplo9, I know that I am relatively new here but I don't understand your comments. You seem to have an unnatural obsession with Mark that perpetuates itself in the same way with every remark you make. It's obvious to me what the government being a partner is to industry and the global marketplace. This is about as obvious a statement as "Gravity is the reason an apple falls to the ground when I drop it from my hands." The line requires no further explanation yet you insist. Why? I figure it's either to play games with him and get him to waste his time answering your superfluous questions or you don't know the answers. I doubt it's the second and more likely the first. Like I said, I am new here but this entire website is filled with answers to your questions. Mark continually makes the case for the importance of federal government, how it works, why it works, and its relationship to our culture. After all, isn't that why you always accuse him of being a statist?
I'll echo Eric here with a simple question for Haplo9. What is the purpose of you knowing the answers to these questions?
Thanks for the kind words, Eric. I hope you stick around and don't get frustrated by all the shenanigans.
I thought of something else to add to my comment above. I brought up the Grand Coulee Damn for a very specific purpose and the post that I have forthcoming will address something the questions you have asked above, Hap. It will likely not answer all of them as they speak to the heart of the daily posts (both past and future) and I would rather address them there then waste time answering them in comments. There aren't any simple answers to your question nor are there any short ones. That's why I have a daily blog:)
No. But it doesn't mean they stink at nearly everything either as you have admitted to thinking the past.
Arguing with those voices in your head again? Who here as ever said what you assert we believe?
Stop acting like a pissed off juvenile who just can't accept the fact that their parents put a roof over their head and help them out on occasion.
Why don't you cease the endless bullshit about the Federal govt being mommy and daddy you pathetic fucking worm.
The right has been very successful at painting the government as being "bloated and ineffective" when, honestly, it's nowhere near that bad.
Except of course in the case of Defense spending. The left flips the good/bad indicator - virtually all Defense is bad, all other govt spending (particularly social programs) is inviolably good. Congratulations for being one side of the stupid coin.
It's obvious to me what the government being a partner is to industry and the global marketplace.
Since it is obvious, why don't you elaborate - or is your understanding of it as shallow as M's and only can be declared as obvious? Exactly how is the govt a partner to an industry? Is this an apology for crony capitalism - where the insider fat-cats fuck over competitor-businesses and consumers? Please, educate us!
Say M - when was the last Grand Coulee built? What dams have been built recently? This is a really good example of what Walter Russell Mead talks about - the nostalgia of liberals for bygone days. You even read Manzi and grasped that - but then you let go. Why?
As to why I ask questions - um, because I don't know the answers? Why else would I bother dissecting his statements? I suspect that they generally get to the heart of the philosophical differences between conservatives and liberals. I think that's worth understanding, don't you?
>It's obvious to me what the government being a partner is to industry and the global marketplace. This is about as obvious a statement as "Gravity is the reason an apple falls to the ground when I drop it from my hands."
See Eric, whatever assumptions, or priors, or whatever it is leads you to think that that statement is obvious - I don't share them. To me, that statement is as clear as mud. And keep in mind, that statement came as a response to this question, in which I'm asking Mark how he can tell the difference between valuable and not valuable government spending:
>then the obvious question that comes from that is how do you tell the difference between them?
Even leaving aside their ambiguity by themselves, I can't for the life of me figure out what "government is necessary" and "government is a partner" have to do with that question.
Anyway, as Juris said, if its so obvious to you, why don't you try explaining why it is obvious?
Appears this "obviousness" flows from the articles of faith in being a liberal. Since there is no supporting argument.
Typical.
Obviously, this thread has died.
It hasn't died. I've got a post coming up fairly soon on the Grand Coulee Damn that will address some of the issues raised in this thread.
Over a week since Eric last posted, and obviously this obvious partnership is still not elaborate. Not that I ever expect M to do so.
Post a Comment