It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Your buisness is not the economy

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:13 PM
Again and again I come across threads how this and that is sooo bad for their business and therefore the economy. What would be rad for your business? If you could pay a salary of 0 Dollars and keep everything you used to pay in salaries. Wouldnt that help your business? Yes it would, yes it would.

But what would it do to the economy if everybody sees the advantages of forced labor, or exporting work overseas, where you pay 200 a month instead of 4000, not quite zero but close enough, ennit? Well there is more people with less money in their fists to spend.

Now we raise 0 to something else. Now you tell me you would go out of business if we did that. Kinda like the employee telling the boss it would be bad for the economy the employees dont get a raise, or have to allot a lot of money to buy their own health care. Does the boss care, or anybody?

And finally, if you cant cut it when the game gets tougher, doesnt that just mean you had a pretty $hitty business to begin with? But most businesses will get by, it just means the owners of a chain that is like 4 stores strong can no longer afford to drive the same top of the line cars as a billionaire.

So to summarize, your profits are not the economy and what is good for your buissness could be terminal for the economy.

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:57 PM
reply to post by Merinda

I hope I did this right, it will give you something to argue abour. Here, real simple example, 50% of business value is held by small business and 50% business value is held by multinationals, the government operational cost is 2 trillion, the deficit is zero and tax receipts are 2 trillion. That's called balanced, but that at present isn't reality, Let's take a more realistic example, the business split is the same but the tax receipts are 5 trillion, the operational costs are 4 trillion and the deficit is 10 trillion, we would have 1 trillion per year to service the interest on the debt to the IMF and World Bank (owned by the queen and the rothschilds). If the service interest is 1 trillion, we are balanced. If the service interest is less than a trillion, we have a surplus to bring down the principle on the debt.

Now, take away 50% of the jobs provided by multinationals, eg. ship them overseas and what happens to your numbers? Well the balance of existing businesses shifts without adding new businesses and the ratios change, 67% now become small businesses, and 33% are now multinationals, the tax receipts drop by 25% down to 3.75 trillion, operational costs are still 4 trillion and you get to increase the deficit by .25 trillion (borrowing from the IMF) and 1 trillion (borrowing the debt servicing from the IMF to pay itself). That's a big enough problem, but since the loss of those jobs has removed 1.25 trillion from the economy, that means there is less money to be spent at small businesses, 1.25 trillion less, so the economy shrinks by 50% as that 1.25 trillion is removed from circulation.

The only option in this model is to increase taxes, which forces more multinationals out of the country and places an increasing burden on small business. So let's say 10% of small business now goes bankrupt and 25% of the multinationals move overseas. That removes 6.7% plus 8.5% of businesses that produce jobs, hence money from the economy. Now there is a 30% contraction in value of the economy because there is roughly a 15% loss in income producing jobs and 15% less value in the economy.

So at the beginning, iteration 1, the dollar was worth one dollar. At iteration 2, the dollar might have been worth a little more than a dollar or would at least break even. At iteration 3, the dollar would be worth less $0.50 as the deficit increases. At iteration 4, the last example, the dollar would be worth less 42 cents as the deficit skyrockets. This is a simple 4 year operation in financial mechanics.

Now let's look at buying power. What costs a dollar in iteration 1 and 2 remains at a value of 1 dollar. At iteration 3, you spend $2.00 to pay for something that has a value of 1 dollar in the previous 2 iterations. At iteration 4 you must pay $2.50 for something valued at 1 dollar in iteration 1 and 2. This is called inflation. Since the charter of the FED in 1913, the cost of "things" has gone up 96% or what had a value of 4 cents for in 1913 now costs 1 dollar. To reverse that, you know have to spend 25 (2012) dollars to receive the value of 1 (1913) dollar.

Yes, global and national decisions effect small business and economies directly. You can collapse a country in 8 years or less if deliberate actions are taken to circumvent monetary and economic policy in favour of corporations rather than the people, the little people, you an me that make the economy work by spending money, fiat or otherwise.

The numbers are not perfect as I wrote this out quickly. And every business and every person is a part of the economy and the decisions they make effect the economy based of their individual percentages of the economy.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 11/17.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:57 PM
reply to post by Merinda

Who would "work" for $0?

Would you mind explaining how ANYONE earns more than minimum wage?

So youre a little more informed, "small" businesses, those with fewer than 500 employees, employ the majority of working Americans.

edit on 17-11-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:24 PM
Not 0 but ppl abroad are working for apple and co for less than what is considetered an allowance.

Yes small buisness keeps the country afloat. And people need money to spend. Any measure that puts more money in the hands of people is good, as for you going out of buisness or having that extra cash in the economy coming towards you, there will always be winners and people who are better off working for somone else.

edit on 17-11-2012 by Merinda because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:25 PM
reply to post by gladtobehere

There are many definitions of small business, you quote only a single instance.
His text clearly stated the selection criterion as multinationals vs. small businesses - which basically includes all domestic businesses that aren't "multinationals".
Various definitions of "small business" based on earnings, stock equity, annual revenues, number of employees - there isn't a single universal definition of small business. Sorry


edit on 17-11-2012 by ganjoa because: add stuff

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:31 AM
reply to post by gladtobehere

Yes, they do and they need the consumer to have dollars in their fists, so that business can go on indefinitely. It isnt low taxes that maintains jobs and the economy, or employees buying their own healthcare, its people having disposable income. And as for how it effects your business, there will be winners who benefit from more people having more money and there will be losers.

At least that is true for our economy and here is why. The more money somebody has, typically the higher is his saving rate. The more money is diverted from the worker into the pockets of the investor and owner, the more money ends up in saving counts. All this despite the fact that well moneyed people like to splurge on toys estate and luxuries of all kinds, but more often than not the money they withheld is more than what they spend. Then there are of course products and services for which there just isnt a premium market. No toothpaste maker can replace a market of half a billion with a market of maybe 3 million and sell toothpaste for 3000 Dollar a pop.

edit on 18-11-2012 by Merinda because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

log in