PDA

View Full Version : California:Corporations ATM's?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Mike Sigman
02-28-2006, 10:34 AM
There was a recent contention that California wasn't taxing itself into ruin (Gray Davis had a lot to do with the cycle), but I just saw something related today in the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008026

Neil Mick
02-28-2006, 12:33 PM
This is their take on it.

But, I find it incredibly funny that the WSJ tries to blame all the faults of California's economic woes on taxes and Rob Reiner...the WSJ is getting more and more like "Front Page Magazine" every single day...

As usual, this hit-piece attempts to mash its single-track ideology on a complicated trend that's been going on, almost as soon as I moved out here. A lot of things contribute to the rise and fall of a state's economy, and progressive taxes is only one ingredient in the "soup."

A simple search on California's economics backs my contention:

The Climate May Be Right – For a New Economic Attitude (http://www.caltax.org/member/digest/jan2002/1.2002.Stewart-TheClimateMayBeRight.02.htm)

By now, the history is well-known: An industry synonymous with California is left in a shambles of broken dreams and an economic “bubble” that bursts resulting from too much supply, not enough demand and stiff competition from domestic companies and overseas innovators.

As a result, stock prices fell to nearly unimaginable levels, thousands of skilled workers lost their jobs, and the neighborhoods and communities that were integrated into this advanced industry were devastated. Tax receipts to state coffers dropped dramatically, followed closely by a nationwide recession.

Are Businesses Fleeing the State? Interstate Business Relocation and Employment Change in California (http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=640)

In this issue of California Economic Policy, we examine the phenomenon in a more complete context:the business dynamics that drive employment change in California and extend beyond relocation to include the formation of new businesses and the expansion, contraction and closure of existing business establishments.

We find that

* California does in fact lose business and jobs because of relocation, but the effect is negligable. In any year from 1993-2002, the net loss of jobs relocation was never higher than one tenth of one percent of the total number of jobs. At this rate, it would take 10 years for California to lose one percent of its employment. Moreover, California was a net importer of jobs from certain states.
* Employment change is primarily driven not by relocation but by the expansion and contraction of existing businesses and by the birth of new businesses and the deaths of existing ones. ON average, 71.4% of job destruction of the state from 1992 to 2002 stemmed from the death of business establishments, 26.9% from existing establishments shrinking, and only 1.6% from existing establishments moving out of state.
* When they do move, businesses are more likely to move locally than across state boundaries. Out-of-state relocations account for less than 4% of all the moves captured in our database.

Anatomy of the CA Fiscal Crisis (http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/dept/files/workingpaper03-28731.pdf)

Fiscal Problems: Temporary Revenue but Permanent
Expenditures

Like almost all accidents, there are several contributory causes to California’s fiscal accident. First, the economy is one, but only one, cause of California’s fiscal problems. Second, the NASDAQ
bubble and the IPO and venture capital boom and collapse produced an unsustainable surge in capital gains and stock options tax revenue during the boom. Third, expenditures increased rapidly in response to that surge in revenue. Fourth, a deeply embedded voter preference for income- and sales-related taxes over property-related taxes have caused California to rely more
heavily on highly cyclical components of tax revenue.

The Jobs Issue: A Straw Man

The first cause, the economy, is cited by many candidates and pundits as the only problem. California is exporting jobs to other states, they say. If this is true, then on balance California’s employment growth should have slowed relative to the nation’s during the period of deteriorating fiscal balances. In fact, California’s job growth has moved in lock step with the nation’s
for many years, and during the recent downturn in jobs, California has done marginally better than the nation, as indicated in detail in the previous section. If anything, California has gained
advantage over the nation during the period of its intense fiscal crisis. The jobs data simply do not bear out the main contentions of the long list of those who would fix California’s
budget.

It's so easy to pin a state's woes on one factor, if you're ideologically motivated to do so. The reality is a little more complicated.

Mike Sigman
02-28-2006, 01:38 PM
As usual, this hit-piece {Screaming with laughter at this jibe from the guy who only writes hit pieces in one political vein} Your first too-dated source simply backs up exactly what the WSJ is saying:

"That's why agenda item number one for 2002 should be to change the Legislature's bipolar political attitude towards California's business community.

When the economy is strong and growing, it's open season on job creators as politicians bequeath benefits to their constituents via their employers. This rich harvest usually takes the form of new and increased employee compensation, compliance measures and regulatory fees.

As these costs accumulate, they are absorbed into business budgets. In a healthy economy, the costs can be borne, albeit with great difficulty. And few seem to notice that while the ship of state may be sailing, it is towing an increasingly heavy anchor."

Your second source from a liberal think tank and your last one is also some years out of date.

You haven't refuted anything the WSJ states. Essentially, what you denied, screamed "sources or it's not true" on in a previous thread is true.... if you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (read your bs diatribes about businesses and corporations), you harm all the people you say you're trying to help. In other words, you're so busy looking for people to hate that you don't use common sense. Tax all the money people earn and they have no incentive to either stay or to form and maintain businesses and thus your welfare state evaporates ... but then, the real world doesn't hold much interest for you, does it Neil? You live in la-la land.

Mike

Neil Mick
02-28-2006, 09:52 PM
Your first too-dated source simply backs up exactly what the WSJ is saying:

One word, Mike...it sort of sums up the intellectual tone you're setting...

Duh! :crazy: :rolleyes:

Really, Mike: why do you carry on so, about something you can only gleam from WSJ hit-pieces?

Repeat after me: "I (that's you, Mike) live in COLORADO; NEIL (that would be me) lives in CALIFORNIA. HE might have a little more experience with the state, than I do. I am speaking from second-hand sources and theory: HE lived through it. HE saw the dot-com bubble burst; HE had to deal with Enron-inspired blackouts.

This does not make him right all of the time; but it certainly gives a tad more creedence than what I might read from some disgruntled Conservative columnist, based in New York."

And few seem to notice that while the ship of state may be sailing, it is towing an increasingly heavy anchor."

Pretty words and quaint metaphor, doth not an accurate picture of the state's economy, make. No, Mike: your basic whining about my sources ("out of date," in 2002??? "Liberal think tank??" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) betrays an essential straw-man argument.

You haven't refuted anything the WSJ states.

Wrong. SO wrong...yet again.

But I understand...in your rush to scream about my sources, you probably forgot to read them. So, let's go slowly for those ideologically-hindered readers, out there (*looking at Mike*):

1. The WSJ OPINION-PIECE (italics mine) claimed that the fault of CA's economy lay with high taxes and regulations forced people and businesses to move out of the state (somehow, the author ALSO seems to blame Rob Reiner for the high taxes, too. It seems, for some weird reason, that taxes to ppl with over $400,000 in income ALSO caused the exodus out of the state (yeah, I had a huge laugh watchin' those 4/10's millionaires fleeing out past the state-line...I set up my lawnchair and invited my friends to watch :rolleyes: ) ).

(of course, your study completely ignores the effects of the dot com bubble bursting, while mine address it head-on. But no matter: I realize you're still confused over WW2 being WW1, so we can just nod sagely at your denial of reality, and move on).

2. My sources:

a. an opinion-piece in '02 which you seem to find "outdated;"
b. a study from the Public Policy Institute, which you curiously term a "Liberal Think Tank," basically shredded your source's contention about CA losing jobs and businesses.

Did Sir Mike bravely counter this assertion by finding sources of his own? Nah, he goes for the low-blow...as usual. Smear the source ("Liberal Think Tank???" huh?? I looked in several places on the site, and I challenge you to prove your asserion. Once again, you are either lying (again), or so deluded that up, to you, is down. :crazy: ) but ignore what it says.

And finally, we get

c. My third source, according to Mr. Factoid, is "some years out of date."

The piece was written in 2003.

Out of date...yeah, right.

Um, one question for you....did you even bother to read past the date, before you decided to slam it?

but then, the real world doesn't hold much interest for you, does it Neil? You live in la-la land.

Mike

Yeah, I do: mayhap you've heard of it? It's called "California." The last time you mentioned this idea: 3 DIFFERENT Californian's with 3 DIFFERENT political views all disagreed with you. That should have given you a subtle hint.

(*looks around at the huge piles of dead strawmen, at my feet*)

Too easy. Ah well, that's done so...in a word...

NEXT!

mikeym
03-01-2006, 12:52 AM
A huge number of people left the Bay Area after the dot-com crash. The freeways were suddenly empty and it was possible to find vacancies in apartment buildings. I was surprised that it was so noticeable.

I wouldn't doubt that people are leaving California, but I would bet that it's because of the high cost of buying a house or renting an apartment, as opposed to high taxes.

Mike Sigman
03-01-2006, 03:26 AM
Really, Mike: why do you carry on so, about something you can only gleam from WSJ hit-pieces?

Repeat after me: "I (that's you, Mike) live in COLORADO; NEIL (that would be me) lives in CALIFORNIA. Ah... you must be right, Neil. YOU are smarter than the WSJ writers. In fact, you're smarter than most people (in your opinion) and therefore, since you LIVE in California, despite not being expert in economics or anything, you understand these things better than others. Of course, the sourced figures they used mean nothing in light of your understanding, either.

At least they read the news enough to know that the statistics on the heavily discreditted Lancet figures (which caused some heads to roll at Lancet, IIRC) about Iraqi deaths were simply unsustainable. But I get a smile everytime I see your sig... it tells me how clever you are. ;) I'm just glad I don't have to listen to similar tactics from the pro-lifers..... yet.

Mike

Neil Mick
03-01-2006, 03:44 AM
Ah... you must be right, Neil. YOU are smarter than the WSJ writers.

Oh, look! Mike's trying to misquote, again! What a surprise! :eek:

In fact, you're smarter than most people (in your opinion)

Nah...only the one's that type easily revealed lies on these threads...ahem.

and therefore, since you LIVE in California, despite not being expert in economics or anything, you understand these things better than others.

No, Mike: I understand them, better than someone trying to glean everything through the murky lens of the WSJ.

And THAT, was what I said. Not any of the other nonsense you're spouting.

Of course, the sourced figures they used mean nothing in light of your understanding, either.

My two studies and an opinion piece, to your lone opinion piece. Care to add any more (this ought to be rich...which will it be? Frontpagemagazine? The Nat'l Enquirer? :hypno: )

At least they read the news enough to know that the statistics on the heavily discreditted Lancet figures (which caused some heads to roll at Lancet, IIRC)

I won't even bother to ask for sources for this drivel...I'll just assume it's on a veracity-par with your usual.

about Iraqi deaths were simply unsustainable. But I get a smile everytime I see your sig... it tells me how clever you are. ;)

I get a smile, reading your attempts at insult...it shows how clever you are.

P.S. Oh, BTW...'fess up...you really didn't read my sources, did you? :dead:

Neil Mick
03-01-2006, 03:55 AM
A huge number of people left the Bay Area after the dot-com crash. The freeways were suddenly empty and it was possible to find vacancies in apartment buildings. I was surprised that it was so noticeable.

Well, I don't know where you were in the Bay Area, but rents or availability didn't ease up much at all, in SF. It's the main reason I had to move, in '99...lack of affordable housing.

But, certainly: no phenomenon is uniform. I'm curious, tho...where did you see the empty freeways?

mikeym
03-01-2006, 04:11 AM
Well, I don't know where you were in the Bay Area, but rents or availability didn't ease up much at all, in SF. It's the main reason I had to move, in '99...lack of affordable housing.

But, certainly: no phenomenon is uniform. I'm curious, tho...where did you see the empty freeways?

I'm in Palo Alto. Sometime around 2003 my rent dropped by $200 a month and vacancy signs started appearing all around the neighborhood. Before that, I had not seen any vacancy signs for several years. Rents are still outrageous, but they're less outrageous than before.

The freeways (mainly the 101) weren't empty after the crash, but they went from being crowded all the time to only being crowded during rush hour, and even then traffic was much better than before.

- Mike

Mike Sigman
03-01-2006, 04:12 AM
Oh, look! Mike's trying to misquote, again! What a surprise! :eek: [QUOTE] See, Neil, a "quote" is when someone takes the exact words someone says and then repeats them, indicating that those are the words spoken. There was no "quote", Neil. Were you trying to say "misattribution" or something? You called the WSJ article a "hit piece" with nothing to back up the denigration. You lose.[QUOTE]No, Mike: I understand them, better than someone trying to glean everything through the murky lens of the WSJ. So basically, in the world of economics we have Neil Mick versus the Wall Street Journal and we have to decide which is the more credible source. Neil thinks it's him.P.S. Oh, BTW...'fess up...you really didn't read my sources, did you? I read the original articles when they came out. The authors of the study said that their study puts the number of civilian deaths at BETWEEN 8,000 and 194.000 Iraqis, although they admitted they didn't know how many of those had been killed in military rather than civilian episodes. Seeing you take the highest number just so you could make your own government look bad is what's amusing, Neil. I.e., your sig reminds everyone that you will be dishonest in your representations if you can make a political point. But.... why is no one surprised at that? The morally superior who use lies because it's worth lying to get the morally superior position to prevail.... that's the same stuff Goebbels used.

Mike

Neil Mick
03-01-2006, 04:16 AM
I'm in Palo Alto. Sometime around 2003 my rent dropped by $200 a month and vacancy signs started appearing all around the neighborhood. Before that, I had not seen any vacancy signs for several years. Rents are still outrageous, but they're less outrageous than before.

Hmm...Palo Alto is nice--I worked there, for awhile.

I noticed something similar in SF, after the crash...but not so dramatic. A few more signs went up; and rents dropped a little,,,not much.

The freeways (mainly the 101) weren't empty after the crash, but they went from being crowded all the time to only being crowded during rush hour, and even then traffic was much better than before.

- Mike

Now, this I never noticed. But I try to avoid 101, lol...280 is much faster. ;)

Neil Mick
03-01-2006, 04:52 AM
Ooh, Mike's gotten so apoplectic that he's mixing up the quote-bars! Rofl! Not that it matters...drivel in, drivel out. Let's look in.

See, Neil, a "quote" is when someone takes the exact words someone says and then repeats them, indicating that those are the words spoken. There was no "quote", Neil. Were you trying to say "misattribution" or something?

See Mike: a "misrepresentation" is when you take my words, and restate them in an incorrect connotation, or context. Call it what you will: "quote;" "misattribution (which, btw, isn't a word);" heck... call it "Hortense" if you like, but any way you call it, it still spells mischaracterization.

If you want to dance around semantics to hide your silly attempts, fine. But you're fooling no one.

You called the WSJ article a "hit piece" with nothing to back up the denigration. You lose.

Ahem...

ahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah!

Please. I didn't use a source that went from job-losses to denigrating Rob Reiner (as if they're connected).

Gads, Mike...get a shovel to dig your own grave...it's much faster.

So basically, in the world of economics we have Neil Mick versus the Wall Street Journal and we have to decide which is the more credible source.

So basically, in the world of aikiweb we have Neil Mick versus the mischaracterizing Mike Sigman, who seems to have a similar relationship to misstating facts as does a heroin addict, to his junk.

Neil thinks it's him.

Mike fantasizes it's Neil.

I read the original articles when they came out.

Whoah! Get the guy a medal! :eek:

The authors of the study said that their study puts the number of civilian deaths at BETWEEN 8,000 and 194.000 Iraqis,

Misstatement, misstatement...who's got the misstatement! Could it be...? Why yes! It IS!

Tsk, Mike. I just have to know...do you mischaracterize out of habit, or is it just that your metaphysical blinders slip on (not unlike a shark's nictating membranes), as soon as you see something in print that disagrees with you?

You make it sound as if the 8000 figure is as likely to occur, as 194,000. Oh, Mischaracter, wherefore art thy Mike-like sting? :freaky:

First of all, we reported three things: violence was up 58-fold, becoming the main cause of death; the one neighborhood visited in Anbar Province had 1/4th of the population dead, statistically suggesting almost 200,000 deaths; and in the other 32 neighborhoods we estimated 98,000 deaths. When the three things were taken together, the likelihood was far greater that there were over 100,000 deaths, but Kaplan chose to only focus on the third finding. Secondly, the line which Kaplan quotes above did not appear in our paper. The line which does appear reads, "We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period in the 97% of Iraq represented in all the clusters except Falluja." Note that not only did Kaplan cut off the sentence but he inserted a period into his quotation. Finally, once he ignores the violence issue and the Falluja data, he implies that the result from the other 32 neighborhoods could be anywhere between 8,000 and 194,000. In fact, this normal distribution indicates that we are 97.5% confident that more than 8,000 died, 90% confident more than 44,000 died and that the most likely death toll would be around 98,000.

http://www.afsc.org/iraq/news/2005/10/100000-deaths-in-iraq-year-later.htm

(Whoops, Mike! I provided a source! Run for your life!! :eek: )


Mischaracterization:
although they admitted they didn't know how many of those had been killed in military rather than civilian episodes.

Actuality:

They acknowledged that the violence has dramatically increased since the invasion, but they included deaths indirectly attributable to conflicts, such as medical problems, sanitary conditions, etc.

Seeing you take the highest number just so you could make your own government look bad is what's amusing, Neil.

Watching you dig your own rhetorical grave out of California's woes, straight through (to China, it seems) to the Lancet study is what's amusing, Mike.

I.e., your sig reminds everyone that you will be dishonest in your representations if you can make a political point. But.... why is no one surprised at that? The morally superior who use lies because it's worth lying to get the morally superior position to prevail.... that's the same stuff Goebbels used.

Mike

The liar calls me a liar!! Now, that's rich...so, is that a backhanded compliment, or a straightforward insult? With all this mischaracterization a-flowing: I've lost track. :hypno: :confused:

Hogan
03-01-2006, 08:02 AM
http://www.david-hoke.de/4images/data/thumbnails/12/Mr.Bean.das.Baby.Bild.jpg

Mark Freeman
03-01-2006, 08:43 AM
http://www.david-hoke.de/4images/data/thumbnails/12/Mr.Bean.das.Baby.Bild.jpg

That is a disturbing picture John :D

I'm not sure what it adds to the textual battle, but it is funny.

Neil Mick
03-01-2006, 12:51 PM
http://www.david-hoke.de/4images/data/thumbnails/12/Mr.Bean.das.Baby.Bild.jpg

I'm just glad I wasn't drinking any liquids when I clicked on this thread...probably spit it all out all over my monitor, while choking down laughter... :yuck: :D :yuck: