Big business. As a political conservative, I believe that what's good for big business is what's good for the economy, in turn making it what's good for the people.
As an economic conservative who works in corporate finance, I have to disagree even though I have no real idea what you mean by "big business". You mean the people running those big businesses? Shareholders or people like me that parasitically profit from the work of others? In favor of "too big to fail"? Or trickle-down economics which is an absolute myth. "Good for big business" is just a buzz term without details.
What exactly is "good for big business"?
And how does that necessarily equate into "good for the people"?
By "big business", I mean large corporations (and the people on top, of course) that essentially own or control every part of the industries that go into making their products. What is "good for big business" are laws that do not inhibit their growth or money-making operations. So, I'm not exactly referring to trickle-down economics, as the focus here isn't on the taxation of very large companies. (Not to say that I hate regulating some things, just that I'm opposed to regulating everything, since it holds the businesses back.)
Large corporations go hand in hand with higher employee wages, greater productivity, and greater success in the worldwide market place. They simply do more to contribute to the overall state of a country's economy than do small businesses. You could say the term "too big to fail" applies. So, big business can be said to be good for the economy.
I think it's pretty straightforward that what is beneficial towards the economy is helpful to the average person. Like, everyone can agree that when the economy is in a rough shape, life gets more difficult for the average person. It's tougher to find work, provide for your self and family, and so forth. So, it stands to reason that when the economy is in good shape, so is the daily life of the average person. By extension, what makes the economy better therefore makes life better for the people.
(Also- sorry that this isn't as in-depth as you may like, as I'm a little short on time. I welcome your disagreement and questions, but I won't be able to reply until tomorrow afternoon, most likely, since it's late right now and I have work in the morning. I'll gladly clarify later, though!)
"Large corporations go hand in hand with higher employee wages, greater productivity, and greater success in the worldwide market place. " Source? Walmart, the largest private employer in the world, pays an average of $8.80/hr which is shit. McDonalds, which is #2 worldwide, pays $9.01 with a plan to increase to $10 this year. That too is shit that would not pay for even my car.
Also source for this: "I think it's pretty straightforward that what is beneficial towards the economy is helpful to the average person" No that is not straightforward.
I actually concede your point on the wages deal, at least for the easily-replaceable workers. The higher-ups (the people that I was mostly considering when I wrote that) have it much nicer, however, but that's a given for pretty much all businesses. I do maintain the last two statements.
If that's not straightforward, then why is the opposite straightforward? Or do you disagree that poor economic conditions = a harder life for the average Joe? It makes perfect sense to me, I'm just a little confused on how you see it. I'm saying that a good economy = better lives for the people. So, as I see it, you could say that what makes the economy better by extension makes life better.
Join the Discussion
Jury Duty
Sprouts.
Big business. As a political conservative, I believe that what's good for big business is what's good for the economy, in turn making it what's good for the people.
As an economic conservative who works in corporate finance, I have to disagree even though I have no real idea what you mean by "big business". You mean the people running those big businesses? Shareholders or people like me that parasitically profit from the work of others? In favor of "too big to fail"? Or trickle-down economics which is an absolute myth. "Good for big business" is just a buzz term without details.
What exactly is "good for big business"?
And how does that necessarily equate into "good for the people"?
By "big business", I mean large corporations (and the people on top, of course) that essentially own or control every part of the industries that go into making their products. What is "good for big business" are laws that do not inhibit their growth or money-making operations. So, I'm not exactly referring to trickle-down economics, as the focus here isn't on the taxation of very large companies. (Not to say that I hate regulating some things, just that I'm opposed to regulating everything, since it holds the businesses back.)
Large corporations go hand in hand with higher employee wages, greater productivity, and greater success in the worldwide market place. They simply do more to contribute to the overall state of a country's economy than do small businesses. You could say the term "too big to fail" applies. So, big business can be said to be good for the economy.
I think it's pretty straightforward that what is beneficial towards the economy is helpful to the average person. Like, everyone can agree that when the economy is in a rough shape, life gets more difficult for the average person. It's tougher to find work, provide for your self and family, and so forth. So, it stands to reason that when the economy is in good shape, so is the daily life of the average person. By extension, what makes the economy better therefore makes life better for the people.
(Also- sorry that this isn't as in-depth as you may like, as I'm a little short on time. I welcome your disagreement and questions, but I won't be able to reply until tomorrow afternoon, most likely, since it's late right now and I have work in the morning. I'll gladly clarify later, though!)
"Large corporations go hand in hand with higher employee wages, greater productivity, and greater success in the worldwide market place. " Source? Walmart, the largest private employer in the world, pays an average of $8.80/hr which is shit. McDonalds, which is #2 worldwide, pays $9.01 with a plan to increase to $10 this year. That too is shit that would not pay for even my car.
Also source for this: "I think it's pretty straightforward that what is beneficial towards the economy is helpful to the average person" No that is not straightforward.
I actually concede your point on the wages deal, at least for the easily-replaceable workers. The higher-ups (the people that I was mostly considering when I wrote that) have it much nicer, however, but that's a given for pretty much all businesses. I do maintain the last two statements.
If that's not straightforward, then why is the opposite straightforward? Or do you disagree that poor economic conditions = a harder life for the average Joe? It makes perfect sense to me, I'm just a little confused on how you see it. I'm saying that a good economy = better lives for the people. So, as I see it, you could say that what makes the economy better by extension makes life better.
laundromats
Traffic congestion on roadtrips.