News Stories

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

How many places are converting to newer "created" fictional religions like Jedi/the Force, or Haruhism?

Not much.

Bribing businesses doesn’t work

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — From the smallest hamlet all the way to Washington, D.C., elected officials are facing up to the grim reality that budgets must be balanced. They are firing workers left and right, or cutting the pay and benefits of those lucky enough to keep their jobs. Public services — such as libraries, parks, schools, public safety and health care — are being severely reduced.

The government will be downsized, no matter how painful it might be.

But there’s one area of government that isn’t sharing in the necessary sacrifices: Taxpayer giveaways to our most profitable corporations, who are showered each year with hundreds of billions of our hard-earned dollars.

These gifts don’t help the economy, or create any jobs. But someone benefits: The executives and shareholders of the companies who get the goodies. There are even a few industries — such as professional sports — where taxpayer subsidies account for 100% of profits, according to tax columnist David Cay Johnston. Read more on Johnston’s Tax.com blog.

The money is supposed to boost economic development but most of it is wasted. In many cases, the subsidies from the taxpayers far exceed any possible benefit to the public. Most of the subsidies don’t add to the national economy at all, but merely shift jobs and spending from one town to another.

For instance, Google Inc. , Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. , Dell Inc. Verizon Communications Inc, and other high-tech companies would have to build server farms someplace, even if they weren’t subsidized by local governments. But these powerful and profitable companies have pitted communities against each other, extracting billions of dollars in subsidies to locate their operations in such towns as Quincy, Wash., Lockport, N.Y., or Lenoir, N.C. Search for more corporate subsidies at GoodJobsFirst.org.

As one Washington state legislator told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in arguing for a $1 billion subsidy to Microsoft and other companies that would create just a few hundred jobs: “Those jobs are going to go somewhere — better they should come to us.”

States, cities and towns all over America are engaged in a mad race to the bottom, competing with each other to see who can give the biggest bribe to a company to locate here instead of there. In hopes of beating out their neighbor, state and local governments seize private property through their power of eminent domain, give tax breaks, offer cheap taxpayer-guaranteed financing, and even train the workers at taxpayer expense.

And yet, study after study show that these subsidies create few, if any, net jobs. For instance, California’s Enterprise Zone program — which is supposed to boost business in 42 economically distressed communities — has cost the taxpayers $3.6 billion over 27 years, but to no avail. A legislative analyst report in 2005 found that “EZs have little if any impact on the creation of new economic activity or employment.” Read more from the legislative analyst report.

California Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed to kill the EZ program and the even-more expensive redevelopment agency program, but he faces an uphill fight in the Legislature. Such subsidies are popular with the legislators who receive boatloads of campaign contributions from businesses lucky enough to find a government teat to latch on to.

Nationwide, such giveaways from state and municipal governments amounted to more than $70 billion in 2010, according to Kenneth Thomas, a political scientist at the University of Missouri at St. Louis, who has specialized in studying these subsidies. That’s more than the states collect in corporate income taxes in a good year. Read about Thomas’s book: “Investment Incentives and the Global Competition for Capital”

And that $70 billion is twice as much money as would be required to fully fund the pensions owed to state and local government workers, the very same pensions that budget-cutting politicians across the country claim are responsible for the fiscal hole we’re in.

Aside from the direct costs, these subsidies also pose a hidden danger to state finances. In some cases, states or municipalities issue revenue bonds that support private ventures. These sorts of bonds have a default rate of about 15%, compared with less than 0.5% for general obligation bonds, according to Fitch Ratings. If there is a looming crisis in muni bonds, it isn’t because we’re borrowing too much for schools or highways; it’s because we’re borrowing too much to subsidize corporations that feel no compunction about walking away if another town or state or country offers more.

At the federal level, subsidies to corporations and investors total a staggering $365 billion, according to the Treasury Department. That’s a huge share of the structural budget deficit. Federal tax policy is so favorable to large, multinational corporations that many of the largest and most profitable companies pay no federal tax at all. For instance, Boeing reported nearly $10 billion in profits over the past three years yet paid no taxes at all. Read testimony from the director of the Center for Tax Justice.

For the most part, we are bribing these businesses to do what they would do anyway: build manufacturing plants, open stores, expand their operations.

As Gov. Brown said: “The private development that occurs in redevelopment project areas often would have occurred even if the RDAs were never established. There is little evidence that redevelopment projects attract business to the state.”

Almost all the benefits of these subsidies go to large corporations, not to the small businesses that we celebrate in our national myths. Companies such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Home Depot Inc. get taxpayer subsidies that doom smaller, existing businesses to extinction. How can a small retailer compete against a big-box store that’s heavily subsidized with her tax dollars?

Some states are waking up to the huge costs and meager benefits of these subsidies. New York, California, Colorado, Oklahoma and Hawaii have curtailed or are considering curtailing some of these goodies.

But other states are doubling down on the fiscally ruinous corporate giveaways. Even as he slashed public workers’ compensation and benefits, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker persuaded the Legislature to expand the state’s economic development tax credit.

The state motto shouldn’t be “Open for Business,” it should be “Open for Looting.”

Instead of cutting spending on things that would actually help the economy grow (such as education and infrastructure), states and cities should carefully analyze their corporate subsidies and eliminate any that aren’t effective.

There’s nothing wrong with government trying to support economic growth, but handing out billions of dollars in wasteful giveaways isn’t helping anyone, except the big corporations that don’t need the breaks.

Though owned by Rupert Murdoch through WSJ, I wonder why they are publishing something sensible like this.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Not much.

Bribing businesses doesn’t work



Though owned by Rupert Murdoch through WSJ, I wonder why they are publishing something sensible like this.

It could just be an exception, but in general Rupert Murdoch's empire is almost completely relying on revenue by advertisment. The corporization of the nation has a triple negative effect on his business. Firstly, ever fewer corporations can form oligarchies that can use some form of price-rigging for advertisements. Then there is the trend that quasi-monopolies do not really need advertisment to sell their products. And finally advertisement revenue is measured by how much more people are going to buy your stuff when you advertise. If there are too many people, that can't buy much at all, the revenue of advertisement will decrease. And so will the revenue for Rupert Murdoch decrease, because corporations on average are not willing to pay much more than the expected revenue that is generated by an advertisement. Now, I am pretty sure thats not the reason why this article exists, because this would require a sort of foresight that is typically lacking in die hard captialists.

[Vexx]

MarketWatch is one of the few outlets that dares to be critical of the hands that feed it. I think they mostly get away with it because its a very small audience that listens to it.
I find it amusing when apologists argue that corporations shouldn't be "people" when it comes to paying taxes or being responsible to the community but should be people when it comes to those perks of being "people" (like free speech=$$, etc).

[Lord of Fire]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I assume the religious extremists die along with it too?

Nice that my country is listed along them.

Sad though, that the number of Muslim immigrants seems to be rising every year and they're demanding more and more space for themselves – they're no longer happy with just a few dozen mosques, they want Muslim banks now too. Our "Muslim brothers'" apparently don't trust the non-Muslim banks that are already there anymore, even though some of them have been here for a long time.

And there are still many towns in the South and East where Christianity is still held in high respect and actively practiced. Heck, those people even believe the "Young Earth" theory hypothesis.

So yeah, religion dying? Not in my lifetime, anyway. And probably not for a long, LONG time either.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Doubtful. I can see the rates continue to fall in the countries mentioned, but I have a hard time seeing religion becoming functionally extinct... it will probably always be around in some form, at least in our lifetimes.

They don't give a timeline, and they don't claim that religion will disappear worldwide. Just in some countries. (And even, the influx of immigrants will probably see to it the disappearance isn't complete).

But I don't see why not. Religions have come and gone. Why wouldn't atheism or agnosticism become overwhelmingly dominant in places?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Lord of Fire

Nice that my country is listed along them.

Sad though, that the number of Muslim immigrants seems to be rising every year and they're demanding more and more space for themselves – they're no longer happy with just a few dozen mosques, they want Muslim banks now too. Our "Muslim brothers'" apparently don't trust the non-Muslim banks that are already there anymore, even though some of them have been here for a long time.

And there are still many towns in the South and East where Christianity is still held in high respect and actively practiced. Heck, those people even believe the "Young Earth" theory hypothesis.

So yeah, religion dying? Not in my lifetime, anyway. And probably not for a long, LONG time either.

Its not that they don't trust them... Muslim banks operate fundamentally differently than 'infidel' banks. Usury is a major sin in Islam (charging compound interest). Muslim banks charge a *fee* for the lending of money. I don't remember the specific details but they charge the fee based on the actual work in setting the loan up and the risk they are taking. There's no interest rate and definitely no "oh we're changing the rate this month".

You might actually like it better than western banks

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

They don't give a timeline, and they don't claim that religion will disappear worldwide. Just in some countries. (And even, the influx of immigrants will probably see to it the disappearance isn't complete).

But I don't see why not. Religions have come and gone. Why wouldn't atheism or agnosticism become overwhelmingly dominant in places?

Religions come and go throughout history... only to be replaced by another religion. I don't see atheism and agnosticism as incapable of being dominant, but I am very skeptical of religion disappearing in my lifetime, even in the most secular nations. I just see it as too deep-rooted in world culture, but I can definitely see the numbers continuing to decline into the next century. Now, in 200 year or so? I can see that. Just not during my life. But hey, maybe I'm overestimating the grip religion holds.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Its not that they don't trust them... Muslim banks operate fundamentally differently than 'infidel' banks. Usury is a major sin in Islam (charging compound interest). Muslim banks charge a *fee* for the lending of money. I don't remember the specific details but they charge the fee based on the actual work in setting the loan up and the risk they are taking. There's no interest rate and definitely no "oh we're changing the rate this month".

You might actually like it better than western banks

Banks actually keep themselves in business by charging interest through lending money, depending on the demand of credit in the place the operate in. That gives the money the banks lend out actually worth something - by charging a flat fee the bank will never grow, and there will never be enough money to lend out in the long run - the demand for credit will always increase because of inflation.

Muslim banks and syariah products, are at the least, inefficient and are detrimental to the economy in the long run over a decade or more (effects cannot be seen in a short time). If those banks are state-owned, they are incredibly good at causing one thing : income divide. Much faster than the IRS/Federal Reserve in the long run (if they even run that long).

Come to think of it, the banking sector doesn't seem to have alot of good alternatives thus we are always choosing the least evil to keep our money, and now these people want Muslim banks? Give me a break - the money flow and credit worthiness will always go to those people who deposited the most in them, no matter what kind of bank it is. We certainly don't need more assholes in the banking sector.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says

Not belonging to a particular religious affiliation is not the same as not believing in anything. Traditional religion may just be giving way to a more individualistic approach to faith. In that sense I can see organized religion become extinct in those countries. I can see some advantages in cutting out the clergy as the middleman and not having to deal with ancient texts or rituals.

[delirium]

Expunging religion from humanity is a noble endeavor.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by delirium

Expunging religion from humanity is a noble endeavor.

I wouldn't go quite that far. I'd amend this to saying "expunging theistic religion from humanity is a noble endeavor."

After all, it's an intellectual dead end to just throw your hands up and say A Wizard God Did It.

Buddhism is pretty okay. My girlfriend is Jodo Shinshu, and they seem to be real levelheaded, realistic, non-prejudiced folks.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by delirium

Expunging religion from humanity is a noble endeavor.

As clearly proven by Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler.

[synaesthetic]

Dude, I know what you're saying, but Hitler was a hardcore Catholic. The Nazi belt buckles even say "Gott Min Uns" (God With Us) on it.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

As clearly proven by Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler.

Enlightenment moment - that counterargument is an instant lose in debate.
Its not binary ... evil does not vanish with or without religion - however, religion has definitely been used to retard, restrict, or control people throughout history. You've simply listed 'power grabbers' who would have used whatever tools were handy to achieve their dominance.

Really, its *institutionalized* religion that is crumbling ... at least that type that has a 'director' or 'edict' hierarchy.

[ganbaru]

Bombing near Jerusalem bus stop kills woman, 30 hurt
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72M40L20110323
Expecting a air strike really soon on the Gaza strip ...

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

As clearly proven by Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler.

Using your logic of non-belief as a reason for committing atrocities, non-belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be our chief concern. Neither Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Osama bin Laden, the Crusaders, the Inquisition etc. etc. believed in His Noodliness and look how many people they killed.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Really, its *institutionalized* religion that is crumbling ... at least that type that has a 'director' or 'edict' hierarchy.

As it should! That sort of religion isn't about faith, belief or spirituality--it's about control, power and money.

[Dhomochevsky]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

As it should! That sort of religion isn't about faith, belief or spirituality--it's about control, power and money.

But the ones with faith and believe are the really scary ones. You never know what their believe tells them to do.
The ones that are just using religion for their own cause may be not as charming, but at least they act rational.

[FatPianoBoy]

I wish I could be around at the time the majority of humanity renounces religion just to see what'll be the next thing everyone blames our species' inherent flaws on.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Dude, I know what you're saying, but Hitler was a hardcore Catholic. The Nazi belt buckles even say "Gott Min Uns" (God With Us) on it.

No actually Hitler hated Christianity.

From Mein Kampf:

"The root of the whole evil lay, particularly in Schoenerer's opinion, in the fact that the directing body of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that for this very reason alone it was hostile to the interests

From Table Talk:

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity!"

"Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine."

The only God Hitler obeyed was the State.
To him and all of the dictators of history, the STATE IS GOD.

And that was my point.
If you remove Theistic belief from society what is to stop powerful individuals from replacing Supernatural-Theistic belief with Rationalistic-cultism.

We already have a societal model that is superior to either atheistic-Statism or Theocracy, that model is a Secular-Republic.
It is not the right nor duty of the state to impose or restrict beliefs.
It is the duty of the state to protect ALL belief systems under its jurisdiction.

As my favorite founding father once said: "I care not whether my neighbor has one god or 10,000."

That is why I poked fun at the idea that expunging religion from society is noble.
It's not, it's just as prejudice as the theists calling for the condemnation of homosexuals or others "undesireables" in society.
Two wrongs don't a make a right.

Vexx wrote:

Enlightenment moment - that counterargument is an instant lose in debate.
Its not binary ... evil does not vanish with or without religion - however, religion has definitely been used to retard, restrict, or control people throughout history. You've simply listed 'power grabbers' who would have used whatever tools were handy to achieve their dominance.

Really, its *institutionalized* religion that is crumbling ... at least that type that has a 'director' or 'edict' hierarchy.

Not when it's relevent, it's not.

Both Theocracy and Atheistic-Statism have proven themselves to be evil in a secular sense of the word.

It is clear that Religious governments have killed millions over the last 2000 years in the name of whatever god or gods they were claiming divine right of rulership to do so.

However, by the same token Statist governments killed more than 150,000,000 people over the last century alone.

On the other hand, secular governments have killed a little more than 10,000,000 since the end of the 18th Century.

Clearly all governments kill, thus the question of which one is more noble comes down to who kills the least and why.