Is SS coping with the EU CRISIS

[Doctor Who]

I live in Belgium, I make just below average a month and I have no issues because of the crisis.

It's not Europe as a whole, just some countries (I'm looking at you, Greece) that's pushing us all to the elevators to hell.

 

[Deak Starkiller]

So, this thread isn't about the Expanded Universe? The economy sucks and everyone is feeling it worldwide. Nothing on this forum is a necessity. If you don't like it, don't buy it. You won't find any sympathy here.

 

[drbrad1975]

So, this thread isn't about the Expanded Universe? The economy sucks and everyone is feeling it worldwide. Nothing on this forum is a necessity. If you don't like it, don't buy it. You won't find any sympathy here.

Is anyone asking for sympathy? I do feel that the economy has major implications on how sideshow may be ruining its business and how people spend their money on their items. Sideshow has become more of a distributor than a producer. I hope it remains profitable for them. I remember the days when I could find their product on the shelves of toys r us. Those were some fun days!

 

[Deak Starkiller]

Ok, no empathy then? I was speaking more or less to the overall tone of this thread. It's business, nothing personal.

 

[drbrad1975]

Ok, no empathy then? I was speaking more or less to the overall tone of this thread. It's business, nothing personal.

No I have plenty of empathy for those who are struggling during these hard times. I have four friends who were let go because their employers felt as though they could hire someone else to do their jobs at a much lower rate. It wasn't because they weren't doing their jobs. Only two of them have found jobs. With 10 people looking for every job available, I don't known how long it will take before the other two find jobs. Both of the two that did find jobs, took a significant pay cut as well. Three of them were fellow collectors, who are no longer collecting cause of this. Yes, it does suck and I feel for all of those who are hard workers who just have fallen on bad times. It's personal to all of those who are affected. However, if you are on this board buying toys at these insane prices, I don't feel that way. Toy collecting is a luxury and if you have fallen on hard times, you shouldn't be buying them. That's what I meant by what I was saying.

 

[thenammagazine]

Thread moved appropriately!

 

[hoodonit00]

Are you serious, I am not sprouting the decadence of a few, all I am saying is that I personally have noticed a change in the products being produced by SS. Hell I'm not saying that I want to be provided with an array of high priced goods, I was just commenting on the sudden change in products being offered. Social responsibility is a requirement of the elected government, or the philanthropy of the 1%.

Hmmmmm, this sounds familiar.

 

[Lejuan]

The impact of the global economic slowdown as witnessed through the lens of a toy collector's dissatisfaction with recently released toys. There's a PhD in that.

 

[Deak Starkiller]

No I have plenty of empathy for those who are struggling during these hard times. I have four friends who were let go because their employers felt as though they could hire someone else to do their jobs at a much lower rate. It wasn't because they weren't doing their jobs. Only two of them have found jobs. With 10 people looking for every job available, I don't known how long it will take before the other two find jobs. Both of the two that did find jobs, took a significant pay cut as well. Three of them were fellow collectors, who are no longer collecting cause of this. Yes, it does suck and I feel for all of those who are hard workers who just have fallen on bad times. It's personal to all of those who are affected. However, if you are on this board buying toys at these insane prices, I don't feel that way. Toy collecting is a luxury and if you have fallen on hard times, you shouldn't be buying them. That's what I meant by what I was saying.

I think we're saying the same thing, this hobby is a luxury not a necessity.

 

[drbrad1975]

I think we're saying the same thing, this hobby is a luxury not a necessity.

Yep!!

 

[ProgMatinee]

I don't see the relevance in the economy with the original post at all.

I thought there would be an interesting analysis about the euro vs dollar exchange rate or a theory that eu collectors were suddenly going to stop collecting.

Instead I found the post itself to be no different than any other "I don't like ____" thread.

What a tease.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Regarding the economic crisis, its such a crazy issue.

I'm in the middle.

I'm actually a financial conservatist, I don't think the government should be giving away the farm in the form of medicare and welfare...but the top 1 percent thing is crazy lopsided. And its not like those top 1%ers are doing any favors as far as employment is concerned.

My humble solution is to tax the ____ out of the rich unless they show that their companies are employing Americans in which case they get massive tax breaks.

As long as they are offering jobs, they're doing their part for the country already, so no need to tax them much.

If they're getting rich selling to Americans but don't employ Americans then sorry you're going to get taxed out the ass, don't like it, move to China and then we'll tarif the ____ out of your product.

So I'd decrease spending on the poor AND increase taxes on the extremely wealthy and find peace in the middle.

 

[devilof76]

I'm pretty sure that's how FDR created a 10 year depression.

 

[ProgMatinee]

How so? Like I said, the actual employers would get MASSIVE tax breaks...maybe even greater than they do now...as long as they are using their earnings to actually employ people...which in turn gives Americans earnings to spend on products sold by the BUSINESS owners. Win win.

The only losers in the scenario are the super wealthy who are benefiting from earnings made off companies that employ mostly overseas...in which case, why do we care about them again?

In 1929 overseas manufacturing and employment wasn't even a concern, so totally different scenario.

 

[thenammagazine]

How so? Like I said, the actual employers would get MASSIVE tax breaks...maybe even greater than they do now...as long as they are using their earnings to actually employ people...which in turn gives Americans earnings to spend on products sold by the BUSINESS owners. Win win.

The only losers in the scenario are the super wealthy who are benefiting from earnings made off companies that employ mostly overseas...in which case, why do we care about them again?

In 1929 overseas manufacturing and employment wasn't even a concern, so totally different scenario.

You'd have to stop all the entitlement in it's tracks, first. Get people to understand that they don't get something for nothing and reinstitute the concept of earning what you want, for that to even work. Just because the rich have it, doesn't mean anybody's entitled to it.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Yeah, thats the other side of my recommendation as in my post 52.

The welfare system stops, or at least is cut back to only very essential stuff to keep a baby alive until its of working age or something. I don't know how to do that exactly, but basically I'd cut entitlement programs, including social security and medicare by at least 90%. I'm sorry to say, but old people would be my first victims. US government would be responsible for medical care at 1960s standards...which is far from archaeic. If you want to bump up to 2011 standards, its on your dime. We aren't providing extraodinary measures and spend millions of taxpayer dollars to keep a 93 year old alive until they are 95.

Furthuremore, if the medical industry throws a hissy fit when people stop coming to see them, then they'll realize that their pricing is ridiculous and they'll be forced to lower it.

The taxes that are collected are used on universally used services...fire, police, military, infrastructure. ie services that when $1 is spent it directly affects thousands or millions of people all at once.

This won't happen obviously, so maybe its fruitless to pretend. In the meantime, I'm holding onto my hat as the government forces us into catastrophe.

 

[thenammagazine]

Yeah, thats the other side of my recommendation as in my post 52.

The welfare system stops, or at least is cut back to only very essential stuff to keep a baby alive until its of working age or something. I don't know how to do that exactly, but basically I'd cut entitlement programs, including social security and medicare by at least 90%. I'm sorry to say, but old people would be my first victims. US government would be responsible for medical care at 1960s standards...which is far from archaeic. If you want to bump up to 2011 standards, its on your dime. We aren't providing stemcell research and AIDs medication on the taxpayer dime for extreme examples.

Furthuremore, if the medical industry throws a hissy fit when people stop coming to see them, then they'll realize that their pricing is ridiculous and they'll be forced to lower it.

The taxes that are collected are used on universally used services...fire, police, military, infrastructure. ie services that when $1 is spent it directly affects thousands or millions of people all at once.

This won't happen obviously, so maybe its fruitless to pretend. In the meantime, I'm holding onto my hat as the government forces us into catastrophe.

There's a problem with that though. Social Security contributions have gone up with inflation so if you cut everything back to 1960 standards, you're essentially ripping off the elder public who've been paying that increased amount over their many years of employment. Remember, SS payments aren't taxes, so they're not supposed to be the government's monies to spend (which is exactly what they've been doing).

The welfare thing, I'd say, cut it where it's being abused and completely disallow it for immigrants. Immigration should come at one's own expense, not the expense of tax payer dollars. This also applies to medical benefits too. Again, nobody's entitled to anything.

Also quit extending unemployment benefits. I may be oldschool, but if I got laid off from a job, and couldn't find another in the same line of work, I'm flipping burgers and finding other means to supplement the vacuum until I can find a better paying job. Too many people think they're owed and mooch off of the government while their jobs are passed to individuals who're more than grateful for the opportunity of employment and are willing to work for less.

 

[ProgMatinee]

I agree with pretty much everything you said. For me, unemployeed people would get 2 months of $1000 each month after a layoff with a max of 6 months total during their lifetime. Then thats it. If you lost a job more than 3 times in your life, the problem is with you, not the economy. It also wouldn't matter how much money you made at your job before. $1000 max per month. Spend wisely.

I think regarding Social Security and those who have already paid in. I would reimburse everyone up to the amount they paid in during their lifetime plus inflation.

So if you worked for 30 years and contibuted $500,000 your max return over your lifetime is say using simple inflation/interest of 5% $525,000. If you start receiving benefits at age 65, you'll get 262 payments of $2000. Thats 21 years. If you live to age 86/87 the payments stop. Sorry.

The problem with the system is that life expentancy is getting longer. When people were working in the 1960s and paying int SS I doubt they were counting on living to age 95. Now that they are there, its like an expectation to make it that far and they demand overpriced medical services to make it happen.

At some point the cut off needs to happen. Especially considering the ratio of old recepiants and new contributors is slipping more and more.

 

[devilof76]

How so? Like I said, the actual employers would get MASSIVE tax breaks...maybe even greater than they do now...as long as they are using their earnings to actually employ people...which in turn gives Americans earnings to spend on products sold by the BUSINESS owners. Win win.

The only losers in the scenario are the super wealthy who are benefiting from earnings made off companies that employ mostly overseas...in which case, why do we care about them again?

In 1929 overseas manufacturing and employment wasn't even a concern, so totally different scenario.

People aren't investing in employment right now because they can't afford to. Those few super-rich aren't confident in the profitability of investing in anything. Too much in the American economy is in flux and who are you to tell them what they have to spend their money on? Business doesn't exist to help others. They exist to help themselves and short of using force, they have a right to help themselves in whatever manner they determine to be best for them. Beyond that moral aspect, how do you think they got rich if it were not for their ability to judge what is and what is not worth investing in?

If you want to increase employment, create a business environment where it is worth it to them to increase production, thereby necessitating more workers. The common thread between your plan and FDR's Keynesian scheme is that he expropriated from producers to such an extreme that they could not increase production to the level of the market's peak in 1929, and he took it from them to create jobs. What is the difference between telling them they will be forced to submit to confiscatory taxation, or they can voluntarily spend the money themselves to create jobs in an economy that no rational entrepreneur would bother?

The location of manufacturing is only relevant in that this government had already driven off manufacturing before the current job crisis.

 

[thenammagazine]

People aren't investing in employment right now because they can't afford to. Those few super-rich aren't confident in the profitability of investing in anything. Too much in the American economy is in flux and who are you to tell them what they have to spend their money on? Business doesn't exist to help others. They exist to help themselves and short of using force, they have a right to help themselves in whatever manner they determine to be best for them. Beyond that moral aspect, how do you think they got rich if it were not for their ability to judge what is and what is not worth investing in?

If you want to increase employment, create a business environment where it is worth it to them to increase production, thereby necessitating more workers. The common thread between your plan and FDR's Keynesian scheme is that he expropriated from producers to such an extreme that they could not increase production to the levels they were at the market's peak in 1929, and he took it from them to create jobs. What is the difference between telling them they will be forced to submit to conficatory taxation, or they can voluntarily spend the money themselves to create jobs in an economy that no rational entrepreneur would bother?

The location of manufacturing is only relevant in that this government had already driven off manufacturing before the current job crisis.

This is one of the major problems I've seen. Everywhere, from governors to the president, you hear about them creating all these new jobs. Problem is, people can't afford to go to school, the government has cut federal grants and the banks aren't loaning cash for student loans. So the problem only gets worse.

Speaking as an entrepreneur, it's hell. You have to find a niche and pray the public supports it. Then pray harder that some twit big monster doesn't create a diluted version of your product for cheaper, and brainwash the public and sponsors with deceitful BS. In the end everybody's mad and burned and they take it out across the board. And that's just a single example. There are soooooooooo many aspects to creating your own business that in this economy, just makes it not feasible.