Page 133 of 404 FirstFirst ... 3383123131132133134135143183233 ... LastLast
Results 1,321 to 1,330 of 4034

Thread: Recession of 2008 and impact on the DR

  1. #1321
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,365
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mamiroja View Post
    recession hasn't stopped people from spending money and traveling. I think it's been somewhat of a benefit to the forign countries because it has made it more affordable to travel. You might get harrassed at the airport but tickets in advance are pretty reasonable
    I m not sure that is an appropriate indicator. When I flew here the plane was half empty. If I had known that then there would have been more room in the negotiated price of the ticket. But then again I ve never flown into Santiago because it wasnt an international airport the last time I was here. Maybe in POP or SDQ the planes are packed. Now when you mention the recent events of "the underwear bomber" I d expect prices to go down as people would feel less inclined to deal with the hassle of security regulations... I predict that pretty soon everyone will have to fly naked robed only in a hospital gown and paper slippers.

  2. #1322
    Poll's Forum Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    7,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cobraboy View Post
    One problem the DR will have in the future may very well be the increased efficiencies of tax collection. I know for a FACT that MANY smaller businesses in the DR operate on slim margins because they cannot develop the economies of scale due to the low per capita GDP of the economy. And now those slim margins are getting whacked by the tax man driving many out of business. That destroys wealth and creates more unemployment.
    Many (to not say all) of those small businesses are highly inefficient. The inefficiency is present in everything from the use of labor to (in the case of colmados) perishable products being sold in inferior quality due to mishandling, costs of goods are much higher and in smaller quantities, the list goes on.

    The elimination of these inefficient businesses will allow the more efficient one's to expand. The result will be an increase in productivity at all levels, including the new employment positions that will be created. Greater productivity creates more wealth. Plus, expansion of efficient businesses not only creates more jobs, it also reduces inefficient use of labor; not to mention the overall lower prices/better quality products the population at large will receive.

    I'm in favor of eliminating these small inefficient businesses, simply for being inefficient. Bad use of resources in an economy that can't afford to waste anything, IMO.

  3. #1323
    Poll's Forum Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    7,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Onions/Carrots View Post
    So boys and girls, how do you get a rising GDP report per NALS while demand is collapsing across the board and demand is not dropping but COLLAPSING. Because as the above TICKER demonstrates the drops have been in the double digits. Any drop in demand and sales in the range of the 20's % is disastrous. Understand that such a drop is commensurate with and equivalent to DEPRESSION ERA NUMBERS.

    Remember that private consumption of durable and non-durable goods is a component of GDP. So the question remains. How does GDP rise in such an environment?

    Well as noted towards the end of the TICKER, the rise is a proximate result of the increase in foreign debt during Leonel's terms. In just 5 years debt rose almost 100% WOW!! to reach the 12 billion plus point. Imagine another similar period projected into the future. How about in the next 5 years the DR debt reaching 24 billion thereby taking every penny of the budget to make the payments. There is a point of default if the current debt binge is not abated. Domestic debt rose 400%, WOW!!

    The Keynesians will record these influxes of BORROWED MONEY as GDP components especially the ones that weasle their way into government projects.

    This is not REAL PRODUCTION but debt driven increases straddling down and suffocating real production by imposing a future tax on production.

    That DEBT must be paid back with INTEREST i.e. carrying cost plus the insidious effect of inflation eroding the currency and thereby creating an added burden on cash strapped debt drowned nations such as the DR.
    Comportamiento del crédito bancario, Recuperación de la economía dominicana y perspectivas de 2010

  4. #1324
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,365
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NALs View Post
    Many (to not say all) of those small businesses are highly inefficient. The inefficiency is present in everything from the use of labor to (in the case of colmados) perishable products being sold in inferior quality due to mishandling, costs of goods are much higher and in smaller quantities, the list goes on.

    The elimination of these inefficient businesses will allow the more efficient one's to expand. The result will be an increase in productivity at all levels, including the new employment positions that will be created. Greater productivity creates more wealth. Plus, expansion of efficient businesses not only creates more jobs, it also reduces inefficient use of labor; not to mention the overall lower prices/better quality products the population at large will receive.

    I'm in favor of eliminating these small inefficient businesses, simply for being inefficient. Bad use of resources in an economy that can't afford to waste anything, IMO.
    I disagree, most of these "inefficient business" are self-proprietors who are working with the capital they have available. Give me a thousand dollars and I ll make my living room into a hair salon. Or I ll buy a freezer and make it into a colmado. Or I ll buy a washing machine and an ironing board and I ll make it into a lavanderia. These people are just trying to get ahead. You say if they cant pay the taxes let them burn and then more prosperous and more efficient enterprises will come into play. Maybe. Or maybe the lack of competition will raise the prices of goods and services provided? Maybe the wages will remain stagnant or decrease because now that the "inefficient small businesses" have been displaced there is an excess of workforce supply? Maybe that wage stagnation could affect the long term profitability of the more productive enterprise? And why would it use labor more efficiently? There is a surplus. They could use it less efficiently and there will still be a surplus of labor receiving substandard wages, so why bother?

    I dont see how the resources are being underutilized by small businesses no matter how "inefficient". As I see this country there are more productive things that could be done to create and solidify a middle class that has nothing to do with "inefficient small businesses". If anything, I think if there were access to capital as in a microloan it might stir the small business to unify their resources or start cooperatives or industrial concerns, like post war Japan.

    I think there will clearly be a hardship when they computerize the tax collection system because most people dont make enough to live on on a cash basis, now there will be deductions? Itemized computerized deductions? Oh man!

  5. #1325
    Platinum
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    19,789
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Much of the small business in the DR...and other Third World countries (not that the DR is TW)...is what I'd call "Desperation Capitalism". Folks who need income but there are no jobs. So they have to create their own, inefficient and all.

    And if driven out of business will be unemployed. And the "surviving" businesses will charge higher prices...for taxes. Their customers will also suffer.

    All for what? More SUV's? Increased $$$ for political parties? Mistresses? More graft and corruption? More gubmint employees in patronage positions?

    Sorry, I see little upside on cracking down on taxes. All it does is spread misery and fuel corruption.

  6. #1326
    Platinum
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    19,789
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RacerX View Post
    But still anecdotal.
    It's not anecdotal when banking regulators hold up a divestiture because of pressure from the DoJ because that bank didn't agressively seek loans in communities known to have poor credit risks.

    THE primary reason the family chose to sell was BECAUSE of the pressure from the Feds to SEEK loans that would not hold up to proper and historical underwriting scrutiny.

  7. #1327
    Platinum
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    13,720
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NALs View Post
    Many (to not say all) of those small businesses are highly inefficient. The inefficiency is present in everything from the use of labor to (in the case of colmados) perishable products being sold in inferior quality due to mishandling, costs of goods are much higher and in smaller quantities, the list goes on.

    The elimination of these inefficient businesses will allow the more efficient one's to expand. The result will be an increase in productivity at all levels, including the new employment positions that will be created. Greater productivity creates more wealth. Plus, expansion of efficient businesses not only creates more jobs, it also reduces inefficient use of labor; not to mention the overall lower prices/better quality products the population at large will receive.

    I'm in favor of eliminating these small inefficient businesses, simply for being inefficient. Bad use of resources in an economy that can't afford to waste anything, IMO.
    So you are in favour of Walmart big box stores and against the local small business person who can't complete with the economy of scale of a company that has as higher cash reserve than many countries.?

  8. #1328
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,365
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cobraboy View Post
    It's not anecdotal when banking regulators hold up a divestiture because of pressure from the DoJ because that bank didn't agressively seek loans in communities known to have poor credit risks.

    THE primary reason the family chose to sell was BECAUSE of the pressure from the Feds to SEEK loans that would not hold up to proper and historical underwriting scrutiny.
    Another interpretation would be that the feds forced them out because of a pattern and practice of red-lining. They were denying or restricting access to capital in neighborhoods that were deemed to be unfavorable because of demographic construction. What does that mean? It means that the people who live in certain zip codes are denied the opportunity to invest their own neighborhood giving it a chance to succeed. By redlining the neighborhood you have doomed the inhabitants to a life of despair because there is no capital available to sustain, improve and stabilize the neighborhood. Now at this point nothing is considered acceptable in that zone. No BID, SBA, Home improvement, home purchases, nor home equity loans are available because the bank doesnt want to underwrite the loan. In one respect banks lose money because they play roulette with their own money overinflating the value of real estate. And on the other hand they undervalue entire neighborhoods or cities based solely on demographic constitution. So unless you are dealing in large amounts of cash nothing gets done. The people who live there have been deemed worthless and not worth the investment in their own community. And that is how ghettos are made.

    And cobra we still havent talked about the impending implosion in the Commercial Real Estate Market.

  9. #1329
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,365
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bob saunders View Post
    So you are in favour of Walmart big box stores and against the local small business person who can't complete with the economy of scale of a company that has as higher cash reserve than many countries.?
    Dont forget a better distribution network and the ability to buy in bulk.

  10. #1330
    Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    121
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    FYI

    Interesting read for the weekend. I love this magazine, one of my small obsessions.

    Japan's two lost decades: An end to the Japanese lesson | The Economist

    P.S. Bob~ I never said Greed was a philosphy, I said it was a fact of capitalisim. Besides, I'm not a bitter socialist, I have accepted that Capitalism is atop of the food chain...

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •