Yes it probably would be better for the economy; but at the expence of the company getting into financial trouble, which means they are not going to do that.
You keep forgetting: corporate profits are high. Astronomically high. Higher than they've ever been!
The largest companies can afford it. After all, it's not like they're paying corporate taxes....
Hurt: Regulations cost jobs - Martinsville Bulletin
Not a lot of specific regulations there, I'm afraid. It mentions a few areas that are regulated: "Hurt said he will concentrate on regulations in three main areas: boiler emissions, cement plant emissions and utilities." without mentioning why the regulations are problemmatic. It brings up the very pertinent question of
why these emissions are regulated. Pollution? Toxic waste? Danger to ground water or where people live? These all seem like very legitimate things to regulate, I have to say.
He also mentions "dust regulations" but, again, no mention is made of why regulating dust isn't a good thing. Given that dust inhalation can cause health problems for workers, this also seems like a very legitimate concern.
The author says that regulations must "withstand a legitimate cost-benefit analysis and are in keeping with our priorities as nation", but he doesn't seem to put any regulations to this test, nor is he in any way specific about how environmental or workplace safety figures into this cost-benefit analysis.
Basically, that article reads like a politician using the issue of regulations to gain votes from business owners who dislike them because things like caring about the world around them and the safety of their employees is expensive.
If you want to make the case against regulations, you'll have to be a heck of a lot more specific than this, friend.
But they can! No comapny is gonna price themselves out of business!
And yet, that's
exactly what happened to about 20,000 companies in 1932 and up to 200,000 companies in 2009.
My point is, when company increases the value of his product, and gets people to pay more for their product, that is another example of creating wealth.
Assuming people can afford the higher price. But, another way to increase wealth is for companies to pay their workers more, so they can use that additional money to buy more stuff, as well as paying more for stuff they like better when it's improved!
Are you kidding me? People spend more money today then in the 1950's and 60's!
Because many things cost more now. A new car
cost around $2600 (and gas was 25 cents a gallon!); a house could set you back
around $16,000.
Have you been to a toy store lately? How many kids do you see playing games like "kick the can", How many kids use a string and 2 cans to pretend they have a telephone? Even the poor kids have cell phones, computers, and $100.00 shoes! Everybody has 2-3 cars, cable TV and X-Box. People spend more today than ever before; yeah I know both parents work so they can afford more, but still; that's better for the economy, right?
It certainly
should be.
So why isn't the economy booming?
Could it be that consumer spending comes with a massive amount of debt, which doesn't help the economy? Could it be that, despite all the spending you see, many families cannot spend like that, and go broke trying to? Or, possibly, that the profits from consumer spending don't circulate back into the economy like it's supposed to?
But hey, it's your example...you tell me why consumers are spending, but the economy isn't booming.
Do you believe wealth is constantly being created, or do you think there is only finite amount of wealth in this country and it doesn't increase?
The economy IS finite, and the rate of growth, while it does exist, has been growing steadily downward:
-- A2SG, some might say it's still growth though, but it doesn't exactly make for a robust economy, does it?