Is the Weak Economies due to the governments of the world leaching of off businesses?

[Monkey-Magic-S15-R]

The company has been hit by collapse in the market for mobile infrastructure as indebted telecom operators have sharply reduced capital spending. The lack of enthusiasm to roll out new 3G networks has also undermined sales.


Ericsson troubles

This article indicates what I have been saying that the telecom service providers don't have the capital. This is a result due to the government increasing the license prices to a ridiculous amount which meant no capital could be spent on infrastructure. English government is taxing big business more and more.

The more the governments leach off of big business the weaker the economy, stock market and currency.

I'm just ranting because most of the people in power today are screwing up countries. IE GREAT BRITAIN is more like TINY WHINNING UNUNITED COUNTRY

[YogsVR4]

I would submit that the telecommunication industry has to many players in it for the demand thats out there. The natural result is that some are going to fold until the balance of supply/demand is met (as it should be)

[Cbass]

Originally posted by Monkey-Magic-S15-R
This article indicates what I have been saying that the telecom service providers don't have the capital. This is a result due to the government increasing the license prices to a ridiculous amount which meant no capital could be spent on infrastructure. English government is taxing big business more and more.

The more the governments leach off of big business the weaker the economy, stock market and currency.

I'm just ranting because most of the people in power today are screwing up countries. IE GREAT BRITAIN is more like TINY WHINNING UNUNITED COUNTRY

Proving once more that propaganda doesn't come solely from the government in power.

Taxing big business doesn't weaken the economy, it strengthens it. By taxing big business more, you have more money to spend on social programs, which ultimately ends in the man/woman on the street having more money in their pocket. Unlike the rich, they spend every dollar they have, even if they are socking away thousands in RRSP/401K(Canadian and American retirement savings, respectively), the will still end up spending that money. Even if they don't, it will be inherited when they die, and their heirs will spend it.

The basis of the economy is consumerism, people buying products. This counts on people having the money to buy the products. No money, no buying. If you give massive tax breaks to the rich, there is only one way not to run up horrendous debt, and that is to kill social programs. This means each individual has to spend that money that would have been covered by society. Now while a lot of you will smirk with the strange notion that this is a good thing, what it really means is, that these things will become privatized, and taken care of by a corporation run by and for the rich. This means the consumer spends more money for the same service, leaving less money for products.

If you reduce large portions of the population to poverty, the remaing portions are not going to take up the slack in the products they buy, they will buy the same products they always have, and in the same quantities. Less products being sold means a recession.

This is how things actually work. As for the counter argument that if the rich have more money, they will spend it, consider this basic argument.

A man makes 10 million in a year, and spends 3 to live in the lap of luxury. Tax cuts roll around, now he makes 12 million a year. Is he now going to spend 5 million? Of course not! He's got everything he wants already, he's just going to get RICHER. Where does that extra 2 million dollars come from? The 95% of people who are not rich.