The letter-to-the-editor “State Taxes Influence Investors’ Returns” was found in the online edition of The Wall Street Journal (Church, 2015). It was prepared by Jeremy Church and published on September 9, 2015 (Church, 2015). The influence of taxes on investors’ returns in various states was discussed in this letter. The author supported the position stated in the article “The GE Headquarters Sweepstakes” (2015) published in The Wall Street Journal. Jeremy Church wrote that the relocation of incentives to New York may facilitate the retention of human capital. The author provided data concerning the decreasing of the amount of revenues received by investors from corporations headquartered in New York and Wyoming. This letter increased personal understanding that the state tax policy had a considerable influence on investors’ returns because the author provided figures for explaining this issue.
“U.S. and China Must Work out a Peaceful Cohabitation” prepared by Timothy Daniel was read in the online edition of The Wall Street Journal. The letter was published on September 5, 2015 (Daniel, 2015). The author discussed the issue of the economic relationships between the U.S. and the Chinese governments and their influence on the economic stability of these countries and the whole world. Timothy Daniel tried to assuage doubts described in the article “Chimerica and the Rule of Central Bankers” by Ferguson (2015) concerning the threat of strengthening long–term relationships between the USA and China. He put emphasis on the necessity of the combination of political, economic and industrial initiatives of these governments for the equitable assimilation of China into the world economy for further development of relationships between these two countries and the minimization of the possibility of any economic damage to them. The author supported his position by his personal theoretical visions of the history of long-term relationships between the USA, UK, and China. The letter did not cause to alter a personal opinion about the issue because the author did not provide clear evidence that the engagement of the U.S. and Chinese governments at all levels would grant economic stability.
“Do We Really Want Colleges to Be Run as Businesses?” was published in the online edition of The Wall Street Journal on September 3, 2015. The full name of the author is Dan Bito. He discussed positive and negative influences of business education, reflected in initiatives directed at saving costs and attracting funds (Bito, 2015). The author has a different view on the ideas presented in the article “Giving College Administrators a Business Education” by Benson (2015). He stated that business strategies were directed only at attracting money, instead of making education more affordable and effective. The author provided figures concerning the decreased expenses of the University of Colorado and his personal understanding of these savings to support his position. This letter caused to alter a personal opinion on business education, because Dan Bito showed that business initiatives in colleges were not directed at the improvement of the quality of education.
“Skilled Workers are in Short Supply” was published on August 29, 2015 in the online edition of The Wall Street Journal (DeVries, 2015). Author Larry DeVries discussed the issue of the shortage of skilled workers required for the improvement of the American economy. He supported the position stated in the article “Who Will Get the Dreary Economy Going?” by Zuckerman (2015). The author provided his own theoretical thoughts concerning the reduction of the labor pool and the deterioration and inefficient replacement of the working force using an example of the labor pool of welders. This letter caused personal alteration of the opinion about the issue of skilled workers, because Larry DeVries emphasized and provided evidence that the insufficient amount of professionals was a more important issue than the lack of working places.
“Should the Results be Drawn and Quartered?” was read in the online edition of The Wall Street Journal. This letter was prepared by Stephen Bonick and published on August 28, 2015 (Bonick, 2015). The author discussed the issue of the necessity of doing away with quarterly updates of big companies in order to decrease the distraction of managers from reaching long–term goals. Stephen Bonick is in opposition to this initiative, because, as per his theoretical opinion, it will lower the accountability of big companies. This letter altered a personal opinion because it showed that the elimination of short–term thinking of managers resulting from doing away quarterly reports might mislead investors.
According to the article by Josh Zumbrun entitled “U.S. Household Wealth Set Record in Second Quarter” and published on September 18, 2015, there are considerable doubts whether the increasing or decreasing of nation’s wealth is the major factor of vulnerability on the household market. The sluggish economic growth facilitated by strict control of interest rates does not secure the market from its fall down in the nearest future. The bases of the current growth are too weak. The rich are becoming richer, and the poor even poorer. The upper class proceeds to spend millions of dollars on purchasing luxury houses in the centers of cities, when the representatives of the middle and lower classes are obliged to run into debts in order to purchase places for living for themselves and their families. This article has influenced a personal opinion, revealing that the major part of the growth of the household market described in the article is based on tremendous mortgages. A lot of people all over the country still have no possibility to purchase housing without running into debts because of the existing economic issues (Zumbrun, 2015).
The American economy has not recovered from the great recession yet. Factories and plants continue closing their manufacturing facilities, people lose working places, and the overall country’s debts are constantly growing in the period of recession. An inconspicuous increase on the household market seems to be just a small break before the future tremendous housing bubble collapse. Hence, politicians should predict this downfall and take necessary measures to soften it as much as possible. Control over interest rates is a factor with a weak impact. More efforts should be directed at creating full-time working places, stipulating the growth of small and middle companies, and changing credit interests. Representatives of all classes, but not particular individuals, should become richer. It can cause a real and grounded rise of the American household wealth.
How it Works
Select the type of assignment
Provide explicit guidelines
Enjoy your free time while our professionals work on your project
Get an original work
In his article “What’s Most Likely to Shift Economy Toward Faster Growth? Consumers” published on September 9, 2015, Jeffrey Sparshott notes that the rise of consumers’ activity will provide considerable benefits to the U.S. economy. People will spend more money on purchasing necessary goods and commodities. Hence, the business sector will obtain more funds for further work and development. However, there are considerable doubts whether Americans would like to spend their savings in the after–recession period. People have no clear vision about their future. Such factors as a vulnerable economy, high fuel prices, closing of manufacturing facilities, and political uncertainty do not stipulate purchasing (Sparshott, 2015).
Moreover, there are considerable doubts whether consumers are the major factor shifting the economy toward faster growth. For a long time Americans have been considered as consumers, who can spend their money and incur debts only. This consideration is grounded on the orientation of the American economy towards importing the foreign production and the rise of consumerism. The time has showed that this strategy is pernicious, because it retards the economy and further development of the USA. Consequently, if the government wants to change the situation, it should change the economic and political orientation of the country.
The increasing of consumer spending is not enough for raising the U.S. economy. Politicians should develop and realize fundamental initiatives, which should stipulate manufacturing and industrial development. Strengthening the economic system, facilitating the growth of nations’ brain capital, increasing the professionalism of employees, as well as lowering the dependence from other countries by decreasing external debts can shift the country’s direction towards economic growth. Thus, this article has changed a personal opinion that the American people should not be just consumers. They should become producers of commodities and brain capital. Only this path will enable the American nation to raise its economy and control their future by means of a timely response to any issues on the national and global markets.
Original writing according to your instructions
Deadlines from 3 hours to 60 days
All disciplines covered
Skilled writers with Master’s/PhD degrees
Personal data security
Instant replies to all your questions
In the current moment, the American government is searching for methods for the creation of new working places and the stipulation of economic growth. One of these methods is the establishment of film–incentive programs, which are partly financed by states. They have the aim to support the cultural development of the nation and shift the economy toward faster growth through the creation of new working places. However, official reports show that American movie production incentives have not brought the expected outcomes. Movie making has become a way of collecting money. Nowadays a lot of films are oriented to impressing the audience by using visual effects instead of attracting people by artistic presentation or action development.
In addition, it should be mentioned that more than a half of money of taxpayers are not spent on creating new working places in the film industry. According to the information presented by Chris Hudson and Donald Bryson (2015) in their article “Yelling ‘Cut!’ for Moviemaking Tax Breaks,” “For every dollar North Carolina allocates to the state film production credit it loses 54 cents”. The situation in other states is even worse. For example, the Connecticut administration loses about 93 cents (Hudson & Bryson, 2015). Instead of the creation of new working places, film incentives facilitate the transition of the working force from one location to another. Hence, the state funding the movie production industry does not always obtain benefits from its contributions. What is more, the state administration may face considerable issues during or after the production of a movie financed from the state budget. An example of this issue is censorship.
Moreover, film production is characterized by the creation of a great amount of part–time and short–term jobs. People rarely find a position where they can work for years. Hence, engagement in movie production cannot be considered as a stable working place that ensures certainty in the future. Unlike long-term employment, these working places do not facilitate the development of strong knowledge and skills. In addition, it should be mentioned that this industry is constantly developing and changing. Hence, workers engaged in some current projects cannot be demanded in the future. These characteristics of the film industry create a background of the situation when thousands of employees engaged in film production previously are left without work.
The information stated above shows that tax benefits directed at movie production incentives seem to be a great gap for taxpayers. Considerable funds are spent on projects, which do not provide expected economic or cultural return in the long–term perspective. However, film incentives remain popular all over the country. Their development is facilitated by political forces, which are oriented to notable short–term projects, which can give some positive effect. Long–term private investments into the film industry are avoided because they do not provide an ability to change political directions easily. Hence, nowadays, American movie production incentives act as a way of attracting voters’ attention, but not as a method of ensuring economic growth or promoting movie making.