RE: The True Job Creators

RE: The True Job Creators (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

epiphiny43 -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 7:05:49 PM)
Interesting conclusion that costs of government and capital lower than the Clinton years of widespread prosperity and growth will kill modern civilization. When a Democratic President put in place a feasible plan to pay down the National Debt in less than two generations. What is always missing from the trickle down voodoo economics is that business fails if the necessary infra structure and social security for business and a society isn't maintained. With the US distribution of wealth now more concentrated than some South American countries and accelerating fast under the Guarantee Our Profits political agenda, neither the communication, regulation nor transportation necessary for Anyone to make money will be maintained. The coming social disruption as the social 'safety net' frays to ineffectiveness in marked contrast to how 'Corporate Welfare' of a far larger dimension protects the lifestyles of the 'One percent', will make even their lives severely restricted to the few armed enclaves their most expensive security may maintain. The seeking of corporate profit at the expense of the society the organizations operate in is precisely opposite the wisdom of Henry Ford who created the whole market for consumer goods with the idea that the producing worker deserved enough of the return on investment to continue the growth of industrial/technological society. The GOP wants to ensure the zero production wealth acquisition of speculators is untouched even if the cost is the whole of a civil society and a government of a people with any sense of national unity or belief it could happen. These speculators destroy the whole business environment with irrational demands all enterprises show quarterly and yearly profits that make investment risk for the short term reselling profitable even with seasonal and larger term cyclic behavior. The corporate distortion of financial and legislative functions harms small business as much as it benefits the large investor. And small business is the larger employment engine. Big Oil has unprecedented profits and the large banks sit on huge capital reserves, not letting the short term loan environment small business requires to return to any functionality. China's long term investment in energy and infrastructure is in complete contrast to the short term revenue driven American investments currently. Every one wants to get rich quick. Too few want to invest in a better country and future. The nature of the economics of largely unregulated capital exploitation of the markets makes any other philosophy fall behind rapidly. Current Capitalism is superior in exactly the same way lung or pancreatic cancer is a superior organ of the body. The tumor has unsurpassed growth and competitive advantage but the body always dies from the destruction of necessary dynamics and balances. Nature and life are gestalts, not games a few win. Systems are maintained or there is increasing dysfunction and finally death at many levels. Focus on a narrow range of economics can't govern nor maintain a whole species whose biology and social necessities took millennia to develop. There is eventually no profit without food security, there is no mechanism presently feeding that back into speculative capitalism or the politicians sucking at it's teat. Just one of the many shortcomings and lapses in judgment of current investment markets. The contrast couldn't be starker in the news today between the Obama collaborative program internationally to increase effective investment in the small business of food production, efficiency and security in Sub Saharan Africa and the Birther threat to remove a President from a state ballot. One seeks political advantage, the other works to keep Earth a place humans can live on successfully. (Through BUSINESS, incidentally). Obama hasn't opposed profit, just that that damages America more than even it's ideological and religious enemies. Mistaking Wall Street and it's piratical capitalism for the whole of America is as unpatriotic of a political myth as any. Spaceship Earth is not just an ecological concept, it is also an essential recognition that economics is all of us. The life during times of severely repressed and deprived economic underclasses were only golden in retrospect when the details of how everyone's life was stressed is forgotten and only the propaganda and rosy histories remain.

Hillwilliam -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 7:11:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Wrong... as usual. [8\|] Instead of just gainsaying and saying "Wrong" like a 2-year-old, explain how. I was only interpreting your graph that you posted. I'm not claiming the Bush tax cuts caused the recession but they directly proceeded it. There is correlation if not causality. I know I used some polysyllabic words there but I'm certain that you can handle it.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 7:27:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven MSLA, your link took me to the main page, not to that specific graph. Could you give me the options selected to produce that graph? Sorry... the damn thing is INTERACTIVE, so I thought it easier to create it, then save it. Try this: 1) Click Here: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&910=X&911=0&903=1&904=2000&905=2012&906=Q 2) Click the "Chart" icon 3) Click "Gross Domestic Product" on the left side 4) Click the "Bar Chart" icon to the left of the graph Hopefully that should work?!! quote: The small numbers as percents and the fact that there are negative numbers indicate to me that it could be changes in GDP rate That's correct... percentage changes from quarter to quarter are better indicators of growth (or decline). Raw numbers don't tell the full story, as a good that sold for a $1.00 in 2000, but now sells for $5.00 in 2010, for example, wouldn't only show sales -- where percentage changes show a more accurate picture. As far as the tax cuts and change of President, no biggie. quote: Nobody said that the tax cuts would not affect demand. Actually, tax cuts have nothing to do with "demand", they simply encourage greater investment from business/investors, as it could yeild a greater return -- i.e., more money. quote: The contention was that they are an ineffective stimulus, relatively speaking, that giving money/tax breaks to the middle class/poor will affect more than giving it elsewhere. Yes, I understand the above premise, but feel it's wrong. Again, note the aforementioned Consumer Confidence Index. Confidence is LOW, therefore, consumers will NOT do as Nicky-Boi has suggested (and spend) -- they will instead pocket/store the money. More Info: http://www.4-traders.com/news/UPDATE-Americans-Earn-More-But-Boost-Savings-Not-Spending--13992575/ Again, what Nicky NumbNuts is proposing is NOT new... and is NOT something that's never been tried -- once more, this is EXACTLY what the Bush Administration promoted after 9-11. But once again, we were in a DIFFERENT economy then that we are in now. quote: The markets hate uncertainty. Personally, I think said "uncertainty" is one of the reasons why things have slowed (from a jobs perspective). Given the pending Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, as well as the pending Presidential election, I think many businesses/investors are kinda in limbo, so to speak, waiting to see what happens. I believe the Supreme Court will be ruling on Obamacare in June... if my theory (as it's just my personal theory) is correct, and assuming Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, I believe we'll see a notable jump in both the markets, as well as employment hirings. But again, this is just my personal theory. [:)]

tweakabelle -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 7:36:13 PM)
Mr. Hanauer is a venture capitalist. His money underwrites new businesses that don't have the necessary start up capital, thus creating jobs. Is it necessary to point out that if the rich were the sole "job creators", people like Mr Hanauer wouldn't exist - there would be no need for them as the already rich don't need start-up funding.

BamaD -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 7:39:15 PM)
Clinton, far from proposing a plan to reduce the deficeit, fought it proclaiming any attempt to balance the budget would lead to disaster. The economy fell apart during the last two years when the Dems controled both houses of Congress. I know the leftest will attempt to deny both of these facts but that does not change them.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 7:45:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Calm down. I am "calm"... I'm always "calm" -- you're looking at text on a screen. Try not to read so much into it. [:D] quote: 1. Your contention is that the driver to start a business and make it successful is purely monetary. I dispute that - a lot of it is that entrepreneurs don't like to have to report to others and have a drive to succeed and control. True... but remember, what I stated was that nobody goes into business to "create jobs", but to MAKE MONEY -- and that's true. Simply not reporting to someone else, but being BROKE as well, wouldn't work for anyone, yanno?!! quote: ...if your entire argument is that entrepreneurs should be financially rewarded for making money by creating jobs, then why reward the slugs that earn big bucks and did NOT create jobs? I've never stated the above. quote: Make a new tax rate that is tied to job creation That's actually closer to where I would align my view. quote: ...your argument is that companies are created by profit, and the more profit, the more companies (and jobs). It's not an "argument"... it's a FACT. The reason ANY business person/investor risks their time and capital is to make a RETURN on their investment. quote: I hold that companies are created by consumer demand. You and I have had this debate before. Of course the "demand" for a good/service must exist -- but no business person/investor is going to risk their time/capital if they can't make a RETURN on their investment. But here's the problem with your focus on the consumer... while a consumer may be WILLING to buy (whatever product/service they "demand"), if there is no available product/service to buy (which meets said "demand"), then they're shit-out-of-luck. Business/Investors MAKE THE PRODUCT/SERVICE CONSUMERS ARE WILLING TO BUY AVAILABLE -- but they WON'T if they can't make a reasonable RETURN on their investment. Again, no business/investor is going to risk their time/capital if they can't make MONEY in doing so.

erieangel -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 7:47:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Clinton, far from proposing a plan to reduce the deficeit, fought it proclaiming any attempt to balance the budget would lead to disaster. The economy fell apart during the last two years when the Dems controled both houses of Congress. I know the leftest will attempt to deny both of these facts but that does not change them. Right, Clinton didn't propose a plan to reduce the deficit, he just went ahead reduced the deficit and left office with a surplus which Bush turned around and spent on tax cuts and wars.

Musicmystery -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 7:51:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery ...graph shows GDP continually improving, into full recovery Ummm... "full recovery"?!! That's about as close to delusionary as it gets -- but if that's the fairy-tale you want to believe, then go right ahead. Again, even Prez O'Failure has stated the opposite!!! [8\|] Crossing the line into positive territory is, indeed, full recovery---positive economic growth, not just a reversal of trend. In fact, growth even outpaced the previous point from where the decline slid into negative growth. But again, we're looking here at GDP rates, not jobs. That's what Obama means when he says we're not at full recovery. We have economic growth, but unemployment, though dropping, is still high, and coming down only slowly. And again, that's Nick's point---trying to drive an economy with tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs. Steven has it right. It's an eco-system, and we're feeding only one part of the system, expecting strong growth. It's not going to happen that way. It never has.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 7:52:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Instead of asking (as Steven did), you assume -- so I don't bother wasting my time.. that's why you got the response you did. I've provided detailed responses to Steven... feel free to view them, as they likely hold the info you appear to now be interested in.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 7:57:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery ...graph shows GDP continually improving, into full recovery Ummm... "full recovery"?!! That's about as close to delusionary as it gets -- but if that's the fairy-tale you want to believe, then go right ahead. Again, even Prez O'Failure has stated the opposite!!! [8\|] Crossing the line into positive territory is, indeed, full recovery. Uhh... no. That's called PARTIAL recovery -- "full recovery" would be when (i) unemployment is back down to 4% - 5%, and (ii) we're not sitting on a $16 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.

Musicmystery -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 7:58:34 PM)
quote: this is EXACTLY what the Bush Administration promoted after 9-11. Really. 'Cuz it sure looks like he slashed taxes without funding the cut instead. quote: But once again, we were in a DIFFERENT economy then that we are in now. We sure were. Now we're in a structural mess. Unfunded tax cuts have bled revenue, buying our way out of recessions with monetary policy has left us with near zero interest rates and nowhere to turn when still abdicating fiscal responsibility, and add to that two wars funded only with borrowing and then a financial bailout. Not a plan that's working. Not a plan that was working either. Or we'd be drowning in jobs from all this investment. Hint: we aren't.

Musicmystery -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 8:00:17 PM)
quote: Uhh... no. That's called PARTIAL recovery -- "full recovery" would be when (i) unemployment is back down Which I just pointed out. Your graph shows GDP rates. If you want to talk about unemployment rates, post an unemployment rate graph. In economics, a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. A recovery is two quarters of positive growth. A full recovery is passing the point at which the recession started. Unemployment is a lagging indicator--it recovers after the recovery, when people start hiring again. In this case, however, the credit crunch and pursuant financial uncertainty has dampened investment.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 8:00:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Right, Clinton didn't propose a plan to reduce the deficit, he just went ahead reduced the deficit and left office with a surplus which Bush turned around and spent on tax cuts and wars. Riiiiiiiiiiiight... 'cause we should just let anyone kill 3,000 Americans and offer no response -- while also letting the economy drift into the abyss after the 9-11, Worldcomm, Enron, Global Crossing disasters. Great plan!!! NOT!!! [8\|]

Musicmystery -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 8:06:08 PM)
We might have chosen to pay for it, instead of cutting taxes further.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 8:06:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Uhh... no. That's called PARTIAL recovery -- "full recovery" would be when (i) unemployment is back down to 4% - 5%, and (ii) we're not sitting on a $16 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. Which I just pointed out. Your graph shows GDP rates. If you want to talk about unemployment rates, post an unemployment rate graph. 1) Did you think clipping what I'd stated would hide it? Uhh... no. Look North for what I'd actually stated. 2) The graph shows GDP growth percentages by quarter. 3) Ummm... I have posted an "Unemployment Rates" graph -- see the previous page.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 8:07:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery We might have chosen to pay for it, instead of cutting taxes further. Sorry... "pay for" what?!!

Musicmystery -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 8:08:06 PM)
I'm sorry the standard definitions of economic terms bother you. Nonetheless, there they stand. At this point, I don't think there's any confusion here--just a lot of attitude. So nothing to clear up.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 8:10:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Ummm... I asked you a SIMPLE question... to clarify the "it" in your "pay for it" comment -- was that really THAT difficult for you to answer?!! [8\|]

Yachtie -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 9:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven 2. Again, your argument is that companies are created by profit, and the more profit, the more companies (and jobs). Again, I hold that companies are created by consumer demand. Nope. Demand did not invent i.e. the automobile. An idea followed by capital formation eventuating into production, all being entrepreneurial, and the associated risk involved, yielded a product that people wanted. This goes for any innovative product /service upon which copycats piggyback. Demand did not create FaceBook. FaceBook, by its creation and subsequent availability to the public, created its own demand. What has to be taken into account is risk. Risk involves two things at the base level, profit or loss. Companies are created to chase profit based on some idea where the risk of capital is deemed acceptable. That's the name of the game in the capitalist system. DS, you have it all ass backwards.

Musicmystery -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/19/2012 9:14:43 PM)
Many a bankrupt business has pegged its hopes on Says Law. But if supply created demand, there'd never be overstock. "If you build it, they will come" doesn't work if they aren't willing and able to purchase at the offered price. That's what DS (and Nick) is saying. Analysis from one side only--which is NOT what DS (or Nick) is doing, but rather, pointing out the missing piece--is an impediment to real growth, not a seed. Even your example, Facebook, didn't create demand if not fulfilling a need, albeit an unidentified one at the time perhaps. But FB users aren't the customers--advertisers are, and those advertisers certainly had demand for better/wider/innovative reach to their potential consumers.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875