Sorry, Folks, Rich People Actually Don't 'Create The Jobs'

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by philnotfil, Nov 30, 2013.

  1. OklahomaGator
    Offline

    OklahomaGator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    1,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +1,919
    Can you name a program for the lower class that has done anything other that get more people on government support?
  2. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    13,626
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,715
    is that $8M invested?

    Does that investment have to generate growth?

    Does growth generate demand?

    When I add it all up, the gubmnt takes about 0.40 of every $1 I earn, more if you count what the employer could pay me if he wasn't paying so much to gubmnt. if you want to stimulate growth and demand, lower the tax burden
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2013
  3. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +785
    I think minimum wage should be increased $0.25 per year (3.4%) to keep up with inflation (and make up for a few years without increases). I also think that taxes should slowly be increased as gov't spending is reduced. But first, you have to get Congress to understand the concept of reduced gov't spending (hint, it does not mean asking for a 5% increase in spending, and getting a 3% increase, and calling the difference "reduced spending").

    Obamacare is putting a limit on hiring at many companies. If you have 49 full-time employees, there is a huge penalty for hiring one more. And if you hire lots of part-time employees, you will be more likely to be robbed by them, and have reduced productivity and quality.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. urg8rbait
    Offline

    urg8rbait Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +2
    Not quite. You're hungry and you need money to buy food, therefore you gotta work to make money to pay for your living expenses. But in order to work, you have to produce something (for this example it would be labor) to get paid so that you could pay for your demand of food. Without production you will have no money. And without money you will have no food.
  5. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +785
    This is the kind of socialist claptrap that leads to government throwing money out of an armored car driving down the street (or giving it away via social welfare programs) to "stimulate" demand. GWB thought he could hand out money (usually with tax rebates) and stimulate the economy, and it didn't work. Obama thought he could stimulate the economy via handouts, and it didn't work. Will fiscal liberals ever learn?

    Government spending on welfare should be limited to helping those that are physically unable to help themselves, plus minimal assistance for those with children who need additional help.

    The other bad thing about handouts is that they are a major boon for drug dealers, as there is nothing the gov't can do to stop addicts from converting their handout into cash and spending it on drugs (or alcohol, or gambling with it).

    It's not a matter of supply side or demand side working. Neither work. Supply and demand are both important, but more important is to keep the government's hands away from the economy as much as possible. Provide and enforce regulations where needed, encourage R&D spending where necessary, spend on critical infrastructure projects that improve the economy, and support education as required. Then keep your hands off. Let the economy do its own thing. Meddling will only make businesses nervous and risk-averse.

    The correct (or most productive) style of gov't is called "lassez faire". Did the gov't have to hand out money in the 1990's to computer purchasers to encourage them to buy? No. Did they have to tell Dell and HP how to make their computers? No. Did the gov't have to stimulate anybody/anything to make the economy work in the 1990's? No. A properly functioning economy is self-stimulated.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,560
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
    Keynesian economics is like economic cannibal-suicide -- cutting your belly open and eating your own intestines to avoid starving to death. The government "stimulating" (which is to say "faking") market demand by doling out money that has already been siphoned out of the economy (which is to say, the hands of the private parties to whom it belonged to, to spend, save, or invest as fit their interests) is just smoke and mirrors.
  7. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,569
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,032
    its partisan to him, because anything that goes against trickle down ideology, is "partisan"

    ideology > facts
  8. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,569
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,032
    the truth is, we are all in this together (economy), but we have incrementally allowed our Government to be bought and sold to just one of the groups in the "ecosystem", and much of it under the guise of "free speech"

    there has been a million graphs posted on TH showing high end tax cuts do not stimulate GDP, and is one of the weakest "bang for your buck" stimulus's

    jobs are an effect of a good business, a cost of doing business, not the intention of business...business does not just hire to hire if their expenses are lowered via tax cuts, there has to be demand to do it

    there will be a tipping point though, as the outcome of these policies is leading to record income inequality

    the original Tea Party knew this, and like Occupy, were pointing the finger towards them...

    at some point, conservatives will wake up from their dream that Big Money is on their side
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2013
  9. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,569
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,032
    Gov stimulating the mar
    if the private sector wouldn't boom and bust so often, stimulus wouldn't be necessary

    and while i know you think Government should just let the economy crumble, and let the market correct itself...it's citizens have an expectation of not losing millions of jobs (and everything that goes with it) every time it happens
  10. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,122
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +538
    You clearly don't understand Keynesian economics.
  11. candymanfromgc
    Offline

    candymanfromgc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,288
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +267
    Your right, I asked the guy at the interstate exit for a job as he was holding his please help sign. He looked at me and said you must be a liberal.
  12. urg8rbait
    Offline

    urg8rbait Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +2
    No actually he does. The entire premise of Keynesianism is demand-side economics. Government spends/borrows/whatever to artificially boost demand. But the reality of the matter is that demand is low for a reason... but the government ignores that reason and tries to mask the problem while creating unintended consequences in parallel.
  13. urg8rbait
    Offline

    urg8rbait Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +2
    The private sector booms and busts for many reasons. I bet if you were alive like 100 years ago you would have been completely against having the horse/carriage business busting in lieu of the automobile. Or what about the cotton gin? Farm equipment? Those damn things busted so many labor industries. lol Please dude, you must have mistaken the politics board with the "post something really funny" board.
  14. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +785
    It can be argued whether FDR hurt or helped the recovery in the 1930's with his public works programs, but what cannot be argued is that the Great Depression was far worse than what we have been experiencing since 2008. Real unemployment was at least 30%, people were near starving, and agriculture in the midwest was crippled by severe drought (i.e., the Dust Bowl). Yet FDR chose not to "stimulate" the economy by throwing money at the consumers. He offered low-paying jobs that involved intense physical labor and actually accomplished something (Hoover Dam, multiple bridges, etc.).

    These days, Americans have softened to the point that you would need to force many of the unemployed at gunpoint to take a job that involved any physical labor. They want their handout. Society owes them money for not turning to serial killings or cannibalism.

    It takes a certain hard-headedness or dimwittedness to think that the billions spent on stimulus and welfare in this country has resulted in either an improvement to the economy or an improvement in the ability of the average unemployed person to get or hold down a job (i.e., be a productive member of society).
    • Like Like x 1
  15. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,122
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +538
    This would be like telling the cancer patient 'You have cancer for a reason, so we aren't going to treat you'. There's a reason for everything. Doesn't mean you can't make a bad a situation better.
  16. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +785
    In your analogy, the government is the doctor. What we're trying to tell you is that the government is the cleaning lady, or the person in accounting (i.e., someone who is not qualified or capable of treating cancer patients). Worse, reckless gov't spending will make the long-term economy worse (lead to inflation, etc.). The U.S. government is largely staffed by idiots and thieves, with a few conscientous people mixed in.

    Did you learn nothing from the collapse of the USSR? Government-controlled and government-influenced economies are not efficient or sustainable. A government-regulated economy is fine, as long as the regulations don't lead to government control over industry.
    • Like Like x 2
  17. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,569
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,032
    please tell us why demand is truly actually low
  18. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,569
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,032
    are you comparing the latest bust to the advent of the automobile or innovative farm equipment?

    if only it were so innocent
  19. OklahomaGator
    Offline

    OklahomaGator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    1,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +1,919
    There is an old saying that if you build a better mousetrap the world will be a path to your door. Apple has this figured out and they are constantly improving, updating, adding new features to their products. Are iphone 4s worn out? Probably not but their is an iphone 5s with new bells, whistles, more memory, better camera, etc and the demand for the product is there.

    For other items, like washers, dryers, microwaves, etc., the manufacturers are building better ones and they are lasting longer than ever before so the demand is lowered. If someone invented a dryer that not only dries clothes but folds them too, then the demand would go sky high.
  20. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,569
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,032
    so you are saying low demand is solely being caused by a lack of supply-side innovation with products that have plateaued from an innovation standpoint?

    nothing to do with increased globalization, wage stagnation, rising income inequality, housing bust, millions that lost jobs, lack of credit, untrained workforce, that are all hurting consumer demand?
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2013

Share This Page