If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   U.S. Employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years, they are in no hurry to fill them. We're living in a fear-based environment right now, thanks Obama   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line 293
    More: Sad, United States, job opening, staffing firm, environmentalisms, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago  
•       •       •

3167 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Apr 2013 at 4:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



293 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-09 08:54:05 PM  
Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?
 
2013-04-09 09:02:16 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-09 09:02:26 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?


Because black and brown poor people have gay marriages and abortions.
 
2013-04-09 09:04:22 PM  

clancifer: Because black and brown poor people have gay marriages and abortions.


I hear tell that they also abscond with live lobsters on the first of the month with their food stamps. How the f*ck am I supposed to host a proper luncheon with fake lobster meet? Or, lubetser, as they term it.

These people need to be liquidated.
 
2013-04-09 09:36:54 PM  
Well, the government isn't threatening to shut down anything for a few more months, at least, and once the sequester does its damage and works its way through the system it looks like were poised for some real recovery once businesses aren't afraid of Congress's incompetence. We just need Congress not to do anything monumentally stupid for about 10 months. In other words: we're boned.
 
2013-04-09 09:48:52 PM  
Isn't it wonderful that fear will make full-time engineer-level employees accept part-time technician pay and be glad to work fifty hours a week with no benefits?
 
2013-04-09 09:58:24 PM  
We're living in a fear-based environment right now, thanks Obama Boehner, Ryan, Cantor, etc.

FTFY
 
2013-04-09 10:15:55 PM  
If anyone knows fear mongering it's today's GOP.
 
2013-04-09 10:31:14 PM  
The last two companies I've worked for have plans to grow over the next few years.  But things being what they are, both companies are going for slow, sustainable growth.  So they'll be hiring those new employees slowly and over years.

In the long run, I like to think this is good for everyone.  In the short term, you get a lot of seemingly empty promises that new jobs are coming.  From what I've seen, at least in the IT industry, they are.  Good luck everyone!
 
2013-04-09 10:31:24 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?


Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?
 
2013-04-09 10:45:18 PM  

BunkyBrewman: NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?

Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?


What were we doing in 2000?
 
2013-04-09 11:08:41 PM  

NewportBarGuy: cutting taxes AND spending did not work."


Cutting taxes and increasing spending. Goddammit.
 
2013-04-10 12:02:14 AM  

vygramul: BunkyBrewman: NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?

Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?

What were we doing in 2000?


About to make a terrible decision in Presidential politics. Why do you ask?
 
2013-04-10 12:24:51 AM  
If we're spending so much on our military, why do we have to pay our debts?
 
2013-04-10 12:37:39 AM  

Therion: Isn't it wonderful that fear will make full-time engineer-level employees accept part-time technician pay and be glad to work fifty hours a week with no benefits?


THAT'S CLASS WARFARE.
 
2013-04-10 12:38:18 AM  

jaylectricity: If we're spending so much on our military, why do we have to pay our debts?


We don't. It's mostly a courtesy.
 
2013-04-10 12:46:44 AM  
I'm a cpa and have a lot of small business clients. It's weird out there. Everyone is walking on egg shells. Te number one question is something along the lines, "What do you think is going to happen?" People seem to be holding on to any cash they have. Anecdotal but I've seen a bit of a down turn on the whole from 2011.
 
2013-04-10 12:58:22 AM  
Why would I hire more workers at a time when Taxbongo has already collected two of the relics and only needs the Ivory Jackal to achieve global domination?
 
2013-04-10 01:00:07 AM  
There's also the idea that employers have openings, but the"re getting the same productivity out of terrified employees who will do anything not to lose their jobs.  Why would you hire people when the work is already getting done?
 
2013-04-10 01:19:30 AM  
Obama should wave his magic wand and fix everything.
 
2013-04-10 01:20:43 AM  

BunkyBrewman: NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?

Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?


austerity has a brilliant track record, then?
 
2013-04-10 01:26:20 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Therion: Isn't it wonderful that fear will make full-time engineer-level employees accept part-time technician pay and be glad to work fifty hours a week with no benefits?

THAT'S CLASS WARFARE.


No it isn't. That's the wonderful capitalist system working.

Questioning why such employees are working for lower level wages and no benefits...THAT'S class warfare
 
2013-04-10 01:31:12 AM  

Mike_LowELL: Why would I hire more workers at a time when Taxbongo has already collected two of the relics and only needs the Ivory Jackal to achieve global domination?


Well it's a good thing the Society of Pissed Off Old White People is keeping the Ivory Jackal safe in the garden shed.
 
2013-04-10 02:26:06 AM  

2wolves: If anyone knows fear mongering it's today's GOP politicians.


FTFY
 
2013-04-10 02:42:22 AM  

Snotnose: 2wolves: If anyone knows fear mongering it's today's GOP politicians.

FTFY


Both sides are bad!
 
2013-04-10 03:00:10 AM  
Nothing says people have to just accept how things are, Americans have in the past moved to change things. Plenty of things that could be done now to move things along. Like get rid of all exemptions to overtime pay and mandate all hours over 40 come with overtime. Oh sure Goldman and Sachs will cry like a spoiled brat but that's hardly a downside.
 
2013-04-10 04:13:33 AM  

vygramul: What were we doing in 2000?


Um... having issues with employment rates related to another speculation crash?

//Albeit a smaller one at the time, a similar tech crash today would hurt a lot more.
 
2013-04-10 04:22:16 AM  

Snotnose: FTFY


No, this one is 100% on the GOP. Unless the Democrats recently started screeching that "GAY RIGHTS, WOMEN'S RIGHTS, WORKERS' RIGHTS AND TAXES ARE ALL COMMUNIST NAZI SOCIALISM AND THE BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE WILL TAKE YOUR GUNS AND REPLACE AMERICA WITH SHARIA LAW" and I missed it.
 
2013-04-10 04:26:10 AM  
Quite a few of my friends have been told they wont hear anything on jobs until after tax season for places they applied to, but a lot of places are taking applications and interviewing
 
2013-04-10 04:49:49 AM  

Mike_LowELL: Why would I hire more workers at a time when Taxbongo has already collected two of the relics and only needs the Ivory Jackal to achieve global domination?


This thread was over some time ago.

Why are people still typing and not running for their lives?
 
2013-04-10 04:53:17 AM  
Why hire employees when you can make your money through speculation instead.
 
2013-04-10 05:04:28 AM  
Well of course they're keeping the labor market tight. Business owners are probably scared shiatless of what employee's are likely to do to them should workers ever gain the upper hand again in this economy.

Payback is a biatch.
 
2013-04-10 05:04:40 AM  
If we shift more taxes from employers to employees, shift more taxes from the 1% to the 47%, eliminate more regulations and oversight, and throw in some more million dollar ceo bonuses, perhaps they'll consider ending our current wage deflation program and returning to the more stable wage stagnation policy we've enjoyed for nearly half a century. But we'd better not ask for clean air or affordable healthcare, because that would introduce uncertainty and require more wage deflation.
 
2013-04-10 05:11:59 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Nothing says people have to just accept how things are, Americans have in the past moved to change things. Plenty of things that could be done now to move things along. Like get rid of all exemptions to overtime pay and mandate all hours over 40 come with overtime. Oh sure Goldman and Sachs will cry like a spoiled brat but that's hardly a downside.


Class warfare!

Corporations have a right to bilk their workers out of fair pay for their labor.
 
2013-04-10 05:19:02 AM  

impaler: Snotnose: 2wolves: If anyone knows fear mongering it's today's GOP politicians.

FTFY

Both sides are badbought!

 
2013-04-10 05:24:02 AM  
simply...management is cowardly.
 
2013-04-10 05:26:58 AM  

rogue49: simply...management is cowardly.


bears repeating
 
2013-04-10 05:29:08 AM  
The good news is that a sudden upswing in the economy and concurrent downswing in the unemployment rate would probably convince employers that hiring someone qualified, rather than waiting for a Nobel laureate to apply for that position, isn't such a bad thing, because soon you might have a whole bunch of competition for skilled workers.

The bad news is that austerity fever is busy kneecapping the economy such that it won't happen.
 
2013-04-10 05:41:36 AM  

NewportBarGuy: fake lobster meet?


3.bp.blogspot.comfarm3.static.flickr.comwww.ireviewcostumes.comfarm9.staticflickr.com
www.reactionface.info
 
2013-04-10 05:43:55 AM  
Just want to double-check:

We aren't informing people of these job openings by flinging applications at them while they protest outside our banks, rights?

/live and learn, I guess
 
2013-04-10 05:43:58 AM  

Albino Squid: The good news is that a sudden upswing in the economy and concurrent downswing in the unemployment rate would probably convince employers that hiring someone qualified, rather than waiting for a Nobel laureate to apply for that position, isn't such a bad thing, because soon you might have a whole bunch of competition for skilled workers.

The bad news is that austerity fever is busy kneecapping the economy such that it won't happen.


My employer has enjoyed hiring Nobel laureates for a few years now. The mid-level managers who make the hiring decisions walk around with their chests puffed out, bragging about how they hired someone with a Master's degree for a job that doesn't even require a Bachelor's degree. On the one hand, that new hire leaves quickly and my employer wastes a lot of time and money on turnover, recruitment and training, and lost productivity. But on the other hand, a few mid-level managers get to walk around with their chests puffed out. You've got to have priorities.
 
2013-04-10 05:55:24 AM  
We need to go back to the tax rates of Reagan.  It pays companies too much to just sit on cash right now.
 
2013-04-10 05:56:18 AM  

Old enough to know better: Well of course they're keeping the labor market tight. Business owners are probably scared shiatless of what employee's are likely to do to them should workers ever gain the upper hand again in this economy.

Payback is a biatch.


Everybody is waiting for the other guy to make the first move. Employees have been overworked for the better part of a decade and they're getting worn out. What's going to happen is a few companies are going to decide that it's a good time to get a permanent increase in market share at the expense of their frightened competitors. To do that, they're going to have to hire. Those who do will be able to expand while the rest will have to play catch up.

Once the hiring frenzy gets started, things are going to get really crappy for employers as employees bitter about the way they've been treated jump ship. The company they go to probably will be just as guilty as the company they left of mistreating employees but they won't know that or won't care since it didn't happen to them (no bad mental associations everyday going to the same office). This will be really bad for employers because a huge amount of institutional knowledge will be walking out the door. If a few people leave, new people can be hired and they can learn from those still around. Large numbers of people leave and that knowledge is gone forever and will have to be rediscovered at a high cost.

Productivity numbers are likely to take a nose dive and there will be nothing employers will be able to do to get it back since employees will be able to leave if the employer tries to whip them into higher productivity. It's not a situation where you want to be the employer trying to keep up with a competitor who is taking your market share and racing away. It's unlikely these trailing companies are going to understand why this happened to them. I foresee lots of middle managers who have spent the last half a decade crapping on employees getting the boot as they're not mentally able to adjust to not having the power in the employee relationship anymore. It's also going to be funny to watch HR departments get overworked trying to replace the people they spent much of their time telling "shut up and get back to work, you're lucky to have a job" when employees complained about poor management behavior.

I opted out of the labor market a little over a year ago. It's interesting to see my former employers reaching out to try to hire me even though I haven't so much as posted a resume. The dumbest is my last employer who I left because of poor treatment. After six months of searching they hired someone to replace me and three months later ran the guy off. According to my former co-workers, the guy was a good worker, he just wasn't willing to put up with the department manager treating him like dirt. They simply can't figure out why they can't keep people around, blaming the labor market instead of their own stupidity. The next five years is going to be fun to watch as companies have to tear themselves apart to remake themselves or die when their competitors grab market share that use to belong to the dysfunctional company. Maybe they'll try staffing up with "do the needful" visa holders.
 
2013-04-10 06:11:36 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?


Because your reality only exists in the fictional bounds of your own mind?
 
2013-04-10 06:21:27 AM  

vygramul: What were we doing in 2000?


Watching the tech bubble burst.

But the job losses that resulted from that along with the 9/11 attack in 2001 should be no excuse... All the job losses from 2001-2005 were Bush's fault. The DNC campaign ads in 2004 told me this so it must be true.

But nothing is ever Obama's fault, particularly not the economy since he took office so you can't blame him for the record high number of people on welfare or the 20-30+ year record for lowest labor participation rate. You certainly can't blame Obama for insisting come hell or high water on a tax increase at the start of the year, nor can you blame him for proposing another 700 billion in tax increases in his budget, nor can you blame him for the boondoggle known as ObamaCare which is making companies less willing to hire.
 
2013-04-10 06:42:10 AM  
Fear is the offspring of ignorance and cowardice.
 
2013-04-10 06:44:18 AM  
I own a small company that sells to small companies. I've been in this business for twenty years, and I've seen things slowly change over those years. You want to know what the future is as I see it? Well small business in farked. Why? Because large corporations are crushing the small businesses that they can't buy. They use the legal system, they use government, they use competitive practices, both legal and illegal, that the small guy can't compete with. Big corporations have written our laws, and at the same time have the staying power and resources to ignore the law when it suits them. For every time a big corporation gets caught, they get away with breaking the law countless times. And I'm not even talking about skirting the laws they helped write. I'm talking about the outright breaking of laws.

So I see the future, and it's one where a handful of mega corporations act as a shadow government, and no small business can exist that they don't allow to exist. The new royalty in this system will be the ultra rich. Not just the 1%, but the 1% of the 1%. And the rest of us will be the plebes, the serfs, that dutifully serve our lords and masters.
 
2013-04-10 06:45:37 AM  

randomjsa: vygramul: What were we doing in 2000?

Watching the tech bubble burst.

But the job losses that resulted from that along with the 9/11 attack in 2001 should be no excuse... All the job losses from 2001-2005 were Bush's fault. The DNC campaign ads in 2004 told me this so it must be true.

But nothing is ever Obama's fault, particularly not the economy since he took office so you can't blame him for the record high number of people on welfare or the 20-30+ year record for lowest labor participation rate. You certainly can't blame Obama for insisting come hell or high water on a tax increase at the start of the year, nor can you blame him for proposing another 700 billion in tax increases in his budget, nor can you blame him for the boondoggle known as ObamaCare which is making companies less willing to hire.


I agree - Obama is way too conservative. This country needs a real progressive, like FDR.
We need to start by raping the GOP in 2014.
 
2013-04-10 06:58:28 AM  
Also, the companies can make you work the equivalent of three positions and when you complain they can point to the open position req and tell you that it is only "temporary". As long as they can keep it going, they get the same work done for much less money.
 
2013-04-10 07:18:04 AM  

vygramul: BunkyBrewman: NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?

Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?

What were we doing in 2000?


Creating a bubble? Propping up our standard of living with debt and accounting fraud? That's what got us into this mess.
 
2013-04-10 07:21:24 AM  

randomjsa: You certainly can't blame Obama for insisting come hell or high water on a tax increase at the start of the year


Why are you opposed to paying the bills the GOP congress has racked up?
 
2013-04-10 07:22:34 AM  

Bucky Katt: BunkyBrewman: NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?

Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?

austerity has a brilliant track record, then?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321

"... President Harding's  economic policies during the 1920-21 recession, combined with a coordinated aggressive policy of rapid government downsizing, had a direct influence (mostly through intentional non-influence) on the rapid and widespread private-sector recovery."
 
2013-04-10 07:22:53 AM  
Clearly we need to get rid of unions, pensions, minimum wage laws, OSHA and DEP, *then* those skittish corporations will finally feel safe.
 
2013-04-10 07:24:08 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Clearly we need to get rid of unions, pensions, minimum wage laws, OSHA and DEP, *then* those skittish corporations will finally feel safe.


Sorry, EPA, not DEP. DEP is Pennsylvania only. But get rid of them, too, just to be safe. The gas drillers will just police themselves like those noted environmentalists that ran the coal industry 100 years ago did.
 
2013-04-10 07:30:27 AM  

GameSprocket: Also, the companies can make you work the equivalent of three positions and when you complain they can point to the open position req and tell you that it is only "temporary". As long as they can keep it going, they get the same work done for much less money.


Also, every time someone leaves, they distribute out those positions to everyone else's jobs without corresponding pay increases.  The other option is that they try to rehire someone, but expect someone fully qualified for all those jobs.  Then when they find out no such person exists, they complain that they're trying so hard to hire someone, but there are no qualified applicants.  This, even when the person who just left would be considered far less qualified for their old position than many of the new applicants.
 
2013-04-10 07:32:04 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Why are you opposed to paying the bills the GOP congress has racked up?


Because paying your credit card bill is Socialist, or something...
 
2013-04-10 07:32:36 AM  

BigBooper: Well small business in farked. Why? Because large corporations are crushing the small businesses that they can't buy. They use the legal system, they use government, they use competitive practices, both legal and illegal, that the small guy can't compete with.


It's annoying to hear corporate apologists complain about over-regulation when quite a bit of the regulation we have was designed by the big guys to make it too expensive for the smaller players in the market to be able to compete. I use to do consulting work at the headquarters of a Fortune 10 company. Every day they'd send out multiple emails to employees telling them to contact government officials to support or oppose different regulation proposals based on what would best serve the company's goals.

It was laughable when they'd use the excuse of "too much government intrusion" in emails encouraging opposition to regulation when an hour before they'd sent out an email promoting the benefits of some other bit of regulation. But with several hundred thousand employees, even if only a small percentage of them contacted legislators, it was enough to scare the law maker into voting the company's way. All of this without even bothering to donate a penny to a campaign or provide an under the table bribe.
 
2013-04-10 07:33:06 AM  

NewportBarGuy: and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies


Can you explain how a tax cut - which involves money never entering the treasury in the first place is responsible for debt (which involves money leaving the treasury)?

jso2897: I agree - Obama is way too conservative. This country needs a real progressive, like FDR


Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR.  To suggest he's a conservative means you should probably ask for your money back from whatever institution provided you with an education.
 
2013-04-10 07:38:30 AM  
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.  When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."  - Helder Camara
 
2013-04-10 07:41:11 AM  

Mike_LowELL: Why would I hire more workers at a time when Taxbongo has already collected two of the relics and only needs the Ivory Jackal to achieve global domination?


If you were a chocolate bunny I would eat your ears
 
2013-04-10 07:42:06 AM  
Here's an idea, why don't perspective hires offer money to the business he/she want to work for? Lets say I offer this business $30,000 for the first year to get hired. I would be willing to take that route. Also why wouldn't a business turn down free money?
 
2013-04-10 07:42:23 AM  

o5iiawah: NewportBarGuy: and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies

Can you explain how a tax cut - which involves money never entering the treasury in the first place is responsible for debt (which involves money leaving the treasury)?

jso2897: I agree - Obama is way too conservative. This country needs a real progressive, like FDR

Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR.  To suggest he's a conservative means you should probably ask for your money back from whatever institution provided you with an education.


On the other hand suggesting he is a socialist means you should do the same.
 
2013-04-10 07:43:17 AM  

DrPainMD: Bucky Katt: BunkyBrewman: NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?

Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?

austerity has a brilliant track record, then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321

"... President Harding's  economic policies during the 1920-21 recession, combined with a coordinated aggressive policy of rapid government downsizing, had a direct influence (mostly through intentional non-influence) on the rapid and widespread private-sector recovery."


If this means that President Harding actually did something correctly while in office, it is the first time I've ever heard of such a thing.

It should also be pointed out that, as shown in the article, the correction of the economy was not achieved by austerity alone. From the wiki page:

President Warren Harding convened a President's Conference on Unemployment at the instigation of then Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover as a result of rising unemployment during the recession. About 300 eminent members of industry, banking and labor were called together in September 1921 to discuss the problem of unemployment. Hoover organized the economic conference and a committee on unemployment. The committee established a branch in every state having substantial unemployment, along with sub-branches in local communities and mayors' emergency committees in 31 cities. The committee contributed relief to the unemployed, and also organized collaboration between the local and federal governments. President Warren G. Harding signed the Emergency Tariff of 1921 and the Fordney-McCumber Tariff.
 
2013-04-10 07:48:40 AM  
no hurry? they need more time to figure out how they can pay as little as possible, offer no benefits whatsoever, and all this while increasing their bottom line. because no matter how fat the profit is, it is never enough. never ever.
 
2013-04-10 07:49:52 AM  
Which means the economy is well primed to respond to a payroll tax cut.
 
2013-04-10 07:57:17 AM  
media.boingboing.net
 
2013-04-10 07:57:28 AM  

o5iiawah: Can you explain how a tax cut - which involves money never entering the treasury in the first place is responsible for debt (which involves money leaving the treasury)?


Seriously?

If you are spending too much money and your income is cut, your debt goes up.  It's basic math.

Or, in the case of the past decade, we slashed our country's income to some of the lowest levels (percentage-wise) in decades, and then fought two wars and introduced a massive piece of legislation (Medicare D) on the country's credit card without bothering to raise taxes back up to pay for those things.

Clearly it's all 0blahma's fault.
 
jgi
2013-04-10 08:03:33 AM  

Old enough to know better: Well of course they're keeping the labor market tight. Business owners are probably scared shiatless of what employee's are likely to do to them should workers ever gain the upper hand again in this economy.

Payback is a biatch.


Employees can already have the upper hand if they want it. Save your money, stop spending so much. Once you have at least 6 months living expenses in the bank, I promise that something will change in you and your employer will recognize it.
 
2013-04-10 08:04:01 AM  

Therion: Isn't it wonderful that fear will make full-time engineer-level employees accept part-time technician pay and be glad to work fifty hours a week with no benefits?


1/10
 
2013-04-10 08:04:40 AM  

o5iiawah: Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR


FDR was fairly fiscally conservative (no, really, he never intended most of his policies to be anything except a short-term measure, and his actions in 1936 underscore this). Obama is far more conservative than him. Obamacare? Forces people to buy from private corporations. Now that's something I would have expected out of a Republican.
 
2013-04-10 08:06:48 AM  

Dog Welder: o5iiawah: Can you explain how a tax cut - which involves money never entering the treasury in the first place is responsible for debt (which involves money leaving the treasury)?

Seriously?

If you are spending too much money and your income is cut, your debt goes up.  It's basic math.

Or, in the case of the past decade, we slashed our country's income to some of the lowest levels (percentage-wise) in decades, and then fought two wars and introduced a massive piece of legislation (Medicare D) on the country's credit card without bothering to raise taxes back up to pay for those things.

Clearly it's all 0blahma's fault.


I know, it's weird. Almost like they're pathologically prohibited from acknowledging that the previous administration turned the economy into a steaming pile of dogshiat, and then proceeded to scream and stamp their feet at any attempt by the current administration to clean up that mess....
 
2013-04-10 08:08:18 AM  
Clearly, there aren't enough tech workers in America.

There are job openings, there's high unemployment, but we need more h1b visas ?????
 
2013-04-10 08:08:22 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Clearly we need to get rid of unions, pensions, minimum wage laws, OSHA and DEP, *then* those skittish corporations will finally feel safe.


Of all the things that I think the big corporations need to see would be a solid strike that disrupts the country to its very core.
 
2013-04-10 08:08:53 AM  

EngineerAU: Old enough to know better: Well of course they're keeping the labor market tight. Business owners are probably scared shiatless of what employee's are likely to do to them should workers ever gain the upper hand again in this economy.

Payback is a biatch.

Everybody is waiting for the other guy to make the first move. Employees have been overworked for the better part of a decade and they're getting worn out. What's going to happen is a few companies are going to decide that it's a good time to get a permanent increase in market share at the expense of their frightened competitors. To do that, they're going to have to hire. Those who do will be able to expand while the rest will have to play catch up.

Once the hiring frenzy gets started, things are going to get really crappy for employers as employees bitter about the way they've been treated jump ship. The company they go to probably will be just as guilty as the company they left of mistreating employees but they won't know that or won't care since it didn't happen to them (no bad mental associations everyday going to the same office). This will be really bad for employers because a huge amount of institutional knowledge will be walking out the door. If a few people leave, new people can be hired and they can learn from those still around. Large numbers of people leave and that knowledge is gone forever and will have to be rediscovered at a high cost.

Productivity numbers are likely to take a nose dive and there will be nothing employers will be able to do to get it back since employees will be able to leave if the employer tries to whip them into higher productivity. It's not a situation where you want to be the employer trying to keep up with a competitor who is taking your market share and racing away. It's unlikely these trailing companies are going to understand why this happened to them. I foresee lots of middle managers who have spent the last half a decade crapping on employees getting the boot as they' ...


Best bedtime story evar. It makes me smile to think of my former douchebag employer weathering that shiatstorm.
 
2013-04-10 08:10:38 AM  

tbhouston: 1/10


Huh?
 
2013-04-10 08:20:56 AM  

jso2897: We need to start by raping the GOP in 2014.


But they like rape.
 
2013-04-10 08:23:59 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: o5iiawah: Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR

FDR was fairly fiscally conservative (no, really, he never intended most of his policies to be anything except a short-term measure, and his actions in 1936 underscore this). Obama is far more conservative than him. Obamacare? Forces people to buy from private corporations. Now that's something I would have expected out of a Republican.


Obama is a corporatist, just like Clinton.  We haven't had a "liberal" President since Carter and he only got in on the anti-Nixon backlash.  They're all pro-big corporation first, anything else a distant second.
 
2013-04-10 08:24:31 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Obama is far more conservative than him. Obamacare? Forces people to buy from private corporations. Now that's something I would have expected out of a Republican.


Well yeah, they all loved it until a black guy pitched it. They can't call him their preferred slur anymore, so they went with socialist. Never mind that it doesn't make any sense.
 
2013-04-10 08:25:21 AM  

o5iiawah: Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR. To suggest he's a conservative means you should probably ask for your money back from whatever institution provided you with an education.


images.encyclopediadramatica.se
 
2013-04-10 08:29:31 AM  

Mike_LowELL: Why would I hire more workers at a time when Taxbongo has already collected two of the relics and only needs the Ivory Jackal to achieve global domination?


I KNEW Obama was the Jacquio in disguise!

/obscure?
 
2013-04-10 08:30:01 AM  
I can't wait for Obama to leave and take his neo-progressive policies with him. Then maybe we can stop the union bustings that are needed in response to said policies and get back to actually producing things in the country like we used to do instead of having to ship out our jobs to overseas
 
2013-04-10 08:32:31 AM  

X-boxershorts: Dog Welder: o5iiawah: Can you explain how a tax cut - which involves money never entering the treasury in the first place is responsible for debt (which involves money leaving the treasury)?

Seriously?

If you are spending too much money and your income is cut, your debt goes up.  It's basic math.

Or, in the case of the past decade, we slashed our country's income to some of the lowest levels (percentage-wise) in decades, and then fought two wars and introduced a massive piece of legislation (Medicare D) on the country's credit card without bothering to raise taxes back up to pay for those things.

Clearly it's all 0blahma's fault.

I know, it's weird. Almost like they're pathologically prohibited from acknowledging that the previous administration turned the economy into a steaming pile of dogshiat, and then proceeded to scream and stamp their feet at any attempt by the current administration to clean up that mess....


Even weirder...Republicans in Congress have no desire to clean up the mess so they can blame everything on 0blahma and continue to allow their corporate masters to loot the country.  That people fail to see this boggles my mind.  But, gotta stop them socialist libby libs from wrecking the country's economy with socialisms and killing the last few rainbow-farting unicorns that were plentiful everywhere during the Bush administration.
 
2013-04-10 08:36:10 AM  
I wonder how many jobs are unfilled because the terms offered are downright insulting.
 
2013-04-10 08:39:32 AM  

Dog Welder: But, gotta stop them socialist libby libs


It's almost like they're socially stuck in the 50's

Of course, back in the 50's we used to raise taxes when the nation went to war...
 
2013-04-10 08:40:29 AM  

Funk Brothers: Here's an idea, why don't perspective hires offer money to the business he/she want to work for? Lets say I offer this business $30,000 for the first year to get hired. I would be willing to take that route. Also why wouldn't a business turn down free money?


You sound like a Congressional Republican with that bright idea.
 
2013-04-10 08:49:53 AM  
More stimulus please.
 
2013-04-10 08:56:31 AM  
subby, there is an 'obvious' tag you can use, forchrissake.
 
2013-04-10 08:58:23 AM  

o5iiawah: Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR.  To suggest he's a conservative means you should probably ask for your money back from whatever institution provided you with an education.


i.imgur.com
How, in the name of Cthulu, are Obama's policies similar in ANY way, shape, or form to FDR's New Deal?

Please explain this one to me. Because of Obama tried to do what FDR tried to do before World War II, he would have been thrown out onto the white house lawn with torches and pitchforks.
 
2013-04-10 09:04:09 AM  
U.S. employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years. That's in part because they seem in no hurry to fill them.

Isn't "not being in a hurry to fill them"  just another way of saying they're not hiring.
 
2013-04-10 09:08:37 AM  

FC Exile: U.S. employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years. That's in part because they seem in no hurry to fill them.

Isn't "not being in a hurry to fill them"  just another way of saying they're not hiring.


It means they want the perfect candidate.
 
2013-04-10 09:14:39 AM  

Tomahawk513: FC Exile: U.S. employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years. That's in part because they seem in no hurry to fill them.

Isn't "not being in a hurry to fill them"  just another way of saying they're not hiring.

It means they want the perfect candidate.


It means they don't want to pay what the job is worth.
 
2013-04-10 09:17:00 AM  

FC Exile: U.S. employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years. That's in part because they seem in no hurry to fill them.

Isn't "not being in a hurry to fill them"  just another way of saying they're not hiring.


It depends on the industry too. Fark skews too heavily towards IT and pretend small business owners. In defense, this time of year they start bidding on next fiscal year's contract, and at the same time they start headhunting and resume-gathering. The actual hiring doesn't begin until around the summer. What's f*cking everything up is the sequester though, because companies are waiting for something to happen. Naturally they are sitting on unfilled billets or pussy-footing around with determining what they'll need next year. It's a giant pain in the ass, and I'll probably be working at the local casino come fall because of it.
 
2013-04-10 09:21:00 AM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Tomahawk513: FC Exile: U.S. employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years. That's in part because they seem in no hurry to fill them.

Isn't "not being in a hurry to fill them"  just another way of saying they're not hiring.

It means they want the perfect candidate.

It means they don't want to pay what the job is worth.


Also very true.  No, I will not fix your computers for $11 / hour.
 
2013-04-10 09:25:29 AM  

Therion: Isn't it wonderful that fear will make full-time engineer-level employees accept part-time technician pay and be glad to work fifty hours a week with no benefits?


Seriously. This kind of thing has been coming for YEARS and everyone was all, "no, it's not, what are you talking about, that's not what corporate overlords want at all." OF COURSE IT IS.
 
2013-04-10 09:25:57 AM  

teeny: Best bedtime story evar. It makes me smile to think of my former douchebag employer weathering that shiatstorm.


It went down in similar fashion after the dot com bubble burst. The most ruthless managers got put in charge while things sucked because they were able to squeeze as much as possible out of existing employees and would cause others to quit thus saving the employer increased unemployment insurance premiums. But when things got better, those same managers had no clue how to adjust. Most of the ones I knew from that era ended up getting kicked out or demoted. And once that happened, they were untouchable for other manager jobs in the industry so a new crop of freshly minted arseholes were required to whip people through the current economic crisis. No doubt they'll screw up the adjustment back to being human as happened with the previous group. I for one look forward to hearing about these guys only being able to find work as managers of the grounds crew at a low end public golf course.
 
2013-04-10 09:36:22 AM  

verbaltoxin: Mike_LowELL: Why would I hire more workers at a time when Taxbongo has already collected two of the relics and only needs the Ivory Jackal to achieve global domination?

I KNEW Obama was the Jacquio in disguise!

/obscure?


Ninja Gaiden is never obscure!
/fark you level 6
//fark you and your bats!
 
2013-04-10 09:38:29 AM  
I was told all we needed was for job creators to create jobs. Their overwhelming altruism will right this economy, tout de suite .
 
2013-04-10 09:50:49 AM  

Dog Welder: o5iiawah: Can you explain how a tax cut - which involves money never entering the treasury in the first place is responsible for debt (which involves money leaving the treasury)?

Seriously?

If you are spending too much money and your income is cut, your debt goes up.  It's basic math.

Or, in the case of the past decade, we slashed our country's income to some of the lowest levels (percentage-wise) in decades, and then fought two wars and introduced a massive piece of legislation (Medicare D) on the country's credit card without bothering to raise taxes back up to pay for those things.

Clearly it's all 0blahma's fault.


You're talking to a guy who believes the FDIC is responsible for the financial collapse. Just nod and pat him on the head.
 
2013-04-10 10:02:46 AM  

Bucky Katt: BunkyBrewman: NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?

Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?

austerity has a brilliant track record, then?



Austerity has a perfect record.

It's never worked.
 
2013-04-10 10:10:01 AM  

verbaltoxin: FC Exile: U.S. employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years. That's in part because they seem in no hurry to fill them.

Isn't "not being in a hurry to fill them"  just another way of saying they're not hiring.

It depends on the industry too. Fark skews too heavily towards IT and pretend small business owners. In defense, this time of year they start bidding on next fiscal year's contract, and at the same time they start headhunting and resume-gathering. The actual hiring doesn't begin until around the summer. What's f*cking everything up is the sequester though, because companies are waiting for something to happen. Naturally they are sitting on unfilled billets or pussy-footing around with determining what they'll need next year. It's a giant pain in the ass, and I'll probably be working at the local casino come fall because of it.


So glad I didn't take that job in DC two years ago. Big ugly corrupt town full of military/governmenty politics, so unlike most of the west coast start up and tech company world.
 
MFK
2013-04-10 10:21:34 AM  
teeny:
Best bedtime story evar. It makes me smile to think of my former douchebag employer weathering that shiatstorm.

CSB: Mine couldn't weather it. During the recession, I was made to eat such an enormous pile of shiat. I was managing a department of four people that was responsible for bringing in as much revenue as the national and retail sales teams combined. Since my department wasn't flashy or sexy, we were at the bottom of corporate's radar so when layoffs came in '09, my dept got hit especially hard since one person represented a quarter of the team. Well, we lost 2 and I had to pick up the slack for 2 missing members. Then one more got laid off in the next round and then it was me and one sales rep responsible for pulling in as much revenue as two dozen people from other departments. When that person got fed up with it and quit, the bosses pulled me aside and said "We're not hiring a replacement. We've decided that you are going to do all the work yourself and no, we're not adjusting your revenue goals to reflect the loss of four other people. We're going to require that you do your job, their jobs and do it for $20,000 less than when you started. And if you don't like it, there's the door."

Of course i looked for other work but in 2010, there were so many unemployed people that employers were having a field day - requiring senior level experience but offering entry level wages which were still worse than what i was making with the pay cut. So for three years I ate that shiat sandwich every day, the stress landed me in the hospital twice - once with shingles which cost me the use of my eye permanantly. Finally, when things started to pick up, I asked for a raise. Not a lot, just to bring myself back to what I was making in 2008 considering i was doing the work of 5 people and actually pulling it off. Their response was this: "we hired this girl. She's agreed to work for $25K/yr (the amount of raise I asked for), she's not going to work for you, she's going to... fill in for you if you need a day off or want to take a vacation so if you could just teach her everything you know, that'd be great".

Obviously, I was being asked to train my replacement. So I started looking for work more aggressively while taking my time teaching this girl how to replace me. So I found a new job for slightly less money, but soooo much better for me and decided to use some of my "use it or lose it" vacation time and fark off for a week or so before giving my notice. So i go in on a monday to do one more round of production and give my notice at the end of the day to discover that the girl I had spent three months passing all of my 10 years of institutional knowledge to had just quit that friday since the workload was stupid crazy.

With a huge smile on my face, I go into the VP's office to give my 2 weeks' notice and they begged me to stay on a few more months to train another person. I gave them 2 weeks. They hired someone with zero sales experience 3 days before I left and I just kind of showed her where stuff was and said that she'd have to figure it out since I didn't really care.

With my departure, the company realized that they had lost every person with any institutional knowledge on how to run that department and incoming revenues plummeted. By being stingy on $20K they had essentially taken a million dollars in annual revenues that I was bringing in by myself and flushed it down the toilet.

Three months later, The Boston Phoenix went out of business for good.
 
2013-04-10 10:30:47 AM  

EngineerAU: I for one look forward to hearing about these guys only being able to find work as managers of the grounds crew at a low end public golf course.


This is already happening.
My old bossy boss, from whose glorious reign at a national publican I departed, has since been sent packing back across the Ohio River into a menial downmarket role after having been "laid off" as a managing editor. She's a copy editor now in podunk, NTTAWWT.

As Sun Tzu wrote: Wait long enough beside the river and you'll see the corpse of your enemy float past.
 
2013-04-10 10:33:48 AM  
I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.
 
2013-04-10 10:39:55 AM  

MFK: Three months later, The Boston Phoenix went out of business for good.


That whole story is so horrible, I feel for you man and hope some day there is payback for those bastards.
 
2013-04-10 10:45:45 AM  

Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.


Pretend small business owner detected.
 
2013-04-10 10:46:37 AM  

Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.


Well, Gee...It's too bad that small business' target demographic for sales is both, broke and overworked.
No money and no time.

/So..vote republican?
 
2013-04-10 10:55:56 AM  
Or you could get your Class A license and become a truck driver!
That way, you could never be home while living in a truck and driving/working 10 hours a day (the federal limit, which everyone drives/works up to), and get two days off every two weeks.
You'll earn $40K per year, which is about $26,800 netted after taxes.
Driving 70 hours per week, times 52 weeks, equals 3,640 hours working, divided into $40K, is about $11 bucks per hour.
To enjoy that princely renumeration, you'll need a perfect driving record and be able to pass drug and alcohol screening tests at any moment. You'll need to comply with DOT regulations continuously in the event of random inspections. You, as the driver, take responsibility for the condition of your truck, which you won't own, being a newbie. You'll eat out of a cooler if you're lucky and gain ten pounds per year eating road food. And your daily working conditions will involved driving in all traffic and road conditions, day and night, in all weather, everywhere. You'll be expected to remain accident free while maneuvering long trailers everywhere.

And you know what?
Your federal government will consider your job "Unskilled."
And all for eleven bucks per hour, not including benefits, if any, and before expenses that arise from living out on the road, with the plus of being away from your family constantly.
Trucks. Everything you buy arrives on trucks. Everything.

Nice economy you've got here, Americans.
 
2013-04-10 10:58:40 AM  

Wooly Bully: MFK: Three months later, The Boston Phoenix went out of business for good.

That whole story is so horrible, I feel for you man and hope some day there is payback for those bastards.


Well. The newspaper biz is rapidly going the way of the buggy whip makers.
Even zombies know that.
In 2004 I walked away from a fairly secure gig. I just couldn't handle the amorality of the whole thing and the a-hole I would have had to become to fit in there.
 
2013-04-10 11:00:18 AM  

Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.


With an attitude like that, it sounds like you're selling the wrong product in the wrong market.
Small business, indeed.
 
MFK
2013-04-10 11:04:22 AM  

X-boxershorts: Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.

Well, Gee...It's too bad that small business' target demographic for sales is both, broke and overworked.
No money and no time.

/So..vote republican?


You know what small business needs to thrive? Customers.
Not tax breaks, not fewer regulations, but customers.

Unfortunately, nobody is getting paid enough to support a small business economy and the lack of taxes and regulations are making it easy for companies like big boxes to eat everyone's lunch, but even those guys are hurting because people are using the brick and mortar stores as "showrooms" and then they turn around and buy the same products from Amazon.com for $5 less because they don't have the overhead so they can undercut.

We've convinced ourselves that if a company grows so massive that they control everything it's because they are "successful" and not at all because they have bought politicians to rig the game for them. 100 years ago, we all knew monopolies were bad and took steps to prevent that sort of game rigging. 100 years later, we are showing that we have learned exactly nothing.
 
2013-04-10 11:06:19 AM  

MFK: You know what small business needs to thrive? Customers.
Not tax breaks, not fewer regulations, but customers.


Ding ding ding. Aggregate demand has fallen off a cliff because the consumer class has no money to spend. The middle class is not overtaxed, they are underpaid.
 
2013-04-10 11:16:02 AM  

maddogdelta: Clearly, there aren't enough tech workers in America.

There are job openings, there's high unemployment, but we need more h1b visas ?????


THIS!
 
2013-04-10 11:16:39 AM  

MFK: X-boxershorts: Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.

Well, Gee...It's too bad that small business' target demographic for sales is both, broke and overworked.
No money and no time.

/So..vote republican?

You know what small business needs to thrive? Customers.
Not tax breaks, not fewer regulations, but customers.

Unfortunately, nobody is getting paid enough to support a small business economy and the lack of taxes and regulations are making it easy for companies like big boxes to eat everyone's lunch, but even those guys are hurting because people are using the brick and mortar stores as "showrooms" and then they turn around and buy the same products from Amazon.com for $5 less because they don't have the overhead so they can undercut.

We've convinced ourselves that if a company grows so massive that they control everything it's because they are "successful" and not at all because they have bought politicians to rig the game for them. 100 years ago, we all knew monopolies were bad and took steps to prevent that sort of game rigging. 100 years later, we are showing that we have learned exactly nothing.


How exactly did Amazon com "rig" the game 15 years ago when some U-W PERL programmers sat down and wrote a shopping cart engine from scratch?

I'm not saying Amazon isn't actively in the "bribe local governments" game now, particularly where their picking and shipping orgs are concerned.

But the original business was 100% start up with not all that much venture capital either.

They beat Best Buy, Wal-Mart and everyone else to the punch with regard to online sales, it even took them 5 or 6 years to show a profit, but once they worked out the bugs in their original shipping/fulfillment model look out, the worlds greatest catalog company.

Now you get to hate them. But for 10 yrs at least, they were every bit just a clever company solving problems and being rewarded for it.
 
2013-04-10 11:18:06 AM  
Fear based economy? Oh, subby means employers are afraid to to hire because it might cut into they extra money they save by having 1 person do the work of 3.
 
2013-04-10 11:18:34 AM  

Lando Lincoln: jaylectricity: If we're spending so much on our military, why do we have to pay our debts?

We don't. It's mostly a courtesy.


That and we don't want an economic catastrophe that would make the great depression feel like a hiccup.
 
2013-04-10 11:19:51 AM  

FuturePastNow: I wonder how many jobs are unfilled because the terms offered are downright insulting.


Exactly this.

Really, an entry level position that requires several years experience?
When did a PC technician requires PC programming? (SQL, C#, etc.???)

Seems that they want a Jack of ALL Trades and master of ALL at the same time?
And what is the deal with all this certification BS.  Certs are the biggest scams ever conceived.
 
2013-04-10 11:22:51 AM  

MFK: X-boxershorts: Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.

Well, Gee...It's too bad that small business' target demographic for sales is both, broke and overworked.
No money and no time.

/So..vote republican?

You know what small business needs to thrive? Customers.
Not tax breaks, not fewer regulations, but customers.

Unfortunately, nobody is getting paid enough to support a small business economy and the lack of taxes and regulations are making it easy for companies like big boxes to eat everyone's lunch, but even those guys are hurting because people are using the brick and mortar stores as "showrooms" and then they turn around and buy the same products from Amazon.com for $5 less because they don't have the overhead so they can undercut.

We've convinced ourselves that if a company grows so massive that they control everything it's because they are "successful" and not at all because they have bought politicians to rig the game for them. 100 years ago, we all knew monopolies were bad and took steps to prevent that sort of game rigging. 100 years later, we are showing that we have learned exactly nothing.


This is what fark liberals actually believe.

"Lack of taxes".
 
2013-04-10 11:29:29 AM  

X-boxershorts: Dog Welder: o5iiawah: Can you explain how a tax cut - which involves money never entering the treasury in the first place is responsible for debt (which involves money leaving the treasury)?

Seriously?

If you are spending too much money and your income is cut, your debt goes up.  It's basic math.

Or, in the case of the past decade, we slashed our country's income to some of the lowest levels (percentage-wise) in decades, and then fought two wars and introduced a massive piece of legislation (Medicare D) on the country's credit card without bothering to raise taxes back up to pay for those things.

Clearly it's all 0blahma's fault.

I know, it's weird. Almost like they're pathologically prohibited from acknowledging that the previous administration turned the economy into a steaming pile of dogshiat, and then proceeded to scream and stamp their feet at any attempt by the current administration to clean up that mess....


What attempts to clean up the mess? Has Obama suggested doing away with Medicare part D? Has he rescinded the bush tax cuts or did he make almost 90% of them permanent? Did he start a new entitlement with ACA instead of dealing with the problems we had with existing entitlements?

I'll agree 100% that Bush was a horribly irresponsible president. But to suggest that Obama is "trying to clean up the mess" is astonishingly comical. He's lucky that he has such a horrible predecessor to compare himself to.
 
MFK
2013-04-10 11:30:14 AM  

Generation_D: MFK: X-boxershorts: Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.

Well, Gee...It's too bad that small business' target demographic for sales is both, broke and overworked.
No money and no time.

/So..vote republican?

You know what small business needs to thrive? Customers.
Not tax breaks, not fewer regulations, but customers.

Unfortunately, nobody is getting paid enough to support a small business economy and the lack of taxes and regulations are making it easy for companies like big boxes to eat everyone's lunch, but even those guys are hurting because people are using the brick and mortar stores as "showrooms" and then they turn around and buy the same products from Amazon.com for $5 less because they don't have the overhead so they can undercut.

We've convinced ourselves that if a company grows so massive that they control everything it's because they are "successful" and not at all because they have bought politicians to rig the game for them. 100 years ago, we all knew monopolies were bad and took steps to prevent that sort of game rigging. 100 years later, we are showing that we have learned exactly nothing.

How exactly did Amazon com "rig" the game 15 years ago when some U-W PERL programmers sat down and wrote a shopping cart engine from scratch?

I'm not saying Amazon isn't actively in the "bribe local governments" game now, particularly where their picking and shipping orgs are concerned.

But the original business was 100% start up with not all that much venture capital either.

They beat Best Buy, Wal-Mart and everyone else to the punch with regard to online sales, it even took them 5 or 6 years ...


15 years ago it was Walmart and Best Buy who were rigging the game in their favor. Pushing out local businesses with artificially low prices and then demanding that their vendors give up their profit margins in order to sell to the markets. Amazon would be kind of a comeuppance to them if they weren't showing themselves to be even worse for retail businesses.

Do you think it's ok that one company can control such a large percentage of market share simply because they don't have the overheard of a brick and mortar location? That they've earned it and therefore are entitled to anything they can get?
 
2013-04-10 11:33:19 AM  

Tomahawk513: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Tomahawk513: FC Exile: U.S. employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years. That's in part because they seem in no hurry to fill them.

Isn't "not being in a hurry to fill them"  just another way of saying they're not hiring.

It means they want the perfect candidate.

It means they don't want to pay what the job is worth.

Also very true.  No, I will not fix your computers for $11 / hour.


OMG!
Sounds like a job offer that I received from some NJ company a few months ago.
/caller sounded like he was not from the US
//never replied to the email that was sent --- after looking at the wage
///slashies come in threes
 
2013-04-10 11:33:43 AM  
I call it BS. I think employers are not hiring because either
A. They are in a position of greed and they are hoarding the cash and making the workers do two or three peoples jobs worth for one persons pay
(or bringing in the outsourcing) or
B. They are barely holding their business afloat, perhaps needing to hire 2 or 3 people they just can't afford to pay for.

It doesn't take a whole lot of thought to know which businesses are A or B.
 
2013-04-10 11:43:24 AM  

hardinparamedic: o5iiawah: Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR.  To suggest he's a conservative means you should probably ask for your money back from whatever institution provided you with an education.

[i.imgur.com image 400x400]
How, in the name of Cthulu, are Obama's policies similar in ANY way, shape, or form to FDR's New Deal?

Please explain this one to me. Because of Obama tried to do what FDR tried to do before World War II, he would have been thrown out onto the white house lawn with torches and pitchforks.


Obama is even MORE liberal. FDR never hung out with Bill Ayers.

QED
 
2013-04-10 11:52:03 AM  

Red Shirt Blues: I'm a cpa and have a lot of small business clients. It's weird out there. Everyone is walking on egg shells. Te number one question is something along the lines, "What do you think is going to happen?" People seem to be holding on to any cash they have. Anecdotal but I've seen a bit of a down turn on the whole from 2011.


A lot of people are convinced that the economy is going to collapse, and soon. I'm one of them, but not on the "soon" part so much.

We have a completely dysfunctional government thanks to the GOP that has failed to address any of the real problems posed by 2008: no significant new regulation, no attempt to counter "too big to fail," etc. What they have done is manufacture new potential economic crises by playing chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States. And they created an astroturf terrorist organization designed to scare lawmakers, especially Republicans, into never dealing with any of these problems- and replace them with an even stupider model of congressman if they try.

Frankly I'd be farking terrified if I weren't so busy trying to ensure my parents don't lose their house.
 
2013-04-10 11:59:41 AM  

Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.


And the imaginary small business owners I mentioned earlier have arrived.
 
2013-04-10 12:17:32 PM  

o5iiawah: NewportBarGuy: and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies

Can you explain how a tax cut - which involves money never entering the treasury in the first place is responsible for debt (which involves money leaving the treasury)?

jso2897: I agree - Obama is way too conservative. This country needs a real progressive, like FDR

Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR.  To suggest he's a conservative means you should probably ask for your money back from whatever institution provided you with an education.


Well, you're a dumb old poopy-head, too.
 
2013-04-10 12:18:14 PM  

FuturePastNow: I wonder how many jobs are unfilled because the terms offered are downright insulting.


Ive been offered a few jobs and the last time I made that kind of money I was in high school. $8.30 an hour to run a S&R department. Jeezus even my company isnt that cheap.
 
2013-04-10 12:23:15 PM  

MFK: Generation_D: MFK: X-boxershorts: Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.

Well, Gee...It's too bad that small business' target demographic for sales is both, broke and overworked.
No money and no time.

/So..vote republican?

You know what small business needs to thrive? Customers.
Not tax breaks, not fewer regulations, but customers.

Unfortunately, nobody is getting paid enough to support a small business economy and the lack of taxes and regulations are making it easy for companies like big boxes to eat everyone's lunch, but even those guys are hurting because people are using the brick and mortar stores as "showrooms" and then they turn around and buy the same products from Amazon.com for $5 less because they don't have the overhead so they can undercut.

We've convinced ourselves that if a company grows so massive that they control everything it's because they are "successful" and not at all because they have bought politicians to rig the game for them. 100 years ago, we all knew monopolies were bad and took steps to prevent that sort of game rigging. 100 years later, we are showing that we have learned exactly nothing.

How exactly did Amazon com "rig" the game 15 years ago when some U-W PERL programmers sat down and wrote a shopping cart engine from scratch?

I'm not saying Amazon isn't actively in the "bribe local governments" game now, particularly where their picking and shipping orgs are concerned.

But the original business was 100% start up with not all that much venture capital either.

They beat Best Buy, Wal-Mart and everyone else to the punch with regard to online sales, it even took them 5 or 6 years ...

15 years ago it was Walmart and Best Buy who were rigging the game in their favor. Pushing out local businesses with artificially low prices and then demanding that their vendors give up their profit margins in order to sell to the markets. Amazon would be kind of a comeuppance to them if they weren't showing themselves to be even worse for retail businesses.

Do you think it's ok that one company can control such a large percentage of market share simply because they don't have the overheard of a brick and mortar location? That they've earned it and therefore are entitled to anything they can get?


Of course. If they couldn't sell for less than competitors, they wouldn't command so much of the market. And if they are causing lower prices for customers, why is it a problem?

Market concentration only becomes a problem when a seller has monopolistic ability to raise prices indiscriminately because there isn't any competition to undercut.
 
MFK
2013-04-10 12:28:55 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Of course. If they couldn't sell for less than competitors, they wouldn't command so much of the market. And if they are causing lower prices for customers, why is it a problem?

Market concentration only becomes a problem when a seller has monopolistic ability to raise prices indiscriminately because there isn't any competition to undercut.


What if a company lowers its prices artificially to put its competition out of business? Walmart for example, caused a lot of record stores to go out of business because they would use CDs as loss leaders, selling them for $9 when other merchants were selling for $12.

They were able to absorb those "losses" by paying lower wages and paying their vendors less. How is any of this good for anybody besides Walmart?
 
2013-04-10 12:33:50 PM  

MFK: You know what small business needs to thrive? Customers.
Not tax breaks, not fewer regulations, but customers.

Unfortunately, nobody is getting paid enough to support a small business economy and the lack of taxes and regulations are making it easy for companies like big boxes to eat everyone's lunch, but even those guys are hurting because people are using the brick and mortar stores as "showrooms" and then they turn around and buy the same products from Amazon.com for $5 less because they don't have the overhead so they can undercut.


This. This right here.

I also have a small business. I'm in my third year of selling dolls at conventions and online, and it's been ... educational to watch the buying trends shift. In 2011, on a Friday-Sunday con, Friday was the second-biggest sales day (first is always Saturday, the one-day pass market is largest then) because people would love a doll and buy it without thinking, and Sunday was really slow because people had impulse-bought all weekend and now were broke. By the end of 2012's season (our con season is roughly Feb-Aug) Friday and Sunday had effectively traded places; everyone on Friday was saying "OMG cute! But today's my looking day, I have to see everything once first", and then on Sunday, people were legit returning to the table and buying stuff, in droves compared to what we expected. People who wanted two dolls were literally flipping coins to decide because they only had enough for one. One person we saw at Otakon told us that she saw us two months earlier at AnimeNEXT, couldn't afford one then, but had set aside a little money every paycheck and now had enough to buy from us - and she did so. We had even raised our prices in the interim and she didn't blink.

tl;dr I'm selling a good product at a good price to the right market, but the market has no money in their hands to give me. I can't make them have money.

We notice other trends too, not just in how people buy from us. People who take cosplay almost professionally seriously - you know the ones, full armor and contact lenses and elaborate props, the ones who go for the whole weekend so they can show off multiple outfits - started showing up at our table wearing Saturday-only badges. More and more people are checking into the hotels carrying flats of bottled water and ramen noodles (as opposed to buying con food). Friday is a slow day until about 7pm, because no one can afford to take that day off work anymore.

Give the customers money and the problem ... well I'm not gonna say the economy will fix itself. But it'll sure as crap right a lot of wrongs.

/shameless plug ahead
//buy my stuff guys! link in profile
///ok i'm done
/slashies are still free, right?
 
2013-04-10 12:50:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Of course. If they couldn't sell for less than competitors, they wouldn't command so much of the market. And if they are causing lower prices for customers, why is it a problem?

Market concentration only becomes a problem when a seller has monopolistic ability to raise prices indiscriminately because there isn't any competition to undercut.


Well, it's not a problem unless you give it more than superficial thought.

The problem in this race to the bottom in terms of price means that the quality of the product suffers, as do people whose jobs depend on producing and selling the product.  And that's not to mention the end consumer, who has paid for a product that won't last and will ultimately end up paying more for multiple instances of a shiatty product than had they been able to purchase a quality product at a somewhat higher price.  Unfortunately, the market for that higher-priced, better quality item is gone since people can't afford to pay that higher price, what with their manufacturing or retail job outsourced or negated resulting in limited purchasing power.

So, yes, there are problems with allowing businesses using undercutting tactics to dominate the marketplace.
 
2013-04-10 01:10:36 PM  

NewportBarGuy: BunkyBrewman: Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?

Hey, asshole, rewording it doesn't make it sink in? I said "Tax and spend worked... cutting taxes AND spending did not work."

Hooked on phonics obviously didn't work for you.


Hooked on Phonics... Now there's a reference I never expected to hear again.
 
2013-04-10 01:17:55 PM  

The Bananadragon: We notice other trends too, not just in how people buy from us. People who take cosplay almost professionally seriously - you know the ones, full armor and contact lenses and elaborate props, the ones who go for the whole weekend so they can show off multiple outfits - started showing up at our table wearing Saturday-only badges. More and more people are checking into the hotels carrying flats of bottled water and ramen noodles (as opposed to buying con food). Friday is a slow day until about 7pm, because no one can afford to take that day off work anymore.

Give the customers money and the problem ... well I'm not gonna say the economy will fix itself. But it'll sure as crap right a lot of wrongs.


Thank you for this. I've been thinking this is what's been happening for a long time (I'm generally a one-day pass person and I... just don't go now), but I haven't seen a good confirmation of my suspicions.

I also agree. There IS money in the US economy (I really liked this video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM). But maybe JUST MAYBE if we shifted it just a LITTLE down to the rest of Americans, we'd see a real positive response. Money moving around again. But I forget; that's socialist, right? :P
 
2013-04-10 01:59:53 PM  

groppet: FuturePastNow: I wonder how many jobs are unfilled because the terms offered are downright insulting.

Ive been offered a few jobs and the last time I made that kind of money I was in high school. $8.30 an hour to run a S&R department. Jeezus even my company isnt that cheap.


There was a good article on job growth in TX from when Perry was eh front-runner and the majority were min wage or piece-wage jobs while at the same time TX lead the US in employed people with no benefits.
 
2013-04-10 02:13:30 PM  
I've been pounding the bricks and getting lots of phone screens on jobs that have been open for months. They seem to look for any excuse to balk at hiring. All of those postings are still open, too. It's a shame because the people I've met on rare in-person interviews are overwhelmed and exhausted.

It sucks, but I may have to drop my price to get them past that hurdle. Then, while ensconced, I am going to keep looking to find a spot where I can normalize my salary again.

BTW - the only reason I have to work at all is for medical insurance. If we had Canada style health care, I'd sell my house, move to an old house with a porch in a semi-rural spot and volunteer read Dr. Seuss to the local kids at the library.
 
2013-04-10 02:22:11 PM  

Aidan: The Bananadragon: We notice other trends too, not just in how people buy from us. People who take cosplay almost professionally seriously - you know the ones, full armor and contact lenses and elaborate props, the ones who go for the whole weekend so they can show off multiple outfits - started showing up at our table wearing Saturday-only badges. More and more people are checking into the hotels carrying flats of bottled water and ramen noodles (as opposed to buying con food). Friday is a slow day until about 7pm, because no one can afford to take that day off work anymore.

Give the customers money and the problem ... well I'm not gonna say the economy will fix itself. But it'll sure as crap right a lot of wrongs.

Thank you for this. I've been thinking this is what's been happening for a long time (I'm generally a one-day pass person and I... just don't go now), but I haven't seen a good confirmation of my suspicions.

I also agree. There IS money in the US economy (I really liked this video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM). But maybe JUST MAYBE if we shifted it just a LITTLE down to the rest of Americans, we'd see a real positive response. Money moving around again. But I forget; that's socialist, right? :P


For starters, if they raised the capital gains taxes to closer to that of income, it would help out.  Right now companies are making loads of money simply by shifting paper around Wall St. and getting taxed at a far lower rate than if they'd made that money by making and selling things.  If you only shift money around Wall St., you don't need to pay for manufacturing or employees or other overhead.  There's no incentive to make things.  If the poor and the middle class have no money, they can't buy things, which drops the demand for things that the rich companies aren't making, so the economy stagnates and all the money stays at the top.

Put money in the hands of the poor and middle class, and they will spend it on things, which will increase demand, which will increase employment, and the money will still float to the top.
 
2013-04-10 02:33:29 PM  

NewportBarGuy: I hear tell that they also abscond with live lobsters on the first of the month with their food stamps. ...



Speaking of which, there's a state legislator here in Wisconsin who wants to prohibit people receiving food assistance from spending any of it on "expensive steaks".
 
2013-04-10 02:42:06 PM  
The absolute inability of the Repubtards to recognize that they only control the House and do not control the Senate or the Presidency (the other 2 things you need in order to pass a law) is what's causing this problem.  They are not willing to comprimise on anything even though they are the MINORITY PARTY and as a result the nation's regulatory, fiscal, economic and tax policies are in a complete quagmire. The "uncertainty" of businesses is 100% the fault of a minority party that doesn't want to have to compromise with the majority.
 
2013-04-10 02:54:19 PM  

EngineerAU: I for one look forward to hearing about these guys only being able to find work as managers of the grounds crew at a low end public golf course.


No farking way.  My dad does that.  He's got what is functionally a Masters in Chemistry and Biology (as they apply to grass.  He might not be able to tell you what octonitratehexaflourane* is, but he can tell you what it does and why you apply it in April and not September).  The lower they go, the more shiat they pile on.

Now the high-end ones, where they make $100K a year, wear a suit that never gets dirty, and kiss the rich member's asses, while leaving all the functional "running the course" to their assistant (Note: the good ones don't do that, the bad ones do, and the lucky ones have competent assistants), they could do that.

* Yes, I'm aware that that's not a real chemical.

/Also, you want to use shiatty Roundup.  The good Roundup kills the trees as well as the weeds.  There was a BIG stink about that.
 
2013-04-10 02:59:09 PM  

MFK: Debeo Summa Credo: Of course. If they couldn't sell for less than competitors, they wouldn't command so much of the market. And if they are causing lower prices for customers, why is it a problem?

Market concentration only becomes a problem when a seller has monopolistic ability to raise prices indiscriminately because there isn't any competition to undercut.

What if a company lowers its prices artificially to put its competition out of business? Walmart for example, caused a lot of record stores to go out of business because they would use CDs as loss leaders, selling them for $9 when other merchants were selling for $12.

They were able to absorb those "losses" by paying lower wages and paying their vendors less. How is any of this good for anybody besides Walmart?


It's good for consumers who pay less for records.  Do you think consumers should have to pay more, just so vendors or employees get paid more?  Make sure you go to the high-priced gas station next time.  The oil companies need to get more money.

AdmirableSnackbar: Debeo Summa Credo: Of course. If they couldn't sell for less than competitors, they wouldn't command so much of the market. And if they are causing lower prices for customers, why is it a problem?

Market concentration only becomes a problem when a seller has monopolistic ability to raise prices indiscriminately because there isn't any competition to undercut.

Well, it's not a problem unless you give it more than superficial thought.

The problem in this race to the bottom in terms of price means that the quality of the product suffers, as do people whose jobs depend on producing and selling the product.  And that's not to mention the end consumer, who has paid for a product that won't last and will ultimately end up paying more for multiple instances of a shiatty product than had they been able to purchase a quality product at a somewhat higher price.  Unfortunately, the market for that higher-priced, better quality item is gone since people can't afford to pay that higher price, what with their manufacturing or retail job outsourced or negated resulting in limited purchasing power.

So, yes, there are problems with allowing businesses using undercutting tactics to dominate the marketplace.


If the product sucks, then the consumer will not buy the product and walmart will have to increase quality to the point where the product is saleable again.   Do you think wal-mart sold CDs or Cheerios or bottled water or diapers or gas are worse quality that you could buy at the full price local chain?

Please.  Walmart and other large brands have squeezed savings out of suppliers and workers and efficiencies of scale, and pass the savings on to consumers.  That's why consumers go there.  Because you get more value for the dollar than you did at local shops.  Maybe you miss local stores, or you lost a job there, but consumers are better off for the existence of discount chains.
 
2013-04-10 03:01:02 PM  

cefm: The absolute inability of the Repubtards to recognize that they only control the House and do not control the Senate or the Presidency (the other 2 things you need in order to pass a law) is what's causing this problem.  They are not willing to comprimise on anything even though they are the MINORITY PARTY and as a result the nation's regulatory, fiscal, economic and tax policies are in a complete quagmire. The "uncertainty" of businesses is 100% the fault of a minority party that doesn't want to have to compromise with the majority.


So Dodd Frank and ACA are the GOPs fault now?
 
2013-04-10 03:05:56 PM  

Dog Welder: If you only shift money around Wall St., you don't need to pay for manufacturing or employees or other overhead.


That's exactly right. Businesses are incentivized to not hire people, they're incentivized to move money around Wall Street. Give companies larger tax breaks for hiring and R&D, increase capital gains, and heavily tax offshoring jobs. Also, tax companies laying people off.
 
2013-04-10 03:24:45 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cefm: The absolute inability of the Repubtards to recognize that they only control the House and do not control the Senate or the Presidency (the other 2 things you need in order to pass a law) is what's causing this problem.  They are not willing to comprimise on anything even though they are the MINORITY PARTY and as a result the nation's regulatory, fiscal, economic and tax policies are in a complete quagmire. The "uncertainty" of businesses is 100% the fault of a minority party that doesn't want to have to compromise with the majority.

So Dodd Frank and ACA are the GOPs fault now?


Dodd Frank didn't go nearly far enough.
 
2013-04-10 03:42:30 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: So Dodd Frank and ACA are the GOPs fault now?


They are the reason both bills are completely useless clusterfarks.
 
MFK
2013-04-10 03:44:08 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: MFK: Debeo Summa Credo: Of course. If they couldn't sell for less than competitors, they wouldn't command so much of the market. And if they are causing lower prices for customers, why is it a problem?

Market concentration only becomes a problem when a seller has monopolistic ability to raise prices indiscriminately because there isn't any competition to undercut.

What if a company lowers its prices artificially to put its competition out of business? Walmart for example, caused a lot of record stores to go out of business because they would use CDs as loss leaders, selling them for $9 when other merchants were selling for $12.

They were able to absorb those "losses" by paying lower wages and paying their vendors less. How is any of this good for anybody besides Walmart?

It's good for consumers who pay less for records.  Do you think consumers should have to pay more, just so vendors or employees get paid more?  Make sure you go to the high-priced gas station next time.  The oil companies need to get more money.


It's not good for the consumer because it is an artificially low and a predatory price point. Do you think Walmart continued to sell CDs for that price after its local competitors were no longer there? No way. All it did in the end was limit the amount of choices consumers had for CDs.
 
2013-04-10 04:04:11 PM  

MFK: Debeo Summa Credo: MFK: Debeo Summa Credo: Of course. If they couldn't sell for less than competitors, they wouldn't command so much of the market. And if they are causing lower prices for customers, why is it a problem?

Market concentration only becomes a problem when a seller has monopolistic ability to raise prices indiscriminately because there isn't any competition to undercut.

What if a company lowers its prices artificially to put its competition out of business? Walmart for example, caused a lot of record stores to go out of business because they would use CDs as loss leaders, selling them for $9 when other merchants were selling for $12.

They were able to absorb those "losses" by paying lower wages and paying their vendors less. How is any of this good for anybody besides Walmart?

It's good for consumers who pay less for records.  Do you think consumers should have to pay more, just so vendors or employees get paid more?  Make sure you go to the high-priced gas station next time.  The oil companies need to get more money.

It's not good for the consumer because it is an artificially low and a predatory price point. Do you think Walmart continued to sell CDs for that price after its local competitors were no longer there? No way. All it did in the end was limit the amount of choices consumers had for CDs.


It also made sure that other stores had to sell at lower prices, driving the quality of available goods down at every retailer.  DSC is ignoring the fact that in the long run the consumer pays more to repair and/or replace the cheap, poorly made product than if they could purchase the more expensive, higher quality product.  The vast majority of the market stupidly only cares about up-front costs and not long-term costs (and apparently DSC sides with the morons on that point).  So ultimately, as I said before, it's a race to the bottom - and I don't see how anyone could argue that that's a good thing.
 
2013-04-10 04:28:15 PM  
EngineerAU:

"Productivity numbers are likely to take a nose dive and there will be nothing employers will be able to do to get it back since employees will be able to leave if the employer tries to whip them into higher productivity. It's not a situation where you want to be the employer trying to keep up with a competitor who is taking your market share and racing away."

You have just described why the Republican Party takes joy in weakening the economy! They want all the power and privilege to flow upwards away from the ordinary worker. Why else do you think that one of their prime missions is to try and destroy the union movement? In a poor economy, workers have little power due to the threat of being sacked for minor petty infringements hanging over their heads. If a strong economy gives workers the ability to shop around for better working conditions, the power of the corporate elites will diminish in spectacular fashion. Believe me, that is the last thing these greedy power-hungry bastards want!
 
2013-04-10 04:35:01 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Or you could get your Class A license and become a truck driver!
That way, you could never be home while living in a truck and driving/working 10 hours a day (the federal limit, which everyone drives/works up to), and get two days off every two weeks.
You'll earn $40K per year, which is about $26,800 netted after taxes.
Driving 70 hours per week, times 52 weeks, equals 3,640 hours working, divided into $40K, is about $11 bucks per hour.
To enjoy that princely renumeration, you'll need a perfect driving record and be able to pass drug and alcohol screening tests at any moment. You'll need to comply with DOT regulations continuously in the event of random inspections. You, as the driver, take responsibility for the condition of your truck, which you won't own, being a newbie. You'll eat out of a cooler if you're lucky and gain ten pounds per year eating road food. And your daily working conditions will involved driving in all traffic and road conditions, day and night, in all weather, everywhere. You'll be expected to remain accident free while maneuvering long trailers everywhere.

And you know what?
Your federal government will consider your job "Unskilled."
And all for eleven bucks per hour, not including benefits, if any, and before expenses that arise from living out on the road, with the plus of being away from your family constantly.
Trucks. Everything you buy arrives on trucks. Everything.

Nice economy you've got here, Americans.


Yeah, no.   90% of freight in this country is trains. Sure, they need a truck to get to market, but 90% is trains.
 
2013-04-10 04:39:59 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Why would I hire more workers at a time when Taxbongo has already collected two of the relics and only needs the Ivory Jackal to achieve global domination?


At least a year ago, I asserted that you had no talent for troll work, and should give it up sooner rather than later.

However, this is quality work, performance trolling at its finest.  I was wrong, and I award you 10/10.
 
2013-04-10 04:51:23 PM  

X-boxershorts: I know, it's weird. Almost like they're pathologically prohibited from acknowledging that the previous administration turned the economy into a steaming pile of dogshiat, and then proceeded to scream and stamp their feet at any attempt by the current administration to clean up that mess....


Stamp their feet?  What policy has Obama pushed, that republicans opposed, would save the economy?  show your work.
The only economic proposals I've seen are tax rates designed to make things more "Fair".  The tax rates dont create jobs, nor to they really impact the deficit.
Each of the president's bets on green energy has failed
 
2013-04-10 04:57:23 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: It also made sure that other stores had to sell at lower prices, driving the quality of available goods down at every retailer. DSC is ignoring the fact that in the long run the consumer pays more to repair and/or replace the cheap, poorly made product than if they could purchase the more expensive, higher quality product. The vast majority of the market stupidly only cares about up-front costs and not long-term costs (and apparently DSC sides with the morons on that point). So ultimately, as I said before, it's a race to the bottom - and I don't see how anyone could argue that that's a good thing.


WalMart also by its sheer size distorted the entire music industry.  I don't know if they still only sell radio edits or if iTunes has eaten into their market share but for a while they represented such a big chunk of all CD sales they could push studios around and have an affect on album content.

They can essentially behave in abusively monopolistic ways while selling products like CDs, paperbacks, and pickels.
 
2013-04-10 05:00:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: How, in the name of Cthulu, are Obama's policies similar in ANY way, shape, or form to FDR's New Deal?

Please explain this one to me. Because of Obama tried to do what FDR tried to do before World War II, he would have been thrown out onto the white house lawn with torches and pitchforks.


I've been hearing for the past 5 years that the only reason this economy still stinks is because Obama cant get congress to authorize trillions more in stimulus to put people to work building roads and bridges and on top of that, we need more cops, teachers and firefighters.  They come from the same school of people who think that if government inflates the currency, which drives up rents, food and energy and uses that currency to put people to work on make-work projects that the economy will rebound.

If Obama were so completely polar opposite to FDR, he wouldn't be begging for stimulus and dependency programs.
 
MFK
2013-04-10 05:09:30 PM  

you have pee hands: AdmirableSnackbar: It also made sure that other stores had to sell at lower prices, driving the quality of available goods down at every retailer. DSC is ignoring the fact that in the long run the consumer pays more to repair and/or replace the cheap, poorly made product than if they could purchase the more expensive, higher quality product. The vast majority of the market stupidly only cares about up-front costs and not long-term costs (and apparently DSC sides with the morons on that point). So ultimately, as I said before, it's a race to the bottom - and I don't see how anyone could argue that that's a good thing.

WalMart also by its sheer size distorted the entire music industry.  I don't know if they still only sell radio edits or if iTunes has eaten into their market share but for a while they represented such a big chunk of all CD sales they could push studios around and have an affect on album content.

They can essentially behave in abusively monopolistic ways while selling products like CDs, paperbacks, and pickels.


Not to mention that they became the arbiters on what was "fit to sell". Got a swear word on your record? Anything remotely edgy or controversial? Forget about selling it at Walmart.

I also feel that it's worth pointing out that Walmart pays such paltry wages, that more than 50% of Walmart employees are on welfare and we, the taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart's outsized profits. (six of the top ten richest Americans are Waltons).
 
2013-04-10 05:12:47 PM  

Lunchlady: Debeo Summa Credo: cefm: The absolute inability of the Repubtards to recognize that they only control the House and do not control the Senate or the Presidency (the other 2 things you need in order to pass a law) is what's causing this problem.  They are not willing to comprimise on anything even though they are the MINORITY PARTY and as a result the nation's regulatory, fiscal, economic and tax policies are in a complete quagmire. The "uncertainty" of businesses is 100% the fault of a minority party that doesn't want to have to compromise with the majority.

So Dodd Frank and ACA are the GOPs fault now?

Dodd Frank didn't go nearly far enough.


Yeah, blaming Dodd Frank is like blaming the Assault Weapons Ban for Columbine.
 
2013-04-10 05:14:21 PM  

o5iiawah: The tax rates dont create jobs, nor to they really impact the deficit.


So you agree that cutting taxes was a dumb idea.
 
2013-04-10 05:14:42 PM  

winterbraid: Just want to double-check:

We aren't informing people of these job openings by flinging applications at them while they protest outside our banks, rights?

/live and learn, I guess


Stop expecting people to try to better themselves. It is sooo much easier to blame faceless businesses.
 
2013-04-10 05:16:39 PM  

o5iiawah: I've been hearing for the past 5 years that the only reason this economy still stinks is because Obama cant get congress to authorize trillions more in stimulus to put people to work building roads and bridges and on top of that, we need more cops, teachers and firefighters. They come from the same school of people who think that if government inflates the currency, which drives up rents, food and energy and uses that currency to put people to work on make-work projects that the economy will rebound.


Aren't you the same guy who believes that money the government uses for employees and contractors vanishes into the netherworld never to return?
 
2013-04-10 05:17:08 PM  

randomjsa: vygramul: What were we doing in 2000?

Watching the tech bubble burst.

But the job losses that resulted from that along with the 9/11 attack in 2001 should be no excuse... All the job losses from 2001-2005 were Bush's fault. The DNC campaign ads in 2004 told me this so it must be true.

But nothing is ever Obama's fault, particularly not the economy since he took office so you can't blame him for the record high number of people on welfare or the 20-30+ year record for lowest labor participation rate. You certainly can't blame Obama for insisting come hell or high water on a tax increase at the start of the year, nor can you blame him for proposing another 700 billion in tax increases in his budget, nor can you blame him for the boondoggle known as ObamaCare which is making companies less willing to hire.


THe first Total Farker blamed Reagan!  LOL. So I guess your savior Clinton wasn't so great afterall? I'm confused.
 
2013-04-10 05:29:32 PM  

o5iiawah: What policy has Obama pushed, that republicans opposed, would save the economy?


What policies has Obama proposed that the Republicans have actually supported? .....see?

o5iiawah: The tax rates dont create jobs,


Sure they do. Increased tax rates means more revenue which means more social services which means more jobs (both for the employment those social services create and for the citizenry those social services serve).
 
2013-04-10 05:34:52 PM  

Ishkur: What policies has Obama proposed that the Republicans have actually supported? .....see?


Do proposals they championed until Obama got elected count?
 
2013-04-10 06:23:27 PM  

Lunchlady: Debeo Summa Credo: cefm: The absolute inability of the Repubtards to recognize that they only control the House and do not control the Senate or the Presidency (the other 2 things you need in order to pass a law) is what's causing this problem.  They are not willing to comprimise on anything even though they are the MINORITY PARTY and as a result the nation's regulatory, fiscal, economic and tax policies are in a complete quagmire. The "uncertainty" of businesses is 100% the fault of a minority party that doesn't want to have to compromise with the majority.

So Dodd Frank and ACA are the GOPs fault now?

Dodd Frank didn't go nearly far enough.


It's a completely useless atrocity, the regulations for which are only half written 3 years after passage of the bill.

Essentially, it's a grandstanding bill put forward by clueless politicians in the wake of a crisis that barely addresses the crisis, but encumbers firms with additional expenses.

The Sarbanes Oxley act was essentially the "accountant full employment act of 2002". Dodd Frank is the "corporate compliance full employment act of 2010". Causes tremendous amounts of make work the cost of which far exceeds the benefits to society.
 
2013-04-10 06:24:36 PM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: The tax rates dont create jobs, nor to they really impact the deficit.

So you agree that cutting taxes was a dumb idea.


I agree. Reverse all the Bush tax cuts now!! Who's with me?
 
2013-04-10 06:27:18 PM  

Ishkur: o5iiawah: What policy has Obama pushed, that republicans opposed, would save the economy?

What policies has Obama proposed that the Republicans have actually supported? .....see?

o5iiawah: The tax rates dont create jobs,

Sure they do. Increased tax rates means more revenue which means more social services which means more jobs (both for the employment those social services create and for the citizenry those social services serve).


Except that they're taking that money from people spending/earning which means less money getting spent/earned which means fewer private sector jobs which means less revenue to create those jobs AND less private jobs, which means that it's a net wash.

/There is a balance, especially when it comes to "things that we all need, but no one wants to pay for".
//I wouldn't mind losing a third of my income to taxes if I could get a functional road network, or a single unified regional mass transit setup that actually tried to replace the non-functional road network.
 
2013-04-10 06:32:29 PM  

vygramul: Lunchlady: Debeo Summa Credo: cefm: The absolute inability of the Repubtards to recognize that they only control the House and do not control the Senate or the Presidency (the other 2 things you need in order to pass a law) is what's causing this problem.  They are not willing to comprimise on anything even though they are the MINORITY PARTY and as a result the nation's regulatory, fiscal, economic and tax policies are in a complete quagmire. The "uncertainty" of businesses is 100% the fault of a minority party that doesn't want to have to compromise with the majority.

So Dodd Frank and ACA are the GOPs fault now?

Dodd Frank didn't go nearly far enough.

Yeah, blaming Dodd Frank is like blaming the Assault Weapons Ban for Columbine.


Well, I happen to agree with the assault weapons ban. But lets say there was a completely useless and complicated law passed in the wake of Columbine. It would include such aspects as forcing manufacturers to embed every bullet with a gps tracking device, and required each person on entering a school to undergo a retinal scan.

Your analogy would be Dodd Frank: financial crisis :: useless expensive bullet retinal scan law : columbine
 
2013-04-10 06:32:53 PM  

meyerkev: Except that they're taking that money from people spending/earning


Depends who they take it from. If they're taking it from the poor, you're right. If they're taking from the rich or corporations, you're wrong.

Only the poor spend 100% of their income on tangible commodities. Corporations and rich people tend to save/hoard/take it out of circulation which is bad for the economy, so the best thing to do is to tax the ever loving shiat out of them so that the money they're sitting on can be recirculated back into the system and get things going again.

That's really where all our problems lie.
 
2013-04-10 06:38:37 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: The tax rates dont create jobs, nor to they really impact the deficit.

So you agree that cutting taxes was a dumb idea.

I agree. Reverse all the Bush tax cuts now!! Who's with me?


I'm with you. Repeal all the Bush tax cuts, make capital gains tax 3% under the max income tax rate with exemptions for certain rental property or small business gains, push the cap on FICA to $150k, push Medicare tax to 7.5%, repeal the ACA, enroll every American in Medicare, give Medicare the power to negotiate with drug companies and to set customary testing practice, have the Fed push inflation to 25% over ten years, set the minimum wage at $12, end corporate welfare, reinstate Glass-Steagal, and launch a public works program to create 10 million (yes, motherfarker, 10 million) engineering and construction jobs. Oh, and while you're at it, give the Consumer Protection Agency a real director and the biggest farking stick you can find.

Eventually the super-rich will find their profits evaporating because there are no longer any consumers to buy their products. Or they'll find themselves the guests of Mme. Guillotine.
 
2013-04-10 06:55:21 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: vygramul: Lunchlady: Debeo Summa Credo: cefm: The absolute inability of the Repubtards to recognize that they only control the House and do not control the Senate or the Presidency (the other 2 things you need in order to pass a law) is what's causing this problem.  They are not willing to comprimise on anything even though they are the MINORITY PARTY and as a result the nation's regulatory, fiscal, economic and tax policies are in a complete quagmire. The "uncertainty" of businesses is 100% the fault of a minority party that doesn't want to have to compromise with the majority.

So Dodd Frank and ACA are the GOPs fault now?

Dodd Frank didn't go nearly far enough.

Yeah, blaming Dodd Frank is like blaming the Assault Weapons Ban for Columbine.

Well, I happen to agree with the assault weapons ban. But lets say there was a completely useless and complicated law passed in the wake of Columbine. It would include such aspects as forcing manufacturers to embed every bullet with a gps tracking device, and required each person on entering a school to undergo a retinal scan.

Your analogy would be Dodd Frank: financial crisis :: useless expensive bullet retinal scan law : columbine


No, the analogy fits, as the assault weapons ban of the '90s wasn't worth the paper it was printed on and was incapable of stopping any deaths whatsoever. If anything, it was even weaker than Dodd-Frank.
 
2013-04-10 07:03:31 PM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: I've been hearing for the past 5 years that the only reason this economy still stinks is because Obama cant get congress to authorize trillions more in stimulus to put people to work building roads and bridges and on top of that, we need more cops, teachers and firefighters. They come from the same school of people who think that if government inflates the currency, which drives up rents, food and energy and uses that currency to put people to work on make-work projects that the economy will rebound.

Aren't you the same guy who believes that money the government uses for employees and contractors vanishes into the netherworld never to return?


No, it gets spent by those who receive it.

however you're one of those people who ignores what the money might have been spent on had it not been taxed away from the person who earned it in the first place.  Like when the news and congress were having a complete meltdown that due to the payroll tax holiday expiring, people would have less money to spend.
 
2013-04-10 07:08:26 PM  

Ishkur: Only the poor spend 100% of their income on tangible commodities. Corporations and rich people tend to save/hoard/take it out of circulation which is bad for the economy


Actually, corporations and rich people put their money in banks, which before the fed pumped them with trillions in free credit, would have to take deposits of capital and then lend the money responsibly.  $1,000,000 in cold hard cash at your local bank is a damn good thing.  The bank uses that money to lend to people who run businesses, buy homes, cars, buy equipment, etc.  You want well-capitalized small banks.  you want people getting wealthy.
 
2013-04-10 07:13:05 PM  

o5iiawah: Ishkur: Only the poor spend 100% of their income on tangible commodities. Corporations and rich people tend to save/hoard/take it out of circulation which is bad for the economy

Actually, corporations and rich people put their money in banks, which before the fed pumped them with trillions in free credit, would have to take deposits of capital and then lend the money responsibly.  $1,000,000 in cold hard cash at your local bank is a damn good thing.  The bank uses that money to lend to people who run businesses, buy homes, cars, buy equipment, etc.  You want well-capitalized small banks.  you want people getting wealthy.


Are you high? Did you really just say that corporations and rich people put their money in banks?
 
2013-04-10 07:27:40 PM  

o5iiawah: Actually, corporations and rich people put their money in banks,


Yes and no. You have to make a distinction about which banks you're talking about and what banking industry they're putting their money in. To wit, they are mostly NOT dropping their funds into vaults or savings accounts (where banks can then turn around and lend to small businesses. This is NOT happening). In fact, a great deal of their liquid assets are tied up in hedge funds, capital investments, stocks, bonds, and the derivatives market. While this might sound good because it improves fiscal liquidity on Wall Street, it is actually not very helpful for the economy because the money is not being spent on the sectors where it can do the most good: Production, employment, working class sectors, and general consumption of tangible goods and services.

The purpose of money is to change hands -- it's supposed to be spent. It doesn't matter who has the money so long as it keeps moving. But the money MUST move north-south. It must move from rich to poor to middle back to rich. It's like the water cycle: If it stops, everyone dies.

Right now, the money is not moving north-south, it is moving laterally -- from one rich portfolio to the other, so it stays within the coffers of the 1%. This is bad. It is not getting out into general circulation and it is not helping ANYONE.

What supply-side has created is an insulated money vortex among the upper classes where the money just keeps getting passed through various financial portfolios like playing cards, increasing the value of each and spiraling their paper-wealth up through the stratosphere. They sit on each others Boards, they invest in each others companies, they buy stocks from each other and they prop up each others holdings like sheeves of corn. It's good business if you can get into this little circle, because it doesn't interact at all with the outside world.

It has created, in effect, a culture of insulated elites so divorced from the extreme consequences of their decision-making that they are barely-affected by anything going on in the country around them. They then use their power and influence to control policy and insulate themselves further and even as standard of living grows more decrepit their lives are unaffected and they fight to ensure that things remain this way (in other words, they don't care how bad things get so long as they remain on top).

/this is like the third time I've copy-pasted this schpiel to you. Why are you so god damn stupid?
 
2013-04-10 07:43:56 PM  

o5iiawah: however you're one of those people who ignores what the money might have been spent on had it not been taxed away from the person who earned it in the first place.


Yes, money circulating is bad for the economy.  Stagnation is the way to go.
 
2013-04-10 07:45:17 PM  

o5iiawah: Ishkur: Only the poor spend 100% of their income on tangible commodities. Corporations and rich people tend to save/hoard/take it out of circulation which is bad for the economy

Actually, corporations and rich people put their money in banks, which before the fed pumped them with trillions in free credit, would have to take deposits of capital and then lend the money responsibly.  $1,000,000 in cold hard cash at your local bank is a damn good thing.  The bank uses that money to lend to people who run businesses, buy homes, cars, buy equipment, etc.  You want well-capitalized small banks.  you want people getting wealthy.


rich people wont be putting $1mm in a local bank, when the limit of FDIC insurance is $250k.

there are ways that private wealth managers can game the system to get FDIC insured deposits of $1mm or more, but your local bank can't afford the consultants that make that all possible.
 
2013-04-11 12:25:11 AM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: however you're one of those people who ignores what the money might have been spent on had it not been taxed away from the person who earned it in the first place.

Yes, money circulating is bad for the economy.  Stagnation is the way to go.


Circulation only helps the economy if there are goods and services on either end. When you take money out of the economy via taxation, it gets spent somewhere else. Where it doesnt get spent is where it was in the first place.

If i have $1000 and you levy a $250 tax on me to fund some make-work project, the worker now has $250 to spend while i have $250 less to spend. Youve moved money around the economy but the aggregate goods and services is still the same.

You really arent as smart as you think and snarky comments only expose that more.
 
2013-04-11 12:32:27 AM  

Ishkur: o5iiawah: Actually, corporations and rich people put their money in banks,

Yes and no. You have to make a distinction about which banks you're talking about and what banking industry they're putting their money in. To wit, they are mostly NOT dropping their funds into vaults or savings accounts (where banks can then turn around and lend to small businesses. This is NOT happening). In fact, a great deal of their liquid assets are tied up in hedge funds, capital investments, stocks, bonds, and the derivatives market. While this might sound good because it improves fiscal liquidity on Wall Street, it is actually not very helpful for the economy because the money is not being spent on the sectors where it can do the most good: Production, employment, working class sectors, and general consumption of tangible goods and services.

The purpose of money is to change hands -- it's supposed to be spent. It doesn't matter who has the money so long as it keeps moving. But the money MUST move north-south. It must move from rich to poor to middle back to rich. It's like the water cycle: If it stops, everyone dies.

Right now, the money is not moving north-south, it is moving laterally -- from one rich portfolio to the other, so it stays within the coffers of the 1%. This is bad. It is not getting out into general circulation and it is not helping ANYONE.

What supply-side has created is an insulated money vortex among the upper classes where the money just keeps getting passed through various financial portfolios like playing cards, increasing the value of each and spiraling their paper-wealth up through the stratosphere. They sit on each others Boards, they invest in each others companies, they buy stocks from each other and they prop up each others holdings like sheeves of corn. It's good business if you can get into this little circle, because it doesn't interact at all with the outside world.

It has created, in effect, a culture of insulated elites so divorced from the extreme consequences of their decision-making that they are barely-affected by anything going on in the country around them. They then use their power and influence to control policy and insulate themselves further and even as standard of living grows more decrepit their lives are unaffected and they fight to ensure that things remain this way (in other words, they don't care how bad things get so long as they remain on top).

/this is like the third time I've copy-pasted this schpiel to you. Why are you so god damn stupid?


The purpose of money is to represent property, or on a more basic level, units of labor or raw goods. Money exists to give durability to perishable things. We can trade our labor in for money which then becomes our property. This money outlasts the life of what it once represented, whether its fish, bread or our own lives since we as humans are perishable. To suggest that money is a social property and that a man who holds money is under a social imperative to do certain things with it is to say that man doesnt own his own labor

It is not a "social contract" nor is it public property. You can wax all you want about it but those are the origins of currency.

You can post it as many times as you want. Youre fixated on this hatred of the 1% and you believe what Slate or Mother Jones tells you to.

I mean, if you have a better definition of what money or currency is, i would love to hear it
 
2013-04-11 12:37:01 AM  

BigBooper: I own a small company that sells to small companies. I've been in this business for twenty years, and I've seen things slowly change over those years. You want to know what the future is as I see it? Well small business in farked. Why? Because large corporations are crushing the small businesses that they can't buy. They use the legal system, they use government, they use competitive practices, both legal and illegal, that the small guy can't compete with. Big corporations have written our laws, and at the same time have the staying power and resources to ignore the law when it suits them. For every time a big corporation gets caught, they get away with breaking the law countless times. And I'm not even talking about skirting the laws they helped write. I'm talking about the outright breaking of laws.

So I see the future, and it's one where a handful of mega corporations act as a shadow government, and no small business can exist that they don't allow to exist. The new royalty in this system will be the ultra rich. Not just the 1%, but the 1% of the 1%. And the rest of us will be the plebes, the serfs, that dutifully serve our lords and masters.


I can also confirm the first paragraph... barriers to entry so large and complicated... and they have watchdogs for any new guy in the industry who have the job to come check out any little variance or state code or whatever they can possibly find to make you pay.

I
 
2013-04-11 12:37:16 AM  

o5iiawah: Circulation only helps the economy if there are goods and services on either end.


So you really don't think there are goods and services at either end of government contracts?

o5iiawah: If i have $1000 and you levy a $250 tax on me to fund some make-work project, the worker now has $250 to spend while i have $250 less to spend.


Actually that money wouldn't go simply towards workers.  It goes towards transportation, supplies, and any number of other applications related to the project and not just the labor.  In short there is far more circulation involved in economic transactions than simply you or some other guy.

o5iiawah: You really arent as smart as you think and snarky comments only expose that more.


Please keep digging.  Your arrogance is only surpassed by how much of a simpleton you are.
 
2013-04-11 12:41:40 AM  

o5iiawah: To suggest that money is a social property and that a man who holds money is under a social imperative to do certain things with it is to say that man doesnt own his own labor


/facepalm

If that's what you got out of his post then you really are clueless.  The point is that money needs to keep circulating in order to facilitate a healthy economy.  Hoarding it amongst a small elite doesn't result in growth; it results in stagnation.
 
2013-04-11 01:00:31 AM  

o5iiawah: The purpose of money is to represent property, or on a more basic level, units of labor or raw goods. Money exists to give durability to perishable things. We can trade our labor in for money which then becomes our property. This money outlasts the life of what it once represented, whether its fish, bread or our own lives since we as humans are perishable.


I don't disagree with any of this. But you're neglecting that the chief function of a healthy economy is that the MONEY HAS TO MOVE!!

Right now, the MONEY IS NOT MOVING.

o5iiawah: To suggest that money is a social property and that a man who holds money is under a social imperative to do certain things with it is to say that man doesnt own his own labor


I think there's something you don't quite understand about "social property", especially of property in a complex socio-economic system that exists almost entirely to ensure the very rights and ownership of that property.

The system does not exist to give you privilege and position. Rather, your position exists to provide for the system. And if you fail in that one task, the system will take what it needs from you because it prefers to survive at your expense rather than let you profit while it suffers.

By what right do you deserve to own ANYTHING if you refuse to support the infrastructure necessary to ensure that right?

o5iiawah: Youre fixated on this hatred of the 1% and you believe what Slate or Mother Jones tells you to.


I don't read Slate or Mother Jones. And I love how you can't address my points but whine about some ad hominem bullshiat instead. Like I couldn't have come up with these things myself.

After all, you're the guy who::
thinks the Federal Reserve has destroyed 98% of the US dollar since its inception
that if you remove a tax burden, companies will magically reduce the retail price of products out of the goodness of their hearts
thinks Reagan didn't raise taxes (or that it's a lie spread by liberals)
thinks the government doesn't create jobs
thinks public education shouldn't exist
thinks social programs have never improved liberty, human rights, working conditions, wealth or prosperity
thinks OWS was astroturf by George Soros and Move-on and actually had leaders
thinks the government has nationalized student loans, healthcare, the auto industry, mortgages and banks
thinks social security should be abolished
thinks supply proceeds demand
doesn't understand Keynesian economics AT ALL
 
2013-04-11 01:07:28 AM  

Ishkur: o5iiawah: The purpose of money is to represent property, or on a more basic level, units of labor or raw goods. Money exists to give durability to perishable things. We can trade our labor in for money which then becomes our property. This money outlasts the life of what it once represented, whether its fish, bread or our own lives since we as humans are perishable.

I don't disagree with any of this. But you're neglecting that the chief function of a healthy economy is that the MONEY HAS TO MOVE!!

Right now, the MONEY IS NOT MOVING.

o5iiawah: To suggest that money is a social property and that a man who holds money is under a social imperative to do certain things with it is to say that man doesnt own his own labor

I think there's something you don't quite understand about "social property", especially of property in a complex socio-economic system that exists almost entirely to ensure the very rights and ownership of that property.

The system does not exist to give you privilege and position. Rather, your position exists to provide for the system. And if you fail in that one task, the system will take what it needs from you because it prefers to survive at your expense rather than let you profit while it suffers.

By what right do you deserve to own ANYTHING if you refuse to support the infrastructure necessary to ensure that right?

o5iiawah: Youre fixated on this hatred of the 1% and you believe what Slate or Mother Jones tells you to.

I don't read Slate or Mother Jones. And I love how you can't address my points but whine about some ad hominem bullshiat instead. Like I couldn't have come up with these things myself.

After all, you're the guy who::
thinks the Federal Reserve has destroyed 98% of the US dollar since its inception
that if you remove a tax burden, companies will magically reduce the retail price of products out of the goodness of their hearts
thinks Reagan didn't raise taxes (or that it's a lie spread by liberals)
thinks the government doesn' ...


There's also a post where he claims the FDIC was a key factor that resulted in the crash of 2008 but I'm too lazy to dig it up from the Farkives.
 
2013-04-11 01:08:01 AM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: To suggest that money is a social property and that a man who holds money is under a social imperative to do certain things with it is to say that man doesnt own his own labor

/facepalm

If that's what you got out of his post then you really are clueless.  The point is that money needs to keep circulating in order to facilitate a healthy economy.  Hoarding it amongst a small elite doesn't result in growth; it results in stagnation.


And you have proof the rich are hoarding this money?  You do know that rich people go broke, right?  And that 70-80% of people who are worth over a $1m inherited little to no wealth from their parents and are first-generation.

To suggest that people aim to get rich to they can lock their money in a drawer and do nothing with it, living like a pauper to ensure nobody gets their hand on it or can even earn it through a business transaction is the highest order of retardation.

You and Ishtur have a fixated notion of how you think the world operates and the problem is once you start with incorrect, ignorant assumptions, you only think you're smart when some other moron validates what you have to say.  We have a negative savings rate in this country.  We have record debt and deficits which have been brought about because of dumbass ideas like "If we print money, it will circulate and grow"  This economy is functioning on spending borrowed paper. a healthy economy is one where people save, invest and own capital and property.  You're the type of person who looks at someone's house and thinks, "Gee, thats a mighty big house.  If the government forced them to sell it and move into something smaller, the leftover money could circulate into the economy and everything would be grand!"
 
2013-04-11 01:12:35 AM  

o5iiawah: And you have proof the rich are hoarding this money? You do know that rich people go broke, right?


That has nothing to do with what I just said.

o5iiawah: To suggest that people aim to get rich to they can lock their money in a drawer and do nothing with it, living like a pauper to ensure nobody gets their hand on it or can even earn it through a business transaction is the highest order of retardation.


Yes that would be retarded to assume that I said that.  Reading comprehension isn't your strong point.
 
2013-04-11 01:14:50 AM  
o5iiawah:   You're the type of person who looks at someone's house and thinks, "Gee, thats a mighty big house.  If the government forced them to sell it and move into something smaller, the leftover money could circulate into the economy and everything would be grand!"

I also see you're the kind of person that when you can't respond to the arguments at hand you make shait up.  I hope that strawman keeps you warm at night.
 
2013-04-11 01:19:25 AM  

Ishkur: And I love how you can't address my points but whine about some ad hominem bullshiat instead.


I've addressed all of your points.

And I wont address all of your outright misquotes and lies since that is your go-to tactic but I will point out this gem:

Unlike you, I've read Keynes.  I know what policies he pushed for.  What you and Fart_machine and the rest of your retard crew are humping with this dollar velocity argument has nothing to do with keynesian economics.

They dont do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because they dont have to charge the tax.  There's a reason companies in DE set up billboards 20 miles into PA telling people that there's no sales tax in DE and shiat is cheaper.  If companies were as greedy and nefarious as you suggest, they would simply mark up the price of their goods 7% or so in Delaware so everything was the same.  You're going to call me a liar or some other pejorative but I live in the Philly area.  I can take a picture of one of them next time I see it.


Just please stop with all of this.  not only do you lie out your ass but you are exposing yourself even more.  Welcometofark.jpg
 
2013-04-11 01:25:40 AM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: Circulation only helps the economy if there are goods and services on either end.

So you really don't think there are goods and services at either end of government contracts?


of course there are. But you are ignoring that there would have been goods and services at the other end of the economy, where the money was first earned.  You keep escaping this point and refuse to address it.

o5iiawah: If i have $1000 and you levy a $250 tax on me to fund some make-work project, the worker now has $250 to spend while i have $250 less to spend.

Actually that money wouldn't go simply towards workers.  It goes towards transportation, supplies, and any number of other applications related to the project and not just the labor.  In short there is far more circulation involved in economic transactions than simply you or some other guy.


ok, and if I put that money into my house on an improvement, it would benefit the hardware store owner, who would have money to get his car fixed, the mechanic would have money to buy school supplies for his kids, benefiting the person who worked at the distribution center who then goes and buys groceries benefiting the farmer.  Not to mention, the home improvement might cause my house to be re-assessed at a higher value, resulting in more property tax revenue for my township.  If you take that $250 away from me, you take the resulting circulation from one part of the economy and you move it somewhere else - to whatever is in the supply chain of the govt contract worker.  It still spends the same, just on different things.  Again, in the aggregate, there is no gain or loss since you cant predict where each person is going to spend the money they had before it was taxed away.

o5iiawah: You really arent as smart as you think and snarky comments only expose that more.

Please keep digging.  Your arrogance is only surpassed by how much of a simpleton you are.


Basic questions, I keep asking them.  Where does the money come from.  you keep humping the same argument that the money circulates down the road. You keep ignoring where it came from.
 
2013-04-11 01:34:52 AM  

Ishkur: I don't disagree with any of this. But you're neglecting that the chief function of a healthy economy is that the MONEY HAS TO MOVE!!

Right now, the MONEY IS NOT MOVING.


If you agree that money represents goods and services then really what we need are goods and services moving around the economy.  Instead, we get economists telling us that we need to tax productive people so we can give it to unproductive people because they will spend the money.  Circulation of currency is good if there's a resulting transfer of goods and services as a result.  We need people working and making things.  That will turn the economy around.

Ishkur: The system does not exist to give you privilege and position. Rather, your position exists to provide for the system. And if you fail in that one task, the system will take what it needs from you because it prefers to survive at your expense rather than let you profit while it suffers.

By what right do you deserve to own ANYTHING if you refuse to support the infrastructure necessary to ensure that right?


The reason we have law is to protect property, not to redistribute it.  the cost of executing these laws and operating fair courts does not require the current level of taxation, not does it empower you to seize the property of an individual for not abiding by some social contract that doesn't exist.

Does property exist?  At what percentage of his time, wealth or labor has a man given enough?  40? 50? 60?  There's people who live in states like CA and NY who pay 65% of their income in taxes.  Can you look them squarely in the eye and say that they are a selfish prick who needs to pay more?

Christ on a cracker, listen to yourself
 
2013-04-11 01:58:20 AM  

o5iiawah: Basic questions, I keep asking them. Where does the money come from. you keep humping the same argument that the money circulates down the road. You keep ignoring where it came from.


Probably because it's irrelevant.  Repeating a constant mantra doesn't make your point any better.

o5iiawah: There's people who live in states like CA and NY who pay 65% of their income in taxes.


Aaaaaaaand you're full of shait.
 
2013-04-11 02:04:56 AM  

Fart_Machine: Probably because it's irrelevant.


It isn't a mantra, it is a question posed to you.

When money is taxed away from people, what happens to the resulting goods and services that those people can now no longer purchase?  You cant answer it because you got called out for humping one of the most basic economic fallacies out there.
 
2013-04-11 02:08:53 AM  

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Probably because it's irrelevant.

It isn't a mantra, it is a question posed to you.

When money is taxed away from people, what happens to the resulting goods and services that those people can now no longer purchase?  You cant answer it because you got called out for humping one of the most basic economic fallacies out there.


I did actually.  Again you're clueless.  This isn't a zero-sum game.
 
2013-04-11 02:20:10 AM  

o5iiawah: not does it empower you to seize the property of an individual for not abiding by some social contract that doesn't exist.


Ones ability to get rich (without being born into it) is entirely dependent upon society setting up things in such a way to enable it. If you had a choice between a society that is set up that way, or a society in which you really don't have a chance, which would you choose?

Which would you choose if the one that lets you get rich also taxes you 40, 50, 60%?
 
2013-04-11 06:05:57 AM  
I'm out there, trying.to get a job. No one.is hiring. If I could.get a job, I could spend that money on goods and services, thus circulating the.money. as it stands, the wealthy and the corporations have that money, and.they are just sitting on it. Meanwhile, I'm told that I'm just lazy and if I was more productive then everything would be ok. So, maybe it is asking for some redistribution of that wealth. Give me a job, so I can make money, and get to redistribiting it through the economy. Because as it stands, I'm not out there spending money because I don't have it, and the rich aren't out there spending it either, because they don't want or need to. If I could get a job, and make that money to spend, that would increase the number of consumers, but the rich guy doesn't need 2x as much food as he would normally eat, so he doesn't buy it. If I had.money, I'd be buying food too. No job equals no money equals no purchasing. Hey rich guy- gimme a job!
 
2013-04-11 07:32:46 AM  

o5iiawah: And you have proof the rich are hoarding this money?


Yes. Over $2 trillion at most recent estimates.
 
2013-04-11 07:33:28 AM  
Unfetchable my ass. Article is here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190392720457657472001700 9 568.html
 
2013-04-11 07:36:59 AM  

o5iiawah: I've addressed all of your points.


No you haven't.

o5iiawah: Unlike you, I've read Keynes. I know what policies he pushed for. What you and Fart_machine and the rest of your retard crew are humping with this dollar velocity argument has nothing to do with keynesian economics.


Okay. I'm not a Keynesian and never claimed to be. That is a strawman that you made up in only your head that you live in.

o5iiawah: Just please stop with all of this.


Why? You're the one who looks like a god damn dumbass. What the fark does Delaware have to do with ANYTHING I've said thus far? You can't even stay on topic.
 
2013-04-11 07:54:52 AM  

o5iiawah: If you agree that money represents goods and services


No. Especially not in the age of fiat. And money is hardly a representation of labor, either. CEOs currently make 420x more than the average floor worker. Can you really say that a CEO works harder than 420 people combined? He is getting paid a disproportionate amount of money compared with the amount of value that he actually puts into the company. If the CEO were suddenly killed in a lightning strike, the company can easily survive without him -- he would be replaced and there'd be no loss in revenue. If 420 floorworkers were suddenly killed in a lightning strike, the company could go under (depending on how large it is), or suffer massive losses for several months as it struggles to hire and train replacements.

So who is really more important and who deserves adequate compensation as per their importance?

o5iiawah: Instead, we get economists telling us that we need to tax productive people


Speculators of wealth are not productive. They don't produce or create anything.

o5iiawah: The reason we have law is to protect property


Laws are not to protect property from people. They are to protect people from other people.

Your property -- your ownership of ANYTHING - is not an independent value set to be declared by you or anyone. You can claim you own something, but that ownership is meaningless if no one else recognizes it. In other words, your property rights are a social conceit - they are not an 'I' thing, they are a 'WE' thing. In order for you to own anything, you need a system in place to validate your ownership and give it meaning. So once again, I ask you:

By what right do you deserve to own property when you refuse to support the infrastructure necessary to ensure that right?

o5iiawah: the cost of executing these laws and operating fair courts does not require the current level of taxation, not does it empower you to seize the property of an individual for not abiding by some social contract that doesn't exist.


Sure it does. Haven't you ever heard of Eminent Domain/Squatter's rights? ...You cannot hoard property and do nothing with it.

o5iiawah: At what percentage of his time, wealth or labor has a man given enough?


Which man? Are we talking about a rich man or a poor man? Because I can tell you easily that the poor man pays 100% of his wealth/time/labor back into the system and the rich man does not. The rich man is the moocher, sponging off the system that gives him privilege and position and doesn't pay it forward. The poor man spends all of his paycheck, making everyone around him wealthy.
 
2013-04-11 08:13:36 AM  

o5iiawah: When money is taxed away from people, what happens to the resulting goods and services that those people can now no longer purchase?


Probably the exact same thing that happens when you don't raise their wages for 30 years.
 
2013-04-11 08:57:43 AM  
Debeo Summa Credo:The Sarbanes Oxley act was essentially the "accountant full employment act of 2002". Dodd Frank is the "corporate compliance full employment act of 2010". Causes tremendous amounts of make work the cost of which far exceeds the benefits to society.

Dodd Frank was watered down in Congress and had the rest of its teeth pulled by Senate Republicans, who have blocked any attempt to appoint a director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
 
MFK
2013-04-11 11:31:15 AM  

o5iiawah: And you have proof the rich are hoarding this money? You do know that rich people go broke, right? And that 70-80% of people who are worth over a $1m inherited little to no wealth from their parents and are first-generation.

To suggest that people aim to get rich to they can lock their money in a drawer and do nothing with it, living like a pauper to ensure nobody gets their hand on it or can even earn it through a business transaction is the highest order of retardation.


Jesus, dude. This took less than 2 seconds to find on google and it's recent news.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/business/la-fi-mo-tax-havens -2 0120723
 
2013-04-11 03:01:04 PM  
Ishkur:

Jesus man, you have the patience of a saint. Throw the booger on ignore.

I'll be the first to admit that Keynesian theory does not cover everything (for example, he strongly underestimates the willingness of labor to deal with downward wages for continued employment and he assumes that all foreign investment is fungible - that investors from China and Germany will want exactly the same things), but it's still the best damn theory that the field has at the moment. If something better comes along, I'll be more than happy to dump the old stuff. But that theory hasn't been developed yet.

/Fun fact: You can't spell "Austrian Economics" without "autism"
 
2013-04-11 04:16:03 PM  

Ishkur: Why? You're the one who looks like a god damn dumbass. What the fark does Delaware have to do with ANYTHING I've said thus far? You can't even stay on topic.


You were trying to push some lie that if businesses are given a tax holiday, they will simply raise prices and eat the profit for themselves.
To which I responded that I do my large budget shopping in Delaware because taxes are lower.  If the State of Delaware tells Lowes they dont have to charge 6%, according to you, they would simply raise their prices to be equal to the Lowes in PA but they dont. Prices are cheaper and that is why people shop there.

Ishkur: Can you really say that a CEO works harder than 420 people combined? He is getting paid a disproportionate amount of money compared with the amount of value that he actually puts into the company.


The value a CEO brings to a company is assigned by the owners of the company who hire the CEO to steer the company in a profitable direction.  It is whatever the market will bear.  I think $15 is an absurd amount of money to pay for a Justin Bieber record, something I dont even want to hear for free, but there are people who want to buy it.  You argue they arent worth it - I argue that it isn't your business to set what people get paid in a system of voluntary exchange.  Dont like it"?  Invest millions of your own money into a company, hire a CEO to make $80k/yr and let me know how that works out for you.

Ishkur: Laws are not to protect property from people.


Some of the oldest laws ever to have existed concerned property and possessions.  Not surprisingly, you are wrong.

Ishkur: The rich man is the moocher, sponging off the system that gives him privilege and position and doesn't pay it forward. The poor man spends all of his paycheck, making everyone around him wealthy.


Holy crap that has to be the funniest thing I've ever read on fark.  The top 1% foot 40% of the tax bill in this country.  Lies, lies lies...does it hurt a little to tell them?

So let me get this straight - a person who makes $500,000/yr and pays half of that in taxes, putting $250k into state and local coffers is a dirtbag while the person who doesn't work and merely consumes and demands support from others is a hero.  You could write policy you're so effing smart.
 
2013-04-11 04:17:40 PM  

Ishkur: o5iiawah: Actually, corporations and rich people put their money in banks,

Yes and no. You have to make a distinction about which banks you're talking about and what banking industry they're putting their money in. To wit, they are mostly NOT dropping their funds into vaults or savings accounts (where banks can then turn around and lend to small businesses. This is NOT happening). In fact, a great deal of their liquid assets are tied up in hedge funds, capital investments, stocks, bonds, and the derivatives market. While this might sound good because it improves fiscal liquidity on Wall Street, it is actually not very helpful for the economy because the money is not being spent on the sectors where it can do the most good: Production, employment, working class sectors, and general consumption of tangible goods and services.

The purpose of money is to change hands -- it's supposed to be spent. It doesn't matter who has the money so long as it keeps moving. But the money MUST move north-south. It must move from rich to poor to middle back to rich. It's like the water cycle: If it stops, everyone dies.

Right now, the money is not moving north-south, it is moving laterally -- from one rich portfolio to the other, so it stays within the coffers of the 1%. This is bad. It is not getting out into general circulation and it is not helping ANYONE.

What supply-side has created is an insulated money vortex among the upper classes where the money just keeps getting passed through various financial portfolios like playing cards, increasing the value of each and spiraling their paper-wealth up through the stratosphere. They sit on each others Boards, they invest in each others companies, they buy stocks from each other and they prop up each others holdings like sheeves of corn. It's good business if you can get into this little circle, because it doesn't interact at all with the outside world.

It has created, in effect, a culture of insulated elites so divorced from the extr ...


I could be because its dead wrong.  Assets in hedge funds, corporate bonds or equity investments, etc. all help the economy just as much as bank loans.  What do you think corporate bond proceeds are used for?  What do you think companies do with money raised in equity issuances?  Do you think it just disappears?

/and before you go on with your 'paper vortex' stupidity, when you buy a stock or bond on the secondary market, the seller gets funds, which they will either invest elsewhere or consume.  it doesn't just disappear or get passed around forever.  It is invested somewhere unless the cash is taken out and stuffed in a mattress.  Which, of course, doesn't happen.
 
2013-04-11 04:19:24 PM  

MFK: o5iiawah: And you have proof the rich are hoarding this money? You do know that rich people go broke, right? And that 70-80% of people who are worth over a $1m inherited little to no wealth from their parents and are first-generation.

To suggest that people aim to get rich to they can lock their money in a drawer and do nothing with it, living like a pauper to ensure nobody gets their hand on it or can even earn it through a business transaction is the highest order of retardation.

Jesus, dude. This took less than 2 seconds to find on google and it's recent news.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/business/la-fi-mo-tax-havens -2 0120723


So the wealthy put their money in tax havens to avoid high tax rates.
The solution is obviously to raise taxes.

Spending has never been higher in this country.  The personal savings rate is -1.3%.  We run trillion dollar deficits to run public assitance and stimulus programs for the economy.  If public spending was the answer, 5 years on, it would be working now.
 
2013-04-11 05:02:17 PM  

Ishkur: poor man pays 100% of his wealth/time/labor back into the system


No he doesn't.  The poor man drains the system.  He lives off the system.  he relies on the system for his next meal.  The "system" is only the aggregate of what goes in, minus what goes out. How can a man who puts nothing in be a hero when a man who puts in 20-40% of his income is a bum?

Before you go accusing wealthy people of not supporting infrastructure, or whatever boneheaded argument you're pushing, how many roads, bridges and battleships do we have on account of the poor man, taking $15-30k out of the system each year?  How many poor men eat because of the $10m in taxes paid by hedge fund managers.

I guess I'll never understand the way progressive economists seem to think.  The only litmus test for their knowledge is the acceptance of like-minded individuals since every time this stimulus-based demand-driven economy has been tried, it has failed miserably.
 
2013-04-11 05:03:10 PM  

o5iiawah: Ishkur: The rich man is the moocher, sponging off the system that gives him privilege and position and doesn't pay it forward. The poor man spends all of his paycheck, making everyone around him wealthy.

Holy crap that has to be the funniest thing I've ever read on fark.  The top 1% foot 40% of the tax bill in this country.  Lies, lies lies...does it hurt a little to tell them?

So let me get this straight - a person who makes $500,000/yr and pays half of that in taxes, putting $250k into state and local coffers is a dirtbag while the person who doesn't work and merely consumes and demands support from others is a hero.  You could write policy you're so effing smart.

Although the 1%/40% might be hyperbolic, other than that great post.  The scary part is he (and many other neo-Marxists around here) actually believe that the rich guy is mooching, and the poor guy spending all the assistance he gets from government programs is helping.
 
2013-04-11 05:15:57 PM  
Now, some folks just aren't satisfied with their place here at Fink Industries. But I tell you, there's a purpose for all living things. Would the pharaohs of Egypt have been able to stand at the top of their pyramids if the Israelites had not made their bricks? Would the captains of industry have been able to ride the rails had not the Chinamen laid the track for them? So I say, chin up! History is built on the backs of men like you!
 
2013-04-11 05:21:13 PM  

o5iiawah: You were trying to push some lie that if businesses are given a tax holiday, they will simply raise prices and eat the profit for themselves.


Oh, you're still going over that butthurt. No, I didn't say they would raise prices. YOU said they would lower prices if a tax burden is removed. I asked you to provide ONE example where that's occurred and you have yet to do so.

You lost that argument. Stop bringing it up.

o5iiawah: The value a CEO brings to a company is assigned by the owners of the company who hire the CEO to steer the company in a profitable direction. It is whatever the market will bear.


Stop dodging the farking question: DOES A CEO WORK 420 TIMES HARDER THAN A FLOOR WORKER? Yes or no.

o5iiawah: Some of the oldest laws ever to have existed concerned property and possessions.


No, they concern human recognition, acknowledgement and acceptance of those laws. That's what all laws are: Agreements between people. You cannot have laws (and thereby property/ownership/rights/etc) if no one recognizes those laws.

o5iiawah: The top 1% foot 40% of the tax bill in this country.


Yeah, it's too disproportionate. They should be paying the amount of taxes commensurate with their income. Sooooo... closer to 80%.

o5iiawah: So let me get this straight -


No, you haven't gotten it straight. You never get anything straight. Your reading comprehension is functionally broken.

Go back and read it again.
 
2013-04-11 05:23:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Assets in hedge funds, corporate bonds or equity investments, etc. all help the economy just as much as bank loans. What do you think corporate bond proceeds are used for? What do you think companies do with money raised in equity issuances? Do you think it just disappears?


No, it just gets moved laterally. It's just bouncing around between various high finance portfolios right now. This is the failure of Reaganomics. None of it trickles down. You give the rich more money, they just spend it on each other. The rest of the economy is grinding down to a halt because of this.

I explained this already. Why are you so stupid?
 
2013-04-11 05:28:02 PM  

o5iiawah: The poor man drains the system. He lives off the system. he relies on the system for his next meal. The "system" is only the aggregate of what goes in, minus what goes out. How can a man who puts nothing in be a hero when a man who puts in 20-40% of his income is a bum?


He doesn't put nothing in, he puts 100% in. Everything that you give him, he gives back. He is the perfect positive feedback mechanism.

If you give a billion dollar stimulus to 10 rich people ($100 million each), they won't spend all of it and not all at once, and when they do they'll just invest it in each other's companies and cause a financial bubble (and we've had three in the last thirty years that affirm this assertion -- supply side does not work). Great for accounting ledgers but it doesn't really help the economy or anyone's standard of living (not even them) because none of it actually gets into general circulation.

You give a billion dollar stimulus to 100 million working class people ($10 each), they're going to spend it on lunch. In one day, the money is instantly back into the system, helping everyone.

This is why the best stimulus' plans are always for the poor.
 
2013-04-11 05:53:01 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Assets in hedge funds, corporate bonds or equity investments, etc. all help the economy just as much as bank loans. What do you think corporate bond proceeds are used for? What do you think companies do with money raised in equity issuances? Do you think it just disappears?

No, it just gets moved laterally. It's just bouncing around between various high finance portfolios right now. This is the failure of Reaganomics. None of it trickles down. You give the rich more money, they just spend it on each other. The rest of the economy is grinding down to a halt because of this.

I explained this already. Why are you so stupid?


What do you mean 'bounced around'.   If I buy a stock from investor A, he now has cash.  He can use it for consumption (which you seem to be in favor of) or make another investment.  If he invests in newly issued bonds or equity, that is money used by the corporation to invest in new plants, expansion, advertising, hiring more workers, whatever.  That puts the money back into the economy.  If he makes a secondary market purchase, it goes to investor B, and the process starts over again. He either consumes, lends, or invests.  Money just doesn't disappear from the system.

It astounds me that there are so many farkers who don't understand this.
 
2013-04-11 05:56:52 PM  

Ishkur: o5iiawah: The poor man drains the system. He lives off the system. he relies on the system for his next meal. The "system" is only the aggregate of what goes in, minus what goes out. How can a man who puts nothing in be a hero when a man who puts in 20-40% of his income is a bum?

He doesn't put nothing in, he puts 100% in. Everything that you give him, he gives back. He is the perfect positive feedback mechanism.

If you give a billion dollar stimulus to 10 rich people ($100 million each), they won't spend all of it and not all at once, and when they do they'll just invest it in each other's companies and cause a financial bubble (and we've had three in the last thirty years that affirm this assertion -- supply side does not work). Great for accounting ledgers but it doesn't really help the economy or anyone's standard of living (not even them) because none of it actually gets into general circulation.

You give a billion dollar stimulus to 100 million working class people ($10 each), they're going to spend it on lunch. In one day, the money is instantly back into the system, helping everyone.

This is why the best stimulus' plans are always for the poor.


They spend it on $10 worth of food (a non-productive resource) and turn it into shiat.  The $10 each goes to farmers/fast food workers/food delivery truck drivers/whatever, who then do what they want with it.  You give the $1 billion to an investor, it goes into loans, investments (productive resources), what have you.   The cash goes to borrowers or businesses who have a use for it.  They spend it, injecting it into the economy once again.

Cash just doesn't dissappear like some magic trick.  Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself over and over like this?
 
2013-04-11 06:10:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If he makes a secondary market purchase, it goes to investor B, and the process starts over again.


That's the trick. It never leaves the hands of investors, effectively removed from the rest of the economy. and we have tax structures and investment vehicles that make this more lucrative than actually spending the money.

It doesn't get spent on loans, productive resources, and what have you. It doesn't get injected into the economy once again. That's the whole problem. At least the $10 for lunch is actually getting spent.

But go ahead, keep pretending people are stupid for describing what has been happening right in front of them for decades at a time.
 
2013-04-11 06:21:58 PM  

Ishkur: You lost that argument. Stop bringing it up.


No, you keep ignoring that when states enact sales tax holidays, people shop because prices are lower.  No matter how many times I post that, you call me a "Liar" or put forth some other 2nd grade response.  You called me out with a copy-pasta of lies you're spreading about me since you're not intelligent enough to actually debate facts.

Ishkur: DOES A CEO WORK 420 TIMES HARDER THAN A FLOOR WORKER? Yes or no.


"Hard work" is not the metric by which we measure compensation in the marketplace.  We measure wages by what value that employee brings to the market.  I could answer yes, or no.  Each is irrelevant since your frame of reference is a false assumption on how wages are earned.

Ishkur: No, you haven't gotten it straight. You never get anything straight. Your reading comprehension is functionally broken.


No, you asserted that a poor man who consumes everything and demands resources from the public treasury is of more value to the economy than a millionaire who is paying less than 80% of his income in taxes.  I present...

Ishkur: Because I can tell you easily that the poor man pays 100% of his wealth/time/labor back into the system and the rich man does not. The rich man is the moocher, sponging off the system that gives him privilege and position and doesn't pay it forward.


Ishkur: No, they concern human recognition, acknowledgement and acceptance of those laws.


You arent understanding something (no surprise here.) the acceptance of laws or who recognizes them has no relevance on why they were passed in the first place - which is to protect life, family and property.  If a man stole food from another man, there was punishment.  The thief could reject the law all he wanted, he was still subject to it if he was in the jurisdiction of the law.  When in rome...

Ishkur: No, it just gets moved laterally. It's just bouncing around between various high finance portfolios right now.


Yeah, you have no idea how economics works.  Just stop.
Nobody gets rich from bouncing money around.  If money goes somewhere, it comes from somewhere.  If what you said were true than no millionaire would go broke and nobody could ever become one.  This "I'll transfer you $400,000 and you transfer it back to me, then we'll have $800,000 between us" scheme is not how it works.  you keep saying that you are explaining things but they are your own retarded opinions which arent rooted in a shred of fact or modern observation.

Ishkur: If you give a billion dollar stimulus to 10 rich people ($100 million each), they won't spend all of it and not all at once, and when they do they'll just invest it in each other's companies and cause a financial bubble (and we've had three in the last thirty years that affirm this assertion -- supply side does not work). Great for accounting ledgers but it doesn't really help the economy or anyone's standard of living (not even them) because none of it actually gets into general circulation.

You give a billion dollar stimulus to 100 million working class people ($10 each), they're going to spend it on lunch. In one day, the money is instantly back into the system, helping everyone.

This is why the best stimulus' plans are always for the poor.


Where did you get your $100Bn stimulus from?  You took it away from 100 million working class people, who now each dont have $10 to spend on lunch.
Congratulations.  You are retarded.  Zero-Sum has nothing to do with this.  The benefits of giving a $100Bn stimulus is offset by the resulting taxation you levied on the people you took it from.
 
2013-04-11 06:27:13 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: That's the trick. It never leaves the hands of investors, effectively removed from the rest of the economy. and we have tax structures and investment vehicles that make this more lucrative than actually spending the money.

It doesn't get spent on loans, productive resources, and what have you. It doesn't get injected into the economy once again. That's the whole problem. At least the $10 for lunch is actually getting spent.


Sounds like you've just made a great argument for ending QE, too big to fail and lowering corporate tax and capital gains rates to keep money in the private economy and forcing banks to make money the old fashioned way, loaning to people who have ideas for generating capital
 
2013-04-11 06:33:25 PM  

o5iiawah: Sounds like you've just made a great argument for ending QE, too big to fail


Following....

o5iiawah: and lowering corporate tax and capital gains rates to keep money in the private economy


And you lost me. Low corporate taxes and capital gains rates are exactly the things that keep money uselessly bouncing around inflated investments.

o5iiawah: and forcing banks to make money the old fashioned way, loaning to people who have ideas for generating capital


So, 2 out of 3. Not bad for you, since your usual score is -5 out of 3.
 
2013-04-11 06:35:19 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Money just doesn't disappear from the system.


He didn't say it disappeared from the system.  The point was that it never trickles down to the rest of the economy.  Why are you so stupid?

o5iiawah: No, you asserted that a poor man who consumes everything and demands resources from the public treasury is of more value to the economy than a millionaire who is paying less than 80% of his income in taxes. I present...


Nobody is paying just under 80% of their income in taxes.  Please stop with the hyperbole but then again that's all you've got.
 
2013-04-11 06:36:12 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: If he makes a secondary market purchase, it goes to investor B, and the process starts over again.

That's the trick. It never leaves the hands of investors, effectively removed from the rest of the economy. and we have tax structures and investment vehicles that make this more lucrative than actually spending the money.

It doesn't get spent on loans, productive resources, and what have you. It doesn't get injected into the economy once again. That's the whole problem. At least the $10 for lunch is actually getting spent.

But go ahead, keep pretending people are stupid for describing what has been happening right in front of them for decades at a time.


Dude, you are stupid for not understanding what you think you've been seeing.  If you put money in your 401k or a regular mutual fund, do you really think that money disappears from the economy forever?  What happens to it?
 
2013-04-11 06:39:39 PM  

Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: Money just doesn't disappear from the system.

He didn't say it disappeared from the system.  The point was that it never trickles down to the rest of the economy.  Why are you so stupid?

o5iiawah: No, you asserted that a poor man who consumes everything and demands resources from the public treasury is of more value to the economy than a millionaire who is paying less than 80% of his income in taxes. I present...

Nobody is paying just under 80% of their income in taxes.  Please stop with the hyperbole but then again that's all you've got.


Of course it does.  Where does it go?  Follow it from the investors pocket onward....any money that doesn't disappear from the system has to go into the economy.
 
2013-04-11 06:39:53 PM  

o5iiawah: So the wealthy put their money in tax havens to avoid high tax rates.
The solution is obviously to raise taxes.


Actually the solution would be to crack down on tax havens.  But nice dodge showing you were wrong, again.
 
2013-04-11 06:42:48 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If you put money in your 401k or a regular mutual fund, do you really think that money disappears from the economy forever?


You're a farking moron if you think the ultrarich are keeping their money in a farking 401K and they're going to get it back out when they farking retire.
 
2013-04-11 06:42:51 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: And you lost me. Low corporate taxes and capital gains rates are exactly the things that keep money uselessly bouncing around inflated investments.


First off, corporations dont pay taxes, they just build the cost of the taxes into the goods and services.  Exxon doesn't pay a penny of tax. They build it into the cost of a gallon of gas and you pay it.  Lowering that would have a benefit on consumers.  More corporate profits (and perhaps a tax grace if the profits were reinvested) would allow for hiring and expansion.

And a lowering of tax rates might actually bring home expatriated investments and savings.  Would you rather a 35% tax rate that nobody pays or a 10-15% tax rate that people are happy to pay to enjoy the stability offered by a US-based bank that has an honest policeman patrolling out front?  you have to remember that in Ike's day, when tax rates were 90%, there were less than 100 people who actually paid that amount.

Dude, I drive to Delaware to save $40 on big purchases (including booze) and I am a working stiff like most everyone.  You think a person with millions (and means) is just going to buck up and pay the 80% rate that your buddy Ishtur wants him to pay?
 
2013-04-11 06:46:22 PM  

Fart_Machine: Nobody is paying just under 80% of their income in taxes.  Please stop with the hyperbole but then again that's all you've got.


Ishkur wants people paying 80%.  his words - not mine.

Ishkur: Yeah, it's too disproportionate. They should be paying the amount of taxes commensurate with their income. Sooooo... closer to 80%.



Fart_Machine: Actually the solution would be to crack down on tax havens.  But nice dodge showing you were wrong, again


What jurisdiction does the US have over a Cayman bank?  You're also making a good argument for a fair, or flat tax, which affects all people equally.  You might find that people like warren buffett, Jeff immelt and Facebook might actually be paying the taxes they've been begging for.
 
2013-04-11 06:47:02 PM  
o5iiawah: First off, corporations dont pay taxes, they just build the cost of the taxes into the goods and services. Exxon doesn't pay a penny of tax. They build it into the cost of a gallon of gas and you pay it. Lowering that would have a benefit on consumers. More corporate profits (and perhaps a tax grace if the profits were reinvested) would allow for hiring and expansion.

And a lowering of tax rates might actually bring home expatriated investments and savings. Would you rather a 35% tax rate that nobody pays or a 10-15% tax rate that people are happy to pay to enjoy the stability offered by a US-based bank that has an honest policeman patrolling out front? you have to remember that in Ike's day, when tax rates were 90%, there were less than 100 people who actually paid that amount.

Dude, I drive to Delaware to save $40 on big purchases (including booze) and I am a working stiff like most everyone. You think a person with millions (and means) is just going to buck up and pay the 80% rate that your buddy Ishtur wants him to pay?
Derp.

FTFY.
There isn't a single thing you've said there that isn't total fantasy or proven patently wrong by reality.
 
2013-04-11 06:48:31 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: If you put money in your 401k or a regular mutual fund, do you really think that money disappears from the economy forever?

You're a farking moron if you think the ultrarich are keeping their money in a farking 401K and they're going to get it back out when they farking retire.


I was trying to dumb it down for you.  Follow your 401k  to see where the money goes and ends up.  That's the same path that the ultrarich's investments take when they make bond or equity investments.

Seriously, you and Fart machine and Ishkur, get together and trace out where you think money goes when it is invested by a rich person.  Follow it from the rich person, to whomever receives it, and what they do with it, and so on.  If I give you a dollar, you have a dollar.  The dollar doesn't disappear.  Same concept with rich people and $100m dollars, you dolt.
 
2013-04-11 06:49:16 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: Money just doesn't disappear from the system.

He didn't say it disappeared from the system.  The point was that it never trickles down to the rest of the economy.  Why are you so stupid?

o5iiawah: No, you asserted that a poor man who consumes everything and demands resources from the public treasury is of more value to the economy than a millionaire who is paying less than 80% of his income in taxes. I present...

Nobody is paying just under 80% of their income in taxes.  Please stop with the hyperbole but then again that's all you've got.

Of course it does.  Where does it go?  Follow it from the investors pocket onward....any money that doesn't disappear from the system has to go into the economy.


Except it doesn't reach the middle class or poor.  That's the point.  Nobody said the money disappeared from the system.
 
2013-04-11 06:52:30 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: FTFY.
There isn't a single thing you've said there that isn't total fantasy or proven patently wrong by reality.


Wait, so corporations dont build taxes into the price of their goods?  Well then.  you're a goddamn genius.

just keep saying derp...adults are talking.
 
2013-04-11 06:52:35 PM  

o5iiawah: What jurisdiction does the US have over a Cayman bank?


Nothing but we do have some jurisdiction over the companies that put the money there.

o5iiawah: You're also making a good argument for a fair, or flat tax, which affects all people equally.


Except it doesn't, even according to the advocates of both of those systems.
 
2013-04-11 06:54:14 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The dollar doesn't disappear.


No one ever said it did. Just that the dollar bouncing around investment after investment can have the same effect as being removed from the rest of the economy. It doesn't trickle down, it doesn't filter back up, it just bounces around inflating investments without ever being used to actually produce anything of value.
 
2013-04-11 06:55:15 PM  

o5iiawah: Wait, so corporations dont build taxes into the price of their goods?


There is only so much of the tax they can include in the price before people shop elsewhere.

Debeo Summa Credo: The dollar doesn't disappear.


Nobody said that.  You dolt!
 
2013-04-11 06:57:55 PM  

o5iiawah: Derp, so corporations dont build taxes into the price of their goods?


They charge what the market will bear. It is not as simple as tacking on the tax to the price tag. An adult would know this.
 
2013-04-11 07:03:48 PM  

Fart_Machine: Except it doesn't reach the middle class or poor.  That's the point.  Nobody said the money disappeared from the system.


In other words, when rich people go on vacation, get their car serviced, their house worked on, or go out to eat, they are waited on by other millionaires who are greedily keeping it all for themselves.  I caught a glimpse of the millionaire's colony once before a security guard (also a millionaire) ushered me away
 
2013-04-11 07:08:37 PM  

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Except it doesn't reach the middle class or poor.  That's the point.  Nobody said the money disappeared from the system.

In other words, when rich people go on vacation, get their car serviced, their house worked on, or go out to eat, they are waited on by other millionaires who are greedily keeping it all for themselves.  I caught a glimpse of the millionaire's colony once before a security guard (also a millionaire) ushered me away


Yes, that's exactly what we were talking about.  Now go run outside and play.
 
2013-04-11 07:09:39 PM  

o5iiawah: In other words, when rich people go on vacation, get their car serviced, their house worked on, or go out to eat, they are waited on by other millionaires who are greedily keeping it all for themselves. I caught a glimpse of the millionaire's colony once before a security guard (also a millionaire) ushered me away


farking christ...
 
2013-04-11 07:10:14 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: o5iiawah: Derp, so corporations dont build taxes into the price of their goods?

They charge what the market will bear. It is not as simple as tacking on the tax to the price tag. An adult would know this.


and the retail cost of the product is a function of the businesses cost to produce the product. I would think that an adult would know that, but this is fark.
Expansion, R&D, marketing, sales, etc are all costs than can be adjusted to meet the market.  If a business is required to pay a tax, it has to pay that tax and it does so by building the cost of the tax into the price of the goods.

Rewind back to the gas surge of 2006-7 ish.  Why did food prices go up when gas went up?  Well the farmer paid the tax when he fueled his tractor, so he increased the price of corn.  The distributor who picked up the corn paid a premium price for it and thus hard to charge the packer more since the distributor's trucks needed to be fueled.  The packer had to charge the retail store more for the corn since it had absorbed all the costs and the store had to pass the cost onto the consumer.

You can fight it all you want.  This is how pricing and taxation works.  Crack an econ book if you think I am a liar.
 
2013-04-11 07:11:28 PM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Except it doesn't reach the middle class or poor.  That's the point.  Nobody said the money disappeared from the system.

In other words, when rich people go on vacation, get their car serviced, their house worked on, or go out to eat, they are waited on by other millionaires who are greedily keeping it all for themselves.  I caught a glimpse of the millionaire's colony once before a security guard (also a millionaire) ushered me away

Yes, that's exactly what we were talking about.  Now go run outside and play.


You're the one suggesting there's some cabal of uber rich and that society doesn't benefit by the fact that they run businesses, capitalize banks or invest in corporations.
 
2013-04-11 07:22:44 PM  

o5iiawah: You're the one suggesting there's some cabal of uber rich and that society doesn't benefit by the fact that they run businesses, capitalize banks or invest in corporations.


I'm saying that much of their money isn't tied up in investments that will circulate money throughout the economy.  You're pitching a cornfield full of strawmen.

o5iiawah: If a business is required to pay a tax, it has to pay that tax and it does so by building the cost of the tax into the price of the goods.


And if the price is too high then people will buy less of that product which is why taxes are never completely absorbed by the consumer.  This is pretty basic stuff.
 
2013-04-11 07:44:36 PM  

o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: And you lost me. Low corporate taxes and capital gains rates are exactly the things that keep money uselessly bouncing around inflated investments.

First off, corporations dont pay taxes, they just build the cost of the taxes into the goods and services.  Exxon doesn't pay a penny of tax. They build it into the cost of a gallon of gas and you pay it.  Lowering that would have a benefit on consumers.  More corporate profits (and perhaps a tax grace if the profits were reinvested) would allow for hiring and expansion.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-04-11 07:50:28 PM  
Wow, so many dumb arguments in this thread I'm having a hard time choosing a side.
 
2013-04-11 08:27:56 PM  

dumbobruni: o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: And you lost me. Low corporate taxes and capital gains rates are exactly the things that keep money uselessly bouncing around inflated investments.

First off, corporations dont pay taxes, they just build the cost of the taxes into the goods and services.  Exxon doesn't pay a penny of tax. They build it into the cost of a gallon of gas and you pay it.  Lowering that would have a benefit on consumers.  More corporate profits (and perhaps a tax grace if the profits were reinvested) would allow for hiring and expansion.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 300x300]


No citation needed. This is taught on the second day of any micro-economics class. If it helps, relevant textbooks are filled with colorful pictures and bar charts as visual aids. You know, if you're not a "reader".
 
2013-04-11 08:45:26 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: dumbobruni: o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: And you lost me. Low corporate taxes and capital gains rates are exactly the things that keep money uselessly bouncing around inflated investments.

First off, corporations dont pay taxes, they just build the cost of the taxes into the goods and services.  Exxon doesn't pay a penny of tax. They build it into the cost of a gallon of gas and you pay it.  Lowering that would have a benefit on consumers.  More corporate profits (and perhaps a tax grace if the profits were reinvested) would allow for hiring and expansion.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 300x300]

No citation needed. This is taught on the second day of any micro-economics class. If it helps, relevant textbooks are filled with colorful pictures and bar charts as visual aids. You know, if you're not a "reader".


I guess the chapter on price elasticity didn't have enough pictures for you.
 
2013-04-11 08:52:58 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: The dollar doesn't disappear.

No one ever said it did. Just that the dollar bouncing around investment after investment can have the same effect as being removed from the rest of the economy. It doesn't trickle down, it doesn't filter back up, it just bounces around inflating investments without ever being used to actually produce anything of value.


It doesn't "bounce around from investment to investment". That's the farking point. You idiots think rich guys are just trading dollar bills, but you dont realize that every dollar invested has to be used to purchase something tangible. Rich guy A might buy a stock from rich guy B, and so forth, but one of those investors has to take the proceeds from a sale of a stock to consume (which benefits the economy) or make a primary investment (that benefits the economy).
 
2013-04-11 09:08:01 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: It doesn't "bounce around from investment to investment". That's the farking point. You idiots think rich guys are just trading dollar bills, but you dont realize that every dollar invested has to be used to purchase something tangible. Rich guy A might buy a stock from rich guy B, and so forth, but one of those investors has to take the proceeds from a sale of a stock to consume (which benefits the economy) or make a primary investment (that benefits the economy).


Wrong.
Record-breaking corporate profit coinciding with high unemployment proves you wrong.
The DOW reaching highs it's never seen before combined with average Americans seeing their net worth decrease proves you wrong.
Stagnating wages even as productivity increases proves you wrong.
30 years of supply-side failure proves you wrong.
You are wrong.
 
2013-04-11 09:27:10 PM  

Fart_Machine: I guess the chapter on price elasticity didn't have enough pictures for you.


Elasticity has fark-all to do with what we are discussing.  If the market wont bear the increase in cost, the company goes out of business.  They cant sell product at a loss and if the market wont bear the cost - game over.

Stop trying to sound smart.  you arent fooling anyone.

Sergeant Grumbles: combined with average Americans seeing their net worth decrease proves you wrong.


Wait, I just heard upstream that it benefits the economy when people spend every penny that they take in and that is a good thing that we have a negative savings rate. now you are telling me that its a problem people arent saving and acquiring assets.  Can you consult your retard crew and make up your mind?

Sergeant Grumbles: Stagnating wages


arent a problem unless there's inflation.  Its impossible to get a mortgage or a college education. Healthcare costs are through the roof. Food, energy and rent are expensive.  But keep telling me there's no inflation because of treasury-level financial bonds that are available for hedge funds and overseas banks to pay to park their money in.  That helps the average joe who buys milk, bread, eggs and a tank of gas on the way home.

Sergeant Grumbles: 30 years of supply-side failure proves you wrong.


We've been implementing demand-side policies for the last 6 years and unemployment hasn't moved an inch, the labor participation rate is the lowest its been since the depression and we've spent almost $2Tn in stimulus to do so.  $2Tn is almost a year's worth of intake which we've conjured up to inject into the economy and nothing!?  what happened to all those dollars that are supposed to be circulating?  I heard for a decade how horrible the Bush tax cuts were yet those same cuts put money back into people's hands - exactly what you demand-siders are suggesting is the way to run an economy.

So tell me, why after $2Tn spent, companies rescued, investments made, along with a stimulus package that fixed infrastructure, a robust defense industry full of contractors who spend their paychecks just as teachers, cops and firefighters do, is the economy in the crapper?  Why is there record debt and deficit, and a new normal of 7.7% unemployment.  We've been doing all the crap that you've been begging for in the last 5-6 years.
 
2013-04-11 09:34:14 PM  

o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: FTFY.
There isn't a single thing you've said there that isn't total fantasy or proven patently wrong by reality.

Wait, so corporations dont build taxes into the price of their goods?  Well then.  you're a goddamn genius.

just keep saying derp...adults are talking.


They do, but the taxes aren't entirely absorbed by the consumer. If you took econ, I would suggest you recall how deadweight loss due to taxation is calculated, and then recall that the tax is not passed on entirely to the consumer.
 
2013-04-11 09:38:26 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: It doesn't "bounce around from investment to investment". That's the farking point. You idiots think rich guys are just trading dollar bills, but you dont realize that every dollar invested has to be used to purchase something tangible. Rich guy A might buy a stock from rich guy B, and so forth, but one of those investors has to take the proceeds from a sale of a stock to consume (which benefits the economy) or make a primary investment (that benefits the economy).

Wrong.
Record-breaking corporate profit coinciding with high unemployment proves you wrong.
The DOW reaching highs it's never seen before combined with average Americans seeing their net worth decrease proves you wrong.
Stagnating wages even as productivity increases proves you wrong.
30 years of supply-side failure proves you wrong.
You are wrong.


None of those things are even remotely relevant to your original point, "That's the trick. It never leaves the hands of investors, effectively removed from the rest of the economy. and we have tax structures and investment vehicles that make this more lucrative than actually spending the money."

Of course invested money is not removed from the rest of the economy.  Just because the economy doesn't look like you'd want it to doesn't change that fact.  You have no idea what you are talking about, and are unable to respond substantively to my posts, so you are spewing random unconnected bullshiat.
 
2013-04-11 09:42:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: What do you mean 'bounced around'. If I buy a stock from investor A, he now has cash. He can use it for consumption (which you seem to be in favor of) or make another investment. If he invests in newly issued bonds or equity, that is money used by the corporation to invest in new plants, expansion, advertising, hiring more workers, whatever. That puts the money back into the economy.


I hilighted the parts where your argument falls apart.
 
2013-04-11 09:44:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: It doesn't "bounce around from investment to investment". That's the farking point. You idiots think rich guys are just trading dollar bills, but you dont realize that every dollar invested has to be used to purchase something tangible. Rich guy A might buy a stock from rich guy B, and so forth, but one of those investors has to take the proceeds from a sale of a stock to consume (which benefits the economy) or make a primary investment (that benefits the economy).

Wrong.
Record-breaking corporate profit coinciding with high unemployment proves you wrong.
The DOW reaching highs it's never seen before combined with average Americans seeing their net worth decrease proves you wrong.
Stagnating wages even as productivity increases proves you wrong.
30 years of supply-side failure proves you wrong.
You are wrong.

None of those things are even remotely relevant to your original point, "That's the trick. It never leaves the hands of investors, effectively removed from the rest of the economy. and we have tax structures and investment vehicles that make this more lucrative than actually spending the money."

Of course invested money is not removed from the rest of the economy.  Just because the economy doesn't look like you'd want it to doesn't change that fact.  You have no idea what you are talking about, and are unable to respond substantively to my posts, so you are spewing random unconnected bullshiat.


That's a common misperception. Dunno who started it, but it's hard to get people to move off of that assertion despite the fact it doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny.
 
2013-04-11 09:44:37 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: They spend it on $10 worth of food (a non-productive resource) and turn it into shiat. The $10 each goes to farmers/fast food workers/food delivery truck drivers/whatever, who then do what they want with it.


Yes, that's good for the economy because it means everyone touches the money.


Debeo Summa Credo: You give the $1 billion to an investor, it goes into loans, investments (productive resources), what have you. The cash goes to borrowers or businesses who have a use for it. They spend it, injecting it into the economy once again


Only they are not doing that. It is bad for the economy because not everyone is touching the money. It is staying within the coffers of the 1% and none of it is trickling down.
 
2013-04-11 09:46:29 PM  

Ishkur: It is staying within the coffers of the 1% and none of it is trickling down.


Do you envision a great big chest where they stick wads of cash? Because they didn't get rich doing that.
 
2013-04-11 09:49:23 PM  

o5iiawah: Elasticity has fark-all to do with what we are discussing. If the market wont bear the increase in cost, the company goes out of business. They cant sell product at a loss and if the market wont bear the cost - game over.


Well it's a good thing you aren't trying to sound smart because you're failing badly.  Do you even understand what elasticity is? That's the whole derping factor behind your retarded claim that consumers bear the entire brunt of increased taxes.  Because if the market won't bear the increase then the product won't sell.  That is what we are discussing.  Perhaps when you said to crack an econ book it was over your head.
 
2013-04-11 09:51:16 PM  

vygramul: o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: FTFY.
There isn't a single thing you've said there that isn't total fantasy or proven patently wrong by reality.

Wait, so corporations dont build taxes into the price of their goods?  Well then.  you're a goddamn genius.

just keep saying derp...adults are talking.

They do, but the taxes aren't entirely absorbed by the consumer. If you took econ, I would suggest you recall how deadweight loss due to taxation is calculated, and then recall that the tax is not passed on entirely to the consumer.


o5iiawah, I agreed with you upthread on another subject, so don't confuse me with a typical farklilb, but I think vyrgramul is correct here.  Its not as simple as you think.  Higher corporate income taxes reduce after tax returns to investors, reducing incentive to invest and therefore reducing supply, creating an indirect increase in price to the consumer.  But corporations cant just unilaterally raise prices to offset higher income taxes.

here's a link on deadweight loss of corporate income tax, from none other than Austan Goolsbee:  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=deadweight%20loss%20of%20corpo r ate%20income%20taxes&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fci teseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.202.5632%26rep %3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=l2dnUfjcFubi4AO7m4DoAg&usg=AFQjCNEe8KnIkV9eYsB E0ey82sva2ddf2w&bvm=bv.45107431,d.dmg
 
2013-04-11 09:52:50 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: What do you mean 'bounced around'. If I buy a stock from investor A, he now has cash. He can use it for consumption (which you seem to be in favor of) or make another investment. If he invests in newly issued bonds or equity, that is money used by the corporation to invest in new plants, expansion, advertising, hiring more workers, whatever. That puts the money back into the economy.

I hilighted the parts where your argument falls apart.


[jackiechanperplexedface.jpg]
 
2013-04-11 09:54:56 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Of course invested money is not removed from the rest of the economy.


Durrhurr, dollar disappears. Poof, gone.

I commend you for being better at intentionally misinterpreting the argument than Mr. Millionaires Waited on by Millionaires, but Jesus fark does that get old.

Money is, in effect, not literally, removed from the wider economy. It circulates in its own narrow circles, never accessible by the majority. This is how we see things like huge corporate profits and all-time highs for stocks while we still suffer from stagnant wages and high unemployment. The money being used to generate all that high-end investment is isolated. It never trickles down to alleviate things like unemployment even as those high-end investments grow to staggering heights.

At least pretend to address this, rather than manufacture another strawman. It's awfully hard to respond substantively when you keeping changing the argument.
 
2013-04-11 09:55:18 PM  

o5iiawah: No, you keep ignoring that when states enact sales tax holidays, people shop because prices are lower.


For the last farking time, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TAX HOLIDAYS because the price point is still not reduced. we're talking about IF A TAX BURDEN IS LIFTED, DOES A BUSINESS REDUCE THE PRICE POINT OF A PRODUCT?

You have yet to provide a single example.

o5iiawah: "Hard work" is not the metric by which we measure compensation in the marketplace.  We measure wages by what value that employee brings to the market.  I could answer yes, or no.  Each is irrelevant since your frame of reference is a false assumption on how wages are earned.


Value, work, ethic, hours, productivity, whatever metric you want to use. Does the CEO do 420x more of it than the average floorworker? Anyway you want to measure it, the answer is still an unequivocal no. So don't talk about people being paid according to their worth, because that's horseshiat. Money does not honestly represent labor.

o5iiawah: No, you asserted that a poor man who consumes everything and demands resources from the public treasury is of more value to the economy than a millionaire who is paying less than 80% of his income in taxes. I present...


No, I asserted that a man who spends 100% of his income is a more efficient contributor to the economy than a man who does not. And I am right.

o5iiawah: You arent understanding something (no surprise here.) the acceptance of laws or who recognizes them has no relevance on why they were passed in the first place


Oh, they absolutely do. I've already explained why three times but I guess you're too stupid to understand. Go back and read it again.

Laws exist only so much as people agree to follow them. Laws can be changed. They can be erased, modified, marginalized or ignored altogether. And sometimes an innate sense of collective justice can override all of them. When that happens, it's called a revolution and has been known to happen throughout history when the system stops working for the vast majority of people. Like it is right now.

o5iiawah: Nobody gets rich from bouncing money around.


Clearly you haven't worked with derivatives.

o5iiawah: Where did you get your $100Bn stimulus from?


Proscription.
 
2013-04-11 09:57:47 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Where does it go? Follow it from the investors pocket onward....any money that doesn't disappear from the system has to go into the economy.


You understand there are two economies right?
 
2013-04-11 09:59:56 PM  

o5iiawah: You think a person with millions (and means) is just going to buck up and pay the 80% rate that your buddy Ishtur wants him to pay?


Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

I did not say rich people should pay 80% taxes. I said rich people should account for 80% of all collected tax revenue, since they own 80% of the wealth.

Do you understand the difference?
 
2013-04-11 10:02:07 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: Of course invested money is not removed from the rest of the economy.

Durrhurr, dollar disappears. Poof, gone.

I commend you for being better at intentionally misinterpreting the argument than Mr. Millionaires Waited on by Millionaires, but Jesus fark does that get old.

Money is, in effect, not literally, removed from the wider economy. It circulates in its own narrow circles, never accessible by the majority. This is how we see things like huge corporate profits and all-time highs for stocks while we still suffer from stagnant wages and high unemployment. The money being used to generate all that high-end investment is isolated. It never trickles down to alleviate things like unemployment even as those high-end investments grow to staggering heights.

At least pretend to address this, rather than manufacture another strawman. It's awfully hard to respond substantively when you keeping changing the argument.


That's one I haven't heard before. To some degree, it must be true (well, except that it only circulates among the 1%), because the bank will take the next lowest credit risk to lend that dollar, which is likely the most financially stable. The problem is that you still have to keep following that dollar. What does the new guy borrow the money for? Not to just give the bank or investor interest out of the kindness of their heart. They spend it on production, which necessarily means employment. Or they spend it as a consumer, which necessarily means employment.
 
2013-04-11 10:03:16 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Seriously, you and Fart machine and Ishkur, get together and trace out where you think money goes when it is invested by a rich person. Follow it from the rich person, to whomever receives it, and what they do with it, and so on. If I give you a dollar, you have a dollar. The dollar doesn't disappear. Same concept with rich people and $100m dollars, you dolt.


You want to know where a rich person's money goes? ....other rich people. There are so many financial instruments and ways to turn money into more money, a lot of rich people accrue wealth without even needing to own businesses or hire employees.
 
2013-04-11 10:03:19 PM  

o5iiawah: We've been implementing demand-side policies for the last 6 years and unemployment hasn't moved an inch, the labor participation rate is the lowest its been since the depression and we've spent almost $2Tn in stimulus to do so.


Labor force participation has been in decline since 2000 mainly because the Boomers are retiring.
 
2013-04-11 10:04:04 PM  

Ishkur: o5iiawah: You think a person with millions (and means) is just going to buck up and pay the 80% rate that your buddy Ishtur wants him to pay?

Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

I did not say rich people should pay 80% taxes. I said rich people should account for 80% of all collected tax revenue, since they own 80% of the wealth.

Do you understand the difference?


Well, certainly the rich should account for a greater proportion of the revenue. I'm not sure what tax rate you'd need to reach 80%, but it might be on the other side of the Laffer Curve from us.
 
2013-04-11 10:05:19 PM  

o5iiawah: In other words, when rich people go on vacation, get their car serviced, their house worked on, or go out to eat, they are waited on by other millionaires who are greedily keeping it all for themselves. I caught a glimpse of the millionaire's colony once before a security guard (also a millionaire) ushered me away


Yeah, that's right. One rich farker on vacation can single-handedly rescue the economy all by himself through his flagrant spending.

You are a god damn retard.
 
2013-04-11 10:05:39 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Seriously, you and Fart machine and Ishkur, get together and trace out where you think money goes when it is invested by a rich person. Follow it from the rich person, to whomever receives it, and what they do with it, and so on. If I give you a dollar, you have a dollar. The dollar doesn't disappear. Same concept with rich people and $100m dollars, you dolt.

You want to know where a rich person's money goes? ....other rich people. There are so many financial instruments and ways to turn money into more money, a lot of rich people accrue wealth without even needing to own businesses or hire employees.


I would fully agree that rich people have access to opportunities that magnify their wealth to which the common shmoe doesn't have access. But I'm not sure how you envision such instruments working in order to accomplish that.
 
2013-04-11 10:07:08 PM  

vygramul: Do you envision a great big chest where they stick wads of cash? Because they didn't get rich doing that.


Don't you start.
We're not saying this money is stuffed in a mattress. We're saying that it bounces around investments, inflating bubbles, and does indeed make more money. Right now it's leading to huge profits, stock market gains, and what by those measure should be a booming economy.
But it's NOT booming, because all of that wealth is separated from consumers who drive the economy.
 
2013-04-11 10:08:44 PM  

o5iiawah: We've been implementing demand-side policies for the last 6 years


No we haven't.
 
2013-04-11 10:12:42 PM  

vygramul: Do you envision a great big chest where they stick wads of cash?


No, I envision a circle jerk of portfolios where each one invests in the portfolio next to it, increasing the value like a upward swirling double helix.
 
2013-04-11 10:13:15 PM  

vygramul: That's one I haven't heard before. To some degree, it must be true (well, except that it only circulates among the 1%), because the bank will take the next lowest credit risk to lend that dollar, which is likely the most financially stable. The problem is that you still have to keep following that dollar. What does the new guy borrow the money for? Not to just give the bank or investor interest out of the kindness of their heart. They spend it on production, which necessarily means employment. Or they spend it as a consumer, which necessarily means employment.


As I was saying earlier, our tax structure and many types of investment vehicles allow wealth to accumulate faster both for the corporation and the individual than by spending it on employment. It is ultimately unsustainable, as a bubble forms and pops from what looks good on paper never actually translating into anything substantial.
 
2013-04-11 10:13:59 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Where does it go? Follow it from the investors pocket onward....any money that doesn't disappear from the system has to go into the economy.

You understand there are two economies right?


There are absolutely not two economies.  You seem to think that when a rich person makes a dollar via, I don't know, owning a business, he then buys into some second economy from whence the dollars never return.

The thing is, and this is the last time I'm explaining it for the night, the rich guy who takes a dollar in profits from his company, EnvironmentDestroyingWorkerExploiting Inc. or what have you, and 'invests' it, the dollar goes either to productive investment (such as funding a business or a loan to a business for expansion and hiring, which I think you would consider the 'first economy') or on the secondary market to someone else who sold him a security.

Say the seller is Rich Guy B.  Rich Guy B now has a dollar that he has to do something with.  He might use it for consumption, say by hiring peasant to act as a footstool, or by going out to dinner or to a show or to buy a new car or install a tennis court or whatever (again putting the dollar back in the first economy), or he can invest it himself.  He can invest it in one of the aforementioned productive investments, or can buy something else on the secondary market from Rich Guy C.

Now Rich Guy C has the same options as everyone who preceded him:  consume, invest primary, or invest secondary.  The thing is, the dollar cant go around in a circle of secondary market investment forever, because whoever receives it has to do something with it if he's not literally putting it in a treasure chest or a mattress.  So it has to enter the 'first economy' again. It absolutely can't get hung up in limbo in the secondary market because the secondary market is by definition zero sum.

Got it now?

Great.  You're welcome.  G'night.
 
2013-04-11 10:14:25 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: [jackiechanperplexedface.jpg]


** IF ** is the stupidest argument in any debate.
 
2013-04-11 10:18:40 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: There are absolutely not two economies.


Then we wouldn't be seeing record profits and yet high unemployment.
 
2013-04-11 10:24:15 PM  

Ishkur: vygramul: Do you envision a great big chest where they stick wads of cash?

No, I envision a circle jerk of portfolios where each one invests in the portfolio next to it, increasing the value like a upward swirling double helix.


But you just described exactly why there's a problem with this model. It's a big circle-jerk. No wealth can be created that way, the investments have to go and actually DO something.

There are a few investments that don't, such as speculation, but those are zero-sum games with a winner and a loser. And the loser is another 1%er.

For the aggregate value to increase, at some point the money gets off the merry-go-round and does some real work.
 
2013-04-11 10:28:12 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: There are absolutely not two economies.


Sure there is. There is the one based on actual investments in tangible assets, businesses, production and trade, based on the sale of goods and services, the issuance of wages, and spending and consumption of commodities.

Then there is the other one based on investments in financial instruments, speculation, the stock market, hedge funds, securities, derivatives, currency, debt, and collective investment schemes.

These two economies don't interact nearly as much as people think they do, and the trend recently has been for them to interact less and less. Money does move back and forth between them but the general flow tends to be from the first one to the second one and rarely the other way around.
 
2013-04-11 10:38:12 PM  

vygramul: Ishkur: vygramul: Do you envision a great big chest where they stick wads of cash?

No, I envision a circle jerk of portfolios where each one invests in the portfolio next to it, increasing the value like a upward swirling double helix.

But you just described exactly why there's a problem with this model. It's a big circle-jerk. No wealth can be created that way, the investments have to go and actually DO something.

There are a few investments that don't, such as speculation, but those are zero-sum games with a winner and a loser. And the loser is another 1%er.

For the aggregate value to increase, at some point the money gets off the merry-go-round and does some real work.


Well we've seen record highs in the stock market but very little in real growth.  The general consensus is that companies are still enjoying high productivity so they don't need the extra employees so all the tax incentives in the world aren't going to help in hiring.  Likewise there is a surplus labor pool so wages continue to stagnate or in many instances continue to drop.  And both of these factors aren't contributing to a healthy economy.
 
2013-04-11 10:44:52 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The thing is, and this is the last time I'm explaining it for the night, the rich guy who takes a dollar in profits from his company,


Your analogy is stupid and weighted in your argument's favor. I reject your analogy and supply my own.

Rich guy takes $1 out of his hedge fund and puts it into the stock market. Stock price kicks up a bit as a result of this transaction, he sells stocks and takes $2 out and moves it into a derivative (let's say a currency swap because yield curves look favorable). The risk pays off and he gets paid $4 which he then puts into a debt security which increases in value, and he then trades for $8 of a futures contract and sells short to make $16, to which he then puts it back into his hedge fund. And the cycle begins all over again.

Now, how is any of this good for the economy? ...because it hasn't done jack shiat so far.
 
2013-04-11 10:47:08 PM  

Fart_Machine: vygramul: Ishkur: vygramul: Do you envision a great big chest where they stick wads of cash?

No, I envision a circle jerk of portfolios where each one invests in the portfolio next to it, increasing the value like a upward swirling double helix.

But you just described exactly why there's a problem with this model. It's a big circle-jerk. No wealth can be created that way, the investments have to go and actually DO something.

There are a few investments that don't, such as speculation, but those are zero-sum games with a winner and a loser. And the loser is another 1%er.

For the aggregate value to increase, at some point the money gets off the merry-go-round and does some real work.

Well we've seen record highs in the stock market but very little in real growth.  The general consensus is that companies are still enjoying high productivity so they don't need the extra employees so all the tax incentives in the world aren't going to help in hiring.  Likewise there is a surplus labor pool so wages continue to stagnate or in many instances continue to drop.  And both of these factors aren't contributing to a healthy economy.


Oh, I concur we have some problems.

It's funny, really, someone once asked me during a discussion of taxes and the Laffer Curve, "Who the **** said we should be maximizing revenue to begin with?" It was a good point, but there's a similar question about the economy. Why should we maximize economic activity at the expense of all the people who get left behind? A minimum wage, even if it is sub-optimal in terms of employment, is partly a moral question: are we willing to let people work for a wage that is insufficient to provide basic necessities for their family?

Economics is called the dismal science for a ton of reasons, not the least of which is that, no matter where you start, no matter what you do, any government action makes things worse in the short-term, even cutting taxes.
 
2013-04-11 10:49:56 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: The thing is, and this is the last time I'm explaining it for the night, the rich guy who takes a dollar in profits from his company,

Your analogy is stupid and weighted in your argument's favor. I reject your analogy and supply my own.

Rich guy takes $1 out of his hedge fund and puts it into the stock market. Stock price kicks up a bit as a result of this transaction, he sells stocks and takes $2 out and moves it into a derivative (let's say a currency swap because yield curves look favorable). The risk pays off and he gets paid $4 which he then puts into a debt security which increases in value, and he then trades for $8 of a futures contract and sells short to make $16, to which he then puts it back into his hedge fund. And the cycle begins all over again.

Now, how is any of this good for the economy? ...because it hasn't done jack shiat so far.


That sounds good until you realize there's a loser on the other end of all of those transactions. There's a guy on the other end of that who lost $16.
 
2013-04-11 10:50:04 PM  

vygramul: But you just described exactly why there's a problem with this model. It's a big circle-jerk. No wealth can be created that way, the investments have to go and actually DO something.


Of course wealth isn't created that way. The investments don't have to do anything except spike up other investments. That's why more virtual wealth exists than real wealth.

Do you really think the $62.2 trillion worth of speculative bookmarks contained in the derivatives market at the high point of the 2008 crash actually existed? If it did, we wouldn't be in this mess.

vygramul: For the aggregate value to increase, at some point the money gets off the merry-go-round and does some real work.


Not really, no. Why would they? They got theirs. fark you.
 
2013-04-11 10:53:04 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: dumbobruni: o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: And you lost me. Low corporate taxes and capital gains rates are exactly the things that keep money uselessly bouncing around inflated investments.

First off, corporations dont pay taxes, they just build the cost of the taxes into the goods and services.  Exxon doesn't pay a penny of tax. They build it into the cost of a gallon of gas and you pay it.  Lowering that would have a benefit on consumers.  More corporate profits (and perhaps a tax grace if the profits were reinvested) would allow for hiring and expansion.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 300x300]

No citation needed. This is taught on the second day of any micro-economics class. If it helps, relevant textbooks are filled with colorful pictures and bar charts as visual aids. You know, if you're not a "reader".


we have record breaking corporate profits and an expanding economy, and yet, consistently high unemployment and underemployment.

please explain how lowering taxes would fix that.
 
2013-04-11 10:54:41 PM  

vygramul: That sounds good until you realize there's a loser on the other end of all of those transactions. There's a guy on the other end of that who lost $16.


No, because he took out hedges against his transactions and made it back.

Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game (and conversely, it doesn't exist in a vacuum either. If you made money, that means someone somewhere else must have lost some, but this is almost NEVER a balanced equation).
 
2013-04-11 10:56:18 PM  

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: I guess the chapter on price elasticity didn't have enough pictures for you.

Elasticity has fark-all to do with what we are discussing.  If the market wont bear the increase in cost, the company goes out of business.  They cant sell product at a loss and if the market wont bear the cost - game over.

Stop trying to sound smart.  you arent fooling anyone.

Sergeant Grumbles: combined with average Americans seeing their net worth decrease proves you wrong.

Wait, I just heard upstream that it benefits the economy when people spend every penny that they take in and that is a good thing that we have a negative savings rate. now you are telling me that its a problem people arent saving and acquiring assets.  Can you consult your retard crew and make up your mind?

Sergeant Grumbles: Stagnating wages

arent a problem unless there's inflation.  Its impossible to get a mortgage or a college education. Healthcare costs are through the roof. Food, energy and rent are expensive.  But keep telling me there's no inflation because of treasury-level financial bonds that are available for hedge funds and overseas banks to pay to park their money in.  That helps the average joe who buys milk, bread, eggs and a tank of gas on the way home.

Sergeant Grumbles: 30 years of supply-side failure proves you wrong.

We've been implementing demand-side policies for the last 6 years and unemployment hasn't moved an inch, the labor participation rate is the lowest its been since the depression and we've spent almost $2Tn in stimulus to do so.  $2Tn is almost a year's worth of intake which we've conjured up to inject into the economy and nothing!?  what happened to all those dollars that are supposed to be circulating?  I heard for a decade how horrible the Bush tax cuts were yet those same cuts put money back into people's hands - exactly what you demand-siders are suggesting is the way to run an economy.

So tell me, why after $2Tn spent, companies rescued, investments made, al ...


part of the $2trillion in stimulus were tax cuts, such as the payroll tax cut ($100 billion a year) and the $300 billion in tax credits from the stimulus package.

tax cuts don't help the economy?
 
2013-04-11 10:58:54 PM  

Ishkur: vygramul: But you just described exactly why there's a problem with this model. It's a big circle-jerk. No wealth can be created that way, the investments have to go and actually DO something.

Of course wealth isn't created that way. The investments don't have to do anything except spike up other investments. That's why more virtual wealth exists than real wealth.

Do you really think the $62.2 trillion worth of speculative bookmarks contained in the derivatives market at the high point of the 2008 crash actually existed? If it did, we wouldn't be in this mess.

vygramul: For the aggregate value to increase, at some point the money gets off the merry-go-round and does some real work.

Not really, no. Why would they? They got theirs. fark you.


I'd like to work with you to untangle this, but the Daily Show is coming on in a couple of minutes, so maybe later.
 
2013-04-11 11:05:08 PM  

vygramul: It's funny, really, someone once asked me during a discussion of taxes and the Laffer Curve, "Who the **** said we should be maximizing revenue to begin with?" It was a good point, but there's a similar question about the economy. Why should we maximize economic activity at the expense of all the people who get left behind? A minimum wage, even if it is sub-optimal in terms of employment, is partly a moral question: are we willing to let people work for a wage that is insufficient to provide basic necessities for their family?

Economics is called the dismal science for a ton of reasons, not the least of which is that, no matter where you start, no matter what you do, any government action makes things worse in the short-term, even cutting taxes.


I suppose the pragmatic way of reading it is if you leave too many people behind you can't maximize economic activity.  Now avowed Free Market folks will say the market will eventually correct itself however historically you're going to see two things - government intervention or torches and pitchforks.
 
2013-04-11 11:32:47 PM  

Fart_Machine: vygramul: It's funny, really, someone once asked me during a discussion of taxes and the Laffer Curve, "Who the **** said we should be maximizing revenue to begin with?" It was a good point, but there's a similar question about the economy. Why should we maximize economic activity at the expense of all the people who get left behind? A minimum wage, even if it is sub-optimal in terms of employment, is partly a moral question: are we willing to let people work for a wage that is insufficient to provide basic necessities for their family?

Economics is called the dismal science for a ton of reasons, not the least of which is that, no matter where you start, no matter what you do, any government action makes things worse in the short-term, even cutting taxes.

I suppose the pragmatic way of reading it is if you leave too many people behind you can't maximize economic activity.  Now avowed Free Market folks will say the market will eventually correct itself however historically you're going to see two things - government intervention or torches and pitchforks.


A fundamental problem with Free Market Capitalism is that, given any inequality at any point, and wealth converges. It only gets reset when the pitchforks and torches come out, which is inevitable.
 
2013-04-11 11:33:30 PM  
My favorites are:

Stop trying to sound smart.  you arent fooling anyone.
But you're too dumb to realize that
There isn't a single thing you've said there that isn't total fantasy or proven patently wrong by reality.
 
MFK
2013-04-12 08:30:10 AM  
I would just like to point out to the class that while it seems like there is a robust back-and-forth discussion going on in this thread, really it's just  o5iiawahand Debeo Summa Credowho are white-knighting for the 1% by repeating the same tired lies, distortions and myths that are spread to keep the status quo exactly where it is. You will never change their minds with actual facts because their entire purpose is to come in here, respond to EVERYTHING with distortions and falsehoods and muddy the water to the extent where nothing actually gets done because it seems like the jury is still out. It's TWO sock puppets people. That's it.
 
2013-04-12 09:45:06 AM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Assets in hedge funds, corporate bonds or equity investments, etc. all help the economy just as much as bank loans. What do you think corporate bond proceeds are used for? What do you think companies do with money raised in equity issuances? Do you think it just disappears?

No, it just gets moved laterally. It's just bouncing around between various high finance portfolios right now. This is the failure of Reaganomics. None of it trickles down. You give the rich more money, they just spend it on each other. The rest of the economy is grinding down to a halt because of this.

I explained this already. Why are you so stupid?


He figures if he keeps derping, one of the pirates will notice his comments and invite him in to the club.

i.imgbox.com
 
2013-04-12 10:17:58 AM  

Ishkur: vygramul: That sounds good until you realize there's a loser on the other end of all of those transactions. There's a guy on the other end of that who lost $16.

No, because he took out hedges against his transactions and made it back.

Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game (and conversely, it doesn't exist in a vacuum either. If you made money, that means someone somewhere else must have lost some, but this is almost NEVER a balanced equation).


I think I see the problem here. You've heard some buzzwords pertaining to financial markets but have no idea what they mean or how they work.

If he "took out hedges against his transactions and made it back", as you say, there HAS TO BE SOMEONE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HEDGE, who took the loss. Zero sum game. There is no wealth created for rich people by trading assets between themselves.
 
2013-04-12 11:28:58 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: There is no wealth created for rich people by trading assets between themselves.


In reality, no. On paper, yes. You see, there are these things called bubbles...
 
2013-04-12 01:39:41 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Zero sum game.


Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. If it was, there'd be no point to investing in the first place.
 
2013-04-12 02:05:46 PM  

Ishkur: Does the CEO do 420x more of it than the average floorworker? Anyway you want to measure it, the answer is still an unequivocal no.


Any way you want to measure it?  You want to consider a guy like Steve Jobs or Fred Smith, guys who essentially built fortune-50 companies from the ground up, employing tens of thousands of people, generating billions of dollars in profits, delivering products to the market that enrich the lives of people worldwide...They arent worth more than the guy who loads the truck?

You're high.

Ishkur: No, I asserted that a man who spends 100% of his income is a more efficient contributor to the economy than a man who does not. And I am right.


So a guy who lives paycheck to paycheck on $27,000/yr, spending all of it and pays no taxes is better for the economy than a guy who makes $200k, pays $80k in taxes, puts $20k into savings, spends $20k on home improvements that increases his assets and provides more tax revenue to his township and spends the other $80k on bills, cars, college education, healthcare and normal crap that everyone else spends money on.  Yeah, you're right on the money with that expert analysis.

Ishkur: o5iiawah: In other words, when rich people go on vacation, get their car serviced, their house worked on, or go out to eat, they are waited on by other millionaires who are greedily keeping it all for themselves. I caught a glimpse of the millionaire's colony once before a security guard (also a millionaire) ushered me away

Yeah, that's right. One rich farker on vacation can single-handedly rescue the economy all by himself through his flagrant spending.

You are a god damn retard.


Says the guy who thinks it makes sense to tax a grocery store, then distribute that money to poor people to buy food, thinking that it will then benefit the grocery store in some way because dollars are circulating around.

Ishkur: For the last farking time, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TAX HOLIDAYS because the price point is still not reduced. we're talking about IF A TAX BURDEN IS LIFTED, DOES A BUSINESS REDUCE THE PRICE POINT OF A PRODUCT?

You have yet to provide a single example.


You have yet to listen to a single example that I've provided.  Many states have sales tax holidays for clothing during back to school or holiday times.  If the sales tax is 6%, and i buy a pair of sneakers for $100 any other time of the year, I owe $106 at the register.  During the sales tax holiday, I can hand the cashier a C-note and walk out with my new shoes.

You would assert that the store, who is used to collecting the tax and then writing a check to the state, would continue to collect the tax and be greedy when this doesn't happen anywhere.  I grew up in FL, a state which has a tax holiday in August.  Aside from recording this transaction and posting it to youtube, i dont know how else to get it into this thick head of yours.

MFK: the same tired lies, distortions and myths that are spread to keep the status quo exactly where it is. You will never change their minds with actual facts because their entire purpose is to come in here, respond to EVERYTHING with distortions and falsehoods and muddy the water to the extent where nothing actually gets done because it seems like the jury is still out


If people like Ishkur, Sergeant Grumbles and Fart_machine were in a high school band selling candy to fundraise, they'd be the kids who kept passing the same dollar around the circle, each of them eating a candy bar to where in the end, each was fat on candy and there was only a single dollar bill to show for it.
 
2013-04-12 02:05:48 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Zero sum game.

Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. If it was, there'd be no point to investing in the first place.


Right. Actual investments In tangible things create tangible wealth. We should encourage investment.

Investors trading securities on the secondary market are wealth neutral. They do not create wealth, but neither do they reduce wealth or move wealth into some mythical black hole or parallel economy. You guys seem to think $1,000 used to consume goods is $1,000 better for the economy than $1,000 invested in secondary markets. The thing is, there's an other side to every secondary market trade. The seller on the secondary market now has the thousand bucks to either invest in tangible things or to consume. The $1,000 is not lost to "the economy."
 
2013-04-12 02:56:21 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Zero sum game.

Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. If it was, there'd be no point to investing in the first place.

Right. Actual investments In tangible things create tangible wealth. We should encourage investment.

Investors trading securities on the secondary market are wealth neutral. They do not create wealth, but neither do they reduce wealth or move wealth into some mythical black hole or parallel economy. You guys seem to think $1,000 used to consume goods is $1,000 better for the economy than $1,000 invested in secondary markets. The thing is, there's an other side to every secondary market trade. The seller on the secondary market now has the thousand bucks to either invest in tangible things or to consume. The $1,000 is not lost to "the economy."


Wait a second tho...that secondary actually DOES reduce wealth via market inflation by increasing the supply of (virtual) dollars.  So in a previous example, we had one guy turn 1 dollar into 16 dollars without investing in anything physical, meaning he has increased the money supply making all dollars in circulation worth less than before.

Isn't what we are experiencing a macro version of the 1849 gold rush?  A marked increase in inflation due to created/influx of wealth? (except in this case, its fairy gold.)
 
2013-04-12 04:10:32 PM  

o5iiawah: You want to consider a guy like Steve Jobs or Fred Smith, guys who essentially built fortune-50 companies from the ground up


No they didn't. They hired other people to do it for them. Jobs would have been utterly lost without Wozniak.

o5iiawah: So a guy who lives paycheck to paycheck on $27,000/yr, spending all of it and pays no taxes is better for the economy


"Better" isn't the proper word. More efficient.

o5iiawah: Says the guy who thinks it makes sense to tax a grocery store, then distribute that money to poor people to buy food, thinking that it will then benefit the grocery store in some way because dollars are circulating around.


Who says that? I've never said that.

o5iiawah: You have yet to listen to a single example that I've provided.


What examples? You've provided none. Once again:

GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A BUSINESS THAT HAS LOWERED ITS PRICES IF A TAX BURDEN IS REMOVED

Can be any kind of tax. Gas taxes, corporate taxes, shipping taxes, sales taxes, property taxes. Just one. Show me.

o5iiawah: If the sales tax is 6%, and i buy a pair of sneakers for $100 any other time of the year, I owe $106 at the register. During the sales tax holiday, I can hand the cashier a C-note and walk out with my new shoes.


That's not lowering prices. The company collects $100 irrespective of any tax levied. It doesn't matter if the tax is set at 15%, 6%, or 0%, the company still collects its $100 just the same. The tax is completely irrelevant because the company doesn't see that money.

Do you understand anything about how companies set the price point at the retail level? Because here's why you're wrong: Taxes have never determined the final price point of the product. DEMAND for the product determines the final price point of the product. If those taxes were removed, costs would still remain the same because they have been carefully levied against how many sold units are needed vs. how much a consumer is willing to purchase the product.

The price is set first, determined by manufacturing, shipping, marketing, distribution costs and consumer demand, with added profit. If the company beancounters have determined that $100 is the price point by which they can move full inventory, then it stays at $100. The tax is set on top of that. If taxes are raised or changed, it doesn't change the retail price. So a regular $100+7% = $107.00. Without tax, it's $100. The company still collects its $100, its price point has not changed.

Interestingly enough, you're the second buffoon I've encountered on Fark who keeps getting this wrong. The other guy was a flat tax/fairtax moron.
 
2013-04-12 04:23:59 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Actual investments In tangible things create tangible wealth. We should encourage investment.


In tangible commodities, I agree. Unfortunately, they're not doing that.

Debeo Summa Credo: Investors trading securities on the secondary market are wealth neutral. They do not create wealth, but neither do they reduce wealth or move wealth into some mythical black hole or parallel economy.


Not quite. It's important to make the distinction whether you're talking about real wealth or virtual wealth. Virtual wealth is based on real wealth but it's amplified. And just because it's virtual does not mean it's meaningless or non-existent. It is a good gauge of confidence, it is a powerful positive feedback mechanism, and it still has the power to crash economies (and frequently has).

How does that "two cows" parable on Hong Kong Capitalism go? "You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt / equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the feng shui is bad."

It's easy to do this with money when everything is digital now.

Debeo Summa Credo: The thing is, there's an other side to every secondary market trade. The seller on the secondary market now has the thousand bucks to either invest in tangible things or to consume. The $1,000 is not lost to "the economy."


As I explained earlier, it is possible to invest money and not have it actually do anything for the economy.
 
2013-04-12 05:06:05 PM  

Ishkur: No they didn't. They hired other people to do i

t for them.Jobs would have been utterly lost without Wozniak.

So then you have two people responsible for the direction of an immensely successful company.  I dont think the Woz is living under a bridge right now.  The thing is though Apple would not have been "Utterly lost" without the people who packed up the first Apple II into boxes and shipped them out.  The first peon to shout "you need me!  you'd be lost without me!" would be fired and replaced with someone who could pack boxes.  

So the key to being a success in business is simply to hire people, sit back and let the wheels turn.  Go ask Lucent and HP what its like to have a crappy CEO and parlay that against Apple, Verizon or Microsoft.  I guess the only difference between a snake like Carly Fiorina and geniuses like Steve Jobs is that Jobs was better at hiring people.  It has absolutely nothing to do with their vision, business skills or foresight into what the marketplace is looking for.

Ishkur: "Better" isn't the proper word. More efficient


People who spend all their money are a paycheck away from draining social services.  That is in no way shape or form efficient, nor is it a particularly sound way to run a personal, or large scale economy.


Ishkur: That's not lowering prices. The company collects $100 irrespective of any tax levied. It doesn't matter if the tax is set at 15%, 6%, or 0%, the company still collects its $100 just the same. The tax is completely irrelevant because the company doesn't see that money.

Do you understand anything about how companies set the price point at the retail level? Because here's why you're wrong: Taxes have never determined the final price point of the product. DEMAND for the product determines the final price point of the product. If those taxes were removed, costs would still remain the same because they have been carefully levied against how many sold units are needed vs. how much a consumer is willing to purchase the product.

The price is set first, determined by manufacturing, shipping, marketing, distribution costs and consumer demand, with added profit. If the company beancounters have determined that $100 is the price point by which they can move full inventory, then it stays at $100. The tax is set on top of that. If taxes are raised or changed, it doesn't change the retail price. So a regular $100+7% = $107.00. Without tax, it's $100. The company still collects its $100, its price point has not changed.

Interestingly enough, you're the second buffoon I've encountered on Fark who keeps getting this wrong. The other guy was a flat tax/fairtax moron.


I dont care what the company makes on a pair of shoes, the shoes are cheaper, ergo I am going to shop there.  We're talking about what the end customer sees - not the middle man.  The retail price of a pair of shoes could be $100, and if there's a 0% tax, or a 30% tax, it doesn't make a rats ass worth of difference to the customer what the bean counters at foot locker want to see in profit.  A lower tax rate is going to encourage me to shop, since I'd rather pay the $100 than $130, or $110 or whatever - hence why people to go DE, or leave NYC to shop in NJ for clothes, cigarettes or whatever.

Thanks for agreeing.  It only took several months of the same argument.

Ishkur: Who says that? I've never said that.


Youv'e been making the argument all along that excess profits/income should be taxed and redistributed back into the economy, preferably to low income individuals who are most likely to spend it.  This has a benefit to the economy as people who spend every penny of what they make and contribute nothing to the tax base are efficient and drive the economy.

So you would agree then on a 100% tax on all profits of a grocery store, which would go into a food stamp program that would capitalize low income individuals with vouchers to buy food at the same store.  This is how your plan works, right?
 
2013-04-12 05:29:38 PM  

o5iiawah: So the key to being a success in business is simply to hire people, sit back and let the wheels turn.


No. You're taking an absolutist position, saying that the owner deserves 100% of the credit (and you think that I'm saying labor deserves 100% of the credit). Neither are true. The success of a company depends on many moving parts to execute efficiently, from people to money, parts, labor, materials, and relationships. This is a tangent, however. The core argument was whether a CEO is really that much more important than a floor worker. I'm arguing that he is not. Certainly not 420x more.

o5iiawah: People who spend all their money are a paycheck away from draining social services. That is in no way shape or form efficient, nor is it a particularly sound way to run a personal, or large scale economy.


It's not personally efficient and I certainly don't advocate living that way, but from the perspective of the health of the overall economy, it is indeed the most efficient.

o5iiawah: I dont care what the company makes on a pair of shoes,


YES YOU DO!! THAT WAS YOUR farkING ARGUMENT -- "Often times, if a tax burden is lifted, a company will cut prices in the hopes that the reduced price might bring more customers into the market where they otherwise were not."

It has NOTHING to do with taxes and EVERYTHING to do with prices. Do companies reduce their prices when you remove taxes or not? And for some moronic reason you keep bringing up sales taxes which is the worst argument because it's wrong. You should be thinking of something along the line of manufacturing taxes or gas taxes or shipping taxes or some tax that the company has to pay, NOT THE farkING CUSTOMER, you idiot.

It's been an entire year and you still don't farking get it. What the fark is wrong with you?!??!

o5iiawah: So you would agree then on a 100% tax on all profits of a grocery store, which would go into a food stamp program that would capitalize low income individuals with vouchers to buy food at the same store. This is how your plan works, right?


No. You're applying a micro strawman to a macro assertion. That's MattStafford's schtick. You lose.

Good day, sir.
 
Displayed 293 of 293 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report