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  
•       •       •

3158 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 293 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report