Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Sad, United States, job opening, staffing firm, environmentalisms, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago  
•       •       •

3175 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Apr 2013 at 4:11 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 it 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 43 of 293 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report