According to Reagan's Budget Director,

[sangha]

Note the guy was not an economist.

He is a part of the "liberal media". WIngnuts hate the Lame Stream Media.....except when they dont

 

[editec]

Do the captains of industry create wealth?

No, they are but part of the creation of wealth.

Wealth starts when a human hand or mind creates something of value to mankind.

Wealth therefore trickles UP, not down.

Now as to the theory that if there is enough capital formation, capitalists will necessarily create jobs?

Well, let me ask my fellow CEOs here...if you have money to invest, but no market for you products, how many employees will YOU hire?

If you tell me the answer is greater than zero, I know that you are full of beans.

So the theory that if there are massive capital formations, that will neessarily mean more jobs will be created is flawed in theory AND obviously in fact, too.

Economies demand BALANCE between capital and labor.

When one or the other dominates, the economy is less than efficient.

 

[asterism]

Do the captains of industry create wealth?

No, they are but part of the creation of wealth.

Wealth starts when a human hand or mind creates something of value to mankind.

Wealth therefore trickles UP, not down.

Now as to the theory that if there is enough capital formation, capitalists will necessarily create jobs?

Well, let me ask my fellow CEOs here...if you have money to invest, but no market for you products, how many employees will YOU hire?

If you tell me the answer is greater than zero, I know that you are full of beans.

So the theory that if there are massive capital formations, that will neessarily mean more jobs will be created is flawed in theory AND obviously in fact, too.

Economies demand BALANCE between capital and labor.

When one or the other dominates, the economy is less than efficient.

You are correct, which is why I am investing and hiring to present products and services that do have a market. It's a pretty typical reaction to a recession, innovate out of necessity. There is a market right now for lower credit card processing fees and more efficient means to let people know of price cuts and values. I know of four companies currently expanding in those areas.

Many "computer" based media consumption is trending towards appliances and cell phones. I know of three companies (one of them brand new and tiny ) currently investing in that area.

As is that case in economic decline, old worn out models of inefficiency fold. Blockbuster's decline is not a signal that there is no demand for movies, it's a signal that people don't want to drive to a store and pay $5 to rent one. Netflix and RedBox are filling that gap. Both companies are expanding - one by building their interface into existing appliances (like TiVo and Wii) to rent movies by downloading them. RedBox is going a different direction by cutting prices way down and using kiosks instead of stores.

No manipulation by the government to "increase demand" and prop up outdated business models (like GM) necessary. Current efforts by the government to further regulate (not properly oversee, but regulate in a micromanaging fashion) are hampering the access to capital. The demand-side monetary policy isn't helping any either.

 

[sangha]

Do the captains of industry create wealth?

No, they are but part of the creation of wealth.

Wealth starts when a human hand or mind creates something of value to mankind.

Wealth therefore trickles UP, not down.

Now as to the theory that if there is enough capital formation, capitalists will necessarily create jobs?

Well, let me ask my fellow CEOs here...if you have money to invest, but no market for you products, how many employees will YOU hire?

If you tell me the answer is greater than zero, I know that you are full of beans.

So the theory that if there are massive capital formations, that will neessarily mean more jobs will be created is flawed in theory AND obviously in fact, too.

Economies demand BALANCE between capital and labor.

When one or the other dominates, the economy is less than efficient.

You are correct, which is why I am investing and hiring to present products and services that do have a market. It's a pretty typical reaction to a recession, innovate out of necessity. There is a market right now for lower credit card processing fees and more efficient means to let people know of price cuts and values. I know of four companies currently expanding in those areas.

Many "computer" based media consumption is trending towards appliances and cell phones. I know of three companies (one of them brand new and tiny ) currently investing in that area.

As is that case in economic decline, old worn out models of inefficiency fold. Blockbuster's decline is not a signal that there is no demand for movies, it's a signal that people don't want to drive to a store and pay $5 to rent one. Netflix and RedBox are filling that gap. Both companies are expanding - one by building their interface into existing appliances (like TiVo and Wii) to rent movies by downloading them. RedBox is going a different direction by cutting prices way down and using kiosks instead of stores.

No manipulation by the government to "increase demand" and prop up outdated business models (like GM) necessary. Current efforts by the government to further regulate (not properly oversee, but regulate in a micromanaging fashion) are hampering the access to capital. The demand-side monetary policy isn't helping any either.

In wingnut world, when the govt gave trillions to the banks in gaurantees, it hampered the access to capital

 

[asterism]

Do the captains of industry create wealth?

No, they are but part of the creation of wealth.

Wealth starts when a human hand or mind creates something of value to mankind.

Wealth therefore trickles UP, not down.

Now as to the theory that if there is enough capital formation, capitalists will necessarily create jobs?

Well, let me ask my fellow CEOs here...if you have money to invest, but no market for you products, how many employees will YOU hire?

If you tell me the answer is greater than zero, I know that you are full of beans.

So the theory that if there are massive capital formations, that will neessarily mean more jobs will be created is flawed in theory AND obviously in fact, too.

Economies demand BALANCE between capital and labor.

When one or the other dominates, the economy is less than efficient.

You are correct, which is why I am investing and hiring to present products and services that do have a market. It's a pretty typical reaction to a recession, innovate out of necessity. There is a market right now for lower credit card processing fees and more efficient means to let people know of price cuts and values. I know of four companies currently expanding in those areas.

Many "computer" based media consumption is trending towards appliances and cell phones. I know of three companies (one of them brand new and tiny ) currently investing in that area.

As is that case in economic decline, old worn out models of inefficiency fold. Blockbuster's decline is not a signal that there is no demand for movies, it's a signal that people don't want to drive to a store and pay $5 to rent one. Netflix and RedBox are filling that gap. Both companies are expanding - one by building their interface into existing appliances (like TiVo and Wii) to rent movies by downloading them. RedBox is going a different direction by cutting prices way down and using kiosks instead of stores.

No manipulation by the government to "increase demand" and prop up outdated business models (like GM) necessary. Current efforts by the government to further regulate (not properly oversee, but regulate in a micromanaging fashion) are hampering the access to capital. The demand-side monetary policy isn't helping any either.

In wingnut world, when the govt gave trillions to the banks in gaurantees, it hampered the access to capital

It did. It set rules by which new innovative startups are locked out of their models. Banks typically don't loan to startups. Which bank funded TiVo before it went public? Which bank still funds TiVo?

 

[Agit8r]

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

-- Adam Smith; from Wealth of Nations

 

[sangha]

You are correct, which is why I am investing and hiring to present products and services that do have a market. It's a pretty typical reaction to a recession, innovate out of necessity. There is a market right now for lower credit card processing fees and more efficient means to let people know of price cuts and values. I know of four companies currently expanding in those areas.

Many "computer" based media consumption is trending towards appliances and cell phones. I know of three companies (one of them brand new and tiny ) currently investing in that area.

As is that case in economic decline, old worn out models of inefficiency fold. Blockbuster's decline is not a signal that there is no demand for movies, it's a signal that people don't want to drive to a store and pay $5 to rent one. Netflix and RedBox are filling that gap. Both companies are expanding - one by building their interface into existing appliances (like TiVo and Wii) to rent movies by downloading them. RedBox is going a different direction by cutting prices way down and using kiosks instead of stores.

No manipulation by the government to "increase demand" and prop up outdated business models (like GM) necessary. Current efforts by the government to further regulate (not properly oversee, but regulate in a micromanaging fashion) are hampering the access to capital. The demand-side monetary policy isn't helping any either.

In wingnut world, when the govt gave trillions to the banks in gaurantees, it hampered the access to capital

It did. It set rules by which new innovative startups are locked out of their models. Banks typically don't loan to startups. Which bank funded TiVo before it went public? Which bank still funds TiVo?

Nonsense, which is why you speak only in generalities.

 

[asterism]

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

-- Adam Smith; from Wealth of Nations

True, and we've been there for decades. Now the government and the people who can't create jobs want more money because their ideas didn't work.

 

[asterism]

In wingnut world, when the govt gave trillions to the banks in gaurantees, it hampered the access to capital

It did. It set rules by which new innovative startups are locked out of their models. Banks typically don't loan to startups. Which bank funded TiVo before it went public? Which bank still funds TiVo?

Nonsense, which is why you speak only in generalities.

You haven't been paying attention have you?

Here are some specifics:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/143548-we-should-be-at-7-5-unemployment.html

 

[sangha]

It did. It set rules by which new innovative startups are locked out of their models. Banks typically don't loan to startups. Which bank funded TiVo before it went public? Which bank still funds TiVo?

Nonsense, which is why you speak only in generalities.

You haven't been paying attention have you?

Here are some specifics:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/143548-we-should-be-at-7-5-unemployment.html

So you're citing yourself to support your argument

 

[asterism]

Nonsense, which is why you speak only in generalities.

You haven't been paying attention have you?

Here are some specifics:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/143548-we-should-be-at-7-5-unemployment.html

So you're citing yourself to support your argument

No, you said I speak only in generalities and a cited a thread where I present specifics.

 

[sangha]

You haven't been paying attention have you?

Here are some specifics:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/143548-we-should-be-at-7-5-unemployment.html

So you're citing yourself to support your argument

No, you said I speak only in generalities and a cited a thread where I present specifics.

You haven't been paying attention have you? Not even to your own words

You said the govt was hampering the access to capital. Your link says nothing about govt hampering access to capital

Want to try again? This time post a link that actually supports your claim, instead of some irrelevancy

 

[Agit8r]

"if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. Had I never been in the American Colonies, but was to form my Judgment of Civil Society by what I have lately seen [in Ireland and Scotland], I should never advise a Nation of Savages to admit of Civilisation: For I assure you, that in the Possession and Enjoyment of the various Comforts of Life, compar'd to these People every Indian is a Gentleman: And the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"

-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

That is what the plutocrats are after. A state of hierarchical power, and order via oppression