corporate profits and jobs

[IndependntLogic]

...Where exactly did you get "corporate profits down".
Not from the source you cite...

You were supposed to click on the links before saying that. Here's a screenshot of a table you can get from the website I linked to:

profits down

taxes up

worker pay up

The problem we got in communicating is that I see profits, pay, and taxes as a money/numbers thing and not a party hack thing.

"A Party Hack thing" LOL okay. Tell ya what. I won't return the insult or label or whatever. That's your bag baby.


So here's the dealio junior. The problem we have communicating is that I, being a "Party Hack", view the number 636 (the lowest point on your table, as of the day Bush left office) as being "LOWER" than the number 1299 - which is where your index show it is now.
So since 1299 is "Higher" than 636, I assumed that meant that over the last two years, profits had gone "up"!

So, wanna keep with the snarky bit or did you want to clarify your meaning or waddya wannado?

 

[code1211]

...Where exactly did you get "corporate profits down".
Not from the source you cite...

You were supposed to click on the links before saying that. Here's a screenshot of a table you can get from the website I linked to:

profits down

taxes up

worker pay up

The problem we got in communicating is that I see profits, pay, and taxes as a money/numbers thing and not a party hack thing.

"A Party Hack thing" LOL okay. Tell ya what. I won't return the insult or label or whatever. That's your bag baby.


So here's the dealio junior. The problem we have communicating is that I, being a "Party Hack", view the number 636 (the lowest point on your table, as of the day Bush left office) as being "LOWER" than the number 1299 - which is where your index show it is now.
So since 1299 is "Higher" than 636, I assumed that meant that over the last two years, profits had gone "up"!

So, wanna keep with the snarky bit or did you want to clarify your meaning or waddya wannado?

The problem with your post is on two levels:

1. You claim to not be a party hack, but view the issue only in the time frame of whether or not Bush was in office.

2. Profitability is measured as a both as a raw number of dollars and as a percent of total revenue. There is also the demonstrated capability of the equation. If there is a building, equipment and other costs that produce a profit of X at one time and shortly thereafter are producing a profit of X-7, then profits are down.

If any business, or in this case, all businesses have a demonstrated capability of producing profits at a certain, defined level and the current rate of profit is below that, the profits are down.

Profits don't care who is the President. This President, however, cares who makes profits.

 

[expat_panama]

...Profits don't care who is the President...

--at least not in any that's clear from the numbers:

All we got is the fact that corp. pay to employees is at an all time high, corp taxes paid is at an all time high, and profits are still below what they were five years ago after taking a big hit.

...I, being a "Party Hack"...

--means that you can say truthfully that since Obama took over, we're seeing corp profits increasing more than taxes and employee pay.

Good for you.

 

[IndependntLogic]

You were supposed to click on the links before saying that. Here's a screenshot of a table you can get from the website I linked to:

profits down

taxes up

worker pay up

The problem we got in communicating is that I see profits, pay, and taxes as a money/numbers thing and not a party hack thing.

"A Party Hack thing" LOL okay. Tell ya what. I won't return the insult or label or whatever. That's your bag baby.


So here's the dealio junior. The problem we have communicating is that I, being a "Party Hack", view the number 636 (the lowest point on your table, as of the day Bush left office) as being "LOWER" than the number 1299 - which is where your index show it is now.
So since 1299 is "Higher" than 636, I assumed that meant that over the last two years, profits had gone "up"!

So, wanna keep with the snarky bit or did you want to clarify your meaning or waddya wannado?

The problem with your post is on two levels:

1. You claim to not be a party hack, but view the issue only in the time frame of whether or not Bush was in office.

2. Profitability is measured as a both as a raw number of dollars and as a percent of total revenue. There is also the demonstrated capability of the equation. If there is a building, equipment and other costs that produce a profit of X at one time and shortly thereafter are producing a profit of X-7, then profits are down.

If any business, or in this case, all businesses have a demonstrated capability of producing profits at a certain, defined level and the current rate of profit is below that, the profits are down.

Profits don't care who is the President. This President, however, cares who makes profits.

You a funny little peach!
And you call others a party hack. You're just spewing a combination of FOX and a couple cute little jibs you picked up on radio KGOP. Not that it applies in real life - at least not for the ovewhelming majority but it's cute that you're trying so hard to back up the Anti-Obama crowd.

Here, let me boil down their logic for you and why it's laughable.
The anti-Obama followers, the Holy Church of Rush etc... are all claiming Obama is to blame for UNemployment. They give Obama these magical powers over employment
These are the people who say that it is not the job of government to create jobs.
Here's what they want people to believe:
That if for example, my company just got 26 new contracts (which it did), I'm not going to hire someone to make sure they get handled! Why you ask? Why oh why, would I be so stupid? Because the Magical Obama has me so scared, I'll be afraid to do the things that will leverage my efforts into profits - the very reason my company exist in the first place. Riiiight. Yup, you believe that just because Obama exist, I will lose money, work, clients and future work!
Oh, and because he has passed one (really crappy) piece of legislation that won't take effect for years!
So because I am SO afraid of what the Magic Obama might do years from now, I will not hire someone who is needed due to an increase in demand. And I'll make those kinds of colossally stupid decisions for two years! I'll decide it's better to let my competition get the work!?!?!?!
Any business stupid enough to make decisions like that, doesn't deserve to be around long.
Now I have run divisions for large corporations, run small to medium sized businesses and have owned my own business for almost 17 years now.
Guess what. When my division or company needed people, I didn't sit there and say to myself "Well gee. Hillary Clinton is talking about universal health care and Bill's about to raise taxes! I guess it would be better if we did not hire based on demand!"

Never happened. Never does. But the GOP does a good job of selling this silly nonsense and since the majority of people don't have experience running businesses and making these decisions, they look at all those pretty little charts and listen to the sales pitch - and then they buy it.

It's not that I'm a party hack. It's that you are. I think Obama sucks. But I don't buy into the hysterics and the bs.

BTW, there IS an exception. If I ran a division in a defense contracting company and heard the Fed was going to stop buying my product, then okay. Or if I owned an internet gaming site and heard the Fed was about to make it illegal, fine.

But a healthcare plan? Anyone not leveraging their ability to make a profit when it arises, because of some law that won't take effect for years is an idiot.
More basic than you cute little chart is another one: Supply and Demand.

You'd love part my reasoning for why unemployment is where it's at and hate other parts. But they are real and they make sense.