Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Jarhead]

Sam Walton did that because there was a demand for cheap products available at one central location that had just about everything from groceries to electronics to clothing to household goods. He didn't do it just because he had money.

He invested his money in an idea.

Uh...sort of what all business owners do.

I, for the life of me, dont get where you were going with that post.

It was nothing more than a "punt" if you ask me.

Walton wouldn't have invested his money in that idea if he didn't think there was demand for it. And if he had thought so, but been wrong, his money would have been lost and there would be no such thing as Wal-Mart today.

The determining factor is always demand, not capital.

if he didnt have the capital , the demand would have not been met...so I see the determining factor being the capital.

And by the way...no one was out there saying "I want a one stop shoppingt place with low prices"....it was an idwea that having one would likely create the demand for one.

Do you think the inventor of the firsbee invented it and produced it becuase there were people out there sayin...

"I wish I had a plastic disc to throw around"?

 

[Dragon]

if he didnt have the capital , the demand would have not been met...so I see the determining factor being the capital.

If he hadn't had the capital, someone else would have. Or he would have borrowed it, or found venture capital sources. Capital is always available in our economy as long as there's demand. The determining factor is demand because, although capital is also necessary, it can be taken for granted. Demand cannot.

Do you think the inventor of the firsbee invented it and produced it becuase there were people out there sayin...

"I wish I had a plastic disc to throw around"?

No, but that's missing the point. The idea was a good one only because people had money to spend on something totally frivolous but cool. Demand = desire PLUS ABILITY to buy. With a new product, desire is always "virtual" (people may want it but they don't know that until it's offered), but ability is real and either there or not.

You might want to look into the actual history of the Frisbee. By the time it was offered under that name by Wham-O, its inventor had already demonstrated that there was a market for it. He did this right after World War II. So the investment by a big toy company in mass-production of the item did indeed follow from demand, not the other way around.

 

[Ernie S.]

Well golly gee! What happens when someone invests money? Sam Walton did and created 2 million JOBS.

Sam Walton did that because there was a demand for cheap products available at one central location that had just about everything from groceries to electronics to clothing to household goods. He didn't do it just because he had money.

Of course not! He did it to generate a profit. As a consequence, he gave jobs to 2 million, lowered your property taxes and provided you with products at a reasonable price. All this completely unlike public sector jobs you're so fond of that cost us all, produce nothing, operate at net loss and do nothing for local tax base.

 

[DaGoose]

The higher the income level, the less increased demand results from a tax cut. That's because the higher the income level, the lower a percentage of one's income is spent as opposed to invested. At the income levels where Republicans want to cut taxes, the effect is nil -- except on the federal budget deficit.

This is quite a twist on the facts. You assume that the rich won't spend, they will. Not only will they spend, if you cut corporate taxes they will invest in their corporation and hire.

Nice deflection though, we are talking about Grayson touting the benefits of reducing taxes.

Bullshit. If that was true there should have never been a Bush Recession. The TEMPORARY Bush Tax Cuts should NEVER had been extended.

As for the wealthy spending and investing allow me to educate you.........

Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says - Bloomberg

Tax cuts for the MIDDLE CLASS, however, get put back into the economy via INCREASED SPENDING.

Trickle UP economics works.

Trickle DOWN has screwed this nation six ways from Sunday.

 

[Dragon]

Of course not! He did it to generate a profit.

And why did he think there was a profit to be made by doing this?

(Public-sector jobs are irrelevant here and I won't jump at the diversion.)

 

[Ernie S.]

Sam Walton did that because there was a demand for cheap products available at one central location that had just about everything from groceries to electronics to clothing to household goods. He didn't do it just because he had money.

He invested his money in an idea.

Uh...sort of what all business owners do.

I, for the life of me, dont get where you were going with that post.

It was nothing more than a "punt" if you ask me.

Walton wouldn't have invested his money in that idea if he didn't think there was demand for it. And if he had thought so, but been wrong, his money would have been lost and there would be no such thing as Wal-Mart today.

The determining factor is always demand, not capital.

He CREATED demand by offering affordable products. People creaet demand all the time. There was no demand for personal computers or cell phones before they were created; no demand for televisions or radios, no demand for automobiles or steam locomotives. Just a need. Where would we be if no one saw a need and filled it? There would be no agriculture, not even spears with which to procure meat.

 

[Ernie S.]

if he didnt have the capital , the demand would have not been met...so I see the determining factor being the capital.

If he hadn't had the capital, someone else would have. Or he would have borrowed it, or found venture capital sources. Capital is always available in our economy as long as there's demand. The determining factor is demand because, although capital is also necessary, it can be taken for granted. Demand cannot.

Do you think the inventor of the firsbee invented it and produced it becuase there were people out there sayin...

"I wish I had a plastic disc to throw around"?

No, but that's missing the point. The idea was a good one only because people had money to spend on something totally frivolous but cool. Demand = desire PLUS ABILITY to buy. With a new product, desire is always "virtual" (people may want it but they don't know that until it's offered), but ability is real and either there or not.

You might want to look into the actual history of the Frisbee. By the time it was offered under that name by Wham-O, its inventor had already demonstrated that there was a market for it. He did this right after World War II. So the investment by a big toy company in mass-production of the item did indeed follow from demand, not the other way around.

If you had your way, there would be no capitol. Risk has rewards. Without risk takers, we would live in caves and exist on fruits, nuts and carrion.

 

[Jarhead]

Of course not! He did it to generate a profit.

And why did he think there was a profit to be made by doing this?

(Public-sector jobs are irrelevant here and I won't jump at the diversion.)

Becuase he believed he can create a demand.

You seem to forget about all of those business owners that lost all they had becuase they were not able to create a demand.

 

[Dragon]

If you had your way, there would be no capitol.

Don't be absurd.

 

[Ernie S.]

The higher the income level, the less increased demand results from a tax cut. That's because the higher the income level, the lower a percentage of one's income is spent as opposed to invested. At the income levels where Republicans want to cut taxes, the effect is nil -- except on the federal budget deficit.

This is quite a twist on the facts. You assume that the rich won't spend, they will. Not only will they spend, if you cut corporate taxes they will invest in their corporation and hire.

Nice deflection though, we are talking about Grayson touting the benefits of reducing taxes.

Bullshit. If that was true there should have never been a Bush Recession. The TEMPORARY Bush Tax Cuts should NEVER had been extended.

As for the wealthy spending and investing allow me to educate you.........

Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says - Bloomberg

Tax cuts for the MIDDLE CLASS, however, get put back into the economy via INCREASED SPENDING.

Trickle UP economics works.

Trickle DOWN has screwed this nation six ways from Sunday.

Do you understand what happens when someone saves? They expect interest, do they not? How do you suppose a bank is able to afford to pay interest? Well, they lend the money at a profit to people willing to risk it to develop an idea or product.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The higher the income level, the less increased demand results from a tax cut. That's because the higher the income level, the lower a percentage of one's income is spent as opposed to invested. At the income levels where Republicans want to cut taxes, the effect is nil -- except on the federal budget deficit.

Sadly for you, history shows the exact opposite.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If Alan Grayson (D) Fl, had two working brain cells to rub together, he'd realize that he had just said what conservatives have been saying for decades:

"With the payroll tax break, workers get more in their paychecks each week. That money goes to the waitress, who gives it to the hair stylist, who gives it to the landlord. And the money goes round and round. Demand goes up, and with it, employment."


Alan Grayson stop protecting rich: GOP must stop protecting the rich - OrlandoSentinel.com

Too bad morons like him when he were in Congress fought the conservatives to keep tax rates high and keep more people unemployed. Do I think he's seen the light? Not a chance. It's simply a political hack democrat trying to sieze an opportunity to regain a seat that he was thrown out of with vigor. What an idiot.

Grayson is a lunatic. He had his shot and he blew it with all the flatulence that poured out of his mouth. He's not going back to Congress.

 

[Ernie S.]

Of course not! He did it to generate a profit.

And why did he think there was a profit to be made by doing this?

(Public-sector jobs are irrelevant here and I won't jump at the diversion.)

in other words you've got nothing. Thought so.

 

[Dragon]

Becuase he believed he can create a demand.

If he believed that, he was a fool, which he certainly was not. No, he believed that the demand already existed.

Ever worked in sales, Ernie? I did for years, and one of the first rules I was ever taught was: sell benefits, not features. So Walton wasn't offering people a mega-store with everything (that's a feature), he was offering people convenience and low prices (those are benefits). The demand for convenience and low prices already existed. Walton just found a way to meet that demand. He didn't create it.

In other words you've got nothing.

"The public-sector jobs you admire so much" (or whatever your exact words were) was YOUR assertion, not mine. I'm talking strictly about the private sector here.

 

[Ernie S.]

If you had your way, there would be no capitol.

Don't be absurd.

OK, just enough to pay Grayson's salary and feed the leeches.

 

[Jarhead]

Becuase he believed he can create a demand.

If he believed that, he was a fool, which he certainly was not. No, he believed that the demand already existed.

Ever worked in sales, Ernie? I did for years, and one of the first rules I was ever taught was: sell benefits, not features. So Walton wasn't offering people a mega-store with everything (that's a feature), he was offering people convenience and low prices (those are benefits). The demand for convenience and low prices already existed. Walton just found a way to meet that demand. He didn't create it.

In other words you've got nothing.

"The public-sector jobs you admire so much" (or whatever your exact words were) was YOUR assertion, not mine. I'm talking strictly about the private sector here.

your problem is you confuse demand with likely preference.

I hate using the dictionary when debating...but sometimes it must be done.

Look up the definition of demand from an economic standpoint....

 

[Dragon]

If you had your way, there would be no capitol.

Don't be absurd.

OK, just enough to pay Grayson's salary and feed the leeches.

You're still being absurd. You don't even believe that's what I want. I think you've just run out of arguments without running out of bile.

 

[Dragon]

your problem is you confuse demand with likely preference.

I hate using the dictionary when debating...but sometimes it must be done.

Look up the definition of demand from an economic standpoint....

Demand (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In economics, demand is the desire to own anything, the ability to pay for it, and the willingness to pay."

Desire to buy (at a given price), plus ability to buy. Both are necessary.

No, I don't think I'm confusing the meaning of that term with anything else. In macroeconomics, the key factor is not desire but ability to buy, whereas in microeconomics, when considering particular products, both are equally important.

 

[Jarhead]

your problem is you confuse demand with likely preference.

I hate using the dictionary when debating...but sometimes it must be done.

Look up the definition of demand from an economic standpoint....

Demand (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In economics, demand is the desire to own anything, the ability to pay for it, and the willingness to pay."

Desire to buy (at a given price), plus ability to buy. Both are necessary.

No, I don't think I'm confusing the meaning of that term with anything else. In macroeconomics, the key factor is not desire but ability to buy, whereas in microeconomics, when considering particular products, both are equally important.

your definition...that supports what I am saying...to a tee.

People were not out there saying "I want a one stop shop place with very low prices"

But when it came to be?

They found they wanted it.

Waldon did not cater to the demand. He believed his store would create the demand.

One did not say "I wish I had a device to do all of my calculating"

But when they hit the market?

One said "I want one of those"

 

[jillian]

If Alan Grayson (D) Fl, had two working brain cells to rub together, he'd realize that he had just said what conservatives have been saying for decades:

"With the payroll tax break, workers get more in their paychecks each week. That money goes to the waitress, who gives it to the hair stylist, who gives it to the landlord. And the money goes round and round. Demand goes up, and with it, employment."


Alan Grayson stop protecting rich: GOP must stop protecting the rich - OrlandoSentinel.com

Too bad morons like him when he were in Congress fought the conservatives to keep tax rates high and keep more people unemployed. Do I think he's seen the light? Not a chance. It's simply a political hack democrat trying to sieze an opportunity to regain a seat that he was thrown out of with vigor. What an idiot.

wow... if even a stopped clock is right twice a day, i'm hopefuly that you might even be correct about something at some point.

i doubt it... but i'm rooting for you.