It's all about "Supply and Demand"

[rdean]

There are those who believe if you just give money to the "rich" they will "make jobs".

Or that "tax cuts" for corporations remove "uncertainty", and if you give them money, they will "make jobs".

As if "make jobs" are "magic words".

The truth is, in a capitalistic society, it all revolves around "supply and demand". If there is demand and people can pay for it, jobs will be created and corporations will hire. It's "just that simple".

If no one in the Middle Class has any money and the only people with money are rich people, then there is no demand because no one can buy anything. If no one can buy anything, then there is no supply. With no supply, there are no jobs.

For this reason, huge tax cuts for rich people do nothing for the economy. It is simply moved off shore to shelters. Obviously, unemployment benefits will spur the economy simply because the money goes right back in to the economy.

So the "myth" that every thing "trickles down" from the rich can finally be put to bed.

 

[Revere]

Democrats will vote for extending upper income tax cuts if they are bought off with enough spending.

Ellison: Dems must "create crisis" to force GOP on tax cut | Minnesota Public Radio News

Crann: I want to talk about the aspect of compromise, if we could here.

Ellison: Yes, compromise is important, and I think we do need to have a compromise. But if you want me to vote to extend all of the tax cuts, which is something I am loathe to do, I can't do it at the price that they're asking for. Crann: In order to get the extension on employment benefits, that's not worth it to you?

Ellison: I think it would be to the detriment of people who are seeking those unemployment benefits. And plus, there's other ways to get them. I think that we need to create a real crisis here so that the Republicans will have to answer for denying Americans unemployment benefits on the eve of the Christmas holiday.

 

[rdean]

Democrats will vote for extending upper income tax cuts if they are bought off with enough spending.

Ellison: Dems must "create crisis" to force GOP on tax cut | Minnesota Public Radio News

Crann: I want to talk about the aspect of compromise, if we could here.

Ellison: Yes, compromise is important, and I think we do need to have a compromise. But if you want me to vote to extend all of the tax cuts, which is something I am loathe to do, I can't do it at the price that they're asking for. Crann: In order to get the extension on employment benefits, that's not worth it to you?

Ellison: I think it would be to the detriment of people who are seeking those unemployment benefits. And plus, there's other ways to get them. I think that we need to create a real crisis here so that the Republicans will have to answer for denying Americans unemployment benefits on the eve of the Christmas holiday.

And you are completely correct. Democrats were "bought off". Republicans held hostage millions of Americans. Democrats caved in to Republicans demands so millions would not be left with not even a chunck of coal for Christmas. The difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans would be more than willing to ruin the lives of millions of Americans so a very few super rich could get a couple of unasked for and unneeded "bucks".

Fiscal Strength

Dear Mister President:

We are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country.

For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.

We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are those who believe if you just give money to the "rich" they will "make jobs".

Or that "tax cuts" for corporations remove "uncertainty", and if you give them money, they will "make jobs".

As if "make jobs" are "magic words".

The truth is, in a capitalistic society, it all revolves around "supply and demand". If there is demand and people can pay for it, jobs will be created and corporations will hire. It's "just that simple".

If no one in the Middle Class has any money and the only people with money are rich people, then there is no demand because no one can buy anything. If no one can buy anything, then there is no supply. With no supply, there are no jobs.

For this reason, huge tax cuts for rich people do nothing for the economy. It is simply moved off shore to shelters. Obviously, unemployment benefits will spur the economy simply because the money goes right back in to the economy.

So the "myth" that every thing "trickles down" from the rich can finally be put to bed.

Supply and demand is two sided equation, not one sided. You can have all the demand in the world, but if you cut off the supply there will be no jobs. That is shy Bush worked for an across the board tax cut that benefited everyone in the country. The Democrats are, like you, confused about how this works. They think they can stimulate demand while killing the supply side and that everything will be OK.

 

[rdean]

There are those who believe if you just give money to the "rich" they will "make jobs".

Or that "tax cuts" for corporations remove "uncertainty", and if you give them money, they will "make jobs".

As if "make jobs" are "magic words".

The truth is, in a capitalistic society, it all revolves around "supply and demand". If there is demand and people can pay for it, jobs will be created and corporations will hire. It's "just that simple".

If no one in the Middle Class has any money and the only people with money are rich people, then there is no demand because no one can buy anything. If no one can buy anything, then there is no supply. With no supply, there are no jobs.

For this reason, huge tax cuts for rich people do nothing for the economy. It is simply moved off shore to shelters. Obviously, unemployment benefits will spur the economy simply because the money goes right back in to the economy.

So the "myth" that every thing "trickles down" from the rich can finally be put to bed.

Supply and demand is two sided equation, not one sided. You can have all the demand in the world, but if you cut off the supply there will be no jobs. That is shy Bush worked for an across the board tax cut that benefited everyone in the country. The Democrats are, like you, confused about how this works. They think they can stimulate demand while killing the supply side and that everything will be OK.

Concentrating the wealth of the nation into the hands of a very few cuts off "supply". The "supply" of money. Without money, what good is "demand"? Can it be any more obvious?

 

[boedicca]

Static Pie Sophistry, bub.

 

[loosecannon]

Static Pie Sophistry, bub.

no it's monetarism 101.

 

[boedicca]

Static Pie Sophistry, bub.

no it's monetarism 101.

No - it's class warfare envy.

Which is your comfort zone.

 

[loosecannon]

no it is fundamental monetarism.

Economic activity is limited by the effective or productive money supply. Period. If money supply is stagnant it loses it's utility, hence the categories M1, M2, M3.

Money earned by folks who live hand to mouth gets spent immediately so it has more velocity, performs more transactional work and stimulates more economic activity then money earned by corps or wealthier individuals who hoard.

 

[boedicca]

Taking money away from one group just to be spent by another doesn't create real economic growth, bub.

But it does satisfy you and your Madame Defarges.

 

[loosecannon]

Taking money away from one group just to be spent by another doesn't create real economic growth, bub.

You must be posting in the wrong thread because nobody even mentioned anything of the kind.

Is your tape loop stuck on "class warfare"?

 

[boedicca]

It's not my responsibility to read and spoon feed the meaning of the OP for you, you sad little moron.

 

[loosecannon]

It's not my responsibility to read and spoon feed the meaning of the OP for you, you sad little moron.

That's funny since the OP in no way says anything like:

"Taking money away from one group just to be spent by another"

It only mentions tax cuts.

You are stuck in a class warfare loop

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are those who believe if you just give money to the "rich" they will "make jobs".

Or that "tax cuts" for corporations remove "uncertainty", and if you give them money, they will "make jobs".

As if "make jobs" are "magic words".

The truth is, in a capitalistic society, it all revolves around "supply and demand". If there is demand and people can pay for it, jobs will be created and corporations will hire. It's "just that simple".

If no one in the Middle Class has any money and the only people with money are rich people, then there is no demand because no one can buy anything. If no one can buy anything, then there is no supply. With no supply, there are no jobs.

For this reason, huge tax cuts for rich people do nothing for the economy. It is simply moved off shore to shelters. Obviously, unemployment benefits will spur the economy simply because the money goes right back in to the economy.

So the "myth" that every thing "trickles down" from the rich can finally be put to bed.

Supply and demand is two sided equation, not one sided. You can have all the demand in the world, but if you cut off the supply there will be no jobs. That is shy Bush worked for an across the board tax cut that benefited everyone in the country. The Democrats are, like you, confused about how this works. They think they can stimulate demand while killing the supply side and that everything will be OK.

Concentrating the wealth of the nation into the hands of a very few cuts off "supply". The "supply" of money. Without money, what good is "demand"? Can it be any more obvious?

Taking the money away from people who earn it chokes off demand. Why should anyone work hard to earn money of the government just takes it away from them?

Supply and demand work together. They are not independent, and tweaking one side of the equation changes the other.

 

[onecut39]

Supply and demand is two sided equation, not one sided. You can have all the demand in the world, but if you cut off the supply there will be no jobs. That is shy Bush worked for an across the board tax cut that benefited everyone in the country. The Democrats are, like you, confused about how this works. They think they can stimulate demand while killing the supply side and that everything will be OK.

Concentrating the wealth of the nation into the hands of a very few cuts off "supply". The "supply" of money. Without money, what good is "demand"? Can it be any more obvious?

Taking the money away from people who earn it chokes off demand. Why should anyone work hard to earn money of the government just takes it away from them?

Supply and demand work together. They are not independent, and tweaking one side of the equation changes the other.

Maybe you can splain this to me:

Oil supply is high, far outstripping demand.

Prices do not go down.How come?

 

[onecut39]

There are those who believe if you just give money to the "rich" they will "make jobs".

Or that "tax cuts" for corporations remove "uncertainty", and if you give them money, they will "make jobs".

As if "make jobs" are "magic words".

The truth is, in a capitalistic society, it all revolves around "supply and demand". If there is demand and people can pay for it, jobs will be created and corporations will hire. It's "just that simple".

If no one in the Middle Class has any money and the only people with money are rich people, then there is no demand because no one can buy anything. If no one can buy anything, then there is no supply. With no supply, there are no jobs.

For this reason, huge tax cuts for rich people do nothing for the economy. It is simply moved off shore to shelters. Obviously, unemployment benefits will spur the economy simply because the money goes right back in to the economy.

So the "myth" that every thing "trickles down" from the rich can finally be put to bed.

Thank you for that post. At this moment Corporations are sitting on about two trillion bucks of liquid assets. Their profits are at record levels. Still they are not hiring or expanding production.

Why? Simple. As you state there is no excess demand. Why expand when you can sell no more product?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Concentrating the wealth of the nation into the hands of a very few cuts off "supply". The "supply" of money. Without money, what good is "demand"? Can it be any more obvious?

Taking the money away from people who earn it chokes off demand. Why should anyone work hard to earn money of the government just takes it away from them?

Supply and demand work together. They are not independent, and tweaking one side of the equation changes the other.

Maybe you can splain this to me:

Oil supply is high, far outstripping demand.

Prices do not go down.How come?

What makes you think oil supply is outpacing demand?

 

[onecut39]

Taking the money away from people who earn it chokes off demand. Why should anyone work hard to earn money of the government just takes it away from them?

Supply and demand work together. They are not independent, and tweaking one side of the equation changes the other.

Maybe you can splain this to me:

Oil supply is high, far outstripping demand.

Prices do not go down.How come?

What makes you think oil supply is outpacing demand?

The oil companies. It is their figures.

 

[william the wie]

This is the wrong argument in the wrong section. People starving or freezing is a public health problem. Not being able to get the latest widget is a personal problem. Doing the Fisher shuffle of monetizing everything and making a big safety net just creates moral hazard as in the Continental Illinois nationalization led to the S&L crisis which led to the Long Term Capital Management crisis which led to the dot bomb crisis which led to housing bust which led to the meltdown. So now instead of using money productively anyone with any money is positioning themselves to survive the next monetarist crash. The way you do that is to get into cash and the only question is who is going to accumulate the cash and where is it going to be stored.

 

[loosecannon]

So now instead of using money productively anyone with any money is positioning themselves to survive the next monetarist crash. The way you do that is to get into cash and the only question is who is going to accumulate the cash and where is it going to be stored.

It has been a hellava long time since I heard anybody advocate hoarding cash as a survival strategy.

Can you elaborate on your rationale?