Who are the job creators?

[RDD_1210]

Well, we need an honest Government.

All the money in the world wouldn't get you that. Actually probably the opposite. The only way we will ever have an "honest" government is if there were no such thing as money.

Don't be silly. Money makes trading stuff easier. If I have an extra cow, and you have an extra iphone, but don't need a cow, we can still trade using money. That way, you don't need to spend the extra time trying to off load the cow on someone who needs a cow, and I still get the iphone.

My point was that money corrupts power. More money will only lead to further corruption.

 

[Foxfyre]

Did your wingnut talking point subscription lapse? The latest thing is, the Right wants to RAISE taxes on the half of households that pay ZERO income tax...

...

Yup. Those who vote for the people who want to tax me more should also bear the consequences of tax policy. It is dangerous for half the wage earners in this country to pay little or no federal income tax but at the same time have the numbers to select the people who will impose federal income taxes on the rest of us. If Congress raises taxes by 1% or 5% or 10% or whatever, ALL of us should share in the consequences of that.

Ah, so we should abandon the principle of one person one vote and establish some sort of elitist oligarchy where only the wealthy vote?

I didn't say anything even remotely like that, but you do provide an excellent example of reading dysfunction and why so many of us are having trouble benefitting from the opportunities this country affords us.

 

[percysunshine]

All the money in the world wouldn't get you that. Actually probably the opposite. The only way we will ever have an "honest" government is if there were no such thing as money.

Don't be silly. Money makes trading stuff easier. If I have an extra cow, and you have an extra iphone, but don't need a cow, we can still trade using money. That way, you don't need to spend the extra time trying to off load the cow on someone who needs a cow, and I still get the iphone.

My point was that money corrupts power. More money will only lead to further corruption.

I would propose that power corrupts money. Money was invented because it was a more efficient form of social exchange than barter. The practice of social exchange came first. An honest government can only be found when it is composed of honest individuals.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

That just goes back to my original post. If consumers don't have funds, they can't fuel the supply. Sure you may have potential customers who want your services but if they have no money to purchase then the whole process comes to a halt. Demand is illustrated through spending.

It's the consumer purchasing power that drives the economic cycle and as consumer purchasing power goes, so does the economy.

It's a cycle that includes all things not just demand. You can have all the demand you want but if a service isn't available or inadequate then the cycle is broken.

Is it? Again, where has there ever been a demand that someone or some business didn't try to meet that demand?

Yes, it is a cycle, but if the demand side slows down to inability to purchase then the supply side will be left without customers. All the supply in the world can't force the ability to purchase by the consumers.

There have been hundreds of thousands of products and services created throughout our history where no such demand was requested. Products can create demand just as demand creates more need for products. I do high end remodeling and often sell features that are not being demanded because consumers don't even know such things can be done.

Just last night I sold a backlit stone interior wall that will have leds glowing through glass inserts in the stone itself. When I was initially called all the customer wanted was a new fireplace. I CREATED THE DEMAND AND I'M THE PROVIDER. The job is worth 6 times what it would have been had I just provided what he demanded.

 

[bripat9643]

That just goes back to my original post. If consumers don't have funds, they can't fuel the supply. Sure you may have potential customers who want your services but if they have no money to purchase then the whole process comes to a halt. Demand is illustrated through spending.

It's the consumer purchasing power that drives the economic cycle and as consumer purchasing power goes, so does the economy.

One thing you're forgetting with your theory of parasitism: Where do consumers get their money? Duh . . . . from producers?

 

[bripat9643]

Well, we need an honest Government.

All the money in the world wouldn't get you that. Actually probably the opposite. The only way we will ever have an "honest" government is if there were no such thing as money.

ROLF! Eliminating money wouldn't make government honest. Making government honest would be the equivalent of making crime honest.

 

[bripat9643]

My point was that money corrupts power. More money will only lead to further corruption.

Power corrupts, period. Money isn't required in the process. Do you imagine there was no corruption before the invention of money?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yup. Those who vote for the people who want to tax me more should also bear the consequences of tax policy. It is dangerous for half the wage earners in this country to pay little or no federal income tax but at the same time have the numbers to select the people who will impose federal income taxes on the rest of us. If Congress raises taxes by 1% or 5% or 10% or whatever, ALL of us should share in the consequences of that.

Ah, so we should abandon the principle of one person one vote and establish some sort of elitist oligarchy where only the wealthy vote?

I didn't say anything even remotely like that, but you do provide an excellent example of reading dysfunction and why so many of us are having trouble benefitting from the opportunities this country affords us.

I asked if that was what you meant, since you're claiming its 'dangerous' for low income people to have the vote.

Maybe it's dangerous for the Rich to be able to put tens of millions of dollars into elections to see to it that politicians are elected who will vote THEIR interests.

 

[bripat9643]

Rain creates the need, or demand, for umbrellas.

Would Ford for example put on extra people to ramp up production of their trucks, let's say,

if consumers weren't buying trucks, and Ford's inventory was up? Of course not. Consumers create demand, therefore consumers create the need for jobs.

ROFL! He's actually trying to claim the rain creates umbrellas!

Now you're trying to change the goal posts. The bottom line is that consumers do not create jobs. That claim is just a sleazy play on words. It's not a legitimate economic concept. Anyone who makes the claim is either an ignoramus or a shameless demagogue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That just goes back to my original post. If consumers don't have funds, they can't fuel the supply. Sure you may have potential customers who want your services but if they have no money to purchase then the whole process comes to a halt. Demand is illustrated through spending.

It's the consumer purchasing power that drives the economic cycle and as consumer purchasing power goes, so does the economy.

One thing you're forgetting with your theory of parasitism: Where do consumers get their money? Duh . . . . from producers?

Consumers get their money by producing. That's where the term productivity comes from.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah, so we should abandon the principle of one person one vote and establish some sort of elitist oligarchy where only the wealthy vote?

I didn't say anything even remotely like that, but you do provide an excellent example of reading dysfunction and why so many of us are having trouble benefitting from the opportunities this country affords us.

I asked if that was what you meant, since you're claiming its 'dangerous' for low income people to have the vote.

Maybe it's dangerous for the Rich to be able to put tens of millions of dollars into elections to see to it that politicians are elected who will vote THEIR interests.

Again darlin', there are remedial classes that can help you get up to speed to read AND comprehend what you read. Unfortunately, there aren't any classes to help people escape the ideological tunnel vision that allows them only one point of view.

I didn't say a single word about it being dangerous for low income people to vote.

 

[bripat9643]

But jobs create the need for consumers. So all we need to do is to take money from people and give it to other people and then the pie gets bigger.

You're serious?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rain creates the need, or demand, for umbrellas.

Would Ford for example put on extra people to ramp up production of their trucks, let's say,

if consumers weren't buying trucks, and Ford's inventory was up? Of course not. Consumers create demand, therefore consumers create the need for jobs.

ROFL! He's actually trying to claim the rain creates umbrellas!

Now you're trying to change the goal posts. The bottom line is that consumers do not create jobs. That claim is just a sleazy play on words. It's not a legitimate economic concept. Anyone who makes the claim is either an ignoramus or a shameless demagogue.

You're the one whose semantics are retarded.

The government, then, creates millions of jobs, according to you.

 

[bripat9643]

Jobs aren't created without demand. Consumers create the demand. Therefore, consumers are the job creators.

As I've already explained, that's dead wrong. Consumers create the need for jobs similar to how rain creates the need for umbrellas.

Fixed your post. One day you'll understand.

Anyone can convert truth into bullshit by changing what was said. That's a liberal's greatest skill.

 

[Foxfyre]

But jobs create the need for consumers. So all we need to do is to take money from people and give it to other people and then the pie gets bigger.

You're serious?

Sadly, I fear that he is.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I notice my proof of the provider creating the demand is being ignored. Too bad, being right is no more exclusive to the left than it is the right. We are both right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I didn't say anything even remotely like that, but you do provide an excellent example of reading dysfunction and why so many of us are having trouble benefitting from the opportunities this country affords us.

I asked if that was what you meant, since you're claiming its 'dangerous' for low income people to have the vote.

Maybe it's dangerous for the Rich to be able to put tens of millions of dollars into elections to see to it that politicians are elected who will vote THEIR interests.

Again darlin', there are remedial classes that can help you get up to speed to read AND comprehend what you read. Unfortunately, there aren't any classes to help people escape the ideological tunnel vision that allows them only one point of view.

I didn't say a single word about it being dangerous for low income people to vote.

"It is dangerous for half the wage earners in this country to pay little or no federal income tax but at the same time have the numbers to select the people who will impose federal income taxes on the rest of us."

You're denying you said that now???

 

[bripat9643]

Consumers ALWAYS create the demand. Tell me one instance where there was a need for a product and someone didn't try to meet that need.

Still demanding that someone prove a contradiction isn't a contradiction? I've already exploded that idiocy.

On the other hand, business sometimes creates the demand through innovation, but there are enough failed products that should tell you that business can't always create a demand.

Irrelevant. Demand isn't sufficient to create jobs. Giving money to parasites does not reduce unemployment. End of story.

 

[Full-Auto]

I notice my proof of the provider creating the demand is being ignored. Too bad, being right is no more exclusive to the left than it is the right. We are both right.

How many pocket fisherman were sold again by Ronco?

Damn and I need one right now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I notice my proof of the provider creating the demand is being ignored. Too bad, being right is no more exclusive to the left than it is the right. We are both right.

What provider?