A 1 percenter tells the truth about "job creators"

[Sallow]

I am absolutely amazed that they people on the Right maintain that if we tax corporate profits more, they will stop crreating jobs. This is ludicrus, considering that the cost of labor is an expense, and is therefore deducted from revenues, before arriving at a profit which is then taxed. Increasing the tax rate on corporations increases the incentive for the corporation to hire more people, thereby increasing production, while drecreasing their tax rate. Are these people suffering from some kind of basic economic brain block?

ROFL! That is the most idiotic understanding of economics I've ever seen in black and white. How do higher taxes increase the incentive for corporations to hire more people?

Libs failed econ 101. Actually they never took Econ 101. The whole idea of "money in the hands of the middle and working class stimulates the economy" is such utterly nonsense that only those who are completely ignorant would believe it. Similarly the idea that high tax rates stimulate hiring is so absurd I can't begin to imagine where it came from.

Actually they do.

And for the very same reason low tax rates do not stimulate hiring.

Greed.

 

[Oldstyle]

No. All of that is wrong.

Demand creates jobs.

Calling the factual basis for every economic system in history "stupid" means you are almost certainly a brainwashed ReagaNUT. You can't find an argument for supply creating jobs before the mid 1970s.

That would be because that kind of nonsense was laughed at openly. Then came Don Regan and the "new economy" cretins who later crashed LTCM and Laffer, the "quant" community and more parasites than surround a dead carcass in the jungle.

In sum...

You can't show us one CREDIBLE
Supply side thee o' ree
Before the 1970ees...

This ain't the summer of love,
This ain't the clean debate zone
There ain't no new ee-con 'o meee...

And you are a nutball halfwit kookade drinker
Your understanding of eec 'o nomics is like
Junebug Bush's knowledge 'o the art of war.

(chorus)
This ain't the summer of love,
This ain't the clean debate zone
There ain't no new ee con o meeey
And you are a nutball halfwit kookade drinker

​

You give me "song lyrics" as proof that anticipation of profit isn't what drives hiring? Really? I've just pointed out why it is that demand by itself is worthless if there isn't an expectation of profit and you have no response to that except to simply repeat your faulty contention that demand drives everything?

There is a REASON why jobs are lagging so badly in this economy and that reason is that progressives like yourself put cute little "sayings" before common sense. People are sitting on billions of dollars because they don't see a large enough potential for profit by risking that money in growth rather than investing it in say tax free bonds. That's reality...and your silly song lyric isn't going to change it.

It would be nice if our economy was being overseen by adults with an understanding of how business functions rather than the clueless ideologues like yourself that we now have.

Yes, it would be good if the US economy were managed by mature economic thinkers instead of feather-waving rattle-shaking "new economy" scum.

No, correlation is not cause. You halfwit nutball fuckfaces got hoodwinked by correlation, the product of borrowed money creating the delusion of prosperity. That kind of stupidity is described in medical textbooks as "mass hysteria". It typically occurs within marginally educated, fearful populations, although your crowd did succeed in stampeding 42% of congressional democrats in 2001-2003, which does more to prove that education itself is compromised than to prove anything about voodoo economics in the context of fright.

But I digress...

You are blinded by justifiable contempt for Obama, the man who imitated Reagan too late. Assets are still inflated, so there is no possibility Obama's idiotic programs can work. IF he had used good will to send checks to America below the mean (nonsavers) the full effects of the crash might have been mitigated. As it is, all he did was prop up the bureaucratic classes pumping tax money back into government.

It was one of the stupidest acts of the century, in fourth place behind the Bush tax cuts, behind invading Iraq, and behind the first Wall Street bailout. Obama is what happens when partisan scum re elect failed presidents (see: 2004).

None of which changes economic fundamentals.

Demand creates most jobs. Innovation creates the rest. Capital is a tool.

Here is how you can prove me wrong instead of making yourself look like an idiot to honest people who understand economics:

Either publish the voodoo (supply side, trickle down) MAJOR ECONOMIES that succeeded before Reagan went on a borrow and spend binge that artificially pumped up the US economy for about sixteen years before starting to crumble in 2001 - or by your silence admit you are as clueless as Reagan or perhaps as venal as Regan, Schulz, Weinberger, Friedman, Greenspan and the rest of the neocon scum and "new economy" hirelings.

No song lyrics here. Show us the voodoo theories that WORKED, then let's talk.

Until then, you're just another kookade drinking ReagaNUT who doesn't understand that demand is to economic growth (job creation, not inflation creation per voodoo horseshit) what location is to real estate: the anchor principle.

Next.

The concept that anticipation of profit is what drives investment isn't dependent on "supply side" economics nor does it cease to exist in Keynesian driven economies. Your apparent ignorance of the fact that people with capital won't invest that capital unless they anticipate a big enough return on that investment to warrant the risk amuses me. You and idiots like you have been scratching your heads trying to figure out why investment capital is "sitting out" this glacially slow recovery. It's amusing to watch. Why should I invest in a new business that may or may not be profitable when I can take that same money and invest in tax free bonds? If you're going to raise the tax rate that I'm going to pay on that business have you increased or decreased my incentive to create a business or simply hold my capital and wait you out? It's obvious what the answer to that question is...yet you can't fathom it...can you?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well ACTUALLY, NO it didn't, silly con.

Socialist policies, REGULATIONS and WWII, put people back to work, ended the depression.

The depression caused by deregulation, by the conservatives of the time.

from the end of WWII until REAGAN took office, there was little national debt.
The Dems controlled congress for that 40 years, PERIOD.

The Rich had high taxes, the middle class had similar taxes to today.

the Middle class boomed.

Cons like to rewrite History.

Shall we now discuss how Reagan TRIPLED the national debt, since you bring him up?

You are an ignorant clown. Roosevelt's policies prolonged the recession. Hoover was a progressive. I'd suggest going and reading a book on the subject before you sound even dumber than you already do.

That's completely incorrect.

First off..It wasn't a recession..it was a depression. You should learn the difference.

Hoover wasn't a progressive. Like Coolidge, he was a laissez faire, free marketer.

That always leads to trouble.

Gosh, it isn't that you don't know anything. It's that what you do know is wrong.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvBpLfFevO4]Obama stimulus in 1931 - Herbert Hoover - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

ROFL! That is the most idiotic understanding of economics I've ever seen in black and white. How do higher taxes increase the incentive for corporations to hire more people?

Libs failed econ 101. Actually they never took Econ 101. The whole idea of "money in the hands of the middle and working class stimulates the economy" is such utterly nonsense that only those who are completely ignorant would believe it. Similarly the idea that high tax rates stimulate hiring is so absurd I can't begin to imagine where it came from.

Actually they do.

And for the very same reason low tax rates do not stimulate hiring.

Greed.

Yes, if you raise prices on something you sell more of it! This is Libecon 101. I'm not sure where they teach it though.

 

[Sallow]

Libs failed econ 101. Actually they never took Econ 101. The whole idea of "money in the hands of the middle and working class stimulates the economy" is such utterly nonsense that only those who are completely ignorant would believe it. Similarly the idea that high tax rates stimulate hiring is so absurd I can't begin to imagine where it came from.

Actually they do.

And for the very same reason low tax rates do not stimulate hiring.

Greed.

Yes, if you raise prices on something you sell more of it! This is Libecon 101. I'm not sure where they teach it though.

Yes Rabbi. Do go on about your business acumen.

I've actually owned and run a business and worked for the financial industry.

I'm sure that little startup you've got going is doing great, right?

 

[Sallow]

Libs failed econ 101. Actually they never took Econ 101. The whole idea of "money in the hands of the middle and working class stimulates the economy" is such utterly nonsense that only those who are completely ignorant would believe it. Similarly the idea that high tax rates stimulate hiring is so absurd I can't begin to imagine where it came from.

Actually they do.

And for the very same reason low tax rates do not stimulate hiring.

Greed.

Yes, if you raise prices on something you sell more of it! This is Libecon 101. I'm not sure where they teach it though.

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[Sallow]

You are an ignorant clown. Roosevelt's policies prolonged the recession. Hoover was a progressive. I'd suggest going and reading a book on the subject before you sound even dumber than you already do.

That's completely incorrect.

First off..It wasn't a recession..it was a depression. You should learn the difference.

Hoover wasn't a progressive. Like Coolidge, he was a laissez faire, free marketer.

That always leads to trouble.

Gosh, it isn't that you don't know anything. It's that what you do know is wrong.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvBpLfFevO4]Obama stimulus in 1931 - Herbert Hoover - YouTube[/ame]

And?

Are you really this ignorant of history?

Seriously?

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually they do.

And for the very same reason low tax rates do not stimulate hiring.

Greed.

Yes, if you raise prices on something you sell more of it! This is Libecon 101. I'm not sure where they teach it though.

Yes Rabbi. Do go on about your business acumen.

I've actually owned and run a business and worked for the financial industry.

I'm sure that little startup you've got going is doing great, right?

Is that supposed to be a response? Seriously? Do you really believe that if you raise the price of something you sell more of it?
And I dont think selling hot dogs at the stadium constitutes running a business.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually they do.

And for the very same reason low tax rates do not stimulate hiring.

Greed.

Yes, if you raise prices on something you sell more of it! This is Libecon 101. I'm not sure where they teach it though.

What the heck are you talking about?

This is economics, Swallow. It is a serious study of how prices and society interact. You should pick up a book on it sometime so you dont sound like a total moron.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

]
If no one produces IT, you can't buy it, regardless of how much you're willing to pay.

Silly.
If you will pay ANYTHING for it, you just have it made.

take the basic economic equation of supply and demand in relation to cost.

make Demand ZERO and the equation collapses.
cost crashes, and supply becomes worthless.

If you make supply zero, it causes the Demand and cost to SPIKE.

If you make cost zero, Demand spikes and supply is strained.

lack of Demand is the only thing that crashes the formula.

You mean you produce it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Producers create jobs. Consumers create incentives for producers to create jobs. It's a circular relationship, not linear. If one side is better off then both sides are better off.

That isn't always true. It's definitely not true currently. If the wealthy are better off due to the middle class being better off, then that is great. But what we have currently is a situation where the wealthy are better off but the middle class is taking it up the ass. This is working out well for the wealthy for now, but that will eventually change. As the middle class continues to deteriorate and fade away, earnings for the very wealthy will plummet. Then everyone will be fucked. I can't wait. Then we will get socialism, the real kind, not the made up kind you conservative dupes cry about everyday.

And then we can all starve together.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Here's a simple question for some of y'all. Which came first? The mobile (cell) phone or the demand for it?

Apparently something can just be created simply by desire, without it ever being produced or created.

You, SomeGuy, and Kevin are all confusing the product with the solution.

Demand in the market is always for the solution, never for the product. (Read that 2 or 3 times before going on.)

If you buy a movie on Blu-Ray, are you handing over your $20+ just for a plastic disc? Of course not; not unless you're congenitally insane. What's driving your purchase decision is the entertainment, not the disc itself. That's the solution. And demand for the solution always exists before any serious entrepreneur even considers designing a product to deliver the solution.

Clear enough for everyone?

 

[bripat9643]

Here's a simple question for some of y'all. Which came first? The mobile (cell) phone or the demand for it?

Apparently something can just be created simply by desire, without it ever being produced or created.

You, SomeGuy, and Kevin are all confusing the product with the solution.

Demand in the market is always for the solution, never for the product. (Read that 2 or 3 times before going on.)

If you buy a movie on Blu-Ray, are you handing over your $20+ just for a plastic disc? Of course not; not unless you're congenitally insane. What's driving your purchase decision is the entertainment, not the disc itself. That's the solution. And demand for the solution always exists before any serious entrepreneur even considers designing a product to deliver the solution.

Clear enough for everyone?

Still wrong, nimrod.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Apparently something can just be created simply by desire, without it ever being produced or created.

You, SomeGuy, and Kevin are all confusing the product with the solution.

Demand in the market is always for the solution, never for the product. (Read that 2 or 3 times before going on.)

If you buy a movie on Blu-Ray, are you handing over your $20+ just for a plastic disc? Of course not; not unless you're congenitally insane. What's driving your purchase decision is the entertainment, not the disc itself. That's the solution. And demand for the solution always exists before any serious entrepreneur even considers designing a product to deliver the solution.

Clear enough for everyone?

Still wrong, nimrod.

Welcome to ignore, loser.

 

[DiamondDave]

Here's a simple question for some of y'all. Which came first? The mobile (cell) phone or the demand for it?

Apparently something can just be created simply by desire, without it ever being produced or created.

You, SomeGuy, and Kevin are all confusing the product with the solution.

Demand in the market is always for the solution, never for the product. (Read that 2 or 3 times before going on.)

If you buy a movie on Blu-Ray, are you handing over your $20+ just for a plastic disc? Of course not; not unless you're congenitally insane. What's driving your purchase decision is the entertainment, not the disc itself. That's the solution. And demand for the solution always exists before any serious entrepreneur even considers designing a product to deliver the solution.

Clear enough for everyone?

But just because you and 100K others demand a movie about pigs who are circus acrobats does not create the job... nor does it create the capital to create the production...

The demand is not always for the solution.. demand is for the WHIM or the WANT.. and unless the SUPPLY is there to fund the project, determine if there is profit in doing the project, paying for the supplies, getting HR to find candidates after justifying the expense for labor, etc...

With all the demand in the world, and without the supply to put things forth, NO JOB WILL EVER BE CREATED, NOR WILL ANY PRODUCT... Now supply can create a job or a product even if there is no demand, though it is not sound economic practice to do so...

Demand drives whim, demand drives want, etc.. demand does not create jobs

 

[The Rabbi]

Apparently something can just be created simply by desire, without it ever being produced or created.

You, SomeGuy, and Kevin are all confusing the product with the solution.

Demand in the market is always for the solution, never for the product. (Read that 2 or 3 times before going on.)

If you buy a movie on Blu-Ray, are you handing over your $20+ just for a plastic disc? Of course not; not unless you're congenitally insane. What's driving your purchase decision is the entertainment, not the disc itself. That's the solution. And demand for the solution always exists before any serious entrepreneur even considers designing a product to deliver the solution.

Clear enough for everyone?

But just because you and 100K others demand a movie about pigs who are circus acrobats does not create the job... nor does it create the capital to create the production...

The demand is not always for the solution.. demand is for the WHIM or the WANT.. and unless the SUPPLY is there to fund the project, determine if there is profit in doing the project, paying for the supplies, getting HR to find candidates after justifying the expense for labor, etc...

With all the demand in the world, and without the supply to put things forth, NO JOB WILL EVER BE CREATED, NOR WILL ANY PRODUCT... Now supply can create a job or a product even if there is no demand, though it is not sound economic practice to do so...

Demand drives whim, demand drives want, etc.. demand does not create jobs

I want a steak that will cook itself. I want a wine bottle that refills itself overnight. I'll bet lots of people want those things. How come business hasn't capitalized on these obvious wants and produced products to fill the need?? It's those EEVUL Corporations!

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

You give me "song lyrics" as proof that anticipation of profit isn't what drives hiring? Really? I've just pointed out why it is that demand by itself is worthless if there isn't an expectation of profit and you have no response to that except to simply repeat your faulty contention that demand drives everything?

There is a REASON why jobs are lagging so badly in this economy and that reason is that progressives like yourself put cute little "sayings" before common sense. People are sitting on billions of dollars because they don't see a large enough potential for profit by risking that money in growth rather than investing it in say tax free bonds. That's reality...and your silly song lyric isn't going to change it.

It would be nice if our economy was being overseen by adults with an understanding of how business functions rather than the clueless ideologues like yourself that we now have.

Yes, it would be good if the US economy were managed by mature economic thinkers instead of feather-waving rattle-shaking "new economy" scum.

No, correlation is not cause. You halfwit nutball fuckfaces got hoodwinked by correlation, the product of borrowed money creating the delusion of prosperity. That kind of stupidity is described in medical textbooks as "mass hysteria". It typically occurs within marginally educated, fearful populations, although your crowd did succeed in stampeding 42% of congressional democrats in 2001-2003, which does more to prove that education itself is compromised than to prove anything about voodoo economics in the context of fright.

But I digress...

You are blinded by justifiable contempt for Obama, the man who imitated Reagan too late. Assets are still inflated, so there is no possibility Obama's idiotic programs can work. IF he had used good will to send checks to America below the mean (nonsavers) the full effects of the crash might have been mitigated. As it is, all he did was prop up the bureaucratic classes pumping tax money back into government.

It was one of the stupidest acts of the century, in fourth place behind the Bush tax cuts, behind invading Iraq, and behind the first Wall Street bailout. Obama is what happens when partisan scum re elect failed presidents (see: 2004).

None of which changes economic fundamentals.

Demand creates most jobs. Innovation creates the rest. Capital is a tool.

Here is how you can prove me wrong instead of making yourself look like an idiot to honest people who understand economics:

Either publish the voodoo (supply side, trickle down) MAJOR ECONOMIES that succeeded before Reagan went on a borrow and spend binge that artificially pumped up the US economy for about sixteen years before starting to crumble in 2001 - or by your silence admit you are as clueless as Reagan or perhaps as venal as Regan, Schulz, Weinberger, Friedman, Greenspan and the rest of the neocon scum and "new economy" hirelings.

No song lyrics here. Show us the voodoo theories that WORKED, then let's talk.

Until then, you're just another kookade drinking ReagaNUT who doesn't understand that demand is to economic growth (job creation, not inflation creation per voodoo horseshit) what location is to real estate: the anchor principle.

Next.

The concept that anticipation of profit is what drives investment isn't dependent on "supply side" economics nor does it cease to exist in Keynesian driven economies. Your apparent ignorance of the fact that people with capital won't invest that capital unless they anticipate a big enough return on that investment to warrant the risk amuses me. You and idiots like you have been scratching your heads trying to figure out why investment capital is "sitting out" this glacially slow recovery. It's amusing to watch. Why should I invest in a new business that may or may not be profitable when I can take that same money and invest in tax free bonds? If you're going to raise the tax rate that I'm going to pay on that business have you increased or decreased my incentive to create a business or simply hold my capital and wait you out? It's obvious what the answer to that question is...yet you can't fathom it...can you?

My apparent ignorance has stood me well. It'd be good to see who needs to wind up their ear based on results.

But I digress...

What underwrites "anticipation of profits", chief?

Clue: it starts with a "d".

To recap: Demand is the basis for every successful business in history. Supply is nothing without demand. End of story.

Next.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, it would be good if the US economy were managed by mature economic thinkers instead of feather-waving rattle-shaking "new economy" scum.

No, correlation is not cause. You halfwit nutball fuckfaces got hoodwinked by correlation, the product of borrowed money creating the delusion of prosperity. That kind of stupidity is described in medical textbooks as "mass hysteria". It typically occurs within marginally educated, fearful populations, although your crowd did succeed in stampeding 42% of congressional democrats in 2001-2003, which does more to prove that education itself is compromised than to prove anything about voodoo economics in the context of fright.

But I digress...

You are blinded by justifiable contempt for Obama, the man who imitated Reagan too late. Assets are still inflated, so there is no possibility Obama's idiotic programs can work. IF he had used good will to send checks to America below the mean (nonsavers) the full effects of the crash might have been mitigated. As it is, all he did was prop up the bureaucratic classes pumping tax money back into government.

It was one of the stupidest acts of the century, in fourth place behind the Bush tax cuts, behind invading Iraq, and behind the first Wall Street bailout. Obama is what happens when partisan scum re elect failed presidents (see: 2004).

None of which changes economic fundamentals.

Demand creates most jobs. Innovation creates the rest. Capital is a tool.

Here is how you can prove me wrong instead of making yourself look like an idiot to honest people who understand economics:

Either publish the voodoo (supply side, trickle down) MAJOR ECONOMIES that succeeded before Reagan went on a borrow and spend binge that artificially pumped up the US economy for about sixteen years before starting to crumble in 2001 - or by your silence admit you are as clueless as Reagan or perhaps as venal as Regan, Schulz, Weinberger, Friedman, Greenspan and the rest of the neocon scum and "new economy" hirelings.

No song lyrics here. Show us the voodoo theories that WORKED, then let's talk.

Until then, you're just another kookade drinking ReagaNUT who doesn't understand that demand is to economic growth (job creation, not inflation creation per voodoo horseshit) what location is to real estate: the anchor principle.

Next.

The concept that anticipation of profit is what drives investment isn't dependent on "supply side" economics nor does it cease to exist in Keynesian driven economies. Your apparent ignorance of the fact that people with capital won't invest that capital unless they anticipate a big enough return on that investment to warrant the risk amuses me. You and idiots like you have been scratching your heads trying to figure out why investment capital is "sitting out" this glacially slow recovery. It's amusing to watch. Why should I invest in a new business that may or may not be profitable when I can take that same money and invest in tax free bonds? If you're going to raise the tax rate that I'm going to pay on that business have you increased or decreased my incentive to create a business or simply hold my capital and wait you out? It's obvious what the answer to that question is...yet you can't fathom it...can you?

My apparent ignorance has stood me well. It'd be good to see who needs to wind up their ear based on results.

But I digress...

What underwrites "anticipation of profits", chief?

Clue: it starts with a "d".

To recap: Demand is the basis for every successful business in history. Supply is nothing without demand. End of story.

Next.

And what is demand without supply?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

The concept that anticipation of profit is what drives investment isn't dependent on "supply side" economics nor does it cease to exist in Keynesian driven economies. Your apparent ignorance of the fact that people with capital won't invest that capital unless they anticipate a big enough return on that investment to warrant the risk amuses me. You and idiots like you have been scratching your heads trying to figure out why investment capital is "sitting out" this glacially slow recovery. It's amusing to watch. Why should I invest in a new business that may or may not be profitable when I can take that same money and invest in tax free bonds? If you're going to raise the tax rate that I'm going to pay on that business have you increased or decreased my incentive to create a business or simply hold my capital and wait you out? It's obvious what the answer to that question is...yet you can't fathom it...can you?

My apparent ignorance has stood me well. It'd be good to see who needs to wind up their ear based on results.

But I digress...

What underwrites "anticipation of profits", chief?

Clue: it starts with a "d".

To recap: Demand is the basis for every successful business in history. Supply is nothing without demand. End of story.

Next.

And what is demand without supply?

Many of us call it "opportunity".

Et tu?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Apparently something can just be created simply by desire, without it ever being produced or created.

You, SomeGuy, and Kevin are all confusing the product with the solution.

Demand in the market is always for the solution, never for the product. (Read that 2 or 3 times before going on.)

If you buy a movie on Blu-Ray, are you handing over your $20+ just for a plastic disc? Of course not; not unless you're congenitally insane. What's driving your purchase decision is the entertainment, not the disc itself. That's the solution. And demand for the solution always exists before any serious entrepreneur even considers designing a product to deliver the solution.

Clear enough for everyone?

But just because you and 100K others demand a movie about pigs who are circus acrobats does not create the job... nor does it create the capital to create the production...

The demand is not always for the solution.. demand is for the WHIM or the WANT.. and unless the SUPPLY is there to fund the project, determine if there is profit in doing the project, paying for the supplies, getting HR to find candidates after justifying the expense for labor, etc...

With all the demand in the world, and without the supply to put things forth, NO JOB WILL EVER BE CREATED, NOR WILL ANY PRODUCT... Now supply can create a job or a product even if there is no demand, though it is not sound economic practice to do so...

Demand drives whim, demand drives want, etc.. demand does not create jobs

Did I say that demand creates jobs? Or capital? No. (Demand CAN, and very often does, create jobs, but it's not a given.) Please put your strawmen away; they're getting stinky in this heat.

All I said was that demand is only for a solution (which could be totally frivolous or a dire need), and not for a product.