CONFIRMED!: Rich People DO Create the Jobs

[sitarro]

They don't create jobs. They hire fewer than they need, make them do the work of two people at the lowest rate they can get away with.

That's business. We need jobs that people can be proud of, a fair wage and consistent productivity. The wealthy don't want to do that and they don't care about anything other than the almighty dollar in their own pocket.

If the wealthy understood anything other than the small picture, we could move the country forward. They don't so we can't.

And yet wealth has been created in unprecedented amounts since the ability to create it was passed to the folks who know how to do it.

For... Well, forever there were people living in poverty around the world. Then came the idea that inventiveness could be rewarded. It seems dot work best in the great Western Democracies and suddenly wealth was created.

There has been much disagreement as to whether or not wealth can be created, but that is simply hogwash. There are more people alive on the planet today than there have ever been and on average each one is more wealthy than the average guy was in the Dark Ages.

More people have more. Wealth has been created.

Work is a commodity that can be bartered for wealth. When there is a time of too many people to fill too few jobs, like the time we are in right now, the value of labor drops due to the high supply of labor.

The reverse is true when there are too few to fill the jobs. That is why a computer programmer could write his own ticket in 1999 and couldn't steal a job in 2002.

Wealth is not created by destroying it. You seem to think that eliminating the reward for risk will increase the incentive to take that risk. You are wrong.

Nobody said anything about destroying wealth. I said the wealthy are not in it for job creation or moving the country forward, they are self absorbed, greedy bastards for the most part.

Try and keep up.

That is easily one of the dumbest statements I have read on this board in the 8 years I've been here. Class envy much?

 

[daveman]

How about earning a tax break, as when others pay when you don't? Businesses and wealthy influence peddlers get breaks others do not. That's unearned.

Start your own business so you can earn that break.

Oh, wait -- that would require actual effort on your part. Well, forget that. It's so much easier to whine and demand things, isn't it?

You know, like the OWS public shitters.

You stupid ****, I've had a few businesses that I've started. Whine? I would never compete with you in an area you do so well in

Charging 5 bucks at glory holes isn't really a "business". Just sayin'.

 

[daveman]

Taking Stockman: How Nixon, Reagan, Bush and their GOP Demolished the Economy

“IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians,” Stockman begins, “the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing...."

Memories – Unemployment During the Reagan Years | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary

Oh, look, a leftist monkey is desperately flinging poo, hoping something sticks.

yeah, I link to what a big leftie says......

David Alan Stockman (born November 10, 1946) is a former U.S. politician and businessman, serving as a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan (1977–1981) and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985). -

My goodness, but you're a stupid little man. YOU'RE the poo-flinging monkey.

 

[kiwiman127]

And yet wealth has been created in unprecedented amounts since the ability to create it was passed to the folks who know how to do it.

For... Well, forever there were people living in poverty around the world. Then came the idea that inventiveness could be rewarded. It seems dot work best in the great Western Democracies and suddenly wealth was created.

There has been much disagreement as to whether or not wealth can be created, but that is simply hogwash. There are more people alive on the planet today than there have ever been and on average each one is more wealthy than the average guy was in the Dark Ages.

More people have more. Wealth has been created.

Work is a commodity that can be bartered for wealth. When there is a time of too many people to fill too few jobs, like the time we are in right now, the value of labor drops due to the high supply of labor.

The reverse is true when there are too few to fill the jobs. That is why a computer programmer could write his own ticket in 1999 and couldn't steal a job in 2002.

Wealth is not created by destroying it. You seem to think that eliminating the reward for risk will increase the incentive to take that risk. You are wrong.

Nobody said anything about destroying wealth. I said the wealthy are not in it for job creation or moving the country forward, they are self absorbed, greedy bastards for the most part.

Try and keep up.

That is easily one of the dumbest statements I have read on this board in the 8 years I've been here. Class envy much?

There is such a thing as being rightfully pissed when a person is left behind despite working hard. Is the Middle Class supposed to take receiving wages that don't even keep up with inflation with gratefulness? Look at the recent income disparity, the working class is going backwards while the wealthy are reaping all the rewards. I guess investing in the worker is a thing of the past. (See Graph 1) If a person isn't in the top 20%, your share of the national Income has gone down, while the top 20% has gone up. But as a matter of fact the only group that has seen their share of the National Income grow in the last couple of years is the top 1%. Are you part of that top 1%? If not you are losing out!

And it appears that the record low tax on Capital Gains hasn't translated into jobs has it? It seems that people have decided to pocket their gains at the low tax rate rather than invest it into the American economy and create jobs as the graph I posted with Post 238 certainly suggest. Here's that graph again. (Graph 2)

 

[kwc57]

Start your own business so you can earn that break.

Oh, wait -- that would require actual effort on your part. Well, forget that. It's so much easier to whine and demand things, isn't it?

You know, like the OWS public shitters.

You stupid ****, I've had a few businesses that I've started. Whine? I would never compete with you in an area you do so well in

Charging 5 bucks at glory holes isn't really a "business". Just sayin'.

POST OF THE YEAR!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody said anything about destroying wealth. I said the wealthy are not in it for job creation or moving the country forward, they are self absorbed, greedy bastards for the most part.

Try and keep up.

That is easily one of the dumbest statements I have read on this board in the 8 years I've been here. Class envy much?

There is such a thing as being rightfully pissed when a person is left behind despite working hard. Is the Middle Class supposed to take receiving wages that don't even keep up with inflation with gratefulness? Look at the recent income disparity, the working class is going backwards while the wealthy are reaping all the rewards. I guess investing in the worker is a thing of the past. (See Graph 1) If a person isn't in the top 20%, your share of the national Income has gone down, while the top 20% has gone up. But as a matter of fact the only group that has seen their share of the National Income grow in the last couple of years is the top 1%. Are you part of that top 1%? If not you are losing out!

And it appears that the record low tax on Capital Gains hasn't translated into jobs has it? It seems that people have decided to pocket their gains at the low tax rate rather than invest it into the American economy and create jobs as the graph I posted with Post 238 certainly suggest. Here's that graph again. (Graph 2)

Temporary tax relief, whether in the form of reduced FICA taxes or capital gains taxes or any other form of taxes, will not create jobs because it does not create any sort of certainty. Businesses need to be able to plan ahead and calculate their costs and liabilities before they will begin new projects or expand and hire people. Just spending or banking a temporary windfall simply won't do the job.

 

[sitarro]

I had the pleasure of listening to Prof. Walter E. Williams speaking with Prof. Thomas Sowell on The Rush Limbaugh Show today, Prof. Williams was guest hosting. Both of these very accomplished men are GODS of economics and it was amazing to listen to Prof. Sowell explain how simplistic the imbeciles are that push for taxing the rich more in an attempt to raise capital.

 

[Foxfyre]

I had the pleasure of listening to Prof. Walter E. Williams speaking with Prof. Thomas Sowell on The Rush Limbaugh Show today, Prof. Williams was guest hosting. Both of these very accomplished men are GODS of economics and it was amazing to listen to Prof. Sowell explain how simplistic the imbeciles are that push for taxing the rich more in an attempt to raise capital.

Oh darn, I knew Dr. Williams was hosting today and intended to tune in. Flat forgot to do so. Oh well. I agree that he and Thomas Sowell have added immensely to my education over the years and I think I have read everything both have written. Both have a great capacity to boil the complicated down to easy-to-understand concepts and teach principles in every day language and examples. And both are refreshingly free of stubborn ideology ruling their respective biases.

From a recent Walter Williams essay:

Should the Rich Be Condemned?

Thomas Edison invented the incandescent bulb, the phonograph, the DC motor and other items in everyday use and became wealthy by doing so. Thomas Watson founded IBM and became rich through his company’s contribution to the computation revolution. Lloyd Conover, while in the employ of Pfizer, created the antibiotic tetracycline. Though Edison, Watson, Conover and Pfizer became wealthy, whatever wealth they received pales in comparison with the extraordinary benefits received by ordinary people. Billions of people benefited from safe and efficient lighting. Billions more were the ultimate beneficiaries of the computer, and untold billions benefited from healthier lives gained from access to tetracycline.

President Barack Obama, in stoking up class warfare, said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” This is lunacy. Andrew Carnegie’s steel empire produced the raw materials that built the physical infrastructure of the United States. Bill Gates co-founded Microsoft and produced software products that aided the computer revolution. But Carnegie had amassed quite a fortune long before he built Carnegie Steel Co., and Gates had quite a fortune by 1990. Had they the mind of our president, we would have lost much of their contributions, because they had already “made enough money.”

Class warfare thrives on ignorance about the sources of income. Listening to some of the talk about income differences, one would think that there’s a pile of money meant to be shared equally among Americans. Rich people got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. Justice requires that they "give back." Or, some people talk about unequal income distribution as if there were a dealer of dollars. The reason some people have millions or billions of dollars while others have very few is the dollar dealer is a racist, sexist, a multinationalist or just plain mean. Economic justice requires a re-dealing of the dollars, income redistribution or spreading the wealth, where the ill-gotten gains of the few are returned to their rightful owners.

In a free society, for the most part, people with high incomes have demonstrated extraordinary ability to produce valuable services for -- and therefore please -- their fellow man. People voluntarily took money out of their pockets to purchase the products of Gates, Pfizer or IBM. High incomes reflect the democracy of the marketplace. The reason Gates is very wealthy is millions upon millions of people voluntarily reached into their pockets and handed over $300 or $400 for a Microsoft product. Those who think he has too much money are really registering disagreement with decisions made by millions of their fellow men. . . .

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/11/ShouldTheRichBeCondemned

 

[kiwiman127]

I had the pleasure of listening to Prof. Walter E. Williams speaking with Prof. Thomas Sowell on The Rush Limbaugh Show today, Prof. Williams was guest hosting. Both of these very accomplished men are GODS of economics and it was amazing to listen to Prof. Sowell explain how simplistic the imbeciles are that push for taxing the rich more in an attempt to raise capital.

The two economists you speak of lean heavily to the right and just as economists who are the "GODS" of the left, I take their opinions with a grain of salt. I prefer unbiased opinions. I guess in Sowell's opinion, a majority of economists are imbeciles.

"Some three-quarters of economists who do forecasting for the private sector say tax revenue should rise as part of efforts to tame unsustainable budget deficits, according to the survey released Monday by the National Association for Business Economics (NABE)."
US should raise taxes to help fix deficits, say business economists - CSMonitor.com

 

[Foxfyre]

I had the pleasure of listening to Prof. Walter E. Williams speaking with Prof. Thomas Sowell on The Rush Limbaugh Show today, Prof. Williams was guest hosting. Both of these very accomplished men are GODS of economics and it was amazing to listen to Prof. Sowell explain how simplistic the imbeciles are that push for taxing the rich more in an attempt to raise capital.

The two economists you speak of lean heavily to the right and just as economists who are the "GODS" of the left, I take their opinions with a grain of salt. I prefer unbiased opinions. I guess in Sowell's opinion, a majority of economists are imbeciles.

"Some three-quarters of economists who do forecasting for the private sector say tax revenue should rise as part of efforts to tame unsustainable budget deficits, according to the survey released Monday by the National Association for Business Economics (NABE)."
US should raise taxes to help fix deficits, say business economists - CSMonitor.com

You would be dead wrong. Both are about as libertarian (little 'L') and non ideological as you can get and both are equally harsh on the Dems and GOP and criticize both equally for their 'sins'. To the liberal though, their very well constructed and well ordered teachings of basic economic principles fly in the face of liberal theology, and therefore the liberal MUST condemn or at least discredit them as somehow ideologically biased.

They ARE both biased but on the side of accuracy and truth rather than social principles or sociopolitical ideology.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is the Middle Class supposed to take receiving wages that don't even keep up with inflation with gratefulness?

no not at all, they should be mad as hell and vote en masse for Republicans because Republicans support more better paying jobs as follows:

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs), Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose
5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

 

[kiwiman127]

I had the pleasure of listening to Prof. Walter E. Williams speaking with Prof. Thomas Sowell on The Rush Limbaugh Show today, Prof. Williams was guest hosting. Both of these very accomplished men are GODS of economics and it was amazing to listen to Prof. Sowell explain how simplistic the imbeciles are that push for taxing the rich more in an attempt to raise capital.

The two economists you speak of lean heavily to the right and just as economists who are the "GODS" of the left, I take their opinions with a grain of salt. I prefer unbiased opinions. I guess in Sowell's opinion, a majority of economists are imbeciles.

"Some three-quarters of economists who do forecasting for the private sector say tax revenue should rise as part of efforts to tame unsustainable budget deficits, according to the survey released Monday by the National Association for Business Economics (NABE)."
US should raise taxes to help fix deficits, say business economists - CSMonitor.com

You would be dead wrong. Both are about as libertarian (little 'L') and non ideological as you can get and both are equally harsh on the Dems and GOP and criticize both equally for their 'sins'. To the liberal though, their very well constructed and well ordered teachings of basic economic principles fly in the face of liberal theology, and therefore the liberal MUST condemn or at least discredit them as somehow ideologically biased.

They ARE both biased but on the side of accuracy and truth rather than social principles or sociopolitical ideology.[/QUOTE]

That's easy for you to say!

Are you saying that the National Association for Business Economics are liberals?

 

[kiwiman127]

Is the Middle Class supposed to take receiving wages that don't even keep up with inflation with gratefulness?

no not at all, they should be mad as hell and vote en masse for Republicans because Republicans support more better paying jobs as follows:

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs), Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose
5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

 

[Foxfyre]

The two economists you speak of lean heavily to the right and just as economists who are the "GODS" of the left, I take their opinions with a grain of salt. I prefer unbiased opinions. I guess in Sowell's opinion, a majority of economists are imbeciles.

"Some three-quarters of economists who do forecasting for the private sector say tax revenue should rise as part of efforts to tame unsustainable budget deficits, according to the survey released Monday by the National Association for Business Economics (NABE)."
US should raise taxes to help fix deficits, say business economists - CSMonitor.com

You would be dead wrong. Both are about as libertarian (little 'L') and non ideological as you can get and both are equally harsh on the Dems and GOP and criticize both equally for their 'sins'. To the liberal though, their very well constructed and well ordered teachings of basic economic principles fly in the face of liberal theology, and therefore the liberal MUST condemn or at least discredit them as somehow ideologically biased.

They ARE both biased but on the side of accuracy and truth rather than social principles or sociopolitical ideology.

That's easy for you to say!

Are you saying that the National Association for Business Economics are liberals?

You really need to learn how to nest quotes unless the board is malfunctioning.

I was not commenting on the National Association for Business Ecnomics. I was commenting on two individuals: Walter Williams PhD and Thomas Sowell PhD. I have been reading and listening to these guys for years. Unless you have done the same, I believe I am a better authority on their personal perspectives. They are not right leaners nor left leaners but both focus on solid history, facts, and economic principles which, like math, are exclusive of ideology.

 

[Big Fitz]

As a conservative, I am shall we say... LESS than supportive of this plan in toto.

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs), Democrats oppose

Unions have a benefit when in the private sector for worker protection from managerial/ownership abuse. You cannot trust government to act as your union rep. The problem happens when they become political OR too big OR protected. They should NEVER be in the public sector. EVER.

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Do away with the minimum wage and let the prices float. Sure. Create 5 million jobs? Dubious at best. Will wages drop into the toilet as liberals think? Not a chance. I'd not take a job working behind the counter at a gas station overnight for less than 10 bucks an hour. Nor would most people because the pay is not commiserate to the risk OR inconvenience. Of course, stupid people could be taken advantage of. Thankfully they'll smarten up quick.

3) end business taxation ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Shit... MOST oppose that, save owners. Besides, they just pass the costs on to us. New jobs? Actually you will COST jobs by destroying the accounting and tax law industries. That said, should the taxes be reduced and flattened out? Absolutely. Is there lots of work to be done in this arena? Yes.

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

a) this is like saying let's make gravity illegal. Impossible to do. b) If you screw with the value of money to hide inflation you get other problems. This was the issue with the Gold Standard. You got money or gold shortages based on inflation and what was more profitable. Too many dollars, people trade them in for gold, causing a gold shortage. Too much gold, you get a money shortage as you have to keep the price constant. It's a lose/lose in many ways, and making inflation "illegal" is utter foolishness.

5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Okay, so we need to understand there is good and bad debt, just like with your home. Owning a car is good debt. Why? Because you can use the product you went into debt for to make money. Credit card debt is bad, because it says you over consumed and now owe lots of money in an expensive medium to pay back IF you can.

A nation gets good debt by building infrastructure or providing tax breaks to an industry or entrepreneurs that provides a permanent improvement to the infrastructure or budding industry. Bad debt is social spending on the indigent or unemployed for extended periods because they provide nothing in return for the investment in their downtime.

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Feh, nice rhetoric, but no proof on creating jobs. As you're going you're creating more jobs than the adult citizenry of this nation. I agree illegals should be driven out or arrested, but there is no causation between the two things you say for one, for two it's a near impossible task to 'round up the usual suspects' and deport their asses. Not to mention the cost it will take to do so in a mass effort only to have those who don't care about the law bring others back in. Better to punish those who knowingly hire illegals, severely and enforce immigration laws we have.

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Balanced budget amendments equal trouble. The politicians go "Oh crap! We over spent. Guess by law we have to raise taxes. Don't blame US! We're doing what you wanted constitutionally!" Create jobs? No proof. There needs to be fiscal responsibility in Washington and a limit to SPENDING and enforcement of constitutional limits on government action and programs.

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Sounds good from an insane extremist right wing view. Cutting the pay in half of privates and college food service workers, bus drivers and firemen will not do the trick. You need to go through it all, find the overpaid jobs AS COMPARED TO PRIVATE INDUSTRY and cut back on the benefits and put the similar job skills to that as equivalent pay to the 50th percentile in the private sector to be fair. You do not go into government to grow rich... but you don't penalize people stupidly. There are also too damn many administrators that need to be sliced and diced back in mass DC layoffs. The DC area is 7 of the top 10 richest counties in the nation. This is a gargantuan fuckup, but small in the grand scale of things.

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Damn right. Job creation? Damn wrong. No proof of that. By making it possible for you to buy out of state health insurance, make it portable and provide open pricing while banning state mandates for health insurance coverage, you will cut the cost of health insurance to a pittance of what it is in most states. It should be done also to hospitals and pharmaceuticals to force open pricing for services and products. How much does an Aspirin cost at Hospital A versus Hospital B. How about a colonoscopy? Or cancer treatment? If you did that, you would shred this hidden pricing garbage you see in the industry that operates because of secrecy and kickbacks with government colluding the whole way to make a mint.

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Needless? Well DUH! 2 million new jobs? HAH! Sorry, again no proof or even a lick of evidence it will provide more jobs than are lost due to the end of many government officials no longer needed. Will you make life cheaper for the citizenry? Absolutely. Will there have to be much more 'assumption of risk' and less litigation? Damn skippy. Aww you burnt your genitalia with hot coffee because you're ******* clumsy? Life's a *****, ain't it. You don't get to sue McDonalds. Trust me, you'll devastate the business law community and they don't like that. Good luck getting it passed.

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Would be fantastic. Job creation? Unproven. Will probably cost more jobs than it makes. Government jobs, accounting jobs and government supported charity and non profit jobs, mostly. So... is it a bad thing? Hmmmmmmm....

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

No.
*******.
Way.

This is an imbecilic statement. You think NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA and most priviledge trade status to China was bad? Do this. That would be the equivalent to surrendering this nation's economic fate to it's enemies in the space of weeks. Tariffs, trade agreements and laws are CRITICAL for this nation's protection in a global economy. Just because it sounds great for profit, does not mean ANY of this profit would stay here. You are also competing against companies and governments who will seek any advantage that a naive fool like those who believe such things suggest, who will not play fair and will burn your nation to the ground if you adopt such a stupid stance. Lassaiez Faire capitalism should be dead, but it seems some people forgot what hells on earth it created. Trade should be free-ish on an individual situation by situation basis to protect this nation from being screwed.

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Jobs created? Meh, doubtful it'd break a few thousand, offset by the amounts lost in those government agencies. But like stopping credit card spending on beanie babies... it's a good idea to end any government charity.

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Yes to the first, no to the second. For SS, follow the Paul Ryan plan and get the money out of the general fund or IOU packed "lockbox". New jobs? Zero or losses again.

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Sounds nice but I bet you're a national sales tax kinda guy. Good in theory, but not a practical course with no connection to job creation.

And these rebuttals are from a conservative point of view.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As a conservative, I am shall we say... LESS than supportive of this plan in toto.

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs), Democrats oppose

Unions have a benefit when in the private sector for worker protection from managerial/ownership abuse. You cannot trust government to act as your union rep. The problem happens when they become political OR too big OR protected. They should NEVER be in the public sector. EVER.

OMG!!! you failed to address the point 100%, i.e., unions have already shipped 30 million jobs overseas. I guess the unions forgot to protect against that ????????????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do away with the minimum wage and let the prices float. Sure. Create 5 million jobs? Dubious at best.

here's the concept. If a car costs $100,000, X people can afford it. When the price drops to $50,000, X times 150% can now afford it.
Econ 101.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

a) this is like saying let's make gravity illegal.

actually all you do is change the Fed mandate to be, "no inflation" and the matter is resolved. Seems you don't know a think about monetary policy.

Impossible to do. b) If you screw with the value of money to hide inflation you get other problems.

actually if you make inflation illegal there is no inflation to hide

This was the issue with the Gold Standard. You got money or gold shortages based on inflation and what was more profitable. Too many dollars, people trade them in for gold, causing a gold shortage.

illiterate idiotic gibberish. the beauty of the gold standard is that if a bank prints too many dollars people turn them in at a pegged rate and
the bank loses more gold than it has and goes bankrupt. THe incentive for 0% inflation is perfect!!!!!!!

Too much gold, you get a money shortage as you have to keep the price constant.

who ever heard of too much gold?? You are very slow. Sorry.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

unlimited free trade

No.
*******.
Way.

This is an imbecilic statement. You think NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA and most priviledge trade status to China was bad? .

no, conservative intellectuals think they were good . Here's the simple rule: the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if the are across the street or across the world; the fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get.

If you could not trade at all you'd have to make everything yourself and so starve to death or live a subsistence life style. Hence, the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world.

Moreover, its exactly as Richard Nixon once said, "our goods have to be world class if we want to be a world class country". Imagine how backward our industry would be if it did not have to compete in the globalized market place? Our cars would be like soviet cars were, i.e., you had to use a dip stick to check how much gasoline you had and back them up hill because carburetors were gravity fed. This is what the liberals propose because they lack the ability to understand free trade.

 

[Big Fitz]

You're such an innocent.