Making the Wealthy Wealthier Doesn't Create Jobs

[DontBeStupid]

Explain what's wrong about it.

Don't hold your breath.
Personal insults don't require brain activity - that's why that's all they got.

Coming from someone who wins "Stupid Post of the Day" award that's rich.

So then, you can't explain what's wrong with it.

Colour me surprised.

 

[Leweman]

Why do the economically retarded start economics threads?

Explain what's wrong about it.

Well to start with, ignoring every thing else that is wrong, even if the wealthy just "pocket the money" they are going to spend it which creates and maintains jobs. I know you don't understand how wealthy people spending money on things for their leisure and entertainment could possibly do this, but its true.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If you own your business and you employ 10 people. Then you employ 10 people because that's how many people it takes to supply the demand for your product or service. Just because the government hands you money, that doesn't encourage you to hire more people.

The ONLY thing that will prompt you to hire more people is an increase in demand for your product or service that requires you to hire more people in order to meet that bigger demand.

Without an increase in demand for your product or service, you will just pocket the extra money.

That's one of the reason's trickle down economics are idiotic. If you want to stimilute job growth, you have to increase the demand. THAT'S trickle UP economics.

Your premise is illogical.

Why would the govt. hand a business money?

I have co-owned a business for quite a few years and I have never had the govt. hand me money.

 

[DontBeStupid]

If you own your business and you employ 10 people. Then you employ 10 people because that's how many people it takes to supply the demand for your product or service. Just because the government hands you money, that doesn't encourage you to hire more people.

The ONLY thing that will prompt you to hire more people is an increase in demand for your product or service that requires you to hire more people in order to meet that bigger demand.

Without an increase in demand for your product or service, you will just pocket the extra money.

That's one of the reason's trickle down economics are idiotic. If you want to stimilute job growth, you have to increase the demand. THAT'S trickle UP economics.

No, no business in the history of the world ever expanded into a new market, involving new products or services, needing new employees?

Interesting concept.

And they were able to do that because they recognized an unmet demand.

Econ 101.

 

[Liability]

Don't hold your breath.
Personal insults don't require brain activity - that's why that's all they got.

Coming from someone who wins "Stupid Post of the Day" award that's rich.

So then, you can't explain what's wrong with it.

Colour me surprised.

Colour!

 

[The Rabbi]

If you own your business and you employ 10 people. Then you employ 10 people because that's how many people it takes to supply the demand for your product or service. Just because the government hands you money, that doesn't encourage you to hire more people.

The ONLY thing that will prompt you to hire more people is an increase in demand for your product or service that requires you to hire more people in order to meet that bigger demand.

Without an increase in demand for your product or service, you will just pocket the extra money.

That's one of the reason's trickle down economics are idiotic. If you want to stimilute job growth, you have to increase the demand. THAT'S trickle UP economics.

Wow, your simplistic model of how the market works isn't flawed at all.

You are correct; no flaws in that at all. Without demand, there is no investment. There has to at least be potential demand. This is why Henry Ford decided it was so important to pay his workers well. He understood that if he didn't pay his workers enough to purchase what they were producing, then there would not be enough demand for his product and the whole business would collapse.

People can't start businesses when there is no demand for their product or service, and if regular people don't have the money, you can forget about any new business startups becoming successful.

I'm glad you brought up Henry Ford.
Actually what happened was he could not find workers for his factory among the machinists in Detroit because no one wanted to work in a demeaning dehumanizing job. So he raised wages far above competing businesses. When he had run out all the competing shops he chopped wages back to where he wanted them.
Ford was a vicious anti semite and no philanthropist. Everything he did was for himself.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Explain what's wrong about it.

Don't hold your breath.
Personal insults don't require brain activity - that's why that's all they got.

Coming from someone who wins "Stupid Post of the Day" award that's rich.

So point out those fallacies. Don't just cuss and prance about like a jilted hairdresser. Make a point. Defend a point. If namecalling and cussing isn't all you got - then show everyone something else.

 

[auditor0007]

If you own your business and you employ 10 people. Then you employ 10 people because that's how many people it takes to supply the demand for your product or service. Just because the government hands you money, that doesn't encourage you to hire more people.

The ONLY thing that will prompt you to hire more people is an increase in demand for your product or service that requires you to hire more people in order to meet that bigger demand.

Without an increase in demand for your product or service, you will just pocket the extra money.

That's one of the reason's trickle down economics are idiotic. If you want to stimilute job growth, you have to increase the demand. THAT'S trickle UP economics.

No, no business in the history of the world ever expanded into a new market, involving new products or services, needing new employees?

Interesting concept.

If it is the case that all business needs is more money to start investing, what is wrong with the over $2 trillion they are currently sitting on and refuse to invest? Please don't tell me they are afraid of all of Obama's regulations, because that is a crock of shit. When tax rates were triple what they are today, if there was demand, business invested.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

GM hasn't trickled that 35billion back down to the taxpayers.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Why do the economically retarded start economics threads?

Explain what's wrong about it.

Well to start with, ignoring every thing else that is wrong, even if the wealthy just "pocket the money" they are going to spend it which creates and maintains jobs. I know you don't understand how wealthy people spending money on things for their leisure and entertainment could possibly do this, but its true.

I know exactly how if they spend the money it will flow into the economy and create jobs. I just find it funny you think only rich people can do that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If you own your business and you employ 10 people. Then you employ 10 people because that's how many people it takes to supply the demand for your product or service. Just because the government hands you money, that doesn't encourage you to hire more people.

The ONLY thing that will prompt you to hire more people is an increase in demand for your product or service that requires you to hire more people in order to meet that bigger demand.

Without an increase in demand for your product or service, you will just pocket the extra money.

That's one of the reason's trickle down economics are idiotic. If you want to stimilute job growth, you have to increase the demand. THAT'S trickle UP economics.

Wow are you ******* stupid.
The only people the government "hands" money to are the unemployed and unproductive. And it doesn't encourage them to do anything but continue being unemployed and unproductive.
Allowing businesses to keep more of the money they earned (no one gave it to them), allows them to invest in new products and processes to increase sales, to grow their businesses.

Actually, in the United States, we have corporate welfare. So, yes, the government does hand money to companies.

Link?

 

[SniperFire]

The fact is we gave the wealthy massive tax cuts and average Americans got shit in return.

You sure about your 'facts,' asswipe?

Bush tax cuts stuck it to The Man.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you own your business and you employ 10 people. Then you employ 10 people because that's how many people it takes to supply the demand for your product or service. Just because the government hands you money, that doesn't encourage you to hire more people.

The ONLY thing that will prompt you to hire more people is an increase in demand for your product or service that requires you to hire more people in order to meet that bigger demand.

Without an increase in demand for your product or service, you will just pocket the extra money.

That's one of the reason's trickle down economics are idiotic. If you want to stimilute job growth, you have to increase the demand. THAT'S trickle UP economics.

Your premise is illogical.

Why would the govt. hand a business money?

I have co-owned a business for quite a few years and I have never had the govt. hand me money.

You must be doing something wrong. I own this gun shop and I had Tim Geithner in here just yesterday with a big papersack of hundreds.

 

[Conservative]

If you own your business and you employ 10 people. Then you employ 10 people because that's how many people it takes to supply the demand for your product or service. Just because the government hands you money, that doesn't encourage you to hire more people.

The ONLY thing that will prompt you to hire more people is an increase in demand for your product or service that requires you to hire more people in order to meet that bigger demand.

Without an increase in demand for your product or service, you will just pocket the extra money.

That's one of the reason's trickle down economics are idiotic. If you want to stimilute job growth, you have to increase the demand. THAT'S trickle UP economics.

No, no business in the history of the world ever expanded into a new market, involving new products or services, needing new employees?

Interesting concept.

If it is the case that all business needs is more money to start investing, what is wrong with the over $2 trillion they are currently sitting on and refuse to invest? Please don't tell me they are afraid of all of Obama's regulations, because that is a crock of shit. When tax rates were triple what they are today, if there was demand, business invested.

Did I 'say' that was all that was needed? I don't recall even implying that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Don't hold your breath.
Personal insults don't require brain activity - that's why that's all they got.

Coming from someone who wins "Stupid Post of the Day" award that's rich.

So point out those fallacies. Don't just cuss and prance about like a jilted hairdresser. Make a point. Defend a point. If namecalling and cussing isn't all you got - then show everyone something else.

That was my first post. Sorry you are too stupid to understand it.

 

[Leweman]

Explain what's wrong about it.

Well to start with, ignoring every thing else that is wrong, even if the wealthy just "pocket the money" they are going to spend it which creates and maintains jobs. I know you don't understand how wealthy people spending money on things for their leisure and entertainment could possibly do this, but its true.

I know exactly how if they spend the money it will flow into the economy and create jobs. I just find it funny you think only rich people can do that.

Well I don't understand the problem then. They deserve their money more than the government does if that's you are saying.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why do the economically retarded start economics threads?

Explain what's wrong about it.

Well to start with, ignoring every thing else that is wrong, even if the wealthy just "pocket the money" they are going to spend it which creates and maintains jobs. I know you don't understand how wealthy people spending money on things for their leisure and entertainment could possibly do this, but its true.

This much is true - in part. The wealthy will spend a portion of their extra cash

at the bottom of the economic ladder - people spend 100% (because they have to)

So you are partially right. But trickle up has far fewer choke points than trickle down

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If you own your business and you employ 10 people. Then you employ 10 people because that's how many people it takes to supply the demand for your product or service. Just because the government hands you money, that doesn't encourage you to hire more people.

The ONLY thing that will prompt you to hire more people is an increase in demand for your product or service that requires you to hire more people in order to meet that bigger demand.

Without an increase in demand for your product or service, you will just pocket the extra money.

That's one of the reason's trickle down economics are idiotic. If you want to stimilute job growth, you have to increase the demand. THAT'S trickle UP economics.

Your premise is illogical.

Why would the govt. hand a business money?

I have co-owned a business for quite a few years and I have never had the govt. hand me money.

You must be doing something wrong. I own this gun shop and I had Tim Geithner in here just yesterday with a big papersack of hundreds.

All jokes aside, my business is doing very well and I have never been given govt. money. And I wouldn't have accepted it if it was offered.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Wow are you ******* stupid.
The only people the government "hands" money to are the unemployed and unproductive. And it doesn't encourage them to do anything but continue being unemployed and unproductive.
Allowing businesses to keep more of the money they earned (no one gave it to them), allows them to invest in new products and processes to increase sales, to grow their businesses.

Actually, in the United States, we have corporate welfare. So, yes, the government does hand money to companies.

Link?

Really?

History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century - Yahoo! News

And that's just one example.

 

[boilermaker55]

If you are a business person and you have a product that requires 10 employees to supply the demand and it is adequate; what IDIOT would hire 20 more people in order to put out more product, unless, and that is a bit UNLESS the demand increases.
And how does the demand increase? By others wanting your product.
So demand would mean the increase in the products output would mean more jobs.
Sorry that it is so simple for the rightwingers here that think they are "real" entrepreneurs.

All they have at their disposal is insults.