Making the Wealthy Wealthier Doesn't Create Jobs

[Rozman]

How about creating a business friendly environment
so people wanting to start a company are helped not hindered
then maybe businesses will start up here and not overseas.
Or if they are an established company they will stay here.

 

[American Horse]

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.

The govt doesn't give money to the rich; the phenomenon of "trickle down economics" is when instead of taking it the govt leaves money in the hands of the earners, among those the wealthy who have surplus earnings - which they will thoughtfully put to work; they will invest it thus creating jobs, or they will bank it making capital available for others to borrow and create jobs, or they will spend it, say for a private jet aircraft, and people will be employed to build, furnish, service, maintain, pilot, that jet aircraft, stimulating creation of whole new peripheral industries which employ people, including aircraft mechanical services, hangar facilities.

That's the proper definition of "trickle down" and that barely touches on how leaving money in the hands of the earners grows the economy, commerce, and jobs putting money into the pockets or the accounts of ordinary working people.

Think about that private aircraft for a minute; a few of those (with their wealthy or corporate owners) in a small city or large town create demand for aeronautical services, the airport is upgraded to match demand, service expands and commuter air services, or air freight delivery services expand to serve a community airport that otherwise wouldn't exist except as required to serve small private aircraft.

This type of economic growth means that a military veteran trained to maintain and repair those larger planes finds work in his town and isn't forced to commute to a larger city or relocate there for convenience. He builds a home in his growing city and employs the construction crews, and others to service his home and toys.

He borrows his construction and maybe his mortgage money from a community bank which is supported by deposits, including those of the wealthy that weren't taken by the govt to "trickle out" while taking a huge surcharge percentage to support all the bureaucrats who administer the collection and distribution of that money otherwise removed from the private economy.

 

[Liability]

I didn't see anything about class warfare in that post, but talking about brain dead, denying the facts makes you look that way. People don't invest money without demand, no matter how much you give them. The fact that average American's wages have been stuck with no growth for years has led to diminished demand for products and services. This is why our economy sucks, not because we taxed the wealthy too much. The fact is we gave the wealthy massive tax cuts and average Americans got shit in return. Those are the facts. Denying them only leads to a confirmation of your complete inability to reason.

You don't "see" anything about class warfare?

Really?

you didn't either - you may have invented some - but it wasn't in my post.

Now come up with something other than a knee-jerk insult. Surprise me.

It was there. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

Even the ass clown who pretended otherwise on your behalf knows it.

Making the wealthy wealthier ... often DOES create jobs, you see. But you are so blinded by your class warfare rhetoric and ideology you don't see you're wrong and you no longer even recognize the premises of your own "arguments."

You dip shit.

Surprise everyone. Start being honest.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

And for some reason you think that the government taking AWAY money is going to encourage employers to hire? How exactly does THAT work?

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

Forget trickle-down economics. Its time to talk about real, plain-and-simple free market economics.

First of all, an explanation of demand is needed. Demand is not want, nor is it need. Demand is the actual spending of money or exchange of goods. If I claim to want a new car but I do not buy one in the end, I am not contributing to a rise in the demand for new cars. Demand arises from want and need, but it requires a supply of something to exchange with (in most cases money). In other words, demand requires the actual physical acquisition of a product through an exchange. The reason for the exchange is to fulfill the wants and needs of the two actors involved.

Businesses produce products that they think will be demanded (expected future demand). Demand can never be greater than the supply of savings individuals have (for individuals demand goods with unspent savings). You may quickly ask, and with good reason, "what about spending with credit, not savings?" The fact of the matter is that credit is simply money that someone else has saved. Interest is simply the payment for using someone else's savings, in other words the cost of obtaining something quicker than you otherwise would have.

I hope I explained that as clearly as possible. Demand is derived from savings, and demand is the actual spending of money, not emotions like "want" or "need".

Focusing soley on demand, however, completley misses the point. How do you increse the demand of one individual without decreasing the demand of another? Often to stimulate demand you get ideas like "stimulus bills" or other government spending measures. Yet government only gets this money by taxing the savings of the population--in other words reducing potential future demand. So yes, when the government spends money in the economy it is increasing demand for whatever it is spending money on, but the point is that demand was already taken away through taxation.

"Stimulating demand" only moves money around. The structure of production changea, but the level of production will not increase. (as an added note, the value of what is produced on a whole will very likely decrease, for government spending is often out of touch with what consumers actually want, need, and would then demand).

Government stimulated demand may cause you to hire 15 instead of 10 employees, but it will at the same time prevent whoever previously owned the money from doing the same thing.

 

[code1211]

The class warfare beat is a lonely one, eh, nobraininyourhead?

I didn't see anything about class warfare in that post, but talking about brain dead, denying the facts makes you look that way. People don't invest money without demand, no matter how much you give them. The fact that average American's wages have been stuck with no growth for years has led to diminished demand for products and services. This is why our economy sucks, not because we taxed the wealthy too much. The fact is we gave the wealthy massive tax cuts and average Americans got shit in return. Those are the facts. Denying them only leads to a confirmation of your complete inability to reason.

Are you saying the wealthy are the only people who enjoyed a reduction in their taxes?

 

[code1211]

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.

If I have something and you allow me to keep it, is that your definition of giving me something?

Christmas must be a blast at your house.

 

[code1211]

I didn't see anything about class warfare in that post, but talking about brain dead, denying the facts makes you look that way. People don't invest money without demand, no matter how much you give them. The fact that average American's wages have been stuck with no growth for years has led to diminished demand for products and services. This is why our economy sucks, not because we taxed the wealthy too much. The fact is we gave the wealthy massive tax cuts and average Americans got shit in return. Those are the facts. Denying them only leads to a confirmation of your complete inability to reason.

You don't "see" anything about class warfare?

Really?

you didn't either - you may have invented some - but it wasn't in my post.

Now come up with something other than a knee-jerk insult. Surprise me.

I didn't see class warfare. All your post revealed was an astonishing lack of understanding in how a business works.

What if the owner wants to hire one more person? What must he do? What risks does this expose him to? What rights does the stranger that he invites to use his equipment and facility have the second he punches in?

If the employer decides to fire the new employee, can he be sued? If the employee is injured on the job through his own stupidity, is the employer still responsible? If the employee causes the injury of someone else, is the employer responsible?

If there are ten employees and each one requires equipment to do a particular function, who will help the employer pay for the new equipment? Why should the employer expand when the taxation will increase if the profits increase? If the employer crosses a threshold in workforce level or in profitability or crosses a state line, he is opened to ever increasing regulation and rising taxation.

Why should he grow if he is penalized to do so?

It's a pretty widely held belief in the business community that running a business is an easy thing to do if you don't know what you're doing.

Running a business would be incredibly easy for you.

 

[code1211]

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.

Ford was suffering crippling turn over rates. He raised the rate of pay to make the job, as distasteful as it was, something that was worth returning to tomorrow.

 

[code1211]

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.

Yes, we do.
Isn't it funny how folks who know the least seem to be the most vulgar and vitriolic about it?

Describe how "Corporate Welfare" Works.

 

[code1211]

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

But.... but.... but.. he like read it on the interwebs!

Trickle down got us where we are today, but hey, it's fun to ignore the facts.

Trickle down was initiated during the Reagan Administration and that got us to the Clinton Administration where we had the Dot.com bubble.

We had to have been there before we got here.

Trickle down also followed the Carter Administration which caused the creation of the "Misery Index".

As a quick primer on current events, Reagan is no longer the president. I would have thought you'd have heard about this. It was in all the papers.

You can Google "Papers" to find out what these were.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Yes, we do.
Isn't it funny how folks who know the least seem to be the most vulgar and vitriolic about it?

Describe how "Corporate Welfare" Works.

Corporations produce revenue. The gov't allows them to keep some of it. Voila, corporate welfare.

 

[code1211]

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.

So.....

Your thesis is that the most risk taking population in the history of the Planet all decided to stop investing the day that the Big 0 took office and has refused to start again ever since AND that this has nothing to do with the Big 0?

Alrighty, then!

 

[ShackledNation]

Yes, there is corporate welfare. Its called TARP. As well as the other bailouts, and created money by the Federal Reserve. The US Federal Reserve provided banks and businesses 16 trillion dollars during the recession to bail them out around the world, as the partial audit revealed. And guess what...the 16 trillion DID NOT WORK to fix the economy. Another reason why talk of more spending needed is absolutely absurd.

That is called corporate welfare, and it is just as immoral if not more so than any other type of government redistribution.

The Fed's $16 Trillion Bailouts Under-reported - Forbes

Many people don't know this, because the mainstream media, "right" and "left" did little reporting on it. Gee, I wonder why, its as if they have been receiving money too...

Wake up folks.

Here is a list of the top receivers of Federal Reserve money (which we all pay for through a devalued dollar seen in rising prices).
Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts

So all of you saying our government does not bailout the rich need to wake up and smell the dead roses.

 

[Liability]

Yes, we do.
Isn't it funny how folks who know the least seem to be the most vulgar and vitriolic about it?

Describe how "Corporate Welfare" Works.

Corporations produce revenue. The gov't allows them to keep some of it. Voila, corporate welfare.

Izza outwage!

 

[code1211]

Yes, there is corporate welfare. Its called TARP. As well as the other bailouts, and created money by the Federal Reserve. The US Federal Reserve provided banks and businesses 16 trillion dollars during the recession to bail them out around the world, as the partial audit revealed. And guess what...the 16 trillion DID NOT WORK to fix the economy. Another reason why talk of more spending needed is absolutely absurd.

That is called corporate welfare, and it is just as immoral if not more so than any other type of government redistribution.

The Fed's $16 Trillion Bailouts Under-reported - Forbes

Many people don't know this, because the mainstream media, "right" and "left" did little reporting on it. Gee, I wonder why, its as if they have been receiving money too...

Wake up folks.

Here is a list of the top receivers of Federal Reserve money (which we all pay for through a devalued dollar seen in rising prices).
Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts | Unelected

So all of you saying our government does not bailout the rich need to wake up and smell the dead roses.

In a typically governmental fluff up, the FEDS gave away the money so the banks would lend and then created a program by which banks could make more money holding onto the money than by lending it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

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.

demand is always constant. People have always wanted or demanded more food clothing shelter transportation vacations etc etc. Giving people tons of money from helicopters to buy things in the stone age would not have advanced economic progress by one minute.

Any economy grows and creates real jobs when people, mostly rich people, invent or supply new innovative goods and services. This is econ 101.

The more venture capital rich venture capitalists have the more new ventures like Apple and Google they can found.


Is it making sense to you now??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, there is corporate welfare. Its called TARP. .

not really!!! that money was to be paid back and was for the most part !! personal welfare is far more dangerous as it is never to be paid back, but rather used to create dependency on liberals

 

[starcraftzzz]

.

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.

demand is always constant. People have always wanted or demanded more food clothing shelter transportation vacations etc etc. Giving people tons of money from helicopters to buy things in the stone age would not have advanced economic progress by one minute.

Any economy grows and creates real jobs when people, mostly rich people, invent or supply new innovative goods and services. This is econ 101.

The more venture capital rich venture capitalists have the more new ventures like Apple and Google they can found.


Is it making sense to you now??

Venture capitalists companies aren't profitable. Sure you can be a retard (which you are) and cherry pick or lie and tell us that Apple is a venture capitalist company when its been around for decades and started out rich before its explosion but that is just because you are clueless.
Furthermore rich people dont invent things scientists do of which the vast majority are funded by the government

 

[ShackledNation]

Yes, there is corporate welfare. Its called TARP. .

not really!!! that money was to be paid back and was for the most part !! personal welfare is far more dangerous as it is never to be paid back, but rather used to create dependency on liberals

TARP was only part of it. Either way, it doesn't matter if it is to be paid back or not. They are still receiving easy money for making mistakes. They are receiving loans they would not receive on the free market. That is what causes problems. Furthermore, the money they are receiving in loans is money that cannot be used to loan money to some start up or entrepreneur that may create more productive jobs.

Corporate welfare, whether it be in the form of loans or bailouts or whatever, will cause corporations to be dependent on and in cahoots with government, rather than consumers. And that is a problem, and should be recognized as such whether you are a liberal, conservative, libertarian, or whatever.