The REAL job creators...........

[The Rabbi]

Why don't you tell us about your banking credentials and expertise.

I've had a bank account longer than you've been alive.
That isn't much, but it beats any credential you have in anything by a factor of about 100.

LOL, you having a bank account is your credentials?? LMAO! Thanks for the laugh, holy shit that made my day.

Puts me squarely head and shoulders over your qualifications, which don't nearly approach that, stinkbreath.

 

[RDD_1210]

I've had a bank account longer than you've been alive.
That isn't much, but it beats any credential you have in anything by a factor of about 100.

LOL, you having a bank account is your credentials?? LMAO! Thanks for the laugh, holy shit that made my day.

Puts me squarely head and shoulders over your qualifications, which don't nearly approach that, stinkbreath.

So according to you if I have 3 bank accounts I am 3x more credible when it comes to financial knowledge? Is that right? LOL. The shit you say is amazing. Thank you.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL, you having a bank account is your credentials?? LMAO! Thanks for the laugh, holy shit that made my day.

Puts me squarely head and shoulders over your qualifications, which don't nearly approach that, stinkbreath.

So according to you if I have 3 bank accounts I am 3x more credible when it comes to financial knowledge? Is that right? LOL. The shit you say is amazing. Thank you.

No, you can't even get that right.
What a dumbshit.
Are you pretending to be a banker or a lawyer today?

 

[RDD_1210]

Puts me squarely head and shoulders over your qualifications, which don't nearly approach that, stinkbreath.

So according to you if I have 3 bank accounts I am 3x more credible when it comes to financial knowledge? Is that right? LOL. The shit you say is amazing. Thank you.

No, you can't even get that right.
What a dumbshit.
Are you pretending to be a banker or a lawyer today?

Today I'm a financial expert 3x smarter than you because I have 3 bank accounts.

 

[The Rabbi]

So according to you if I have 3 bank accounts I am 3x more credible when it comes to financial knowledge? Is that right? LOL. The shit you say is amazing. Thank you.

No, you can't even get that right.
What a dumbshit.
Are you pretending to be a banker or a lawyer today?

Today I'm a financial expert 3x smarter than you because I have 3 bank accounts.

No, you're a thousand times dumber because that isn't a response to what I wrote.

 

[ABikerSailor]

By the way.........speaking of the banks, how are we supposed to be able to borrow money from them when they're playing casino and making outrageous bets with the money?

Anyone remember the financial meltdown just a couple years back? It was caused by the deregulation of the banks.

I stand by my original statement, the actual job creators are the middle class, because they set up the demand for the product, and if they don't have money, they won't buy anything.

It's already been proven that if you give a dollar in tax cuts to the 1 percent, it generates 1.03 for the economy.

Give the same dollar in tax breaks to the middle and lower class? It generates 1.62 for the economy.

No, the talking point of the 1 percent being "job creators" is suspicious at best, an outright lie at worst.

 

[The Rabbi]

By the way.........speaking of the banks, how are we supposed to be able to borrow money from them when they're playing casino and making outrageous bets with the money?

Anyone remember the financial meltdown just a couple years back? It was caused by the deregulation of the banks.

Uh no it was not caused by the deregulation of the banks. Because there was no deregulation of the banks.

 

[RDD_1210]

No, you can't even get that right.
What a dumbshit.
Are you pretending to be a banker or a lawyer today?

Today I'm a financial expert 3x smarter than you because I have 3 bank accounts.

No, you're a thousand times dumber because that isn't a response to what I wrote.

Sure it is. I'm just playing the game by your ridiculous logic.

 

[KissMy]

By the way.........speaking of the banks, how are we supposed to be able to borrow money from them when they're playing casino and making outrageous bets with the money?

Anyone remember the financial meltdown just a couple years back? It was caused by the deregulation of the banks.

I stand by my original statement, the actual job creators are the middle class, because they set up the demand for the product, and if they don't have money, they won't buy anything.

It's already been proven that if you give a dollar in tax cuts to the 1 percent, it generates 1.03 for the economy.

Give the same dollar in tax breaks to the middle and lower class? It generates 1.62 for the economy.

No, the talking point of the 1 percent being "job creators" is suspicious at best, an outright lie at worst.

You are wrong in your wording that demand creates jobs. Supply, demand, trade & investment must be in balance for maximum job creation.

Currently there is a major imbalance. A small influential group has most of the wealth & own most of the production & technology. Over the past 30 years the system has favored the wealthy/producer over the poor/consumption/middle class/innovation. And the trading & investing system is corrupt.

The trade & investment system is rigged with computers with algorithms that screw trade & front run traders with high frequency trading. A small group controls & owns to much of the financial system placing a huge tax on everyone. High debit card fees, banking fees, trading fees, front running trades & manipulative computers trading algorithms. It is far worse than a tyrannical government.

A great financial system does not extremely favor the poor/consumption/middle class/innovation or the wealthy/producer. It must balance with a fair trade system. The CFTC needs to stop HFT manipulations.

We need share holder say on pay & claw-backs for executives who companies to obtain their maximum benefits only to implode once they leave. Higher executive pay does not lead to better stock performance or more innovation.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc"]The surprising truth about what motivates us[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

Today I'm a financial expert 3x smarter than you because I have 3 bank accounts.

No, you're a thousand times dumber because that isn't a response to what I wrote.

Sure it is. I'm just playing the game by your ridiculous logic.

No you're not, idiot.
I said my qualification was i had a bank account LONGER than you were alive. NOt that I had mroe than you. Your response indicates you didnt understand that.
If you don't understand a simple statement, what makes you think you can understand banking? Actually you don't.

 

[francoHFW]

By the way.........speaking of the banks, how are we supposed to be able to borrow money from them when they're playing casino and making outrageous bets with the money?

Anyone remember the financial meltdown just a couple years back? It was caused by the deregulation of the banks.

Uh no it was not caused by the deregulation of the banks. Because there was no deregulation of the banks.

Sure as Hell was. Pub Glass-Steagall Bill signed by Clinton, then BOOOSH put his cronies in charge of the SEC and let banks AIG etc etc do anything they wanted...Brilliant!

 

[Toro]

So all you got to do is borrow a lot of money and open a business and then, presto, without customers you will have a successful business.

No demand for your goods and services but just by borrowing money and opening a business you will be successfull.

Is that really what some of you asshole rethugs think? Gimme a fuking break.

Without demand from a consumer with money to spend for a companies goods or service, you can't be a successful businessman.

You can borrow billions and come up with a terrible product. You think people will buy it just because you borrowed a lot of money.

And you REALLY think bankers are looking to lend money to start up companies when they HAVE NO CUSTOMERS.

Did any of you rethugs ever look at how the banks are sitting on mountians of cash because either 1. no company is expanding because of lack of demand or 2. people looking to start a business are holding back because there is no demand that isn't being met.

Do some of you really claim to be "business people"? Pitiful ones if you are. Go out and borrow a bunch of money and see if you can create some customers with money to spend on your goods or service.
Should be a piece of cake, you just borrow money and then the customers come. LMAO at you fools.

Spot on. But don't try and tell them anything...they are experts, they have bank accounts. LOL.

I will address this tomorrow.

 

[KissMy]

An inventor, executive or CEO is only so smart. Paying them more does not make them smarter. Once they are paid enough where they are comfortable piling on a hundred times more money does not make them more innovative or smarter.

Nicola Tesla was not rich. Yet he was smarter than any overpaid banker on Wallstreet today. He did more to advance civilization than any Wallstreet executive today. Studies prove when people are overpaid their performance takes a nose dive. This is what lead to Wallstreet destroying the entire economy. They were all concerned with their pay & not with their job.

 

[Joshuatree]

So all you got to do is borrow a lot of money and open a business and then, presto, without customers you will have a successful business.

No demand for your goods and services but just by borrowing money and opening a business you will be successfull.

Is that really what some of you asshole rethugs think? Gimme a fuking break.

Without demand from a consumer with money to spend for a companies goods or service, you can't be a successful businessman.

You can borrow billions and come up with a terrible product. You think people will buy it just because you borrowed a lot of money.

And you REALLY think bankers are looking to lend money to start up companies when they HAVE NO CUSTOMERS.

Did any of you rethugs ever look at how the banks are sitting on mountians of cash because either 1. no company is expanding because of lack of demand or 2. people looking to start a business are holding back because there is no demand that isn't being met.

Do some of you really claim to be "business people"? Pitiful ones if you are. Go out and borrow a bunch of money and see if you can create some customers with money to spend on your goods or service.
Should be a piece of cake, you just borrow money and then the customers come. LMAO at you fools.

Not that hard to understand, buddy.

The rich guy puts all of his money in a bank.

You want to buy an apartment... or you want to start your own business.

You don't have the money now, but you can pay a loan. Where will you get the money? In a bank.

The more money the bank has, the cheaper will be the loans. Lower interest rates and more time to pay...

Do you see the money of the rich guy in the bank helping you now?

Everybody needs loans, buddy. If you have never needed before, you're going to need someday.

This is just an example, but if you understood how the economy works you would realize that the rich guy seeking the means to keep or increase his wealth does more for the common good than does the government taxing and spending his money. Even if it does so in name of helping the poor.

Salute!

 

[rdean]

Their slogan is “ideas worth spreading.” But the folks at TED – the Technology Entertainment and Design nonprofit behind the TED Talks, beloved by geeks and others interested in novel new ideas – evidently think that some ideas are better left unspread. At least when the ideas in question challenge the conventional wisdom that rich enterpreneurs are the number one job creators.



This past March, millionaire tech investor and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer – one of the early backers of Amazon.com – gave a talk at a TED conference in which, among other things, suggested that middle-class consumers, not rich people, are the real job creators – and that because of this rich people should be paying more in taxes. Though the talk drew applause from conference attendees at the time, TED Talk curator Chris Anderson decided it wasn’t worth sharing with the wider world, and refused to post it on TED’s website.

His explanation? The talk was “too political” to be posted during an election year, and that “a lot of business managers and entrepreneurs would feel insulted” by some of Hanauer’s arguments. This seems more than a tad disingenuous, since TED generally doesn’t shy away from controversial ideas, and is sometimes so “political” that it invites actual politicians to talk at its conferences.


Read more: Was Nick Hanauer’s TED Talk on Income Inequality Too Rich for Rich People? | Business | TIME.com

And here's his talk......................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIhOXCgSunc]A TED Talk on Income Inequality by Nick Hanauer - YouTube[/ame]

He actually makes a lot of sense, because it's not really the venture capitalists who create jobs, it's the demand set up by the middle class for a product that causes someone else to see the need, THEN go to someone for money to start up a business, and the business will succeed if the demand for the product from the general population is sufficient to generate a profit.

So, if you want to know who the real job creators are, it's us as the middle class consumers, not the venture capitalists, because all they do is sit on their money and draw off the interest.

Democrats have been saying that for years.

 

[RDD_1210]

No, you're a thousand times dumber because that isn't a response to what I wrote.

Sure it is. I'm just playing the game by your ridiculous logic.

No you're not, idiot.
I said my qualification was i had a bank account LONGER than you were alive. NOt that I had mroe than you. Your response indicates you didnt understand that.
If you don't understand a simple statement, what makes you think you can understand banking? Actually you don't.

Oh so it's length of time one has a bank account that determines their financial knowledge? Is that correct?

 

[auditor0007]

Their slogan is “ideas worth spreading.” But the folks at TED – the Technology Entertainment and Design nonprofit behind the TED Talks, beloved by geeks and others interested in novel new ideas – evidently think that some ideas are better left unspread. At least when the ideas in question challenge the conventional wisdom that rich enterpreneurs are the number one job creators.



This past March, millionaire tech investor and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer – one of the early backers of Amazon.com – gave a talk at a TED conference in which, among other things, suggested that middle-class consumers, not rich people, are the real job creators – and that because of this rich people should be paying more in taxes. Though the talk drew applause from conference attendees at the time, TED Talk curator Chris Anderson decided it wasn’t worth sharing with the wider world, and refused to post it on TED’s website.

His explanation? The talk was “too political” to be posted during an election year, and that “a lot of business managers and entrepreneurs would feel insulted” by some of Hanauer’s arguments. This seems more than a tad disingenuous, since TED generally doesn’t shy away from controversial ideas, and is sometimes so “political” that it invites actual politicians to talk at its conferences.


Read more: Was Nick Hanauer’s TED Talk on Income Inequality Too Rich for Rich People? | Business | TIME.com

And here's his talk......................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIhOXCgSunc]A TED Talk on Income Inequality by Nick Hanauer - YouTube[/ame]

He actually makes a lot of sense, because it's not really the venture capitalists who create jobs, it's the demand set up by the middle class for a product that causes someone else to see the need, THEN go to someone for money to start up a business, and the business will succeed if the demand for the product from the general population is sufficient to generate a profit.

So, if you want to know who the real job creators are, it's us as the middle class consumers, not the venture capitalists, because all they do is sit on their money and draw off the interest.

This isn't some new concept; many of us have been saying this for quite some time now.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So all you got to do is borrow a lot of money and open a business and then, presto, without customers you will have a successful business.

No demand for your goods and services but just by borrowing money and opening a business you will be successfull.

Is that really what some of you asshole rethugs think? Gimme a fuking break.

Without demand from a consumer with money to spend for a companies goods or service, you can't be a successful businessman.

You can borrow billions and come up with a terrible product. You think people will buy it just because you borrowed a lot of money.

And you REALLY think bankers are looking to lend money to start up companies when they HAVE NO CUSTOMERS.

Did any of you rethugs ever look at how the banks are sitting on mountians of cash because either 1. no company is expanding because of lack of demand or 2. people looking to start a business are holding back because there is no demand that isn't being met.

Do some of you really claim to be "business people"? Pitiful ones if you are. Go out and borrow a bunch of money and see if you can create some customers with money to spend on your goods or service.
Should be a piece of cake, you just borrow money and then the customers come. LMAO at you fools.

Not that hard to understand, buddy.

The rich guy puts all of his money in a bank.

You want to buy an apartment... or you want to start your own business.

You don't have the money now, but you can pay a loan. Where will you get the money? In a bank.

The more money the bank has, the cheaper will be the loans. Lower interest rates and more time to pay...

Do you see the money of the rich guy in the bank helping you now?

Everybody needs loans, buddy. If you have never needed before, you're going to need someday.

This is just an example, but if you understood how the economy works you would realize that the rich guy seeking the means to keep or increase his wealth does more for the common good than does the government taxing and spending his money. Even if it does so in name of helping the poor.

Salute!

Trickle down economics doesn't work.

BTW...................the banks only have money to loan as long as they didn't squander it on casino type loans.

Get a clue.

 

[rdean]

So all you got to do is borrow a lot of money and open a business and then, presto, without customers you will have a successful business.

No demand for your goods and services but just by borrowing money and opening a business you will be successfull.

Is that really what some of you asshole rethugs think? Gimme a fuking break.

Without demand from a consumer with money to spend for a companies goods or service, you can't be a successful businessman.

You can borrow billions and come up with a terrible product. You think people will buy it just because you borrowed a lot of money.

And you REALLY think bankers are looking to lend money to start up companies when they HAVE NO CUSTOMERS.

Did any of you rethugs ever look at how the banks are sitting on mountians of cash because either 1. no company is expanding because of lack of demand or 2. people looking to start a business are holding back because there is no demand that isn't being met.

Do some of you really claim to be "business people"? Pitiful ones if you are. Go out and borrow a bunch of money and see if you can create some customers with money to spend on your goods or service.
Should be a piece of cake, you just borrow money and then the customers come. LMAO at you fools.

Not that hard to understand, buddy.

The rich guy puts all of his money in a bank.

You want to buy an apartment... or you want to start your own business.

You don't have the money now, but you can pay a loan. Where will you get the money? In a bank.

The more money the bank has, the cheaper will be the loans. Lower interest rates and more time to pay...

Do you see the money of the rich guy in the bank helping you now?

Everybody needs loans, buddy. If you have never needed before, you're going to need someday.

This is just an example, but if you understood how the economy works you would realize that the rich guy seeking the means to keep or increase his wealth does more for the common good than does the government taxing and spending his money. Even if it does so in name of helping the poor.

Salute!

Trickle down economics doesn't work.

BTW...................the banks only have money to loan as long as they didn't squander it on casino type loans.

Get a clue.

Republicans will say that if you take ALL the wealth of the top 10% it still wouldn't be enough to help the economy for very long. So ALL the wealth won't be enough, but "trickle down" works. And somehow, to each other, they make sense.

 

[Toro]

So all you got to do is borrow a lot of money and open a business and then, presto, without customers you will have a successful business.

No demand for your goods and services but just by borrowing money and opening a business you will be successfull.

Is that really what some of you asshole rethugs think? Gimme a fuking break.

Without demand from a consumer with money to spend for a companies goods or service, you can't be a successful businessman.

You can borrow billions and come up with a terrible product. You think people will buy it just because you borrowed a lot of money.

And you REALLY think bankers are looking to lend money to start up companies when they HAVE NO CUSTOMERS.

Did any of you rethugs ever look at how the banks are sitting on mountians of cash because either 1. no company is expanding because of lack of demand or 2. people looking to start a business are holding back because there is no demand that isn't being met.

Do some of you really claim to be "business people"? Pitiful ones if you are. Go out and borrow a bunch of money and see if you can create some customers with money to spend on your goods or service.
Should be a piece of cake, you just borrow money and then the customers come. LMAO at you fools.

Spot on. But don't try and tell them anything...they are experts, they have bank accounts. LOL.

I will address this tomorrow.

OK, its tomorrow, so I'm addressing it.

The argument that demand in isolation is the primary driver of job creation is not accurate. Both demand AND supply drivers create jobs, and the relationship between the two are inclusive and circular, i.e. both need each other. However, of the two, over the long run, supply is probably more important. This is why.

Economic growth over long periods of time are driven by two things, population growth and productivity growth. In this country, population grows about 1% a year and real productivity growth is about 2% a year. Thus, the long-term capacity of the economy is to grow at 3% per year. However, economic growth driven by population growth does not improve each individual's well being. If the economy grows only because of population growth, per capita living standards remain flat. Thus, the only way for the well-being of individuals to improve is through productivity growth.

Productivity growth allows us to produce more with less, which allows us to free up resources to produce and thus consume more. Productivity growth is driven by innovation and technological advancement. We can consume more by applying the new technology to the same amount of time worked, thus allowing us to produce and consume more, or we can attempt to consume and produce the same amount by applying innovation so we can work less, freeing up time so we can consume more leisure time. Productivity and thus innovation and technological advancement is the function of all wealth creation.

Advances in productivity occur because individuals create new technologies. Innovators create new products and services for the market. But the market, i.e. demand, apart from conceptually, is unaware of what it wants. To understand this, look at music. Fifty years ago, the primary technology to listen to music was the record player. The "demand" was for music. Music was bulky. If you were a music junky and you wanted to own a lot of music, you had to own hundreds of records, maybe more. You needed a place for your record player, speakers and a place to store all your records. Of course, you couldn't take your music anywhere as the storage of the technology was big and bulky. Today, you can walk around and listen to your music anywhere in the world, storing thousands of songs on an iPod or your phone. Technological innovation allowed the consumers of music - the demand - to vastly improve the portability and storage of their music so they could listen to whatever they wanted wherever they were, which they couldn't do before. Without the innovators, this would never have happened. Without the innovators, the market could have demanded music all it wanted but would never have been able to experience music more conveniently and easily. The market had no idea what an iPod or a mobile phone was 50 years except perhaps conceptually, read by dreamers in science fiction books. It was the innovators that conceptualized and drove the improvements in music technology, not the other way around. Of course, demand is important, but the market was unable to conceptualize the products other than as broad concepts. The market really did not know what it wanted other than it wanted to listen to music. It had to be shown how to listen to music easier and more conveniently.

Technology applied to the economy works the same way. Innovation that allows us to produce more gets products to market cheaper, which improves the incomes of the market, even if the market cannot conceptualize the demand for the product.

So if you go back to the equation of economic growth = population growth + real productivity growth, and look at how different our society is compared to 100, 50 even 20 years ago, the difference is because of innovation, not because of population growth. And innovation is driven by innovators looking for ways to satisfy market needs in manners the market often does not understand it wants. Eighty years ago, society could conceptualize music consumption via the radio or the phonograph but could not conceptualize such things as technologies to splice radio waves or iPods. Those who conceptualized innovative music products were the innovators, not the broad market. Only after the market became aware of the new products did the market drive demand.