The Rich Don't Create Jobs

[Photonic]

It is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

Since when did either have to satisfy the other to make it true?

If your point is that high income earning people are stupid then you are simply dead wrong. That's the point.

No, I said that intelligence wasn't required to be rich. That is certainly a well known fact.

 

[bripat9643]

No, I said that intelligence wasn't required to be rich. That is certainly a well known fact.

Yeah, it pretty much is. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I said that intelligence wasn't required to be rich. That is certainly a well known fact.

Yeah, it pretty much is. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

It also depends on what you call "intelligence." The ability to make money is not necessarily the same as the ability to perform well in school.
But wealth and intelligence tend to pattern together much more than they diverge.
Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

 

[Photonic]

No, I said that intelligence wasn't required to be rich. That is certainly a well known fact.

Yeah, it pretty much is. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

It also depends on what you call "intelligence." The ability to make money is not necessarily the same as the ability to perform well in school.
But wealth and intelligence tend to pattern together much more than they diverge.
Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

Disagree.

You Don't Have To Be Smart To Be Rich, Study Finds

 

[bripat9643]

No, I said that intelligence wasn't required to be rich. That is certainly a well known fact.

Yeah, it pretty much is. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

It also depends on what you call "intelligence." The ability to make money is not necessarily the same as the ability to perform well in school.
But wealth and intelligence tend to pattern together much more than they diverge.
Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

Liberal ideology depends on 100 premises that are all false.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, it pretty much is. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

It also depends on what you call "intelligence." The ability to make money is not necessarily the same as the ability to perform well in school.
But wealth and intelligence tend to pattern together much more than they diverge.
Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

Disagree.

You Don't Have To Be Smart To Be Rich, Study Finds

Fail.

The one financial indicator in which the study found it paid to be smart was income. Those with higher IQ scores tended to get paid more than others.

 

[Photonic]

It also depends on what you call "intelligence." The ability to make money is not necessarily the same as the ability to perform well in school.
But wealth and intelligence tend to pattern together much more than they diverge.
Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

Disagree.

You Don't Have To Be Smart To Be Rich, Study Finds

Fail.

The one financial indicator in which the study found it paid to be smart was income. Those with higher IQ scores tended to get paid more than others.

Talk to me after you've read the entire thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Disagree.

You Don't Have To Be Smart To Be Rich, Study Finds

Fail.

The one financial indicator in which the study found it paid to be smart was income. Those with higher IQ scores tended to get paid more than others.

Talk to me after you've read the entire thing.

Translation: I'm wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Talk to me after you've read the entire thing.

I read the entire thing. Its measure of "wealthy" is extremely nebulous. The article didn't clearly explain it. That was intentional. The one clear fact is that smarter people earn more money.

Furthermore, it compares the number of smart people who are wealth with the number of dumb people who are wealthy. That isn't the proposition.

The hypothesis is this. Wealthy people are smart. They aren't stupid. Your article didn't even address it.

It's propaganda.

 

[Photonic]

Talk to me after you've read the entire thing.

I read the entire thing. Its measure of "wealthy" is extremely nebulous. The article didn't clearly explain it. That was intentional. The one clear fact is that smarter people earn more money.

Furthermore, it compares the number of smart people who are wealth with the number of dumb people who are wealthy. That isn't the proposition.

The hypothesis is this. Wealthy people are smart. They aren't stupid. Your article didn't even address it.

It's propaganda.

 

[The Rabbi]

Translation: I'm wrong.

 

[Photonic]

The study clearly shows that there is no correlation between high intelligence and copious amounts of wealth, though on a lower range intelligence is correlative to wealth.

You can continue to lie to yourself's to maintain your dignity as long as you want.

I'll leave you with this.

Argumentation theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Rabbi]

The study clearly shows that there is no correlation between high intelligence and copious amounts of wealth, though on a lower range intelligence is correlative to wealth.

You can continue to lie to yourself's to maintain your dignity as long as you want.

I'll leave you with this.

Argumentation theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The study" is no such thing. It is a propaganda piece. Only noobs like you could confuse the two.

 

[Dragon]

The federal government has the authority to tax incomes. It doesn't have the authority to tax your property. Such a tax would be unconstitutional.

Not that I was seriously advocating doing exactly what I described anymore than I was seriously talking about magical fairies, but:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

and there was another restriction that forbade direct taxes except in proportion to the census which was repealed by the 16th Amendment. There is nothing that says the federal government can't tax property. In fact, the federal government DOES tax property -- ever heard of the estate tax or the gift tax?

All income is either spent on final goods or on capital. If it's saved, then it's still spent on capital. Your bank can pay you interest only because it loans your money out to business or to consumers. Even if the rich kept all their funds in the form of cash and stuffed it in a mattress, that would mean they weren't consuming. The goods not consumed would be available in the form of capital. Your mistake is that you keep confusing actual physical capital with worthless scraps of paper.

All true (if irrelevant) up until the last sentence, which is wrong on two counts: 1) I DON'T make that confusion; and 2) those scraps of paper are NOT worthless as long as the United States continues to exist as a nation.

What is "more money to the rich" supposed to mean?

Exactly what it says. The means is unimportant. Maybe it's a tax cut. Maybe it's restraint of wage increases resulting in higher profits. Maybe it's a subsidy. Doesn't matter. Increasing the capital available for investment does NOT create jobs. Increasing consumer demand does.

Any reduction in profit will cause a business to expand less than it would have otherwise.

Profit MARGIN is not the same as PROFIT. If a business has a 25% profit margin on $100,000 in gross revenue, its profits are less than if it has a 10% profit margin on $1,000,000 in gross revenue, and that's pretty much the condition I'm talking about here.

If a business does not cover its costs, it goes out of business. Competition drives business profits to zero. Therefore, the price of a product is invariably determined by the marginal cost.

That does not follow and it's also observably untrue.

"Idle money" isn't the issue. What is being done with worthless scraps of paper isn't an economic issue. The only thing that matters is idle capital - that is, real plant and equipment that isn't being used.

We use money (which, as noted above, is not "worthless" so long as the government issuing it continues to exist) as a way of depicting the value of what is bought and sold, including capital property. You are making a meaningless distinction.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I love how progressives pretend that authoritarian and totalitarian socialism are some kinda ******* "story" like the Wizard of Oz...

They act like the Tin Man (Stalin) is make believe and the Lion (Mao) is make believe and the scare crow (Lenin) is make believe, then in 1995 Dorthy woke up and thought it was a dream..

Progressives ARE IN FACT SOCIALISTS. They're just so ******* stupid they have the notion that socialism is a utopia.

It's funny how the socialists cant look past 1980..... No they imagine European socialism (which is ******* failing as I post this)...

The euro is how old again???

Oh yeah... Your medical system is how good??? yeah you only self assist suicide when you cant afford to treat an individual - even more so push them into self-suicide...

That is socialized medicine for you...

Everytime a gangsta gets Swiss Cheesed - guess what??? those motherfuckers are taking money from cancer patients who need medication in your POS "socialized system."

What ban guns and that will make everything better??? -- yeah you go down to the ******* projects ans take those "banned guns" from the gangbangers in the projects...

Those ******* criminals don't even have the legal right to own guns but would make a city like Chicago or NY look like Iraq...

And those are the illegal gun owners...

So yeah, dumb progressives can go save the world with their, banning guns and Obamacare bullshit which is absolutely illogical....

Can't say I would argue with this.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Everyone who invests in the production of a good or service "thinks" they will sell, Dragon but there is never a guarantee of that taking place. And let's be honest here...the incentive to invest is profit. Without profit there is ZERO reason for investors to risk capital. I don't know why you find that concept so hard to grasp.

I don't find it hard to grasp. None of it conflicts with what I've been saying. If a product doesn't sell, it can't make a profit. If demand for it (both desire AND ABILITY to buy it) isn't sufficient, it won't sell.

Of course everyone who invests in production thinks the product or service will sell. But, first, that's an educated guess not a wild guess, and if the product actually will sell, then business is more likely to think it will and to invest accordingly. And, second, if they think it will sell and it turns out they're wrong, jobs will be created only for a short time.

A healthy economy depends on narrow income gaps.

Demand is based on availability and price.
1.The product exists
2. The product is priced appropriately

Labor works the same way. Labor is a commodity. Supply and demand.
1. The product( people to do the job) exists
2. The product is priced appropriately.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Everyone who invests in the production of a good or service "thinks" they will sell, Dragon but there is never a guarantee of that taking place. And let's be honest here...the incentive to invest is profit. Without profit there is ZERO reason for investors to risk capital. I don't know why you find that concept so hard to grasp.

I don't find it hard to grasp. None of it conflicts with what I've been saying. If a product doesn't sell, it can't make a profit. If demand for it (both desire AND ABILITY to buy it) isn't sufficient, it won't sell.

Of course everyone who invests in production thinks the product or service will sell. But, first, that's an educated guess not a wild guess, and if the product actually will sell, then business is more likely to think it will and to invest accordingly. And, second, if they think it will sell and it turns out they're wrong, jobs will be created only for a short time.

A healthy economy depends on narrow income gaps.

"A healthy economy depends on narrow income gaps."
No it does not. Throughout the history of mankind, there have always been wealthy and poor as well as in the middle. Markets have existed for all that same amount of time.
Not all economies have been healthy. Many were doomed from the start.
Totalitarian regimes, communist systems, socialist regimes...None of these have ever resulted in the freedom of the people to prosper. EVER.
Obama obviously has you programmed
So, how was re-education camp, anyway?

 

[EriktheRed]

Well SHIT.... lets just kill the rich people and take ALL OF THEIR MONEY!!!

You ******* jackass!

Shit, let's give millionaires all of the income earned by the middle class, that will create endless jobs!

Woohoo! Taking arguments to the extreme is fun!

**** off... Im not debating an idiot troll.

Translation: "After my dumbass strawman arguments I've got nuthin', so I'll just get nasty."

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nope. It was 100% true the first time I said it and it remains 100% true now. Nobody has offered a single item in rebuttal, and the evidence in favor is overwhelming. So I'm going to keep repeating it. Thanks for your advice, but I believe I'll ignore it.



The incentive to invest lies in consumer demand for the products to be produced by investing it. No one invests in products that won't sell, which is why the economy has been so slow to grow recently.

More money to the rich does NOT create jobs.

More money to the middle class and poor creates more consumer demand, which does.

Everyone who invests in the production of a good or service "thinks" they will sell, Dragon but there is never a guarantee of that taking place. And let's be honest here...the incentive to invest is profit. Without profit there is ZERO reason for investors to risk capital. I don't know why you find that concept so hard to grasp.

Yea, but how well would a company do on just investment?

Not too well if there are no consumers.

No consumers, no profit, no jobs.

Chicken or egg...Which came first?
C'mon...Business, when marketing a new product, researches the general population then regionally test markets before mass marketing.
There are always consumers. The hard part is figuring out the percentage of consumers will buy.
Some products are specifically targeted to certain demographic groups. For example, you won't see many ads on tv in the mountains of West Virginia for luxury cars. Conversely you'll not ever see a Wal Mart in Mid Town Manhattan.
I don;t see the point you people are trying to make. Except you believe in the myth of the living wage. In looking at your side's argument, you appear to believe if everyone got a huge raise, the only effect would be the people would have more buying power and thus the economy would move forward as though those wage increases exist in a vacuum.
Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of business and economy knows that when labor costs rise, prices must also rise. At the end of the cycle, everything is relative.
Let's use this calculator.....Living Wage Calculator - Living Wage Calculation for Los Angeles County, California
For LA County, CA......This chart states that for a family of four the living wage is $34.07 per hour. So now the guy behind the counter at Seven Eleven by government mandate MUST be paid $34.07 per hour minimum....What happens next? The store owner has options....Raise wages and with that, raise prices to pay the help. He can fire the three workers he has and then cut his hours so he can run the store himself. He can close the store. He can bring in family members as his only workers.
In any event, such a huge increase would kill jobs and destroy businesses.

 

[diptherio]

OECD has come to the conclusion that "trickle down economics" has failed. If anyone cares what the people who actually study this stuff for a living think...

OECD calls time on trickle down theory - The Globe and Mail