Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Chizzy posted a YouTube clip of this "producer" earlier. Always good for you conks to be reminded how the economy actually works. You're welcome for the refresher.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/201 ... nauer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do.

Vidav wrote:I do.

An ordinary middle class consumer is far more of a job creator....nice theory, but that "consumer" can't "consume" anything if the rich person doesn't create the company/product in the first place because of the disincentives caused by higher taxes.

Goddamn socialist.

AZGrizFan wrote:An ordinary middle class consumer is far more of a job creator....nice theory, but that "consumer" can't "consume" anything if the rich person doesn't create the company/product in the first place because of the disincentives caused by higher taxes.

It's a symbiotic relationship. You really think the author is going to go all John Galt and say 'fuck it' if he has to pay more than 11 percent on an 8 figure income?

It's never going to be so simple as one thing creating jobs. There are hundreds of factors. The government does create jobs. Multi-national billion dollar companies do create jobs. The middle class does create jobs.

However, the economy is changing.

Huge corporations do create jobs that rely on the consumption of the middle class. But, these increasingly employ people overseason.

There are also huge corporations that employ next to no one. Facebook bought WhatsApp (which I had never heard of before they bought it) for $16 billion dollars... the company employs 55 fucking people. A few decades ago... a company worth that (adjusted for inflation) would be employing thousands of people.

The economy is changing and there is increasingly less room for less skilled, less educated workers. A relatively high unemployment rate is going to be the norm going forward, imo.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ZO7XOpwa8[/youtube]

Vidav wrote:I do.

Yeah. Because of all the people that get fired from their jobs waiting at the damn DMV due to incompetence, frees up jobs for others.

hope that made sense

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:An ordinary middle class consumer is far more of a job creator....nice theory, but that "consumer" can't "consume" anything if the rich person doesn't create the company/product in the first place because of the disincentives caused by higher taxes.

It's a symbiotic relationship. You really think the author is going to go all John Galt and say 'fuck it' if he has to pay more than 11 percent on an 8 figure income?

Where did you get the 11% figure?

kalm wrote:Chizzy posted a YouTube clip of this "producer" earlier. Always good for you conks to be reminded how the economy actually works. You're welcome for the refresher.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/201 ... nauer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks

Who knew we could tax ourselves into prosperity?
I might have to reevaluate the Donk philosophy that more people on food stamps actually grows the economy.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:Chizzy posted a YouTube clip of this "producer" earlier. Always good for you conks to be reminded how the economy actually works. You're welcome for the refresher.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/201 ... nauer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks

Who knew we could tax ourselves into prosperity?
I might have to reevaluate the Donk philosophy that more people on food stamps actually grows the economy.

Ummm...that's kind of his point. Who has benefited while food stamp usage has increased?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
It's a symbiotic relationship. You really think the author is going to go all John Galt and say 'fuck it' if he has to pay more than 11 percent on an 8 figure income?

Where did you get the 11% figure?

From the article, which you obviously didn't read more than a paragraph of.

I respect him for being successful but I think he's wrong. The people who start and own the businesses such that they need someone to work for them create the jobs. Consumers don't create jobs in an absolute sense.

Yes, you need consumers who can buy products. But in many cases the demand for the products they buy was created by the fact that somebody started a business to provide the product and people decided they want it.

Like I am typing at a privately owned computer right now. An Apple that belongs to my wife. At some point someone introduced this kind of product to the market. And the demand they created resulted in the need to hire people. They created the jobs, not the consumer. The consumer would never have even known he or she was missing anything if this type of product had not been created.

Yes it's true that there is "feedback" such that there needs to be enough consumers with enough money to buy the product. But that doesn't mean the consumers are creating the jobs. And there is no indication that there is any problem with not having enough people with enough money to buy products.

Nice try by the guy but it's a fail.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Where did you get the 11% figure?

From the article, which you obviously didn't read more than a paragraph of.

Nope. I stopped reading after that ridiculous position.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Thanks

Who knew we could tax ourselves into prosperity?
I might have to reevaluate the Donk philosophy that more people on food stamps actually grows the economy.

Ummm...that's kind of his point. Who has benefited while food stamp usage has increased?

Ummm...nobody.
What? You think those people weren't going to eat?
The same money was spent on food. The only difference is who paid for it and how.
The difference is the person being fed didn't pay for that food out of their own personal income. It was paid for by someone elses seized income.

It's not really that hard to understand.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Ummm...that's kind of his point. Who has benefited while food stamp usage has increased?

Ummm...nobody.
What? You think those people weren't going to eat?
The same money was spent on food. The only difference is who paid for it and how.
The difference is the person being fed didn't pay for that food out of their own personal income. It was paid for by someone elses seized income.

It's not really that hard to understand.

And then the money they would have spent on food they get to spend on iPhones, iPads, and other non-essentials.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Baldy wrote: Ummm...nobody.
What? You think those people weren't going to eat?
The same money was spent on food. The only difference is who paid for it and how.
The difference is the person being fed didn't pay for that food out of their own personal income. It was paid for by someone elses seized income.

It's not really that hard to understand.

And then the money they would have spent on food they get to spend on iPhones, iPads, and other non-essentials.

But that's what drives the economy!

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Ummm...that's kind of his point. Who has benefited while food stamp usage has increased?

Ummm...nobody.
What? You think those people weren't going to eat?
The same money was spent on food. The only difference is who paid for it and how.
The difference is the person being fed didn't pay for that food out of their own personal income. It was paid for by someone elses seized income.

It's not really that hard to understand.

Well evidently you're having a tough time with it anyway.

Here, I'll help you out...

Corporate profits are at all time highs, taxes have remained historically low for the past 30 years, the VAST majority of wealth creation has gone to the top 10%, and food stamps are increasing.

Christ, we should have had zero unemployment and eliminated poverty by now....

JohnStOnge wrote:I respect him for being successful but I think he's wrong. The people who start and own the businesses such that they need someone to work for them create the jobs. Consumers don't create jobs in an absolute sense.

Yes, you need consumers who can buy products. But in many cases the demand for the products they buy was created by the fact that somebody started a business to provide the product and people decided they want it.

Like I am typing at a privately owned computer right now. An Apple that belongs to my wife. At some point someone introduced this kind of product to the market. And the demand they created resulted in the need to hire people. They created the jobs, not the consumer. The consumer would never have even known he or she was missing anything if this type of product had not been created.

Yes it's true that there is "feedback" such that there needs to be enough consumers with enough money to buy the product. But that doesn't mean the consumers are creating the jobs. And there is no indication that there is any problem with not having enough people with enough money to buy products.

Nice try by the guy but it's a fail.

Please see...people on food stamps (or for that matter who don't pay taxes) buying iPhones, flat screens, etc. Also see household debt prior to the bubble bursting.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Ummm...nobody.
What? You think those people weren't going to eat?
The same money was spent on food. The only difference is who paid for it and how.
The difference is the person being fed didn't pay for that food out of their own personal income. It was paid for by someone elses seized income.

It's not really that hard to understand.

Well evidently you're having a tough time with it anyway.

Here, I'll help you out...

Corporate profits are at all time highs, taxes have remained historically low for the past 30 years, the VAST majority of wealth creation has gone to the top 10%, and food stamps are increasing.

Christ, we should have had zero unemployment and eliminated poverty by now....

Yes, kalm. The root cause for all those things you listed above is the almost 70% increase in the number of people getting food stamps.

QE Infinity and Obama's stimulus has had nothing to do with it...at all.

Keep reaching. Your straw man needs a little more backbone.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well evidently you're having a tough time with it anyway.

Here, I'll help you out...

Corporate profits are at all time highs, taxes have remained historically low for the past 30 years, the VAST majority of wealth creation has gone to the top 10%, and food stamps are increasing.

Christ, we should have had zero unemployment and eliminated poverty by now....

Yes, kalm. The root cause for all those things you listed above is the almost 70% increase in the number of people getting food stamps.

QE Infinity and Obama's stimulus has had nothing to do with it...at all.

Keep reaching. Your straw man needs a little more backbone.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Ummm...nobody.
What? You think those people weren't going to eat?
The same money was spent on food. The only difference is who paid for it and how.
The difference is the person being fed didn't pay for that food out of their own personal income. It was paid for by someone elses seized income.

It's not really that hard to understand.

Well evidently you're having a tough time with it anyway.

Here, I'll help you out...

Corporate profits are at all time highs, taxes have remained historically low for the past 30 years, the VAST majority of wealth creation has gone to the top 10%, and food stamps are increasing.

Christ, we should have had zero unemployment and eliminated poverty by now....

Considering that government has spent over $15 trillion since 1965 on the war on poverty you'd think this would be true.....

HI54UNI wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well evidently you're having a tough time with it anyway.

Here, I'll help you out...

Corporate profits are at all time highs, taxes have remained historically low for the past 30 years, the VAST majority of wealth creation has gone to the top 10%, and food stamps are increasing.

Christ, we should have had zero unemployment and eliminated poverty by now....

Considering that government has spent over $15 trillion since 1965 on the war on poverty you'd think this would be true.....

Shoulda spent $16, $17, $18 trillion or more.

HI54UNI wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well evidently you're having a tough time with it anyway.

Here, I'll help you out...

Corporate profits are at all time highs, taxes have remained historically low for the past 30 years, the VAST majority of wealth creation has gone to the top 10%, and food stamps are increasing.

Christ, we should have had zero unemployment and eliminated poverty by now....

Considering that government has spent over $15 trillion since 1965 on the war on poverty you'd think this would be true.....

Well as conks like to point out, we do have the richest poor in the world.

Here's a very balanced article on the topic which we probably both agree on:

The War on Poverty’s success at strengthening the social safety net — a boon in the Great Recession — should not obscure its failure as an engine of self-improvement. Government is fairly good at handing out money; it’s less good at changing behavior. The two roles intersect. If the safety net is too generous, it will weaken work incentives. If it’s too stingy, it will condone suffering. This tale of two wars has left the fight against poverty in a costly and unsatisfying stalemate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;