Could The GOP get Teddys Seat???

[YoUDeeMan]

BDKJMU answered my post about our corporate tax revenues with the often cited statistic that are rates are the 2nd highest in the world. What's actually collected from corporations (tax revenues), if memory serves, is substantially down the list. IE: we have higher rates, but more loopholes.

And our tax rates should be higher, we have a high standard of living, solid infrastructure, a large military, advanced public eductation system, and access to abundant resources.

So excuse me if I don't feel all that sorry for the many immensley successful corporations that have suffered under the yoke of the repressive and punitive corporate U.S. tax system. It's the price your company should pay for being allowed to exist in the best country on earth.

But if companies still want to move their operations to Bangladesh to save a buck, our answer should be don't let the door hit you in the ass, and expect a heavy tariff when you want to return your finished product back to the U.S. You are replaceable by (as Cid1990 points out) less greedy corporations. If the product is neccessary that void will be filled.

Ingrates.

You must be a professor because you live in a world of theories that conflict with reality. Please provide a link, not to your memory chip, the supports your version of the tax impact on American companies.

And please provide a link to support your idea that taxes must be higher to have a higher standard of living, solid infrastructure, etc.

And if companies should pay to exist in the best country on Earth, than why shouldn't people pay more to exist, or get healthcare, or get schooling, etc. in the best country on Earth? And why should we let anyone in without paying?

Of course, you are probably posting this from your American made computer while lounging around in your American made clothes that you bought at WalMart. Then again, you must think that posting on a web site is "necessary", just as some people think a new big screen TV or a pair of $150 shoes is more "necessary" than investing in their future or taking care of their kids.

[YoUDeeMan]

But I'll continue to side with Adam Smith and Abraham Lincoln who both recognized that labor precedes capital, not the other way around. High end earners don't create jobs, demand creates jobs.

Gosh, you'd think that the people in Haiti (before the quake) and every third world back-azzed country, have a high demand for food and materials. So, just where are the jobs in those countries?

kalm ducks the question.

[kalm]

You must be a professor because you live in a world of theories that conflict with reality. Please provide a link, not to your memory chip, the supports your version of the tax impact on American companies.

http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/eco ... ing-22463/

And please provide a link to support your idea that taxes must be higher to have a higher standard of living, solid infrastructure, etc.

Perhaps you'd rather live in the countries with the lowest tax rates, but not me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... age_of_GDP

And if companies should pay to exist in the best country on Earth, than why shouldn't people pay more to exist, or get healthcare, or get schooling, etc. in the best country on Earth? And why should we let anyone in without paying?

I pay relatively high taxes, and I don't mind paying more because there's an upside. I believe Warren Buffet said as much a couple of years back when he pointed out that he was taxed at a higher rate than his secretary.

I don't think people or corporations neccessarily need to pay more, they simply need to pay what's neccessary to sustain economic health, a high standard of living, and a vibrant middle class. I indicated earlier in the thread that while productivity has increased, corporate tax revenues and taxes on the most wealthy have fallen dramatically over the past few decades and wages have remained stagnant, pensions are no longer guaranteed, and healthcare and education costs have skyrocketed. That represents a widening wealth gap, a redistribution upward. That's not healthy.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes said "taxes are the price we pay for civilization"

Of

course, you are probably posting this from your American made computer while lounging around in your American made clothes that you bought at WalMart. Then again, you must think that posting on a web site is "necessary", just as some people think a new big screen TV or a pair of $150 shoes is more "necessary" than investing in their future or taking care of their kids.

Are you implying that as a whole, the US is economically better off now that these things are manufactured elsewhere?

Like I said,

Ingrates.

[kalm]

Gosh, you'd think that the people in Haiti (before the quake) and every third world back-azzed country, have a high demand for food and materials. So, just where are the jobs in those countries?

kalm ducks the question.

Well it's kind of a loaded question, but my smarmy response would be they left on the boats shipping away their natural resources to countries with a manufacturing based infrastructure. But don't worry, they're on their way back in the form of sweatshops.

[kalm]

BTW in response to your "theories" remark. I'll take the higher tax rates of the 1940's-1960's that helped produce the larges economic expansion and growth of the middle class in the history of the world versus your neo-liberal theories of low taxes and deregulation.

Still waiting for Reaganomics to provide sustained growth.

[UNI88]

BTW in response to your "theories" remark. I'll take the higher tax rates of the 1940's-1960's that helped produce the larges economic expansion and growth of the middle class in the history of the world versus your neo-liberal theories of low taxes and deregulation.

Still waiting for Reaganomics to provide sustained growth.

There were a lot of factors that might have contributed to that expansion: pent-up demand following the great depression and WWII, the GI Bill giving thousands of servicemen a college education who otherwise wouldn't have gotten one, experiences overseas expanding the perspective of the servicemen, etc. I'm not sure you could make a definitive connection between the tax rates and the expansion. In fact, a convincing argument could probably be made that the tax rates actually inhibited the expansion rather than helping produce it.

We live in interesting times and only history will tell whether that expansion and the middle class that it produced were a change in the economic structure or merely an aberration.

One problem I see with your arguments is that you can't just bid companies that move offshore to avoid taxes adios and then slap tariffs on them. Tariffs bring retaliation from the other country and the WTO. The world is an interconnected place and the U.S. cannot simply wall itself off and maintain its standard of living in a vacuum. We need to figure out how to compete in today's world rather than trying to turn back the clock to the 1950's with taxes, tariffs, etc. That will just put us behind the rest of the world when it comes to competing in the global economy.

[YoUDeeMan]

kalm ducks the question.

Well it's kind of a loaded question, but my smarmy response would be they left on the boats shipping away their natural resources to countries with a manufacturing based infrastructure. But don't worry, they're on their way back in the form of sweatshops.

Got cha'. If it ducks like a duck...

Of course it is a loaded question. Reality is loaded with a lot of interesting facts that often throw off the most determined pontificator of dreamland fantasies.

I can continue to factually list countries/counties/states/cities/areas all over the Earth (in today's world and throughout history) with a whole lot of available demand for all sorts of items and necessities...and lots of available labor, but no jobs.

It's OK, you can admit that you were wrong. Labor is just another commodity...it takes capital (yes, wealthy, motivated folks, you know, Pharaohs, tribal chiefs, etc.) to really get an economy moving. In fact, wealth, in the form of advertising, can create demand, and jobs, from nowhere...who knew we needed a pet rock or the latest gizmo on late night TV?

[YoUDeeMan]

BTW in response to your "theories" remark. I'll take the higher tax rates of the 1940's-1960's that helped produce the larges economic expansion and growth of the middle class in the history of the world versus your neo-liberal theories of low taxes and deregulation.

Living in a vacuum? Or do you think that US corporations were operating in a vacuum?

Where did that growth come from? Where did the money come from? Where did the resources and markets come from (hint, you might want to ask a bunch of the third world countries - hey, like Haiti...God, I love when discussions come full circle...how they fared)?

Don't look now, but that slap on the back of your head might mean that you are waking up to reality. Do you hear the grasshopper at your feet?

[HI54UNI]

BTW in response to your "theories" remark. I'll take the higher tax rates of the 1940's-1960's that helped produce the larges economic expansion and growth of the middle class in the history of the world versus your neo-liberal theories of low taxes and deregulation.

Still waiting for Reaganomics to provide sustained growth.

The high tax rates in the 1940s-60s had nothing to do with the economic expansion. Built up demand caused by lack of items during WWII was the reason.

[kalm]

Well it's kind of a loaded question, but my smarmy response would be they left on the boats shipping away their natural resources to countries with a manufacturing based infrastructure. But don't worry, they're on their way back in the form of sweatshops.

Got cha'. If it ducks like a duck...

Of course it is a loaded question. Reality is loaded with a lot of interesting facts that often throw off the most determined pontificator of dreamland fantasies.

I can continue to factually list countries/counties/states/cities/areas all over the Earth (in today's world and throughout history) with a whole lot of available demand for all sorts of items and necessities...and lots of available labor, but no jobs.

It's OK, you can admit that you were wrong. Labor is just another commodity...it takes capital (yes, wealthy, motivated folks, you know, Pharaohs, tribal chiefs, etc.) to really get an economy moving. In fact, wealth, in the form of advertising, can create demand, and jobs, from nowhere...who knew we needed a pet rock or the latest gizmo on late night TV?

Are you insinuating high unemployment during the time of the Pharoahs? How did they build the pyramids? And where did the Pharaohs get their wealth to begin with?

[kalm]

BTW in response to your "theories" remark. I'll take the higher tax rates of the 1940's-1960's that helped produce the larges economic expansion and growth of the middle class in the history of the world versus your neo-liberal theories of low taxes and deregulation.

Still waiting for Reaganomics to provide sustained growth.

There were a lot of factors that might have contributed to that expansion: pent-up demand following the great depression and WWII, the GI Bill giving thousands of servicemen a college education who otherwise wouldn't have gotten one, experiences overseas expanding the perspective of the servicemen, etc. I'm not sure you could make a definitive connection between the tax rates and the expansion. In fact, a convincing argument could probably be made that the tax rates actually inhibited the expansion rather than helping produce it.

We live in interesting times and only history will tell whether that expansion and the middle class that it produced were a change in the economic structure or merely an aberration.

One problem I see with your arguments is that you can't just bid companies that move offshore to avoid taxes adios and then slap tariffs on them. Tariffs bring retaliation from the other country and the WTO. The world is an interconnected place and the U.S. cannot simply wall itself off and maintain its standard of living in a vacuum. We need to figure out how to compete in today's world rather than trying to turn back the clock to the 1950's with taxes, tariffs, etc. That will just put us behind the rest of the world when it comes to competing in the global economy.

Good points, and I'll remind that I said "helped". Taxes payed for the military build up during the war and the resulting increased manufacturing capacity post-war. They also helped pay for the GI bill and for that matter the federal interstate highway system. There were over 1000 inventions created by NASA scientists as a result of lunar exploration that private companies turned into useful everyday products.

All of this government spending stimulated private sector growth. Imagine the auto and petroleum industries without the help of publicly funded roads. That's a huge subsidy that paid off.

And I'll admit to hyperbole regarding trade. But I think we've given away far too much to multinationals and I believe that other countries, such as China and Germany are doing more to protect their domestic industries than we are. A little protectionism wouldn't hurt and I think the WTO and NAFTA were huge mistakes. Ross Perot was right.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just a capitalist that happens to recognize that we have a mixed economy that has proven successful when the right balances are struck.

[YoUDeeMan]

Are you insinuating high unemployment during the time of the Pharoahs? How did they build the pyramids? And where did the Pharaohs get their wealth to begin with?

You have a hard time reading and comprehending complex sentences and paragraphs, don't you?

I'm insinuating that wealth gets concentrated and that concentration allows for the expansion of trade and the development of societies at an exponential rate versus an arithmetic rate.

Now that I've dealt with your attempt at distraction, please do your homework and answer that part of why there is so much demand in the world and still so few jobs. Extra credit if you can juggle your answer and integrate the part where money can create demand and jobs where there was none in the first place.

[YoUDeeMan]

And I'll admit to hyperbole regarding trade. But I think we've given away far too much to multinationals and I believe that other countries, such as China and Germany are doing more to protect their domestic industries than we are. A little protectionism wouldn't hurt and I think the WTO and NAFTA were huge mistakes. Ross Perot was right.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just a capitalist that happens to recognize that we have a mixed economy that has proven successful when the right balances are struck.

Ahhhh....so there is some hope for you.

[kalm]

Are you insinuating high unemployment during the time of the Pharoahs? How did they build the pyramids? And where did the Pharaohs get their wealth to begin with?

You have a hard time reading and comprehending complex sentences and paragraphs, don't you?

I'm insinuating that wealth gets concentrated and that concentration allows for the expansion of trade and the development of societies at an exponential rate versus an arithmetic rate.

Now that I've dealt with your attempt at distraction, please do your homework and answer that part of why there is so much demand in the world and still so few jobs. Extra credit if you can juggle your answer and integrate the part where money can create demand and jobs where there was none in the first place.

And wealth is created by labor. And consolidation of power gets loosened when wealth gets distributed, and then democracies form!

Haiti's tax rates are among the lowest on earth - right down there with Yemen, the Sudan, and Somalia. And government regulations are almost non-existent. A virtual small government, low tax, free market paradise!

So, genius, you tell me where the jobs are?

[UNI88]

Good points, and I'll remind that I said "helped". Taxes payed for the military build up during the war and the resulting increased manufacturing capacity post-war. They also helped pay for the GI bill and for that matter the federal interstate highway system. There were over 1000 inventions created by NASA scientists as a result of lunar exploration that private companies turned into useful everyday products.

All of this government spending stimulated private sector growth. Imagine the auto and petroleum industries without the help of publicly funded roads. That's a huge subsidy that paid off.

True about the military, GI Bill, interstate system, etc. That is one of the things that was so disappointing about the Stimulus package. Rather than taking a similar course and investing in infrastructure and research that would have long-term positive impact on the American economy, Congress chose to invest in pork projects that benefited their friends & supporters. They they had the audicity to bring up the possibility of needing a second stimulus package to do what the first package should have done. Washington is filled with a bunch of short-sighted reactionaries who don't have the courage or the ability to truly lead this country.

And I'll admit to hyperbole regarding trade. But I think we've given away far too much to multinationals and I believe that other countries, such as China and Germany are doing more to protect their domestic industries than we are. A little protectionism wouldn't hurt and I think the WTO and NAFTA were huge mistakes. Ross Perot was right.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just a capitalist that happens to recognize that we have a mixed economy that has proven successful when the right balances are struck.

I'm a capitalist as well but I don't think protectionism is the way to go. We need to invest in education, research, etc. so that our citizens are trained and ready to work in high-value, high-paying jobs.

Some jobs aren't meant (i.e. they don't provide enough value) to provide the worker with a living wage. Those jobs should be done overseas, by a teenager living at home or by someone in a two-income family. Why should a job on an assembly line that has been largely automated be worth $30+/hour with great benefits? Paying someone to do that or a similar job $30+/hour puts the company at a competitive disadvantage. People who need a living wage shouldn't be working those kinds of jobs, they should be going back to school to learn a skill/specialty that can help them earn what they need to survive and prosper. I have no problem with the government helping people with the cost of education/re-education, child-care, etc. but I do have a problem with the government trying to hold onto jobs that have become high-paying, low value.

[Appaholic]

True about the military, GI Bill, interstate system, etc. That is one of the things that was so disappointing about the Stimulus package. Rather than taking a similar course and investing in infrastructure and research that would have long-term positive impact on the American economy, Congress chose to invest in pork projects that benefited their friends & supporters. They they had the audicity to bring up the possibility of needing a second stimulus package to do what the first package should have done. Washington is filled with a bunch of short-sighted reactionaries who don't have the courage or the ability to truly lead this country.

Well put '88...

I'm a capitalist as well but I don't think protectionism is the way to go. We need to invest in education, research, etc. so that our citizens are trained and ready to work in high-value, high-paying jobs.

Seriously though, don't we spend enough on education? Perhaps we should demand better results from the money currently being spent....

Some jobs aren't meant (i.e. they don't provide enough value) to provide the worker with a living wage. Those jobs should be done overseas, by a teenager living at home or by someone in a two-income family. Why should a job on an assembly line that has been largely automated be worth $30+/hour with great benefits? Paying someone to do that or a similar job $30+/hour puts the company at a competitive disadvantage. People who need a living wage shouldn't be working those kinds of jobs, they should be going back to school to learn a skill/specialty that can help them earn what they need to survive and prosper. I have no problem with the government helping people with the cost of education/re-education, child-care, etc. but I do have a problem with the government trying to hold onto jobs that have become high-paying, low value.

Big topic in our area. Wanting the city to mandate a living wage. Most small business owners downtown are progressives as well, yet, for some reason, they're not paying a living wage to their current employees....go figure...why pay someone $15.00/hr to empty trash cans...I'll do it myself.....

[UNI88]

I'm a capitalist as well but I don't think protectionism is the way to go. We need to invest in education, research, etc. so that our citizens are trained and ready to work in high-value, high-paying jobs.

Seriously though, don't we spend enough on education? Perhaps we should demand better results from the money currently being spent....

Fair question - I don't think it's about spending more on education but spending smarter. Invidually, I think most teachers are really trying to teach their students but they have been betrayed by their unions and the government who are more interested in protecting jobs and the status quo than in actually educating kids. I also agree with the Colonel that we need to give the states more leeway (not less) to improve education. Those that are good at it will have a better workforce, attract more companies and thus attract more residents. Those that aren't will need to emulate those that are or lose tax revenue.

We should also take a look at other expenditures and determine whether spending on education might be a better investment. The auto bailout is a good example. Rather than propping up GM & Chrsyler and saving UAW jobs, would the country have been better served in the long-run by providing education, childcare, etc. to retrain the workers for higher value jobs?

Some jobs aren't meant (i.e. they don't provide enough value) to provide the worker with a living wage. Those jobs should be done overseas, by a teenager living at home or by someone in a two-income family. Why should a job on an assembly line that has been largely automated be worth $30+/hour with great benefits? Paying someone to do that or a similar job $30+/hour puts the company at a competitive disadvantage. People who need a living wage shouldn't be working those kinds of jobs, they should be going back to school to learn a skill/specialty that can help them earn what they need to survive and prosper. I have no problem with the government helping people with the cost of education/re-education, child-care, etc. but I do have a problem with the government trying to hold onto jobs that have become high-paying, low value.

Big topic in our area. Wanting the city to mandate a living wage. Most small business owners downtown are progressives as well, yet, for some reason, they're not paying a living wage to their current employees....go figure...why pay someone $15.00/hr to empty trash cans...I'll do it myself.....

I don't understand where this notion that every person is entitled to make a living wage on every job came from? In the long-run, it's economic suicide for this country.

[Appaholic]

Seriously though, don't we spend enough on education? Perhaps we should demand better results from the money currently being spent....

Fair question - I don't think it's about spending more on education but spending smarter. Invidually, I think most teachers are really trying to teach their students but they have been betrayed by their unions and the government who are more interested in protecting jobs and the status quo than in actually educating kids. I also agree with the Colonel that we need to give the states more leeway (not less) to improve education. Those that are good at it will have a better workforce, attract more companies and thus attract more residents. Those that aren't will need to emulate those that are or lose tax revenue.

We should also take a look at other expenditures and determine whether spending on education might be a better investment. The auto bailout is a good example. Rather than propping up GM & Chrsyler and saving UAW jobs, would the country have been better served in the long-run by providing education, childcare, etc. to retrain the workers for higher value jobs?

Big topic in our area. Wanting the city to mandate a living wage. Most small business owners downtown are progressives as well, yet, for some reason, they're not paying a living wage to their current employees....go figure...why pay someone $15.00/hr to empty trash cans...I'll do it myself.....

I don't understand where this notion that every person is entitled to make a living wage on every job came from? In the long-run, it's economic suicide for this country.

Agree on all points....good analysis...

[YoUDeeMan]

And wealth is created by labor. And consolidation of power gets loosened when wealth gets distributed, and then democracies form!

Haiti's tax rates are among the lowest on earth - right down there with Yemen, the Sudan, and Somalia. And government regulations are almost non-existent. A virtual small government, low tax, free market paradise!

So, genius, you tell me where the jobs are?

Surprise.

You post that demand creates jobs...not wealthy people. Then, when I provide several of what must be a zillion examples of how your equation is short sighted and incomplete and ask you to explain why your theory doesn't work in the real world, you turn it around and blather on about a few back road low tax rate countries?

Oh, and you called me a Republican in another post...funny stuff there. Do you give out little prizes at carnivals when you guess people's weight incorrectly?

Nice dodge. Next you'll tell everyone that the dog must have eaten your homework.

[kalm]

And wealth is created by labor. And consolidation of power gets loosened when wealth gets distributed, and then democracies form!

Haiti's tax rates are among the lowest on earth - right down there with Yemen, the Sudan, and Somalia. And government regulations are almost non-existent. A virtual small government, low tax, free market paradise!

So, genius, you tell me where the jobs are?

Surprise.

You post that demand creates jobs...not wealthy people. Then, when I provide several of what must be a zillion examples of how your equation is short sighted and incomplete and ask you to explain why your theory doesn't work in the real world, you turn it around and blather on about a few back road low tax rate countries?

Oh, and you called me a Republican in another post...funny stuff there. Do you give out little prizes at carnivals when you guess people's weight incorrectly?

Nice dodge. Next you'll tell everyone that the dog must have eaten your homework.

Listen Cluck, I admire your persistence and recognize that you've fallen in love with what you perceive as the "gotcha" example that disproves my previous comment that, btw was in passing, about labour preceding capital.

So I'll repeat the point without paraphrasing this time:

"Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased."

Adam Smith

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

These are big picture, macro economics concepts which I realize have gone over your head, so please spare me the "rich guy had some money that started a company that employed some people who produced a product" argument.

I get it.

If you disagree with these notions, take it up with Abe and Adam.

And if you want to start a thread about the consolidation of weatlh and power, by all means...

[kalm]

Seriously though, don't we spend enough on education? Perhaps we should demand better results from the money currently being spent....

Fair question - I don't think it's about spending more on education but spending smarter. Invidually, I think most teachers are really trying to teach their students but they have been betrayed by their unions and the government who are more interested in protecting jobs and the status quo than in actually educating kids. I also agree with the Colonel that we need to give the states more leeway (not less) to improve education. Those that are good at it will have a better workforce, attract more companies and thus attract more residents. Those that aren't will need to emulate those that are or lose tax revenue.

We should also take a look at other expenditures and determine whether spending on education might be a better investment. The auto bailout is a good example. Rather than propping up GM & Chrsyler and saving UAW jobs, would the country have been better served in the long-run by providing education, childcare, etc. to retrain the workers for higher value jobs?

Big topic in our area. Wanting the city to mandate a living wage. Most small business owners downtown are progressives as well, yet, for some reason, they're not paying a living wage to their current employees....go figure...why pay someone $15.00/hr to empty trash cans...I'll do it myself.....

I don't understand where this notion that every person is entitled to make a living wage on every job came from? In the long-run, it's economic suicide for this country.

The theory is that if wages equal demand, a wage increase will create an increase in demand. Of course the price of everything would go up, but prices would still lag behind income and sales. The workers would have more to spend, the shop owners would move more product etc.

Like I said, a theory, and as a business owner who employs some min. wage workers, I'm skeptical, and agree with the notion that the world needs ditch diggers too.

[AZGrizFan]

The theory is that if wages equal demand, a wage increase will create an increase in demand. Of course the price of everything would go up, but prices would still lag behind income and sales. The workers would have more to spend, the shop owners would move more product etc.

Like I said, a theory, and as a business owner who employs some min. wage workers, I'm skeptical, and agree with the notion that the world needs ditch diggers too.

That sounds like some bullshit theory you learned in your Freshman Econ class.

You know, the one where the professor (actually just a lazy grad student who didn't/couldn't find a REAL job) says "imagine there's a country, and it produces only ONE product. Now, imagine there's only ONE country, and it CONSUMES only one product. It consumes exactly the number that Country A produces. Now, imagine that Country A cuts production by 25%. What happens to the value of each product produced?

[YoUDeeMan]

Listen Cluck, I admire your persistence and recognize that you've fallen in love with what you perceive as the "gotcha" example that disproves my previous comment that, btw was in passing, about labour preceding capital.

So I'll repeat the point without paraphrasing this time:

"Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased."

Adam Smith

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

These are big picture, macro economics concepts which I realize have gone over your head, so please spare me the "rich guy had some money that started a company that employed some people who produced a product" argument.

I get it.

If you disagree with these notions, take it up with Abe and Adam.

And if you want to start a thread about the consolidation of weatlh and power, by all means...

Let me refresh your memory...below is your comment:

"But I'll continue to side with Adam Smith and Abraham Lincoln who both recognized that labor precedes capital, not the other way around. High end earners don't create jobs, demand creates jobs."

Of course labor came before profits...duh. You have to pick an apple before you eat it. But your second sentance doesn't get excused. You are stuck, as AZ noted, in Econ 101...and you are asking me to argue with dead people.

Let me bring you into the 21st century, my idealistic puppy. Money rules.

After the first person decided to use a little more effort (his labor) to pick a few extra apples, he gave them to others and discovered that most people were grateful for his efforts and they would work hard and exchange things (extra food they worked harder for, sex - there was always sex for the best providers, etc.) for the fruits of his labor. Of course, there were some lazy folks who demanded that the person who worked hard had an obligation to provide for them, but they didn't call themselves Democrats until much later. Still, there was only so much that a single person could do to expand the "economy". Arithmetic growth, you know.

However, these days money, HIGH END EARNERS, gets things rolling. Demand certainly doesn't always create jobs and demand certainly goes unrecognized unless there is money to be made.

Hey, since you think Haiti was a little too specific a "gotcha" to destroy your "demand creates jobs" theory that you hold to so dearly, how about this: the United Nations estimates 850 million people go to bed hungry each night. Where are the jobs related to that HUGE demand?

Now, money certainly can create demand...and lots of it. Who the hell needs the latest, greatest, toy that will be tossed out before 3 months pass? Who needs orange juice each morning? No one. But marketing can create demand for those, and many other products. Marketing creates demand, and then demand can create jobs. Marketing comes from money. Money drives jobs.

You're welcome.

[kalm]

Listen Cluck, I admire your persistence and recognize that you've fallen in love with what you perceive as the "gotcha" example that disproves my previous comment that, btw was in passing, about labour preceding capital.

So I'll repeat the point without paraphrasing this time:

"Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased."

Adam Smith

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

These are big picture, macro economics concepts which I realize have gone over your head, so please spare me the "rich guy had some money that started a company that employed some people who produced a product" argument.

I get it.

If you disagree with these notions, take it up with Abe and Adam.

And if you want to start a thread about the consolidation of weatlh and power, by all means...

Let me refresh your memory...below is your comment:

"But I'll continue to side with Adam Smith and Abraham Lincoln who both recognized that labor precedes capital, not the other way around. High end earners don't create jobs, demand creates jobs."

Of course labor came before profits...duh. You have to pick an apple before you eat it. But your second sentance doesn't get excused. You are stuck, as AZ noted, in Econ 101...and you are asking me to argue with dead people.

Let me bring you into the 21st century, my idealistic puppy. Money rules.

After the first person decided to use a little more effort (his labor) to pick a few extra apples, he gave them to others and discovered that most people were grateful for his efforts and they would work hard and exchange things (extra food they worked harder for, sex - there was always sex for the best providers, etc.) for the fruits of his labor. Of course, there were some lazy folks who demanded that the person who worked hard had an obligation to provide for them, but they didn't call themselves Democrats until much later. Still, there was only so much that a single person could do to expand the "economy". Arithmetic growth, you know.

If you're going to regurgitate emails my right wing friends and relatives sent me 5 years ago, at least have the humility to not present them as an original thought or pretend they are anything resembling humor.

However, these days money, HIGH END EARNERS, gets things rolling. Demand certainly doesn't always create jobs and demand certainly goes unrecognized unless there is money to be made.

Hey, since you think Haiti was a little too specific a "gotcha" to destroy your "demand creates jobs" theory that you hold to so dearly, how about this: the United Nations estimates 850 million people go to bed hungry each night. Where are the jobs related to that HUGE demand?

You're correct that a capitalist would not provide food to the starving since their is no money to be made.

And here I was all along describing economics from an egalitarian point of view.

I thought you wanted to discuss economics from a modern standpoint?

Does this make you a neo-feudalist or a neo-colonialist?

Just for shits and giggles, what's your free market resolution to solving world hunger?

Now, money certainly can create demand...and lots of it. Who the hell needs the latest, greatest, toy that will be tossed out before 3 months pass? Who needs orange juice each morning? No one. But marketing can create demand for those, and many other products. Marketing creates demand, and then demand can create jobs. Marketing comes from money. Money drives jobs.

I'm not sure consumerism is the right basis for a healthy economy. Shit you don't need but want is just like capital, it's the gravy on top.

Here's an interesting piece for you from one of the 20th centuries leading economists on the role of marketing:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejourna ... 72743.html

[AZGrizFan]

I'm not sure consumerism is the right basis for a healthy economy. Shit you don't need but want is just like capital, it's the gravy on top.

Here's an interesting piece for you from one of the 20th centuries leading economists on the role of marketing:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejourna ... 72743.html

Well then we truly are fucked as a country, since consumerism has been the basis and backbone for the American Economy for about the last 50 years. Hell, it's why Bush sent out the "stimulus checks"....gotta get the consumers....consuming.