sangha
Senior Member
- Jun 1, 2010
- 5,997
- 179
- 48
Note the guy was not an economist.
He is a part of the "liberal media". WIngnuts hate the Lame Stream Media.....except when they dont
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Note the guy was not an economist.
Do the captains of industry create wealth?
No, they are but part of the creation of wealth.
Wealth starts when a human hand or mind creates something of value to mankind.
Wealth therefore trickles UP, not down.
Now as to the theory that if there is enough capital formation, capitalists will necessarily create jobs?
Well, let me ask my fellow CEOs here...if you have money to invest, but no market for you products, how many employees will YOU hire?
If you tell me the answer is greater than zero, I know that you are full of beans.
So the theory that if there are massive capital formations, that will neessarily mean more jobs will be created is flawed in theory AND obviously in fact, too.
Economies demand BALANCE between capital and labor.
When one or the other dominates, the economy is less than efficient.
Do the captains of industry create wealth?
No, they are but part of the creation of wealth.
Wealth starts when a human hand or mind creates something of value to mankind.
Wealth therefore trickles UP, not down.
Now as to the theory that if there is enough capital formation, capitalists will necessarily create jobs?
Well, let me ask my fellow CEOs here...if you have money to invest, but no market for you products, how many employees will YOU hire?
If you tell me the answer is greater than zero, I know that you are full of beans.
So the theory that if there are massive capital formations, that will neessarily mean more jobs will be created is flawed in theory AND obviously in fact, too.
Economies demand BALANCE between capital and labor.
When one or the other dominates, the economy is less than efficient.
You are correct, which is why I am investing and hiring to present products and services that do have a market. It's a pretty typical reaction to a recession, innovate out of necessity. There is a market right now for lower credit card processing fees and more efficient means to let people know of price cuts and values. I know of four companies currently expanding in those areas.
Many "computer" based media consumption is trending towards appliances and cell phones. I know of three companies (one of them brand new and tiny ) currently investing in that area.
As is that case in economic decline, old worn out models of inefficiency fold. Blockbuster's decline is not a signal that there is no demand for movies, it's a signal that people don't want to drive to a store and pay $5 to rent one. Netflix and RedBox are filling that gap. Both companies are expanding - one by building their interface into existing appliances (like TiVo and Wii) to rent movies by downloading them. RedBox is going a different direction by cutting prices way down and using kiosks instead of stores.
No manipulation by the government to "increase demand" and prop up outdated business models (like GM) necessary. Current efforts by the government to further regulate (not properly oversee, but regulate in a micromanaging fashion) are hampering the access to capital. The demand-side monetary policy isn't helping any either.
Do the captains of industry create wealth?
No, they are but part of the creation of wealth.
Wealth starts when a human hand or mind creates something of value to mankind.
Wealth therefore trickles UP, not down.
Now as to the theory that if there is enough capital formation, capitalists will necessarily create jobs?
Well, let me ask my fellow CEOs here...if you have money to invest, but no market for you products, how many employees will YOU hire?
If you tell me the answer is greater than zero, I know that you are full of beans.
So the theory that if there are massive capital formations, that will neessarily mean more jobs will be created is flawed in theory AND obviously in fact, too.
Economies demand BALANCE between capital and labor.
When one or the other dominates, the economy is less than efficient.
You are correct, which is why I am investing and hiring to present products and services that do have a market. It's a pretty typical reaction to a recession, innovate out of necessity. There is a market right now for lower credit card processing fees and more efficient means to let people know of price cuts and values. I know of four companies currently expanding in those areas.
Many "computer" based media consumption is trending towards appliances and cell phones. I know of three companies (one of them brand new and tiny ) currently investing in that area.
As is that case in economic decline, old worn out models of inefficiency fold. Blockbuster's decline is not a signal that there is no demand for movies, it's a signal that people don't want to drive to a store and pay $5 to rent one. Netflix and RedBox are filling that gap. Both companies are expanding - one by building their interface into existing appliances (like TiVo and Wii) to rent movies by downloading them. RedBox is going a different direction by cutting prices way down and using kiosks instead of stores.
No manipulation by the government to "increase demand" and prop up outdated business models (like GM) necessary. Current efforts by the government to further regulate (not properly oversee, but regulate in a micromanaging fashion) are hampering the access to capital. The demand-side monetary policy isn't helping any either.
In wingnut world, when the govt gave trillions to the banks in gaurantees, it hampered the access to capital
You are correct, which is why I am investing and hiring to present products and services that do have a market. It's a pretty typical reaction to a recession, innovate out of necessity. There is a market right now for lower credit card processing fees and more efficient means to let people know of price cuts and values. I know of four companies currently expanding in those areas.
Many "computer" based media consumption is trending towards appliances and cell phones. I know of three companies (one of them brand new and tiny ) currently investing in that area.
As is that case in economic decline, old worn out models of inefficiency fold. Blockbuster's decline is not a signal that there is no demand for movies, it's a signal that people don't want to drive to a store and pay $5 to rent one. Netflix and RedBox are filling that gap. Both companies are expanding - one by building their interface into existing appliances (like TiVo and Wii) to rent movies by downloading them. RedBox is going a different direction by cutting prices way down and using kiosks instead of stores.
No manipulation by the government to "increase demand" and prop up outdated business models (like GM) necessary. Current efforts by the government to further regulate (not properly oversee, but regulate in a micromanaging fashion) are hampering the access to capital. The demand-side monetary policy isn't helping any either.
In wingnut world, when the govt gave trillions to the banks in gaurantees, it hampered the access to capital
It did. It set rules by which new innovative startups are locked out of their models. Banks typically don't loan to startups. Which bank funded TiVo before it went public? Which bank still funds TiVo?
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-- Adam Smith; from Wealth of Nations
In wingnut world, when the govt gave trillions to the banks in gaurantees, it hampered the access to capital
It did. It set rules by which new innovative startups are locked out of their models. Banks typically don't loan to startups. Which bank funded TiVo before it went public? Which bank still funds TiVo?
Nonsense, which is why you speak only in generalities.
It did. It set rules by which new innovative startups are locked out of their models. Banks typically don't loan to startups. Which bank funded TiVo before it went public? Which bank still funds TiVo?
Nonsense, which is why you speak only in generalities.
You haven't been paying attention have you?
Here are some specifics:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/143548-we-should-be-at-7-5-unemployment.html
Nonsense, which is why you speak only in generalities.
You haven't been paying attention have you?
Here are some specifics:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/143548-we-should-be-at-7-5-unemployment.html
So you're citing yourself to support your argument
You haven't been paying attention have you?
Here are some specifics:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/143548-we-should-be-at-7-5-unemployment.html
So you're citing yourself to support your argument
No, you said I speak only in generalities and a cited a thread where I present specifics.