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.
Ah. There you go. I thought you would change your story. NFIB, not the National Federation of Small Business. A totally different organization. So, you assume I am a moron because I used the name you provided me?? And now you change the name of the organization??? Right.
So who is the NFIB?
NFIB Exposed: 'Voice Of Small Business' Is A Front, Group ChargesThe same group that exposed the previously little-known American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as a dominant force advancing corporate interests at the state level has now turned its sights on exposing the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).
NFIB is hardly operating in near-secrecy, like ALEC was. The organization, which describes itself as "the voice of small business," was the lead plaintiff in the ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, taking it to the Supreme Court.
The left-leaning Center for Media and Democracy has posted on NFIBexposed.org, its new website, a study that reveals how consistently the NFIB lobbies on issues that favor large corporate interests rather than small-business interests; its thoroughly partisan agenda; and the millions it receives in secret contributions from groups associated with Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers.
The NFIBexposed.org website, however, chronicles how 98 percent of NFIB's campaign contributions so far in the 2012 election cycle have gone to Republicans, and how 100 percent of its advertising budget supported either Republicans or opposed Democrats.
Wikipedia says: The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is a conservative lobbying organization
The expenditures of NFIB were as follows:
Independent Expenditures: $3,395,315
For Democrats: $3,018
Against Democrats: $1,171,075
For Republicans: $2,405,841
Against Republicans: $0
National Fedn of Independent Business: Summary | OpenSecrets
Great. All experts in research should use completely partisan sources for their information. But, of course, another real problem is that the survey does not list regulations as the primary concern for small business. their survey is a lot more subjective in it's issues.
And, where is the related study showing regulations cause economic downturns??? You know, the one you do not feel needs a link. Here is a news flash, flash. You really do need to provide a link. Though I am sure you will not, because you can not.
thought so. does not exist.
To which tania responds:Great. All experts in research should use completely partisan sources for their information. But, of course, another real problem is that the survey does not list regulations as the primary concern for small business. their survey is a lot more subjective in it's issues.
Who they have donated money to is really irrelevant to me or to the discussion at hand. Explain why they are wrong to suggest that Government Regulation is not a concern among it's members. Any other response will simply be ignored. I am not entertaining your fallacies.
Yup. OK. My mistake. (See, tania. that is how you admit a mistake) I was thinking of your graph from a prior post relative to this discussion. Where you were claiming findings by the non existent source you were trying to use. Same post. So, you were correlating manufacturing downturns to regulations. In your very own graph. Here it is:No where was it stated that Government Regulation causes economic downturns.
Should we believe AT, or those at the top of their field? Hmm, tough question.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/where-the-productivity-went/
Yup. OK. My mistake. (See, tania. that is how you admit a mistake) I was thinking of your graph from a prior post relative to this discussion. Where you were claiming findings by the non existent source you were trying to use. Same post. So, you were correlating manufacturing downturns to regulations. In your very own graph. Here it is:
View attachment 27390
So, if a research professional produces their own graph, they would provide access to the data. You did not. Just wondered where you got the data, because it seems to be entirely inaccurate. To me. Sorry you are so sensitive. But I, who gladly admits that my thing is not research, would have no problem providing a source. You seem to. Any professional who has not provided such information would. You do not. Why is that???
I really don't know what position you believe you are in to determine which data seems accurate and what doesn't if you yourself admits that research isn't your strong suit. My only responsibly when creating graphs are to cite wherever I collected the data from. Sometimes I forget to do this from time to time. It only means that I was rushing to produce the graphs. Regardless anyone can go to primary websites and see what the data says for themselves.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/MANEMP.txt
https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2013/05/FR-Pages-published.pdf
Terminologies matter when you are trying to discuss economies. Learning these terminologies helps gives a person a better understanding of data piece of data, and what it represents. No one can show me any piece of data right off the back. I'll be able to know if the data represents what it truly represents.
The problem is not my data. The problem are those who fail to understand the data.
So, you stand by your chart. Good for you. I am not at all surprised.Yup. OK. My mistake. (See, tania. that is how you admit a mistake) I was thinking of your graph from a prior post relative to this discussion. Where you were claiming findings by the non existent source you were trying to use. Same post. So, you were correlating manufacturing downturns to regulations. In your very own graph. Here it is:
View attachment 27390
So, if a research professional produces their own graph, they would provide access to the data. You did not. Just wondered where you got the data, because it seems to be entirely inaccurate. To me. Sorry you are so sensitive. But I, who gladly admits that my thing is not research, would have no problem providing a source. You seem to. Any professional who has not provided such information would. You do not. Why is that???
I really don't know what position you believe you are in to determine which data seems accurate and what doesn't if you yourself admits that research isn't your strong suit. My only responsibly when creating graphs are to cite wherever I collected the data from. Sometimes I forget to do this from time to time. It only means that I was rushing to produce the graphs. Regardless anyone can go to primary websites and see what the data says for themselves.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/MANEMP.txt
https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2013/05/FR-Pages-published.pdf
Terminologies matter when you are trying to discuss economies. Learning these terminologies helps gives a person a better understanding of data piece of data, and what it represents. No one can show me any piece of data right off the back. I'll be able to know if the data represents what it truly represents.
The problem is not my data. The problem are those who fail to understand the data.
Here is the thing, amazon. You can create charts. I can create charts. Or a whole number of others can create charts. The difference, me dear, is that simply because you say your data is valid is not convincing. If you come up with charts that show different outcomes than pretty much every im\partial source, then I do not have any reason to believe your outcomes. You see, when you post a result based on a fictitious organization, you really have lost all of your credibility. Shen you then change the name of your source to one with no credibility, one known as a hack organization with no credibility itself, you loose credibility. And when you post a result which is different than even that organization came up with, you loose credibility. Then you want to tell me that your data is valid, and that I should go check it out, you totally lack credibility. You post untruths, and get caught doing so, then have the unmitigated gaul to expect anyone to spend time looking at your data. Sorry, me dear, I do not have the time or interest to look at more of your data to determine if THIS TIME it is valid. Once you have lost credibility, it is gone.
So, here is the thing, amazon. And it is obvious to any rational person. You have an agenda that is so obvious that you show yourself to be a dishonest hack. Not a source of research that has any reason to be trusted. So, as I keep saying to you. If someone posted information from move on.org, and had no other source than that, I would wonder what was wrong with that individual. I would not bother. But you, me dear, posted information from a non existent source. An organization that did not exist in the real world. Then you changed the source, and suggested that I was ignorant for not finding the new source, as though you had always used the name of the new, and existing source. Very very dishonest, me dear.
And the results you attributed to that NEW source actually do not exist. So, what can I assume?? Really, it is obvious. You had an agenda. You posted fictitious data to support your agenda. And when caught, you attack the person who found the dishonesty. Nice.
You have the gall to suggest the following:
Which is what you would like to say I said. But what I said was:I really don't know what position you believe you are in to determine which data seems accurate and what doesn't if you yourself admits that research isn't your strong suit.I find research to be boring. I leave it to those with the resources to do it correctly. You know, the resources that you do not have. Really, me dear, putting words into someone's mouth is dishonest.But I, who gladly admits that my thing is not research
Then you produce a graph from sources of manufacturing workers, and numbers of documents in the National Register. Nice. So, is there a causative relationship??? You assume so, to prove what your agenda would like you to prove. Total nonsense. Total waste of everyone's time. Tacky, at a minimum. Dishonest, most likely.
So, you stand by your chart. Good for you. I am not at all surprised.
Here is the thing, amazon. You can create charts. I can create charts. Or a whole number of others can create charts. The difference, me dear, is that simply because you say your data is valid is not convincing. If you come up with charts that show different outcomes than pretty much every im\partial source, then I do not have any reason to believe your outcomes. You see, when you post a result based on a fictitious organization, you really have lost all of your credibility. Shen you then change the name of your source to one with no credibility, one known as a hack organization with no credibility itself, you loose credibility. And when you post a result which is different than even that organization came up with, you loose credibility. Then you want to tell me that your data is valid, and that I should go check it out, you totally lack credibility. You post untruths, and get caught doing so, then have the unmitigated gaul to expect anyone to spend time looking at your data. Sorry, me dear, I do not have the time or interest to look at more of your data to determine if THIS TIME it is valid. Once you have lost credibility, it is gone.
So, here is the thing, amazon. And it is obvious to any rational person. You have an agenda that is so obvious that you show yourself to be a dishonest hack. Not a source of research that has any reason to be trusted. So, as I keep saying to you. If someone posted information from move on.org, and had no other source than that, I would wonder what was wrong with that individual. I would not bother. But you, me dear, posted information from a non existent source. An organization that did not exist in the real world. Then you changed the source, and suggested that I was ignorant for not finding the new source, as though you had always used the name of the new, and existing source. Very very dishonest, me dear.
And the results you attributed to that NEW source actually do not exist. So, what can I assume?? Really, it is obvious. You had an agenda. You posted fictitious data to support your agenda. And when caught, you attack the person who found the dishonesty. Nice.
I find research to be boring. I leave it to those with the resources to do it correctly. You know, the resources that you do not have. Really, me dear, putting words into someone's mouth is dishonest.
Then you produce a graph from sources of manufacturing workers, and numbers of documents in the National Register. Nice. So, is there a causative relationship??? You assume so, to prove what your agenda would like you to prove. Total nonsense. Total waste of everyone's time. Tacky, at a minimum. Dishonest, most likely.
YOu know what all this increased prodiction is really leading us to?
The poor will have high def TV to watch while they freeze to death in their homes.
We need to rewrite the social contract, folks.
If we do not then reality will rewrite it in blood
YOu know what all this increased prodiction is really leading us to?
The poor will have high def TV to watch while they freeze to death in their homes.
We need to rewrite the social contract, folks.
If we do not then reality will rewrite it in blood
What exactly does lower income individuals poor ability to prioritise their financing have to do with the social contract?
YOu know what all this increased prodiction is really leading us to?
The poor will have high def TV to watch while they freeze to death in their homes.
We need to rewrite the social contract, folks.
If we do not then reality will rewrite it in blood
What exactly does lower income individuals’ poor ability to prioritise their financing have to do with the social contract?
Generally I am loathe to interrupt such an emotionally satisfying exchange of invective, but this is a great time to interject something I've been thinking about for a while. Just like abnormal psychology can explain some crime, but not our high rate of incarceration; I think that "structural" and sociological reasons for labor force phenomena like low wages and unemployment are not sufficient. Granted some people have "poor ability to prioritize their financing" and that this in given cases is a cause of poverty. But the large number of poor people, especially working poor, seems to me to suggest that the problem is more than individual behavior of the poor. And that DOES lead to a re-examination of the social contract.
When the unemployment rate hit 10.7% under Reagan, did we conclude that suddenly Americans had become lazy? Or that when the unemployment rate was cut in half that they suddenly had become virtuous? Of course not. Foreclosures are not the result of moral turpitude in most cases, but the result of extended unemployment. When people are confronted with losing their home and have been working and making payments for years, I find it difficult to believe that they are not doing everything possible to find a job. At least that's what I observe in the world I live in.
If you are trying to suggest that I believe the poor are only [impoverished] because of their own action that is not what I am getting at. Equally, I don't expect people to suggest that the poor are impoverished due to the action or inaction of others. Everyone has their own concept of what the good life is, and each individual is responsible for creating their own solutions to achieve their goals in life. Some people are better at this than others.
I don't see how the social contract applies here, unless someone is suggesting that we have the natural right to everything that makes us a more prosperous society.
Way too rational for this board, probably. But other than that, I agree completely. But I am going to duck. I see incoming.If you are trying to suggest that I believe the poor are only [impoverished] because of their own action that is not what I am getting at. Equally, I don't expect people to suggest that the poor are impoverished due to the action or inaction of others. Everyone has their own concept of what the good life is, and each individual is responsible for creating their own solutions to achieve their goals in life. Some people are better at this than others.
I think a good part of this is poor communication, so let me try it again. Differing values, skills, and discipline go a long way in accounting for individual success or failure. In this sense they explain the composition of people with low incomes. What they are not good at is explaining is the overall level of poverty or changes in rates of employment or poverty.
Now where I think that we really differ is explaining the longitudinal changes and the remedies looking forward.
I don't see how the social contract applies here, unless someone is suggesting that we have the natural right to everything that makes us a more prosperous society.
I think I've stated elsewhere why I think the idea of a "social contract" is a bad idea, but I'll briefly hit the high points again. Contract law is not a good fit for the issues covered, and there is no real self-enforcement mechanism for a "social contract". Not everyone agreed when the contract was made and every group seems to have a little different understanding of what it meant. This makes the idea problematical.
IMHO a better framework is to recognize that most parts of society (98% or more of the population) will be better off in a stable society with a growing economy. While concepts like "fairness" can be a little too plastic, I think that certain goals like positive income growth for all quintiles of the population, can be used as a good proxy for what is needed for social stability. This doesn't imply that all five groups have to have the same growth rate (personally I would like to see convergence with lower quintiles having a faster growth rate) but it does entail that the top group not have a high growth rate while the lower groups have a declining or stagnant growth rate.
This type of framework has the advantage that it is readily measurable, we measure it now. Without getting into revolutionary claptrap from either right or left, I think there is a consensus that political and social stability improve when we have economic growth and the benefits of that growth are seen in all significant parts of society.
So we can all probably agree that a lot of people currently unemployed and poor would be better off if they could be usefully employed and earning incomes. And of course society would be better off if they were employed. Currently there are about five unemployed for every job listing, so that if every job were filled tomorrow there would still be a lot of unemployed. There are two explanations for the unemployment problem, and they imply radically different (but not mutually exclusive!) remedies. The first is the "structural" argument, that there will be enough jobs if we just had the right people to fill them. Education, job training, and a good dose of career counseling are the implied remedies. The second is that we have a shortfall in effective demand and when there is more demand from exports, investment, consumption, and even government; we will have more jobs. I really don't see why we don't do both. We can adjust the mix as work out of the slump.
I think I've stated elsewhere why I think the idea of a "social contract" is a bad idea, but I'll briefly hit the high points again. Contract law is not a good fit for the issues covered, and there is no real self-enforcement mechanism for a "social contract". Not everyone agreed when the contract was made and every group seems to have a little different understanding of what it meant. This makes the idea problematical.
IMHO a better framework is to recognize that most parts of society (98% or more of the population) will be better off in a stable society with a growing economy. While concepts like "fairness" can be a little too plastic, I think that certain goals like positive income growth for all quintiles of the population, can be used as a good proxy for what is needed for social stability. This doesn't imply that all five groups have to have the same growth rate (personally I would like to see convergence with lower quintiles having a faster growth rate) but it does entail that the top group not have a high growth rate while the lower groups have a declining or stagnant growth rate.
This type of framework has the advantage that it is readily measurable, we measure it now. Without getting into revolutionary claptrap from either right or left, I think there is a consensus that political and social stability improve when we have economic growth and the benefits of that growth are seen in all significant parts of society.
So we can all probably agree that a lot of people currently unemployed and poor would be better off if they could be usefully employed and earning incomes. And of course society would be better off if they were employed. Currently there are about five unemployed for every job listing, so that if every job were filled tomorrow there would still be a lot of unemployed. There are two explanations for the unemployment problem, and they imply radically different (but not mutually exclusive!) remedies. The first is the "structural" argument, that there will be enough jobs if we just had the right people to fill them. Education, job training, and a good dose of career counseling are the implied remedies. The second is that we have a shortfall in effective demand and when there is more demand from exports, investment, consumption, and even government; we will have more jobs. I really don't see why we don't do both. We can adjust the mix as work out of the slump.
I don't think there is a shortfall of effective demand.
In the Private Sector you have a couple of businesses missing the earnings thresholds but mostly sales are up. Effective demand has essentially become endless. We may have a shortfall of aggregate demand of which PCE has not recovered from pre-recession trends; however, comparing current trends with pre-recession trends involves comparing the current economy with a bubble economy. It's not an viable benchmark we should consider.
Unemployment today is often a mismatch between the skills young adults posses and the skills the market requires. Younger individuals already have less experience and training, but even with individuals with college degrees find that they do not possess the experience employers are looking for. Most young individuals already don't have an idea of which careers they want to pursue, as well as those who do not have the aptitude for any academia pursuits. It's counter-intuitive to consult and persuade these individuals into taking career paths which are best for them. You can go much further with the unemployment problem by eliminating legal barriers to entry. There is no reason why individuals should have a roadblock from merely trying something which makes their life better.
Social stability requires people having as much control over their own lives as possible. Everyone has their own conception of 'The Good Life.' It doesn't come in a 'One Size Fits All' template. We all value different things and pursue different ends. We have different ideas about how to make trade-offs and about the various opportunities & cost we face. Only when we can give everyone an extensive sphere of economic liberty can we give everyone the power to shape their own lives for themselves. It's more than just the ability to earn more or keep more of what you earn.
Rising inequality creates the conditions for the loss of economic freedoms, as well as political ones.
