Well now! Surprise surprise...

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KK tell me does the money EVAPORATE right after they spend it or does it CONTINUE to be spent OVER and OVER being taxed over and over. You just don't understand how simple it is!

You just don't understand that you don't create real wealth by taking from some and giving to others.

Wow do you get your talking points from bumper stickers, Palin, or straight from God?

I doubt Palin knows anything about economics, and if God were to speak to me I'd hope it would be something far more important than economics.

 

[MaggieMae]

i guy on my route gets a paper that deals in advertising,its what he is into.....it has a postal section in there....so i sneek a look at it when i see it....and it says that advertising through the mail is right now pretty lucrative,to the advertiser, compared to the other mediums....the DVR has put a big damper on TV ads.....the radio gets changed during commercials....and well newspapers,they are dying......but everyone has to look through their mail.....and believe it or not....MANY things catch peoples eyes and they will investigate...leading, according to this paper,SALES of the product advertised....the Tuesday food ads generate sales in the markets....if i dont have one for some of these people....they want to know why....

I get a ton of catalogs, browse through them, and if I find something I like go online and wait for FREE SHIPPING on the item. It's the only way to go.

I usually give my mail carrier at least a $10 tip at Christmas. She's a woman who goes out of her way to make sure packages get placed INSIDE our secure building and not left outside by the mailboxes. That's very important because packages left out in the open are an invitation for theft. This year I'm going to up it to $20 because she's a single mom with 3 kids and needs it more than I do this time of year. I have the utmost respect for mail carriers. I've always found them to be dedicated and friendly.

and i will tell ya this Maggs.....when tipped the carrier will go out of their way for those people....i saved one guy one year a 2500.00 fine from the IRS,he owned a lucrative mail order business,it had to do with the date on his return,there was a mistake of some kind with the date....i told him who to go see,he did, got it stamped properly,and he said i saved him 25 hundred bucks.....and i told him who to see to ship cheaper....he did said i saved him more money....never got a tip from this fucker....but yet a Mobile Home Park i delivered with old retired folks living day to day on their monthly cks...,they would give me at least 500 bucks every Christmas,20 here,10 there...just because i would stop and talk to them....i would try and give the money back saying you need this and they would not hear of it.....they would bake cookies and all kinds of things just for me.....i was moved by these people...picked up stamps for them,mailed packages....went out of my way for these people......

It's blowing, drifting snow mixed with sleet today and earlier I saw my mailgirl across the parking lot, still unsanded, and up the steps, still unsalted. She'll probaby finish two hours later than usual, but when she gets here she'll just laugh and say it comes with the job. I've only heard her complain once, and that was when someone drove into the concrete steps leading up to the main door and the management company never fixed them, deciding instead to block off that entrance and force everyone to use the wheelchair ramp all the way to the side of the building, a lot of extra steps for some, including her who is always loaded down with mail/packages for 10 residents.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Oh Ollie I know all about the VERY few things that are made in America, far fewer thab there were before and you really have to LOOK for them. Then comes the tough part.....If you to employ FELLOW AMERICANS you may have to pay MORE sometimes MUCH more.

I used to sell men's shoes.........Every now and then you would get an older guy in who wanted a shoe made in America.........Two choices Frye boots and some of our New Balance running shoes. Guy flips shoe over looks at price exclaims "I ain't paying $140.00 for a pair of shoes" tosses down in disgust and storms off. Just shows how much REAL Americans care about our manufacturing base. Often you can't find an American made product no MATTER the price. I think it really boils down to the deal with Levi's Jeans. Walmart would not carry their jeans and pay enough for Levi's to make ANY profit at all, because Walmart has such HUGE buying power Levi's could not loose that account so the ONLY option they had was to make their jeans OVERSEAS........Why? Not taxes they had dealt with taxes since they started making jeans what a HUNDRED years ago? Not regulations because there were not suddenly new regs that made it impossible to make a profit.........So what could it be? Maybe that a good manufacturing job in America pays $15-$20 an hour WITH good benifits and a job in China or Viet Nam or India pay .15 and hour with NO benefits?

The moral of the story is it is NOT tax burden it is PAY discrepency plain and simple. I perdict a time in the not to distant future where the vast majority of Americans will no longer be able to shop anywhere OTHER than Walmart. We MUST add manufacturing jobs and if that means giving them some tax breaks then FINE but those breaks should be tied DIRECTELY to making jobs in AMERICA but how it's been since the 80's is tax breaks and they SEND JOBS OVERSEAS!!! How fair are those types of tax breaks if they are NOT tied to jobs for AMERICANS? How fair is it to put the Corporate offices in the CAYMAN Islands to pay NO TAXES!?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You just don't understand that you don't create real wealth by taking from some and giving to others.

Wow do you get your talking points from bumper stickers, Palin, or straight from God?

I doubt Palin knows anything about economics, and if God were to speak to me I'd hope it would be something far more important than economics.

You know Kevin you DO have a bit of a sense of humor so you can't be ALL bad and you got a cool name,

Kevin (AKA Cold Fusion38)

 

[MaggieMae]

What are the "laws"?? Are you sure you don't mean "rules"??

By laws I mean facts that do not change. One law of economics is that governments do not create wealth. It's impossible to take capital from the productive sector of society, put it where you think it should go instead, and generate any kind of real wealth. Only the market can accurately decide where resources should go in any kind of rational manner. If the government decides that there needs to be a business that the market is not providing for on its own, and then uses taxpayer money to create that business then they're not creating wealth. That business would not survive on its own in the private market because there's not enough demand for it. The economy would be better off if that business was not wasting resources for a product or service that people do not want, and if the government was not taxing them to force this business upon them.

HACK ALERT!

dont come spitting your tijuana community college district hack-mode econ as fact. first off by 'laws' in this context they arent facts that cant change, but bases for theory/arguement - propositions. you may be the only person to have heard of your hokus pokus government wealth 'creation' 'law'.

ya dont have to be mr economist to say ya dont like the government to spend a dime, or whatever you feel is clever, but you should have to wear a clown suit for hacking it up like that.

Thanks. I think. Another "law" of economics that conservatives love to tout is supply-side economics. It didn't work for Reagan, and it didn't work for Bush 43. Real wages did not go up by cutting taxes to spur personal spending.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

By laws I mean facts that do not change. One law of economics is that governments do not create wealth. It's impossible to take capital from the productive sector of society, put it where you think it should go instead, and generate any kind of real wealth. Only the market can accurately decide where resources should go in any kind of rational manner. If the government decides that there needs to be a business that the market is not providing for on its own, and then uses taxpayer money to create that business then they're not creating wealth. That business would not survive on its own in the private market because there's not enough demand for it. The economy would be better off if that business was not wasting resources for a product or service that people do not want, and if the government was not taxing them to force this business upon them.

HACK ALERT!

dont come spitting your tijuana community college district hack-mode econ as fact. first off by 'laws' in this context they arent facts that cant change, but bases for theory/arguement - propositions. you may be the only person to have heard of your hokus pokus government wealth 'creation' 'law'.

ya dont have to be mr economist to say ya dont like the government to spend a dime, or whatever you feel is clever, but you should have to wear a clown suit for hacking it up like that.

Thanks. I think. Another "law" of economics that conservatives love to tout is supply-side economics. It didn't work for Reagan, and it didn't work for Bush 43. Real wages did not go up by cutting taxes to spur personal spending.

Not a conservative or supply-sider. Nice try.

 

[MaggieMae]

All at the expense of other jobs that would have been created by the private sector, which by the way is where real wealth is created. Public jobs are a drain on the economy, rather than a benefit.

Um HMM YEAH I guess all the "SERVICE SECTOR" jobs which are the only jobs we have ADDED since Reagan don't count? So let me spell it our.....Money spent on public works projects SUPPORT other jobs. The money isn't dolled out and then VAPORIZED it is SPENT at other places.....Like RETAIL, Restaurant, and countless other PRIVATE sector jobs. Maybe it means that the diner down the road from a Federal Interstate construction site increases their business to PRE-CRASH #s which means that the waitress who was holding down an EMPTY restaurant now has PATRONS to serve.....She takes her TIPS and buys her kids new clothes or a new TV.......Guess what RETAIL....(and I would say manufacturing jobs but we have none left in America)....jobs are increased. Then those retail workers may go out to dinner a bit more often.........



THIS IS THE FACT THAT YOU ALL WANT TO IGNORE!!!!

Here's a fact that you want to ignore:

Only the market can rationally allocate resources, not the government.

Your tunnel-vision is positively astounding. What part of the above scenarios can't you grasp?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Um HMM YEAH I guess all the "SERVICE SECTOR" jobs which are the only jobs we have ADDED since Reagan don't count? So let me spell it our.....Money spent on public works projects SUPPORT other jobs. The money isn't dolled out and then VAPORIZED it is SPENT at other places.....Like RETAIL, Restaurant, and countless other PRIVATE sector jobs. Maybe it means that the diner down the road from a Federal Interstate construction site increases their business to PRE-CRASH #s which means that the waitress who was holding down an EMPTY restaurant now has PATRONS to serve.....She takes her TIPS and buys her kids new clothes or a new TV.......Guess what RETAIL....(and I would say manufacturing jobs but we have none left in America)....jobs are increased. Then those retail workers may go out to dinner a bit more often.........



THIS IS THE FACT THAT YOU ALL WANT TO IGNORE!!!!

Here's a fact that you want to ignore:

Only the market can rationally allocate resources, not the government.

Your tunnel-vision is positively astounding. What part of the above scenarios can't you grasp?

Don't confuse rejection for ignorance. I understood it all, but it's wrong.

 

[MaggieMae]

If you are going to make shit up, go big!!

Obama can claim the stimulus created or saved EVERY job in the United States it is exactly the same as saying he saved or created 2 million jobs. . It is a bullshit metric that cannot be measured. I invented a whole world in my sleep last night, that doesn't mean that it is real. There is no such thing as a saved job.

But maybe in Obama world, it is the thought that counts, right? He wanted to create jobs!!! His intentions were good!!!

If two banks merge, inevitably there are layoffs as the two attempt to combine personnel resources. Joe's job at one desk might get the ax, while Mary's job right across the aisle from Joe might be "saved." That happens all the time in the private sector.

In the public sector, a "saved" job is also one that doesn't get the ax because of budget constraints. If the total unemployment number was theoretically exactly 1,000,000, a "saved job" would make the number 999,999. It's a no-brainer.

But it doesn't work like that Maggie. The free market generally works it out laizze faire - one company downsizing or merging and becoming more streamlined either a) makes room for another company to take the leftover business and/or b) generates more productivity and activity that has a stimulating effect on the economy surrounding it.

When the government creates a new government job, it means $40,000 or $60,000 or whatever amount that has to come out of the private sector while generating no marketable product and generating no economic activity. Even if the government hires folks in the private sector to do a project, it is still draining monies from the private sector for plans, materials, transportation, cost of the contract, etc. When government provides only essential services that cannot be done more efficiently and effectively in the private sector, the benefit to the infrastructure or orderly working of society mostly or fully offsets the cost to the private sector. When government assumes responsibilities best left to the private sector, the private sector will always be the worse off for it.

Tell it to the glass manufacturers, the auto chip makers, tire manufacturers, specialized upholstery manufacturers, and all the myriad other small businesses that would have been directly and disproportionately aeffected if the government hadn't used TARP funds to bail out GM. In fact, even Ford, which didn't need loans to prop them up still relies on all those little offshoots that support in small ways the auto industry, so it too would have suffered if GM had been allowed to go belly up.

 

[MaggieMae]

KK tell me does the money EVAPORATE right after they spend it or does it CONTINUE to be spent OVER and OVER being taxed over and over. You just don't understand how simple it is!

You just don't understand that you don't create real wealth by taking from some and giving to others.

I'm just curious whether you felt this strongly about government subsidies to Big Oil, even as they raked in record profits. The stated purpose was so that they could be free to invest in alternative energy research and development. So Big Oil basically took from you in the form of subsidies in order to expand their business. Likewise with private insurance companies which receive billions in tax credits every year to subsidize risks that turn out to be bigger than their policy coverages.

 

[MaggieMae]

KK tell me does the money EVAPORATE right after they spend it or does it CONTINUE to be spent OVER and OVER being taxed over and over. You just don't understand how simple it is!

there is a block, i suspect.

its not alone that the money is spent, but that as money changes hands in certain transactions, its actually multiplied. 'created' if you will. amazing, but a very fundamental point of capitalism that the kev feels cant be facilitated by government.

curious. macroeconomics is largely a study of how to facilitate capitalism initself directed at government.

This is a rather long article, written in lay terms, which explains how "capitalism" can be either good or bad as an economic indicator depending upon shifting events. It's worth the read.
Zakaria: A Capitalist Manifesto | Newsweek Business | Newsweek.com

 

[Cold Fusion38]

KK tell me does the money EVAPORATE right after they spend it or does it CONTINUE to be spent OVER and OVER being taxed over and over. You just don't understand how simple it is!

You just don't understand that you don't create real wealth by taking from some and giving to others.

Well I would argue that putting money into the hands of those who will SPEND IT would be better for the economy since it would increase need for production and service center jobs. Or give money to those who DON'T need it so they can stuff their mattresses a bit more. I just don't get your FOOLISH attempt to justify "supply side" "trickle down" economics when we have done NOTHING but LOSE jobs and the AVERAGE wage adj for inflation has DECREASED!!! Now try to follow.....The AVERAGE WAGE HAS DECREASED!! That means the AVRAGE American has FEWER $s to spread around that means LESS demand for products.....Tell me just how EXACTELY how "Reaganomics" has IMPROVED our econ since the 80's.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh Ollie I know all about the VERY few things that are made in America, far fewer thab there were before and you really have to LOOK for them. Then comes the tough part.....If you to employ FELLOW AMERICANS you may have to pay MORE sometimes MUCH more.

I used to sell men's shoes.........Every now and then you would get an older guy in who wanted a shoe made in America.........Two choices Frye boots and some of our New Balance running shoes. Guy flips shoe over looks at price exclaims "I ain't paying $140.00 for a pair of shoes" tosses down in disgust and storms off. Just shows how much REAL Americans care about our manufacturing base. Often you can't find an American made product no MATTER the price. I think it really boils down to the deal with Levi's Jeans. Walmart would not carry their jeans and pay enough for Levi's to make ANY profit at all, because Walmart has such HUGE buying power Levi's could not loose that account so the ONLY option they had was to make their jeans OVERSEAS........Why? Not taxes they had dealt with taxes since they started making jeans what a HUNDRED years ago? Not regulations because there were not suddenly new regs that made it impossible to make a profit.........So what could it be? Maybe that a good manufacturing job in America pays $15-$20 an hour WITH good benifits and a job in China or Viet Nam or India pay .15 and hour with NO benefits?

The moral of the story is it is NOT tax burden it is PAY discrepency plain and simple. I perdict a time in the not to distant future where the vast majority of Americans will no longer be able to shop anywhere OTHER than Walmart. We MUST add manufacturing jobs and if that means giving them some tax breaks then FINE but those breaks should be tied DIRECTELY to making jobs in AMERICA but how it's been since the 80's is tax breaks and they SEND JOBS OVERSEAS!!! How fair are those types of tax breaks if they are NOT tied to jobs for AMERICANS? How fair is it to put the Corporate offices in the CAYMAN Islands to pay NO TAXES!?

I don't think manufacturing jobs of the kind you describe will ever return to America. We need to take the lead and start selling technology and products dealing with alternative energy. It's virgin territory, and if we don't do it, India, Japan, South Korea, and/or China will, and the USA will the become another buyer instead of a seller in the global market.

 

[MaggieMae]

Here's a fact that you want to ignore:

Only the market can rationally allocate resources, not the government.

Your tunnel-vision is positively astounding. What part of the above scenarios can't you grasp?

Don't confuse rejection for ignorance. I understood it all, but it's wrong.

Then I should have stopped after your tunnel vision is positively astounding. Repeat.

 

[logical4u]

I gotta get that recipe for cooking the books.

You are not openly a dem, you would go to jail, and paraded as another bad conservative.

 

[antagon]

All at the expense of other jobs that would have been created by the private sector, which by the way is where real wealth is created. Public jobs are a drain on the economy, rather than a benefit.

Um HMM YEAH I guess all the "SERVICE SECTOR" jobs which are the only jobs we have ADDED since Reagan don't count? So let me spell it our.....Money spent on public works projects SUPPORT other jobs. The money isn't dolled out and then VAPORIZED it is SPENT at other places.....Like RETAIL, Restaurant, and countless other PRIVATE sector jobs. Maybe it means that the diner down the road from a Federal Interstate construction site increases their business to PRE-CRASH #s which means that the waitress who was holding down an EMPTY restaurant now has PATRONS to serve.....She takes her TIPS and buys her kids new clothes or a new TV.......Guess what RETAIL....(and I would say manufacturing jobs but we have none left in America)....jobs are increased. Then those retail workers may go out to dinner a bit more often.........



THIS IS THE FACT THAT YOU ALL WANT TO IGNORE!!!!

There are all kinds of manufacturing jobs in America. I worked in manufacturing when I retired, My son worked in manufacturing until he was laid off 6 weeks ago. I recently bought a new pots and pans set made in the USA. I have also bought a Pizza cutter made in the USA Among other things. The manufacturing is there but you pay more for the products.

i think we're the biggest manufacturing nation on the planet, and that the largest sector in our economy is manufacture... anyone less lazy care to fact-check?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Oh Ollie I know all about the VERY few things that are made in America, far fewer thab there were before and you really have to LOOK for them. Then comes the tough part.....If you to employ FELLOW AMERICANS you may have to pay MORE sometimes MUCH more.

I used to sell men's shoes.........Every now and then you would get an older guy in who wanted a shoe made in America.........Two choices Frye boots and some of our New Balance running shoes. Guy flips shoe over looks at price exclaims "I ain't paying $140.00 for a pair of shoes" tosses down in disgust and storms off. Just shows how much REAL Americans care about our manufacturing base. Often you can't find an American made product no MATTER the price. I think it really boils down to the deal with Levi's Jeans. Walmart would not carry their jeans and pay enough for Levi's to make ANY profit at all, because Walmart has such HUGE buying power Levi's could not loose that account so the ONLY option they had was to make their jeans OVERSEAS........Why? Not taxes they had dealt with taxes since they started making jeans what a HUNDRED years ago? Not regulations because there were not suddenly new regs that made it impossible to make a profit.........So what could it be? Maybe that a good manufacturing job in America pays $15-$20 an hour WITH good benifits and a job in China or Viet Nam or India pay .15 and hour with NO benefits?

The moral of the story is it is NOT tax burden it is PAY discrepency plain and simple. I perdict a time in the not to distant future where the vast majority of Americans will no longer be able to shop anywhere OTHER than Walmart. We MUST add manufacturing jobs and if that means giving them some tax breaks then FINE but those breaks should be tied DIRECTELY to making jobs in AMERICA but how it's been since the 80's is tax breaks and they SEND JOBS OVERSEAS!!! How fair are those types of tax breaks if they are NOT tied to jobs for AMERICANS? How fair is it to put the Corporate offices in the CAYMAN Islands to pay NO TAXES!?

Just so happens I know a lady who worked for Levi's years ago. haven't talked to her in a while but if I remember right she made more in Retirement than I did on active duty. Has to do a lot with Unions..........But we won't go there right now.

 

[antagon]

KK tell me does the money EVAPORATE right after they spend it or does it CONTINUE to be spent OVER and OVER being taxed over and over. You just don't understand how simple it is!

there is a block, i suspect.

its not alone that the money is spent, but that as money changes hands in certain transactions, its actually multiplied. 'created' if you will. amazing, but a very fundamental point of capitalism that the kev feels cant be facilitated by government.

curious. macroeconomics is largely a study of how to facilitate capitalism initself directed at government.

This is a rather long article, written in lay terms, which explains how "capitalism" can be either good or bad as an economic indicator depending upon shifting events. It's worth the read.
Zakaria: A Capitalist Manifesto | Newsweek Business | Newsweek.com

that is rather long. taking a breather from it. got to where the author broke finance from capitalism. that was redeeeming for that first part.

some people see capitalism as an institution, or a bunch of policies, or a system. seems more like the way things are if there's money to me - a phenomenon.

 

[saveliberty]

KK tell me does the money EVAPORATE right after they spend it or does it CONTINUE to be spent OVER and OVER being taxed over and over. You just don't understand how simple it is!

there is a block, i suspect.

its not alone that the money is spent, but that as money changes hands in certain transactions, its actually multiplied. 'created' if you will. amazing, but a very fundamental point of capitalism that the kev feels cant be facilitated by government.

curious. macroeconomics is largely a study of how to facilitate capitalism initself directed at government.

The term is velocity of money. It is slowed by government because tax is collected by one person and often held for up to three months before being turned into the state.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KK tell me does the money EVAPORATE right after they spend it or does it CONTINUE to be spent OVER and OVER being taxed over and over. You just don't understand how simple it is!

You just don't understand that you don't create real wealth by taking from some and giving to others.

I'm just curious whether you felt this strongly about government subsidies to Big Oil, even as they raked in record profits. The stated purpose was so that they could be free to invest in alternative energy research and development. So Big Oil basically took from you in the form of subsidies in order to expand their business. Likewise with private insurance companies which receive billions in tax credits every year to subsidize risks that turn out to be bigger than their policy coverages.

Of course. No private corporation or business should ever be given government subsidies.