What should the wealthy do? Libs How should they be sharing there wealth?

[Gadawg73]

No one is proposing to concentrate wealth. But I turn it around and ask What benefit is it to punish hard working successful people and reward lazy inefficient people?

But the Left isn't unhappy with poor people getting poorer. They are only unhappy with rich people getting richer. Do I need to have lady Thatcher explain this to you again?

The left is equally unhappy with the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. Neither is good for the general economy.

As long as you believe that investment drives employment, you will be living in a conservative lala land. Rich people don't really work that hard compared to the poor, many of who work two jobs just to get by.

When consumer spending goes up, so does employment.

As for trickle down economics, we've been waiting for over 30 years. That trickle should be a flood by now, but so far, we haven't felt so much as a drop. All there's been since Reagan was elected is the giant sucking sound of the wealth of the nation moving upward.

What else other than investment builds buildings and new companies?
Returnable bottles and aluminum cans?

 

[Gadawg73]

When a new company is built in a city CAPITAL INVESTMENT is what built it.
When a company decides to take on a new product line CAPITAL INVESTMENT is what refits their machinery.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT IS THE LIFE BLOOD OF JOB CREATION.

 

[zeke]

Democracy requires a fairly large middle class and ours has dwindled. The wealthy use some of their wealth to contribute to politicians and in exchange the politicians pass laws giving tax breaks, loopholes and other incentives to the wealthy contributors. One hand washes the other.

We do not live in a mob majority rule democracy.

Yea, but we do live in a country run by the plutocrats. Are you trying to make a point?
You do know what a "plutocrat" is, don't you?

As to your "capital investment" being the lifeblood "job creation". Bullshit. Is there not a surplus of capital in the investment markets? Sure there is. Read about it all the time. Companies are sitting on BILLIONS of cash. Commonly called "capital". So where are those jobs. Plenty of capital. No jobs.

Demand is what creates jobs. Period. Demand. If your company invents a product or service that people really want and your company does not have "capital" on hand to produce the product. Guess what, if the idea is sound and there is plenty of demand, those hated investment bankers will provide. As long as they make their margin.

But you should know this shit. Why don't you. Why do you pretend that "capital" is the job creation engine?

 

[Steelplate]

Just to add to that....imagine the American jobs and American businesses that could be created if we made it easier. I'm not talking about taxation....that's a fraud perpetrated by huge multinationals to protect their own interests. But Joe Schmoe the plumber who needs help would benefit hugely if he didn't have to pay his 5-10 employees' healthcare costs via a public option. That would allow him to compete with Roto-Rooter.

Big business talks about taxation a whole lot....but they lobby and win loopholes that allow them to fuck over Joe Schmoe.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Democracy requires a fairly large middle class and ours has dwindled. The wealthy use some of their wealth to contribute to politicians and in exchange the politicians pass laws giving tax breaks, loopholes and other incentives to the wealthy contributors. One hand washes the other.

We do not live in a mob majority rule democracy.

Yea, but we do live in a country run by the plutocrats. Are you trying to make a point?
You do know what a "plutocrat" is, don't you?

As to your "capital investment" being the lifeblood "job creation". Bullshit. Is there not a surplus of capital in the investment markets? Sure there is. Read about it all the time. Companies are sitting on BILLIONS of cash. Commonly called "capital". So where are those jobs. Plenty of capital. No jobs.

Demand is what creates jobs. Period. Demand. If your company invents a product or service that people really want and your company does not have "capital" on hand to produce the product. Guess what, if the idea is sound and there is plenty of demand, those hated investment bankers will provide. As long as they make their margin.

But you should know this shit. Why don't you. Why do you pretend that "capital" is the job creation engine?

Business has no obligation to risk its capital.

So what if companies are holding a large cash position?

It is their money after all.

 

[The Rabbi]

No one is proposing to concentrate wealth. But I turn it around and ask What benefit is it to punish hard working successful people and reward lazy inefficient people?

But the Left isn't unhappy with poor people getting poorer. They are only unhappy with rich people getting richer. Do I need to have lady Thatcher explain this to you again?

The left is equally unhappy with the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. Neither is good for the general economy.

As long as you believe that investment drives employment, you will be living in a conservative lala land. Rich people don't really work that hard compared to the poor, many of who work two jobs just to get by.

When consumer spending goes up, so does employment.

As for trickle down economics, we've been waiting for over 30 years. That trickle should be a flood by now, but so far, we haven't felt so much as a drop. All there's been since Reagan was elected is the giant sucking sound of the wealth of the nation moving upward.

Was that a contest to see how much incorrect information you could stick in one post? You win.

The left is ok with the poor getting poorer because it gives them an excuse to hand out more gov't cheese.
If you think rich people dont work you've obviously never met any. Poor people dont work any jobs. That's why they're poor.
We have not had supply side economics since 1990. When it was tried prior to that it produced a gush of higher income all across the spectrum. Of course the left only complained the rich got richer, leaving out that the poor got richer too.

 

[zeke]

Just to add to that....imagine the American jobs and American businesses that could be created if we made it easier. I'm not talking about taxation....that's a fraud perpetrated by huge multinationals to protect their own interests. But Joe Schmoe the plumber who needs help would benefit hugely if he didn't have to pay his 5-10 employees' healthcare costs via a public option. That would allow him to compete with Roto-Rooter.

Big business talks about taxation a whole lot....but they lobby and win loopholes that allow them to fuck over Joe Schmoe.

Plutocrats and their "elected" representative's do tend to take care of their own.

As to companies like Roto Rooter. You ever price those guys? I had em give me a price on a main drain clean out. I told the guy I didn't want a silver lining added. Just cleaned out.

Needless to say. a small, local plumber got the work.

 

[zeke]

We do not live in a mob majority rule democracy.

Yea, but we do live in a country run by the plutocrats. Are you trying to make a point?
You do know what a "plutocrat" is, don't you?

As to your "capital investment" being the lifeblood "job creation". Bullshit. Is there not a surplus of capital in the investment markets? Sure there is. Read about it all the time. Companies are sitting on BILLIONS of cash. Commonly called "capital". So where are those jobs. Plenty of capital. No jobs.

Demand is what creates jobs. Period. Demand. If your company invents a product or service that people really want and your company does not have "capital" on hand to produce the product. Guess what, if the idea is sound and there is plenty of demand, those hated investment bankers will provide. As long as they make their margin.

But you should know this shit. Why don't you. Why do you pretend that "capital" is the job creation engine?

Business has no obligation to risk its capital.

So what if companies are holding a large cash position?

It is their money after all.

What in the fuk are you going on about? Make sense as it pertains to the topic. OK?

And I hate to tell you dude. If business has no obligation to "risk its capital" then why in the fuk did the business start up? Wasn't the capital at more risk during start up? Sure it was.

But I am sure you will come back with some well thought out response. Like; "it is their money after all". That's so deep.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yea, but we do live in a country run by the plutocrats. Are you trying to make a point?
You do know what a "plutocrat" is, don't you?

As to your "capital investment" being the lifeblood "job creation". Bullshit. Is there not a surplus of capital in the investment markets? Sure there is. Read about it all the time. Companies are sitting on BILLIONS of cash. Commonly called "capital". So where are those jobs. Plenty of capital. No jobs.

Demand is what creates jobs. Period. Demand. If your company invents a product or service that people really want and your company does not have "capital" on hand to produce the product. Guess what, if the idea is sound and there is plenty of demand, those hated investment bankers will provide. As long as they make their margin.

But you should know this shit. Why don't you. Why do you pretend that "capital" is the job creation engine?

Business has no obligation to risk its capital.

So what if companies are holding a large cash position?

It is their money after all.

What in the fuk are you going on about? Make sense as it pertains to the topic. OK?

And I hate to tell you dude. If business has no obligation to "risk its capital" then why in the fuk did the business start up? Wasn't the capital at more risk during start up? Sure it was.

But I am sure you will come back with some well thought out response. Like; "it is their money after all". That's so deep.

You are an idiot

What he is talking about is EXACTLY what the topic was opened up on

There is ZERO obligation for a company to do whatever with it's own property... you and your ilk seem to think that government has the power or the right to FORCE them to spend on what you want them to spend on.. whether it be wages, more positions, benefits, expansion, etc is of no consequence... you nor anyone else has any right to make them spend their money

A company starts up for the opportunity for profit.. NO OTHER REASON... and if the best way for that is to be in a pattern of sitting and waiting, then it is what it is.. and you don't get to force them to do otherwise for your agenda

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yea, but we do live in a country run by the plutocrats. Are you trying to make a point?
You do know what a "plutocrat" is, don't you?

As to your "capital investment" being the lifeblood "job creation". Bullshit. Is there not a surplus of capital in the investment markets? Sure there is. Read about it all the time. Companies are sitting on BILLIONS of cash. Commonly called "capital". So where are those jobs. Plenty of capital. No jobs.

Demand is what creates jobs. Period. Demand. If your company invents a product or service that people really want and your company does not have "capital" on hand to produce the product. Guess what, if the idea is sound and there is plenty of demand, those hated investment bankers will provide. As long as they make their margin.

But you should know this shit. Why don't you. Why do you pretend that "capital" is the job creation engine?

Business has no obligation to risk its capital.

So what if companies are holding a large cash position?

It is their money after all.

What in the fuk are you going on about? Make sense as it pertains to the topic. OK?

And I hate to tell you dude. If business has no obligation to "risk its capital" then why in the fuk did the business start up? Wasn't the capital at more risk during start up? Sure it was.

But I am sure you will come back with some well thought out response. Like; "it is their money after all". That's so deep.

Why don't you spell FUCK properly?

Once a business is established and is still profitable why risk that profit?

Seriously if you had a business that was profitable to the tune if a few hundred million and all indicators tell you that you will still be profitable without risking more of your money, then why the FUCK would you?

 

[zeke]

Business has no obligation to risk its capital.

So what if companies are holding a large cash position?

It is their money after all.

What in the fuk are you going on about? Make sense as it pertains to the topic. OK?

And I hate to tell you dude. If business has no obligation to "risk its capital" then why in the fuk did the business start up? Wasn't the capital at more risk during start up? Sure it was.

But I am sure you will come back with some well thought out response. Like; "it is their money after all". That's so deep.

Why don't you spell FUCK properly?

Once a business is established and is still profitable why risk that profit?

Seriously if you had a business that was profitable to the tune if a few hundred million and all indicators tell you that you will still be profitable without risking more of your money, then why the FUCK would you?

Seriously, what fuking difference does it make how I spell fuck. You knew what I was saying. Which is more than I can say about your understanding of the topic at hand this AM. ((that's "morning" in my shorthand)

What was being discussed was job creation and the relationship between capital, jobs and demand for goods and services.

The topic was not company profitability. Please try again.

 

[UnbiasedAmerica]

As to your "capital investment" being the lifeblood "job creation". Bullshit. Is there not a surplus of capital in the investment markets? Sure there is. Read about it all the time. Companies are sitting on BILLIONS of cash. Commonly called "capital". So where are those jobs. Plenty of capital. No jobs.

Demand is what creates jobs. Period. Demand. If your company invents a product or service that people really want and your company does not have "capital" on hand to produce the product. Guess what, if the idea is sound and there is plenty of demand, those hated investment bankers will provide. As long as they make their margin.

But you should know this shit. Why don't you. Why do you pretend that "capital" is the job creation engine?

You're right that demand creates jobs. But jobs don't have to be created where the demand exists. Companies are building new factories and hiring millions of workers in poor countries that have virtually zero demand for the goods they're manufacturing.

 

[DiamondDave]

As to your "capital investment" being the lifeblood "job creation". Bullshit. Is there not a surplus of capital in the investment markets? Sure there is. Read about it all the time. Companies are sitting on BILLIONS of cash. Commonly called "capital". So where are those jobs. Plenty of capital. No jobs.

Demand is what creates jobs. Period. Demand. If your company invents a product or service that people really want and your company does not have "capital" on hand to produce the product. Guess what, if the idea is sound and there is plenty of demand, those hated investment bankers will provide. As long as they make their margin.

But you should know this shit. Why don't you. Why do you pretend that "capital" is the job creation engine?

You're right that demand creates jobs. But jobs don't have to be created where the demand exists. Companies are building new factories and hiring millions of workers in poor countries that have virtually zero demand for the goods they're manufacturing.

Except that demand does not create jobs...

You can demand all you want and a job is not going to magically appear.... unless there is a means to pay, give supply to make product, have somewhere to work etc there will be no job, no matter how make you want something...

You can, however, have zero demand and STILL have a job created (although not a smart business move)... the employer/company/individual can decide to create the job to do whatever function in hopes that demand will come or for many other reasons... the SUPPLY of the capital, raw materials, property, etc can create that job...

 

[Brain357]

I think the problem now is not job creation. Plenty of jobs are being created, just not in this country. Companies are shipping all the jobs away. So now demand here is not driving up wages like it should be. Companies may still be paying more for the best workers, it's just not in this country. So with companies doin so much overseas, what will raise wages here?

 

[The Rabbi]

Business has no obligation to risk its capital.

So what if companies are holding a large cash position?

It is their money after all.

What in the fuk are you going on about? Make sense as it pertains to the topic. OK?

And I hate to tell you dude. If business has no obligation to "risk its capital" then why in the fuk did the business start up? Wasn't the capital at more risk during start up? Sure it was.

But I am sure you will come back with some well thought out response. Like; "it is their money after all". That's so deep.

You are an idiot

What he is talking about is EXACTLY what the topic was opened up on

There is ZERO obligation for a company to do whatever with it's own property... you and your ilk seem to think that government has the power or the right to FORCE them to spend on what you want them to spend on.. whether it be wages, more positions, benefits, expansion, etc is of no consequence... you nor anyone else has any right to make them spend their money

A company starts up for the opportunity for profit.. NO OTHER REASON... and if the best way for that is to be in a pattern of sitting and waiting, then it is what it is.. and you don't get to force them to do otherwise for your agenda

They have an obligation to their owners to maximize value. They have an obligation to the gov't to live within the law. But outside of that you're right. Of course.

 

[The Rabbi]

As to your "capital investment" being the lifeblood "job creation". Bullshit. Is there not a surplus of capital in the investment markets? Sure there is. Read about it all the time. Companies are sitting on BILLIONS of cash. Commonly called "capital". So where are those jobs. Plenty of capital. No jobs.

Demand is what creates jobs. Period. Demand. If your company invents a product or service that people really want and your company does not have "capital" on hand to produce the product. Guess what, if the idea is sound and there is plenty of demand, those hated investment bankers will provide. As long as they make their margin.

But you should know this shit. Why don't you. Why do you pretend that "capital" is the job creation engine?

You're right that demand creates jobs. But jobs don't have to be created where the demand exists. Companies are building new factories and hiring millions of workers in poor countries that have virtually zero demand for the goods they're manufacturing.

Except that demand does not create jobs...

You can demand all you want and a job is not going to magically appear.... unless there is a means to pay, give supply to make product, have somewhere to work etc there will be no job, no matter how make you want something...

You can, however, have zero demand and STILL have a job created (although not a smart business move)... the employer/company/individual can decide to create the job to do whatever function in hopes that demand will come or for many other reasons... the SUPPLY of the capital, raw materials, property, etc can create that job...

There was zero demand for iPhones until Apple sold the first one. Despite that they invested millions in the product. They could anticipate demand, which is not the same as demand.

 

[Dragonlady]

The left is ok with the poor getting poorer because it gives them an excuse to hand out more gov't cheese.
If you think rich people dont work you've obviously never met any. Poor people dont work any jobs. That's why they're poor.
We have not had supply side economics since 1990. When it was tried prior to that it produced a gush of higher income all across the spectrum. Of course the left only complained the rich got richer, leaving out that the poor got richer too.

The level of economic idiocy in your posts explains why conservatives have screwed up the economy so badly. You haven't a clue as to how business really works, you just keep parrotting conservative talking points that have been refuted time and time again and still you think you have all of the answers.

The left wants an end to the NEED for social programs. I'd kill food stamps right now because it's a huge administrative waste of money, and simply increase welfare payments by the same amount thereby ending the administrative costs of duplicate work. There is no program that costs so much as food stamps, to provide minimal benefits and funnels those benefits right back to large corporations with restrictions on what can be bought.

I know lots of rich people. I lived among them, and worked with them throughout my career. But they don't work half as hard as the poor guy putting in 12 hour days 7 days a week driving a taxi to support his family. Or the people who travel 2 hours one way to work using mass transit, doing some backbreaking dirty job for minimum wage.

Many investors make their money off the labour of others. They invest, they hire people, they collect profits on othe wages they pay. I don't begrudge a reasonable return on investment, but if the workers aren't making a living wage, while the owner lives in a mansion, I have no respect for that person.

Supply side economics started in 1980 under Reagan. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer. Despite Reagans changing the rules for qualification to reduce the number of people qualifying for food stamps, the numbers of people qualifying doubled in the first four years he was in office, and spending on programs for the poor increased dramatically because under Reagan, the poor got poorer.

You really need to get your facts straight before posting.

 

[UnbiasedAmerica]

Supply side economics started in 1980 under Reagan. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer. Despite Reagans changing the rules for qualification to reduce the number of people qualifying for food stamps, the numbers of people qualifying doubled in the first four years he was in office, and spending on programs for the poor increased dramatically because under Reagan, the poor got poorer.

You really need to get your facts straight before posting.

That's a false political narrative, Dragonlady. All levels of income grew during the Reagan years.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I think the problem now is not job creation. Plenty of jobs are being created, just not in this country. Companies are shipping all the jobs away. So now demand here is not driving up wages like it should be. Companies may still be paying more for the best workers, it's just not in this country. So with companies doin so much overseas, what will raise wages here?

UE @ 4% right now you have 25 applications for one walmart job.

 

[Gadawg73]

CASH is what builds the shopping centers, the malls, the factories, the feed money for research and development, the training, the testing, and EVERYTHING that a company HAS TO HAVE AND DO to hire the first emplyee.
CASH FUELS THE ECONOMY.
Only a dumbass would claim differently.