All Forums | Politics

An interesting view on job creation

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 800
Posts: 24
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI

I thought this was informative, outside of the box, speech. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #2
informative, outside of the box, logical, independent/nonpartisan minded... a topic like this will always get slept on

here is the formula...  go create an alias... cut/paste bigoted rhetoric and recycle propaganda from a chain email or blog...  Then wait for the other aliases and alias supporters to blindly agree with you (along with your own aliases you create to agree with yourself)...

Works every time...
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #3
You know the partisan lemmings clicked off in the first 30 seconds as soon as they heard this and got scared...

"If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.  This idea is article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats"
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2005
Posts: 9130
Posted: #4
In theory, lower taxes increase job creation.  But that doesn't always work in reality.  Conversely, higher taxes may not increase jobs either.  Although price or cost matters, consumer demand or confidence is more important.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #5
Third,

I hear what you're saying. In theory lower taxes should create jobs but it doesnt always guarantee the "job creators" will reinvest those savings back into the economy or any business they may own. They may simply put it away into their savings.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #6
DL,

I think this guy brings up some really interesting points. And given his background and economic status his opinion comes from an interesting point of view. It seems like its the complete opposite of what the Bush tax cuts were supposed to do.

I'm hoping this brings up some interesting discussions. I fear that you may be right about people watching 30 seconds and turning it off, because it's not what they want to hear.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2010
Posts: 2098
Posted: #7
fix the tax laws EOS....close the loopholes...kill the lobbyists


 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2005
Posts: 24201
Posted: #8
Job creators aren't synonomous with the super rich. 

Case in point - Mitt Romney.  He and Bain Capital weren't in business to "create jobs".  They were in business to amass money.  They sought worker's pension funds, loans and public financing always paying Bain Capital first and handsomely.  Once the company was sucked dry, they filed for bankruptcy.  The company was shut down, the pensions were gone, the loan originators were out their cash and Mitt and company went on to their next excellent adventure.  The community was left broke, the tax base gone and the schools with a fraction of the funding they had.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #9
Quote Originally Posted by starwink:

Job creators aren't synonomous with the super rich. 

Case in point - Mitt Romney.  He and Bain Capital weren't in business to "create jobs".  They were in business to amass money.  They sought worker's pension funds, loans and public financing always paying Bain Capital first and handsomely.  Once the company was sucked dry, they filed for bankruptcy.  The company was shut down, the pensions were gone, the loan originators were out their cash and Mitt and company went on to their next excellent adventure.  The community was left broke, the tax base gone and the schools with a fraction of the funding they had.


This is a fundamental mis-understanding of how markets work.

Companies don't exist to "provide jobs" or "create jobs"

Jobs are a by-product of a growing economy where investments generate more capital and economic activity.


 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2010
Posts: 2098
Posted: #10
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2005
Posts: 24201
Posted: #11
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:



This is a fundamental mis-understanding of how markets work.

Companies don't exist to "provide jobs" or "create jobs"

Jobs are a by-product of a growing economy where investments generate more capital and economic activity.




So why does the GOP continue to insist that the richest 1% of Americans are job creators?  You admit it is false.  Most know it as false.  That is the point I am making and you are agreeing with.

Thank you. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2005
Posts: 24201
Posted: #12
I just watched the video.  Spot on. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2005
Posts: 24201
Posted: #13
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:

Third,

I hear what you're saying. In theory lower taxes should create jobs but it doesnt always guarantee the "job creators" will reinvest those savings back into the economy or any business they may own. They may simply put it away into their savings.



Econ 101 - I was in college when Reagan took office.  I had an instructor who preached Reaganomics would work because the rich had a lower marginal propensity to consume (MPC).  If you gave the middle class more money in their paycheck, they would spend it on consumer products and wouldn't invest in capital. 

Therefore the added money in their pockets would "trickle down" to the middle class from the rich making capital investments.


Long story short, the rich didn't make capital investments.  They sat on it.  The economy wasn't stimulated from his tax cut to the rich.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #14
Quote Originally Posted by starwink:



Econ 101 - I was in college when Reagan took office.  I had an instructor who preached Reaganomics would work because the rich had a lower marginal propensity to consume (MPC).  If you gave the middle class more money in their paycheck, they would spend it on consumer products and wouldn't invest in capital. 

Therefore the added money in their pockets would "trickle down" to the middle class from the rich making capital investments.


Long story short, the rich didn't make capital investments.  They sat on it.  The economy wasn't stimulated from his tax cut to the rich.


Um, huh?

More than 18 million jobs were created while Reagan was in office.

The average GDP grown while Reagan was in office was 4.3%

The median household income & median family income increased every year from 1982-1989.

So I'd love to know what you believe stimulated the economy during that time.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #15
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:



Um, huh?

More than 18 million jobs were created while Reagan was in office.

The average GDP grown while Reagan was in office was 4.3%

The median household income & median family income increased every year from 1982-1989.

So I'd love to know what you believe stimulated the economy during that time.
crack
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #16
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI

I thought this was informative, outside of the box, speech. 
I like the idea of what he was selling. I expect to see tons of negative posts because that man's a progressive. 80 percent on here think regression is a good word and progressive is a bad word.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #17
i think he is either misunderstanding capitalism, or being intentionally disingenuous, when he conflates the rich with the term Capitalists. And it's people like him that make me sick, as they pine for more taxes, without saying a word about less government spending, and here is why.  That guy, and other wealthy people, enjoy their PRIVILEGED status, and they sure as hell don't seem open to the idea of leveling the playing field, by giving up their privileges. Rather, they seem to want to use the government for more of the same,,,,control and capture.

however, he is absolutely correct as to where jobs are created, by consumer demand. not sure why that is lost on anyone. but why then advocate for more taxes, in the same breath as saying that the problem is that the consumer doesn't have the money to afford all this crap? The solution is to lower the costs that the government forces down our throats from all the regulation and taxes, and to remove the privileges from the landed wealthy aristocracy and their technocratic lackeys (which ironically is exactly the reason America came to be, to escape privileged, landed, wealthy aristocratic families from capturing all the land)

 
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #18
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:

informative, outside of the box, logical, independent/nonpartisan minded... a topic like this will always get slept on

here is the formula...  go create an alias... cut/paste bigoted rhetoric and recycle propaganda from a chain email or blog...  Then wait for the other aliases and alias supporters to blindly agree with you (along with your own aliases you create to agree with yourself)...

Works every time...


I think the biggest deterrent to getting a good discussion going in a thread, is for people to see dullard36 post the exact same bullshit for the zillionth time. SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY


 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #19
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:

DL,

I think this guy brings up some really interesting points. And given his background and economic status his opinion comes from an interesting point of view. It seems like its the complete opposite of what the Bush tax cuts were supposed to do.

I'm hoping this brings up some interesting discussions. I fear that you may be right about people watching 30 seconds and turning it off, because it's not what they want to hear.


I agree with you about the bush tax cuts... but what about the bush stimulus checks that was supposed stimulate and save the economy... wasnt that from the bottom up?

I also agree with you that the guys makes some good points, but speaks in a language that would turn of certain groups of people that would inherently be against his ideas...

1. "article of faith" "the creator/deification"... this type of thing would upset the bible beaters who's paradigm is that they are persecuted...

2.  "ecosystemic feedback loop"... this will get the anti-science, anti-environment crowd upset... because they do not think that way, nor do they understand the terminology... only that it is nails on a chalk board because it starts with "eco"...



 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #20
So to me there is sort of a preach to the choir thing here in terms of speaking in the logical, scientific minded manner with the actual numbers and graphs... when those are the type of people that would side with him anyways...

and then the more emotional reactionary, prescribed view point type of people that believe in what they are told will not respond to the statistics, logic or systemic delivery...  as predicted this thread is displays this basic trend
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #21
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:

I like the idea of what he was selling. I expect to see tons of negative posts because that man's a progressive. 80 percent on here think regression is a good word and progressive is a bad word.


progressive like buffet? similar message I think...

I also wonder about your idea of regression... in that what is the difference between gridlock/fighting for status quo and regression when time is always moving forward...

meaning if I said I like the way things are at this second, an hour later that is the past and I am trying to turn back the clock saying I want it how it was a hour ago...

temporal logic can be confusing, but perhaps you get my point
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #22
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:



progressive like buffet? similar message I think...

I also wonder about your idea of regression... in that what is the difference between gridlock/fighting for status quo and regression when time is always moving forward...

meaning if I said I like the way things are at this second, an hour later that is the past and I am trying to turn back the clock saying I want it how it was a hour ago...

temporal logic can be confusing, but perhaps you get my point
Regression: A return to a former or less developed state. Relapse to a less perfect or developed state. Reversion to an earlier or less mature pattern of feeling or behavior. That sums up the conservative R party.

GOPs think progress, advancement, and moving in a new different direction is bad. That’s what the corporate media tells me.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
~ Albert Einstein

GOPs think going back to the 1900s and acting like theo-fascist, neanderthal, sheep, deaf mutes and implementing it on society through government is the answer. Democrats think socialism and moral-communism is the answer.

My dream is for the green party and republican libertarians to get together and unite. The democrats will join in; wake up and the conservative GOPs will go extinct.

George Washington’s, Frederick Douglass’s, Martin Luther King JR’s, Thomas Jefferson’s, and Abe Lincoln’s dream would come true.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #23
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:

crack


and you silenced him on that
 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #24
Quote Originally Posted by starwink:



Econ 101 - I was in college when Reagan took office.  I had an instructor who preached Reaganomics would work because the rich had a lower marginal propensity to consume (MPC).  If you gave the middle class more money in their paycheck, they would spend it on consumer products and wouldn't invest in capital. 

Therefore the added money in their pockets would "trickle down" to the middle class from the rich making capital investments.


Long story short, the rich didn't make capital investments.  They sat on it.  The economy wasn't stimulated from his tax cut to the rich.


I thought all of academia is liberally/leftist biased?

you are educated... therefore you must brain washed by liberals...
All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.