Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

And again......Follow

#1 Aug 16 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Sub-Default
**
738 posts
Just one more reason why liberals should never have any power.

Food Stamps are now "Stimulus"

Job Creator

I'm not surprised that liberals cannot admit their failed policies don't work and make the problem even worse (hell self denial is a required tool to be a liberal)what always amazes me is they try to make their failures seem noble and wonderful.
#2 Aug 16 2011 at 7:17 PM Rating: Good
******
43,139 posts
Good news is there will soon be an island you can move to.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Aug 16 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,805 posts
We really need a [:stoptryingtohelpyouareonlymakingitworse:] smily.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#4 Aug 16 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
After your retarded phone story (which I noticed you ran away from without a response), I'm going to pass on wasting my time clicking this link. Have fun crying though!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Aug 16 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
ThiefX wrote:
Just one more reason why liberals should never have any power.

Food Stamps are now "Stimulus"

Job Creator


To be fair, this is not new. Pelosi made the exact same claim a year or so back.

It was just as ridiculous then, of course.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#6 Aug 16 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,139 posts
Jophiel wrote:
After your retarded phone story (which I noticed you ran away from without a response), I'm going to pass on wasting my time clicking this link. Have fun crying though!
He was too busy with a harem of hot bi chicks, you stupid liberal neckbeard basement dweller.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#7 Aug 16 2011 at 7:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,921 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
After your retarded phone story (which I noticed you ran away from without a response), I'm going to pass on wasting my time clicking this link. Have fun crying though!
He was too busy with a harem of hot bi chicks, you stupid liberal neckbeard basement dweller.

On a completely separate note, I referenced neckbeards this weekend several times to a girl and STILL got laid.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#8ThiefX, Posted: Aug 16 2011 at 7:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't blame you for not clicking on the link Joph it must be getting harder and harder for you to make excuses for this stuff.
#9 Aug 16 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LockeColeMA wrote:
On a completely separate note, I referenced neckbeards this weekend several times to a girl and STILL got laid.

Did you ask what conditioner she used to keep it so silky and smooth?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Aug 16 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,139 posts
Mine was more believable.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Aug 16 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ThiefX wrote:
I don't blame you for not clicking on the link Joph

Well, yeah. That was my point.
Quote:
tax payers being forced

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Aug 16 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, this is not new. Pelosi made the exact same claim a year or so back.

It was just as ridiculous then, of course.

Didn't Bush send everyone $200 checks as a stimulus saying that now people would spend $200 and that would generate a greater amount of economic activity?

If this is the case, how is it different to give someone $25 worth of "money" to be spent on food? Same principle, different scale. In fact, it avoids the primary criticism of the Bush plan which was that people are likely to squirrel away the $200 in tough times rather than spend it but food vouchers aren't useful in a bank account or coffee can.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Aug 16 2011 at 7:56 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
You do realize that the vast majority of people have to work or prove that they are actively looking for work to be eligible for food stamps, right?

While it may seem silly to call an existing program "stimulus," if they expand the program to promote economic growth, then that's exactly what it is. But tards like you who can't see how safety nets do more than invite people to fall into them probably won't understand that anytime soon.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#14 Aug 16 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
If this is the case, how is it different to give someone $25 worth of "money" to be spent on food? Same principle, different scale. In fact, it avoids the primary criticism of the Bush plan which was that people are likely to squirrel away the $200 in tough times rather than spend it but food vouchers aren't useful in a bank account or coffee can.


And let's not forget that it also avoids giving that money to people who don't need it at all, which itself adds to another criticism of the Bush stimulus-- that people would waste the money on imported crap, putting the money right back into the pockets of our lenders. If you're on food stamps, you're not spending a lot on imported food products.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#15 Aug 16 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, this is not new. Pelosi made the exact same claim a year or so back.

It was just as ridiculous then, of course.

Didn't Bush send everyone $200 checks as a stimulus saying that now people would spend $200 and that would generate a greater amount of economic activity?


Sure, twice I think! With a nod and a wink. Conservatives know that direct payments like that don't actually stimulate the economy much (at all?). Only about 20% of the money ends out being spent buying things, with the other 80% spent paying down debt (we had this discussion before I'm sure!). We know this and we're ok with doing it because we know that paying down of debt is actually a better use of the money when compared to direct consumption spending.

Liberals think the opposite, so we let them think we're going along with their stupid economic ideas just to placate them. Works most of the time too!

Quote:
If this is the case, how is it different to give someone $25 worth of "money" to be spent on food? Same principle, different scale. In fact, it avoids the primary criticism of the Bush plan which was that people are likely to squirrel away the $200 in tough times rather than spend it but food vouchers aren't useful in a bank account or coffee can.


Yeah. That wasn't so much of a criticism as a statement of fact. You liberals are such tools sometimes! Smiley: lol

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 7:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Aug 16 2011 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
If this is the case, how is it different to give someone $25 worth of "money" to be spent on food? Same principle, different scale. In fact, it avoids the primary criticism of the Bush plan which was that people are likely to squirrel away the $200 in tough times rather than spend it but food vouchers aren't useful in a bank account or coffee can.


And let's not forget that it also avoids giving that money to people who don't need it at all, which itself adds to another criticism of the Bush stimulus-- that people would waste the money on imported crap, putting the money right back into the pockets of our lenders. If you're on food stamps, you're not spending a lot on imported food products.


Lol! Um... Guys? It doesn't work at all. It's a placebo at best. The confusing Conservative behavior makes perfect sense once you realize that we know this, but know that you don't.

Shhhhhhh.... Don't tell anyone!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Aug 16 2011 at 8:19 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
Straight from your link...


Quote:
If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs.


Seems like pretty simple logic to me.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#18 Aug 16 2011 at 8:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
ThiefX wrote:


My favorite was ElneClare complaining that the cell phone someone else bought her wasn't very good.


That was actually me, dumbass.
#19 Aug 16 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure, twice I think! With a nod and a wink. Conservatives know that direct payments like that don't actually stimulate the economy much (at all?).

Which is hilarious given that you've previously cited this as one of Bush's mastermind moves to end the recession in the early 2000's Smiley: laugh

Quote:
You liberals are such tools sometimes

Irony.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Aug 16 2011 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,831 posts
I was going to say something about this but I just found a cache of tiny screws that are for something that may very well be important, but I can't for the life of me figure out what. Now this is gonna bug me for the next six days until I remember what out of the blue, then forget where the screws are.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#21ThiefX, Posted: Aug 16 2011 at 9:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You do realize you're wrong right? Not only is a job not required to get food stamps in California you don't even have to prove you're a legal citizen of this country.
#22 Aug 16 2011 at 9:43 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,139 posts
ThiefX wrote:
Simple logic for a simple mind. Do you seriously not see the flaw in your argument?
Wasn't simple enough for you?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#23 Aug 16 2011 at 10:17 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
ThiefX wrote:


Simple logic for a simple mind. Do you seriously not see the flaw in your argument?



Enlighten me!
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#24 Aug 16 2011 at 10:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ThiefX wrote:
This is were Joph...

It's adorable how defensive I make you Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Aug 17 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Peimei wrote:
ThiefX wrote:


Simple logic for a simple mind. Do you seriously not see the flaw in your argument?



Enlighten me!


It has something to do with the cost of the food stamps being paid via taxation by the store the food stamps are being used in. The store doesn't actually make any more money. Therefore, it can't afford to hire more people to put food on the shelves. You can use this to increase the volume of food flowing into the store and off the shelves, but you won't actually create any jobs this way. What will happen is that more work stocking shelves has to be done for the same cost (meaning that those who do have jobs have to work harder for the same relative pay). This makes jobs stocking shelves less attractive, and not having a job and getting free food via the stamps more attractive.

Surely, you can see that this will tend to have a negative effect on jobs, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Aug 17 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It has something to do with the cost of the food stamps being paid via taxation by the store the food stamps are being used in. The store doesn't actually make any more money.

Cite? Not some manky "But are you saying stores don't pay taxes!?!" semantic bullshit, but an actual cite that it results in zero net for the store when someone uses food stamps there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Aug 17 2011 at 4:25 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
Next time I issue SNAP benefits, I'll be thinking about you ThiefX.
#28 Aug 17 2011 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,827 posts
gbaji wrote:
Peimei wrote:
ThiefX wrote:


Simple logic for a simple mind. Do you seriously not see the flaw in your argument?



Enlighten me!


It has something to do with the cost of the food stamps being paid via taxation by the store the food stamps are being used in. The store doesn't actually make any more money. Therefore, it can't afford to hire more people to put food on the shelves. You can use this to increase the volume of food flowing into the store and off the shelves, but you won't actually create any jobs this way. What will happen is that more work stocking shelves has to be done for the same cost (meaning that those who do have jobs have to work harder for the same relative pay). This makes jobs stocking shelves less attractive, and not having a job and getting free food via the stamps more attractive.

Surely, you can see that this will tend to have a negative effect on jobs, right?


Very WrongSmiley: oyvey A person paying with food stamps will had paid the same amount that the store has marked up the food item. Their is no discount for food stamp recipients, as per the store costs and with use of EBT cards their handling cost have gone down. States can't collect tax on food brought with the stamps though.
____________________________
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

"England needs, examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek, not greater wealth, but simpler pleasures; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions self-possession, and honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of peace." - John Ruskin
#29 Aug 17 2011 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It has something to do with the cost of the food stamps being paid via taxation by the store the food stamps are being used in. The store doesn't actually make any more money.

Cite? Not some manky "But are you saying stores don't pay taxes!?!" semantic bullshit, but an actual cite that it results in zero net for the store when someone uses food stamps there.


It has a zero net economy-wide. I'm using the store as an analogy for the whole picture. That specific store may make some more money, but only because the stamps are being used in a subset of all the businesses and jobs which are paying the taxes for the stamps. However, it means that somewhere else, someone else is paying the taxes and *not* getting extra revenue from someone buying food. The net effect is zero. It has to be zero because every single dollar's worth of food stamps had to first be a dollars worth of someone's labor/profit which was taxed.

Is this going to be another case where you demand that I provide a cite to prove that 1+1-1=1?


Um... The broader point here is something I've mentioned in the past (and recently as well): Money is a placeholder for the output of labor, which can be exchanged for the output of someone else's labor. It only has "real" value in that context, and most economic calculations only work when it's used in this manner. What the Democrats are doing here is pointing to a spending function which is very real (spending money in a store will have a positive effect on economic growth), but attempting to artificially duplicate that effect via monetary transfer.


It doesn't work though. If you spend $100 that you earned in a store, you are trading $100 worth of your labor for $100 worth of someone else's labor. If you earn more money and can now spend $150 in that store, this creates an economic growth effect, not just because you spent more money in the store, but because you generated more output with your labor to earn the money which you spent in the first place. Both factors have to be in effect for the economic growth to occur. That $150 you are now spending represents your own increased economic output being put back into the economy. You can't just take $150 away from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't, and argue that since that second person will spend the money in a store, you're somehow going to create economic growth.


It just doesn't work that way. What's surprising is that anyone thinks it would.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 4:42pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Aug 17 2011 at 5:40 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
ElneClare wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It has something to do with the cost of the food stamps being paid via taxation by the store the food stamps are being used in. The store doesn't actually make any more money. Therefore, it can't afford to hire more people to put food on the shelves. You can use this to increase the volume of food flowing into the store and off the shelves, but you won't actually create any jobs this way. What will happen is that more work stocking shelves has to be done for the same cost (meaning that those who do have jobs have to work harder for the same relative pay). This makes jobs stocking shelves less attractive, and not having a job and getting free food via the stamps more attractive.

Surely, you can see that this will tend to have a negative effect on jobs, right?


Very WrongSmiley: oyvey A person paying with food stamps will had paid the same amount that the store has marked up the food item. Their is no discount for food stamp recipients, as per the store costs and with use of EBT cards their handling cost have gone down. States can't collect tax on food brought with the stamps though.


I'm not talking about changes in the cost of food though. That's irrelevant. Nor does taxation on the food matter. I'm talking about the fact that the person with the food stamp isn't actually buying the food. The people who paid the taxes which funded the food stamp program paid for that food. But that cost comes out of money that they would have used to do other things. You didn't add anything to the system. You subtracted X dollars, then added them. The net is zero.

The only way this has a positive economic effect at all is if you can argue that all of the tax dollars used to buy those food stamps would have been spent or used in less economically useful ways. And that's incredibly hard to argue. And when you factor in the negative incentive effects of these sorts of programs (I'm not just talking about food stamps btw), it's arguable that the net effect is actually negative.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 4:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Aug 17 2011 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It has something to do with the cost of the food stamps being paid via taxation by the store the food stamps are being used in. The store doesn't actually make any more money.
Cite? Not some manky "But are you saying stores don't pay taxes!?!" semantic bullshit, but an actual cite that it results in zero net for the store when someone uses food stamps there.

Blah, blah, blah... note the complete absence of blue text here.. I'm talking out my ass.. blah, blah, blah...

Thought so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Aug 17 2011 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As Gbaji frantically spins and backpedals, let's keep our eyes on the prize...
Quote:
The store doesn't actually make any more money.


Want to cut this short by just admitting you were wrong? You can even go into your usual fifteen paragraphs of insisting that it doesn't matter that you, as usual, just made shit up to sound like you have a clue because... wait!... here's fifteen more paragraphs of made-up shit!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Aug 17 2011 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Look! There goes Joph arguing a completely irrelevant tangent again! Lol.

None of that refutes my argument Joph. I'm not going to get drawn into debating irrelevant details. The point is that the theory that government can take money from one group of people and give it to another and it will create economic growth because they'll spend that money buying things is just plain false. It does not work. It can not work.

Common sense and basic math should be sufficient for most intelligent people to arrive at this conclusion. Like I said earlier, the surprising thing is that *anyone* thinks that it will.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 5:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Aug 17 2011 at 6:21 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Look! There goes Joph arguing a completely irrelevant tangent again! Lol.
The tangent being the original point? You're getting lazy.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#35 Aug 17 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Look! There goes Joph arguing a completely irrelevant tangent again! Lol.

This is what you usually say when trapped and you know you're 100% dead wrong.

Really, hearing you try to spin with this tired line is more delicious than just hearing you admit it because you get to embarrass yourself even more than just balling up and admitting your error. Thanks! Smiley: laugh

Quote:
The point is that the theory that government can take money from one group of people and give it to another and it will create economic growth because they'll spend that money buying things is just plain false. It does not work. It can not work.

Let's institute a new tax. It's the Jophiel tax! Every man, woman and child in the United States has to pay me one penny a year. This amount to (per Google) 307,006,550 pennies. Which, after a trip to the bank, is $3,070,065.50.

I'm going to spend my Jophiel tax earnings on some burgers. To be exact, I'm going to buy 8,411 burgers off the Dollar Menu at the local McDonald's every day for a year. On Sundays, I'll treat myself to a dollar parfait as well to burn off the extra $50. This will probably require the owner of the local McDonald's to hire some extra burger cooks, order more paper bags, wrapper, napkins, new grills, order extra meat, cheese, buns, maybe even someone to count my burgers and make sure I get my 8,411 burgers a day, etc. Too bad this won't result in any extra revenue for the store because...
Gbaji wrote:
The store doesn't actually make any more money.


In fact, according to Gbaji...
Quote:
the theory that government can take money from one group of people and give it to another and it will create economic growth because they'll spend that money buying things is just plain false. It does not work. It can not work.


Yup. The economic loss of one penny from everyone in the nation is equal to the economic benefit gained from my burger (and weekly parfait!) buying spree. It's... just... OBVIOUS!!!

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 7:44pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Aug 17 2011 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,139 posts
You two should just fuck and be over it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#37 Aug 17 2011 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
You two should just fuck and be over it.

You are honestly the first person ever to say something that clever. Congratulations!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Aug 17 2011 at 6:43 PM Rating: Good
******
43,139 posts
I try.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Aug 17 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Look! There goes Joph arguing a completely irrelevant tangent again! Lol.
The tangent being the original point? You're getting lazy.


The original point being about the total effect of such things on the economy as a whole. The tangent being Joph leaping on my statement that "the store doesn't make more money". We're not talking about one store, are we? I made the mistake of using "the store" as an analogy for the whole economy (an analogy I used the last time we discussed this btw). Joph is taking it literally, out of context, and failing to see that it doesn't change one bit the correctness of my point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Aug 17 2011 at 6:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Of course it does. If we agree that there's economic benefit to the Jophiel Tax then we agree that the government CAN create economic benefit in this manner. Now the only question is where the sweet spot is between the Jophiel Tax and the point of no (or negative) benefit.

If you disagree with the economic benefit of the Jophiel Tax then that's up to you to say why.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Aug 17 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Look! There goes Joph arguing a completely irrelevant tangent again! Lol.

This is what you usually say when trapped and you know you're 100% dead wrong.


Lol! The point I'm arguing is that the whole economy will not grow as a result of this process. Every dollar that store makes is a dollar lost by someone else. Get it? Sheesh!

Quote:
Really, hearing you try to spin with this tired line is more delicious than just hearing you admit it because you get to embarrass yourself even more than just balling up and admitting your error. Thanks!


I made an error Joph. I made the mistake of treating the damn store as an allegory for the economy as a whole. I thought it was clear what I was doing. But you took it literally.

Here. Want to hear it? You're correct. That one store will make more money! However, the economy as a whole will not. Because that whole collection of "taxpayers" pay the full dollars that are returned in the form of extra sales to that store. What part of "net economic effect" did you think actually applied to a single store Joph?

Stop focusing on one irrelevant detail.

Quote:
Quote:
The point is that the theory that government can take money from one group of people and give it to another and it will create economic growth because they'll spend that money buying things is just plain false. It does not work. It can not work.

Let's institute a new tax. It's the Jophiel tax! Every man, woman and child in the United States has to pay me one penny a year. This amount to (per Google) 307,006,550 pennies. Which, after a trip to the bank, is $3,070,065.50.

I'm going to spend my Jophiel tax earnings on some burgers. To be exact, I'm going to buy 8,411 burgers off the Dollar Menu at the local McDonald's every day for a year. On Sundays, I'll treat myself to a dollar parfait as well to burn off the extra $50. This will probably require the owner of the local McDonald's to hire some extra burger cooks, order more paper bags, wrapper, napkins, new grills, order extra meat, cheese, buns, maybe even someone to count my burgers and make sure I get my 8,411 burgers a day, etc. Too bad this won't result in any extra revenue for the store because...
Gbaji wrote:
The store doesn't actually make any more money.


In fact, according to Gbaji...
Quote:
the theory that government can take money from one group of people and give it to another and it will create economic growth because they'll spend that money buying things is just plain false. It does not work. It can not work.


Lol! Case in point. The fact that the one store will make more money does not make my statements about this not creating economic growth false.

Want to know why? Because 307,006,550 lost money is why. One store gained, and a whole bunch of other people lost. You can do math, right? You didn't make anything. You just shifted money from one place to another. This cannot create economic growth.


I'll note that while you zeroed in on this one mistaken phrase from me, you managed to ignore the painstaking argument I made about how monetary value is related to labor output. You failed to note that this is why you aren't creating economic growth. It's because nothing new is made. Now, had you gone out and earned $305M and then spent it all buying burgers, your action *would* create a net economic gain.

Can you see why?

Talk about missing the forest for the trees Joph. Want to stop playing debating tricks and make a real argument?

Quote:
Yup. The economic loss of one penny from everyone in the nation is equal to the economic benefit gained from my burger (and weekly parfait!) buying spree. It's... just... OBVIOUS!!!


It is exactly equal Joph. What part of 1-1+1=1 do you not get? It's simple math. You took $305M out of the economy, and then adding exactly the same amount back in. What makes you think this will create economic growth? All you've done is move money around. You didn't create anything.



Again, the surprising thing is that anyone thinks that will work. Yet, this is exactly the kind of ridiculously flawed economic theory that the left tries to sell us on. You know you're wrong. You're just arguing semantics for the sake of arguing in the hopes of distracting people away from the truth.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 6:14pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Aug 17 2011 at 7:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Of course it does. If we agree that there's economic benefit to the Jophiel Tax then we agree that the government CAN create economic benefit in this manner.


We don't agree though. The Jophiel Tax creates no economic benefit. Every single penny of benefit to the burger joint is offset by a penny of economic loss to someone else.

It's easy math Joph. Why can't you get this?


Quote:
If you disagree with the economic benefit of the Jophiel Tax then that's up to you to say why.


Are you kidding me!? I've said why several times already. Holy hell!


Math. Subtracting and adding the same number brings you back to your starting point. And wait for it... this stays true even as the numbers get larger. It's the same whether I'm adding and subtracting 1, or 1,000, or 1,000,000, or 305 million. It's the same truth. It doesn't change because you shuffle the money around and change the name and form of it. It's still X being taken away and then X being put back somewhere else.


You don't actually think that if you dig a hole, and then fill the same hole with the same dirt, that you'll somehow have more dirt in the hole, right? Even though the specific location of each dirt clod has changed, it's still the same amount of dirt in the same sized hole. You moved things around, but didn't change the total size or amount at all.

I could probably come up with 50 different analogies for you to show you why you're wrong if you want. Is that really necessary?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Aug 17 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Want to know why? Because 307,006,550 lost money is why. One store gained, and a whole bunch of other people lost. You can do math, right? You didn't make anything. You just shifted money from one place to another. This cannot create economic growth


I agree. Money should never be given to corporation in the form of tax-breaks, because it doesn't support economic growth. This is just shifting money that should have been the governments back to large companies, right?
#44 Aug 17 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Want to know why? Because 307,006,550 lost money is why. One store gained, and a whole bunch of other people lost. You can do math, right? You didn't make anything. You just shifted money from one place to another. This cannot create economic growth.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. How much will your life change if you lose a penny? You wouldn't even notice, would you? It's probably come out from under your sofa or in the crease of your car seat.

Focusing assets (in this case, one penny per person) results in greater effect than the same assets diffused and unused across a vast area.

It's pretty funny watching you argue this, though.

Quote:
One store gained

No, one store gained, a crapton of new McD's employees gained*, grill makers gained, bakers and ranchers gained, paper companies gained, the timber industry gained, the new people hired by bakers or meat processors or paper companies gained, every business frequented by these new cooks/bakers/meat guys/whatevers gained...

On the other hand, the loss was negligible because one penny didn't make any individual impact. Because of the diffuse nature of the loss, it would be hard to make a credible argument that it had any local impact. But you insist that there was an equal loss of economic activity. Good times.

*The average McD's serves around 700 burgers a day so I'm effectively increasing their output over tenfold. You're going to need some new cooks...

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 8:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Aug 17 2011 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,831 posts
Jophiel wrote:
*The average McD's serves around 700 burgers a day so I'm effectively increasing their output over tenfold. You're going to need some new cooks...

Pfft, back in the day I could pull that off myself, no problem.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#46 Aug 17 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
xantav wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Want to know why? Because 307,006,550 lost money is why. One store gained, and a whole bunch of other people lost. You can do math, right? You didn't make anything. You just shifted money from one place to another. This cannot create economic growth


I agree. Money should never be given to corporation in the form of tax-breaks...


Tax breaks don't "give" money to anyone. They take less of it away. Remember when I said that money is a placeholder for productive labor output. That corporations profits represent the net labor output of its employees (minus expenses). Its profits go up if the total combined value of those labors increase somehow, or the expenses decrease (or some combination). When the corporation buys things with that money, it's generating economic growth because their money is backed by real productive output. One increase builds another increase and grows the economy.

Quote:
... because it doesn't support economic growth.


Wrong. Taxing the corporation takes the money representing the combined labors of the workers away. It breaks that correlation, resulting in a net economic loss. Putting that money back into the economy somewhere else at the very best breaks us even. At the very best.

Quote:
This is just shifting money that should have been the governments back to large companies, right?


Wrong! The government didn't produce the output which that money represents. It takes it from the corporation (and the workers) in the form of taxes. It then shuffles it around and spends it on other things.


We can argue for that process on the grounds of national defense, sustainment of legal systems, or even for social reasons. But you cannot argue for it on the ground of economic growth. Want to argue for food stamps, then make a moral/social argument. Argue that the need to those receiving them is worth the cost to provide them. But don't try to argue that there's some kind of economic benefit to providing someone food stamps.


Oh. And it's got to be the absolute most desperate example of political spin to attempt to deflect the fact that a rising percentage of people in the US are in need of food stamps because they've lost their jobs into some kind of bizarre argument that this is really a good thing because all those people on food stamps actually stimulate economic growth! I mean, that's got to take the political spin cake right there. I'm sure all those people who lost their jobs and are on food stamps are so happy that the Democrats put them in a position to be so helpful! Wow. Just wow...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Aug 17 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:

On the other hand, the loss was negligible because one penny didn't make any individual impact. Because of the diffuse nature of the loss, it would be hard to make a credible argument that it had any local impact. But you insist that there was an equal loss of economic activity. Good times.


Wait! You're actually making this a serious argument instead of just a thought experiment?

Cause if you're taking it seriously, then it'll cost many times more than a penny to collect just one penny of tax from each person. Hell, just the cost of a financial transaction is more, and each one would have to be a separate deposit/transfer/whatever. And that's assuming we do this all electronically. Imagine if each person in the US just mailed a penny in an envelope or something!


You weren't really being serious, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Aug 17 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Wait! You're actually making this a serious argument instead of just a thought experiment?

No, otherwise I'd be arguing for the actual Jophiel Tax. Try and keep up instead of seeking a way out. The point remains that focused assets can be a force multiplier that diffuse assets are not even if the totals of both are the same. I know this is more complicated than your little "1-1!!" thing but the rest of us have moved on from preschool.

Quote:
You weren't really being serious, right?

Sweet Jesus, you're an idiot.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Aug 17 2011 at 8:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,805 posts
I've advocated taxing posts off high count posters and adding them to specific admin post counts. No one seems to think that is a good idea hough. Damn hippies!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#50 Aug 17 2011 at 9:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wait! You're actually making this a serious argument instead of just a thought experiment?

No, otherwise I'd be arguing for the actual Jophiel Tax.


Oh. Whew! So you were equating the liberal idea of redistributing wealth to something we both agree doesn't work? I'm good with that! Smiley: grin

Quote:
Try and keep up instead of seeking a way out.


I'm keeping up just fine. I'm trying to figure out why you thought it was a good idea to use an example you admit doesn't work to support a real economic proposal. Seems kinda counter productive.

Quote:
The point remains that focused assets can be a force multiplier that diffuse assets are not even if the totals of both are the same. I know this is more complicated than your little "1-1!!" thing but the rest of us have moved on from preschool.


Fine. I'm yanking your chain. Whatever. Just channeling you for a moment there, with your silly analogy.

You're correct that focused assets can be a force multiplier. And that absolutely can work in economics. Heck, it's the basic concept behind things like buying stock, right? A bunch of investors, each risking a small amount of capital, can collectively build something none of them could have done (or would have wanted to risk doing) on their own. I just keep coming back to three problems though:


1. Government isn't very good at picking what to focus on. I mean, food stamps are great if our objective is to help prevent people from starving. But is that really the best place to focus economically? More important, is it better than where we took the money in the first place? As I said earlier, that's a hard argument to make.

2. It's not a choice. When people choose to focus their efforts in some way, we tend to see positive results. When they are forced to do so by someone else, this isn't necessarily the case. I suppose this is an offshoot of the first problem, but it's a biggie IMO. I don't get to choose how my money is spent, and the person spending the food stamp doesn't really either. It's just not flexible enough to work.

2. It's not really focused enough, or "special" enough. When a group of people invest in a corporation, 100% of their investment goes into the corporation, with a single business plan involved (hopefully) to accomplish something none of them would do on their own. But what we're doing here is taking a smallish amount of money from a large amount of people, then handing it in the form of food stamps to a slightly smaller number of people, then having them spend those stamps at an even smaller number of stores (but we're still talking tends of thousands of stores spread across the whole country). Where's the focus? Take that money and spend it building a moon base or some other thing we wouldn't otherwise build, and you're using the focused-asset concept to great effect. Spending it to buy food? Not so much.


Um... Which actually brings me to another point. Not sure if this is number 4, or something else entirely. The big flaw specifically with the whole argument being made that more people on food stamps is somehow a good thing because of the economic effect is that it misses one important fact:

The people buying food with the stamps didn't just magically appear today. They existed yesterday and the day before that, right? Prior to losing their jobs and ending out on food stamps, they were buying food in the same stores that they'll be buying food with their food stamps. This ties into my whole "they didn't earn the money from their own labors" bit. Before they bought the food with their own money, which was a subset of that earned by their own labor output. Thus, the cost of the food was really zero from an economic standpoint. Now, even if we assume that they are buying the exact same amount of food, there's no economic stimulus effect since we haven't actually increased the amount of food the store sells. There is a negative effect because that dollar had to be taken from someone else's productive output.


Even ignoring the broader flaws with income transfers creating economic growth, in this particular case, we can say with absolute certainty that it can't create growth. Certainly, we can say that an increase in the total number of people on food stamps (the condition at hand) cannot possibly be said to be a positive economic effect. There is nothing but negatives resulting from the transfer from other people, and absolutely zero positive at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Aug 17 2011 at 9:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm keeping up just fine. I'm trying to figure out why you thought it was a good idea to use an example you admit doesn't work to support a real economic proposal. Seems kinda counter productive.

Wow. Woooooosssshhhh!!!

Try to find that ground in the middle there and get back to me when you've figured that out. You're obviously out of your depth.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 55 All times are in CDT
Aethien, feelz, Kavekk, paulsol, Technogeek, Anonymous Guests (50)