Boehner says "FUBO"Follow

Lol partisanship, It's not about politics, dummy. The people running the companies are getting more greedy. It is my opinion that they will gladly run the country into the ground simply to make a short term profit.

They're getting more greedy? That's your response?


I'm sorry, but that's moronic! And even if it was true, which I totally disagree with, how does the Democrats proposed course of action help? If the problem is corporate greed, why would you think that increasing the cost of employing people and raising taxes on them would result in anything other than them sending more jobs overseas? You blame it all on greed, but then support a course of action which assumes that these greedy people will magically and meekly accept lower profits.


I just don't see the logic in your position even if your assumptions are correct. It makes no sense at all.

Credit Crunch.

Most businesses in the US were paying for their employees on rolling credit. They'd borrow the money, pay the employees, pay the bank off at the end of the month.

The Global Financial Crisis happened, and 1/3 of banks lost their ability to aquire credit themselves. They had no profits, and not enough deposits to loan out credit money to their usual business customers. Many many businesses credit came to a screaming halt, and they had to lay off workers as they desperately rejiggled their accounts so that they were paying employee wages out of net incoming revenue, instead of credit.

The laid off workers had less money to spend, so they bought less, and businesses lost more money and had to lay off more workers, in a classic recessionary downwards spiral, or negative feedback loop. Now you are waiting for the downturn to turn around enough for a positive feedback loop to get going. More demand/more jobs (chicken and egg situation), creating more spending, creating more jobs, creating more spending, creating more jobs.

Do I dare ask you how you want to lower healthcare costs?

So I assume the Auto Industry Collapse had nothing to do with people not buying cars.



My current employer went from making over 1 million frames for 7 years straight, to laying off nearly its full workforce, to making less than half that amount, and still have not reached pre Auto Industry bed sh*tting levels of employment.

That is 1 plant.

There is a Ford Plant shutting down in September. Been there for decades and decades.

We had a truck plant go to mexico, where it went under because no one is buying mexican made vehicles.

Lost a seat company, a bumper company, interior panneling company, electronics company....



http://www.lilithnews.com/2009/03/unsold-cars-piling-up.html

has neat photos of unsold cars.


But ya that has nothing to do with people not buying cars it is clearly companies diversifying their options.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/18/business/main1134746.shtml

We all saw how well that worked out.



Edited, Sep 3rd 2011 12:15am by rdmcandie

I don't know what you're smoking. When business taxes are lowered, that money is used to hire more employees. It doesn't go to the people in charge. Geez, don't you ever watch Fox News and the other talking heads? They would never lie about the economy.

Oh I always thought it went into the upper upper managments pockets never to be seen again.

Yeah, that's what we were saying in a tongue and cheek way.

Actually, you've both deviated from the point completely. How I might think we could lower the cost of health care is irrelevant to the question I asked. I asked if increasing the cost of health care to the employer and raising taxes on business profits would help or hurt employment. The response I got was a sidetrack. One of the things Obamacare does is increase the mandated coverage levels for those with health insurance. That will, by necessity, increase the cost of health insurance. That cost will be born, in part or in full, by those employers who provide any form of health benefits to their employees.


The only way Obamacare does not increase the cost to employ someone is if the employer doesn't provide health benefits. So it's kind of a lose/lose situation.

Edited, Sep 6th 2011 2:11pm by gbaji

So, in other words, I'm right?

You failed to understand what I meant by "total aggregate demand". What this means is that businesses do not look at the total amount of consumption dollars in the economy and make decisions. They certainly do look at specific demand for their own products, but that's part of the "future profit/cost estimates".

The reason this matters is that the argument the left is using is that if we hand out foodstamps, this will increase total demand in the economy (because people will spend the foodstamps), and this will somehow magically make intel (or any other non-food related business) decide to hire more workers in the US. Certainly, you can artificially increase demand for a specific product, but if the cost of this is profits in other sectors, then the net effect is negative.


Which is what I've been saying all along.




Yup. And no amount of handing out welfare checks or extending unemployment will change that, will it?



Again, that's not what I said. I am debunking the theory that by increasing demand dollars *anywhere* in the economy, you can improve the economy *everywhere*. It simply doesn't work. Hell, it should be obvious that this wont work. Yet some continue to pursue this economic theory anyway. Why you ask? Because it's not really about making the economy "better", but about putting the government more in control of the economy we have. But they can't get you to vote for them by saying "We're going to make everyone more poor in order to ensure that government is where everyone turns for food and shelter instead of the free market". So they sell you on the idea that if government intervenes, it can magically make the economy work better.


It doesn't work. It has never worked. All it does is destroy the parts of the economy the government doesn't control and force everyone into the parts of the economy that it does. The ultimate goal is to make you vote for your goods and services instead of work for them in a free labor market. Once you realize this, the pattern of behavior makes perfect sense.