Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Boehner says "FUBO"Follow

#52 Sep 02 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
It's normal for companies to become more efficient in a downturn. They'll start rehiring once there's a good reason. The American public and several European governments are carrying a lot of debt right now, and there's a good deal of uncertainty and volatility in the midst of a economic downturn which has affected most of the world economy.

Give the debt-holders a chance to de-leverage and things a chance to shake out. Some certainty will arise again with investment opportunities becoming clearer; it's just not going to be fixed on the time-scale any of us would like.

Anyone who tells you that the USA raising or lower taxes is going to be like a magic bullet and revitalize the world economy is being overly-optimistic at best.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#53 Sep 02 2011 at 6:19 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
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.

____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#54 Sep 02 2011 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Technogeek wrote:
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.



You say this like it's a new development. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#55 Sep 02 2011 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Technogeek wrote:
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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Sep 02 2011 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
You think the people running corporations are logical? You ever read Dilbert? Most of the stuff he puts in his comic comes from real businesses. Attributing logic to CEO's is very amusing.

Personally, I don't think it will get better until there's a real revolution. It won't be the "Tea Party" folks doing the revolting, it will be the poor. I'm guessing in 50 years or so.

Like you, I'm pulling numbers out of my ***, but at least I admit it...
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#57 Sep 02 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
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.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#58 Sep 02 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
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.


Sure. So let me ask a question: Do you think that increasing the health cost per employee and threatening to raise taxes on corporations and "the rich" helps us start that positive feedback process, or hurts it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Sep 02 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
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.


Sure. So let me ask a question: Do you think that increasing the health cost per employee and threatening to raise taxes on corporations and "the rich" helps us start that positive feedback process, or hurts it?


Do I dare ask you how you want to lower healthcare costs? Smiley: smile
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#60 Sep 02 2011 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,000 posts
The real answer to that is let everyone buy into Medicare. However, the insurance lobbyists will never let that happen.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#61 Sep 02 2011 at 10:14 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Quote:
You do realize that consumer demand does not drive employment, right? Businesses do not look at aggregate demand and decide that there's too little for them to make a new product, or invest in some new venture. They do those things as a means of competing for existing demand. Aggregate demand as a whole has very very very little to do with business decisions or employment decisions. Future profit/cost estimates do.



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
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#62 Sep 03 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
We already have employees spending large amounts of their day websurfing because the amount of work we have is just enough to pay all the bills and keep the business running smoothly.

When small business taxes were lowered last year, my boss bought a lake house.

When our biggest client expanded and the number of IT issues they had doubled, we hired another person.

We're not hiring anyone else unless there is a significant need for them. So far, there hasn't been.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#63 Sep 04 2011 at 1:30 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
670 posts
catwho wrote:
When small business taxes were lowered last year, my boss bought a lake house.


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.
#64 Sep 04 2011 at 6:33 AM Rating: Excellent
No, xantav, it goes to buying new equipment that the business has no need for, thereby creating new jobs in other sectors.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#65 Sep 04 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
No, xantav, it goes to buying new equipment that the business has no need for, thereby creating new jobs in other sectors.


Oh I always thought it went into the upper upper managments pockets never to be seen again.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#66 Sep 04 2011 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
catwho wrote:
We already have employees spending large amounts of their day websurfing because the amount of work we have is just enough to pay all the bills and keep the business running smoothly.
Awesome, you've got a boss that's decided to keep everyone working as opposed to maintaining his profits by laying off people and keeping only those he needs.


catwho wrote:
When small business taxes were lowered last year, my boss bought a lake house.
Nice to see a small business owner get something for themselves and reinvest in the economy at the same time.

____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#67 Sep 04 2011 at 11:27 AM Rating: Good
rdmcandie wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
No, xantav, it goes to buying new equipment that the business has no need for, thereby creating new jobs in other sectors.


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.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#68 Sep 06 2011 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
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.


Sure. So let me ask a question: Do you think that increasing the health cost per employee and threatening to raise taxes on corporations and "the rich" helps us start that positive feedback process, or hurts it?


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


I think gbaji is in the "let everyone buy their own insurance if they want it, individual policies for all!" camp, but I could be wrong.

The problem with that, of course, is that the people who actually need health insurance wouldn't ever be able to afford it. Oh, unless you're rich, and that's the only people that the GOP and conservatives like gabji really care about anyway.
#69 Sep 06 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Sure. So let me ask a question: Do you think that increasing the health cost per employee and threatening to raise taxes on corporations and "the rich" helps us start that positive feedback process, or hurts it?


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


I think gbaji is in the "let everyone buy their own insurance if they want it, individual policies for all!" camp, but I could be wrong.

The problem with that, of course, is that the people who actually need health insurance wouldn't ever be able to afford it. Oh, unless you're rich, and that's the only people that the GOP and conservatives like gabji really care about anyway.


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
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Sep 06 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
xantav wrote:
catwho wrote:
When small business taxes were lowered last year, my boss bought a lake house.


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.


It's funny how conflating small and big business allows people to continue to avoid realizing just how flawed their own positions are. Small businesses tend to pocket increased profits and spend them on themselves. That's because small businesses are generally directly owned by one person. Thus, every dollar of profits is that person's own property. They will then make decisions as to whether to spend that money building the business, or rewarding themselves for their success.

The money owned by big businesses is nearly always going to be in the form of a corporation. Meaning that the money does not go directly into someone's pockets when profits are up. The corporation's investors have to collectively decide what to do with them. The default condition is that the money is held in the corporation to be used to grow its business. They have to choose to direct profits to the owners for it to end out directly into anyone's pockets.


Not making a moral judgment about either. Just pointing out that in small businesses the profits go to the owner first and then he has to choose to take money out of his pocket to put back into the business, while in a corporation the profits go into the business first and the owners have to choose to take money out of the business and put it into their pockets. Both have positives and negatives, but it's interesting how people will apply them incorrectly when it suits the argument of the moment.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Sep 06 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Sure. So let me ask a question: Do you think that increasing the health cost per employee and threatening to raise taxes on corporations and "the rich" helps us start that positive feedback process, or hurts it?


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


I think gbaji is in the "let everyone buy their own insurance if they want it, individual policies for all!" camp, but I could be wrong.

The problem with that, of course, is that the people who actually need health insurance wouldn't ever be able to afford it. Oh, unless you're rich, and that's the only people that the GOP and conservatives like gabji really care about anyway.


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.


So, in other words, I'm right?
#72 Sep 06 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:

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.


So, in other words, I'm right?


Did you say whether rising health care costs would hurt or help employment rates? If not, then you are wrong by default.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Sep 06 2011 at 4:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
You do realize that consumer demand does not drive employment, right? Businesses do not look at aggregate demand and decide that there's too little for them to make a new product, or invest in some new venture. They do those things as a means of competing for existing demand. Aggregate demand as a whole has very very very little to do with business decisions or employment decisions. Future profit/cost estimates do.



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


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.


Quote:
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.


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

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


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. ****, 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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Sep 06 2011 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:

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.


So, in other words, I'm right?


Did you say whether rising health care costs would hurt or help employment rates? If not, then you are wrong by default.


So I did phrase your stance on health insurance correctly. That's all you had to say.
#75ThiefX, Posted: Sep 06 2011 at 4:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) For a second I though you were joking but sadly........
#76 Sep 06 2011 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:

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.


So, in other words, I'm right?


Did you say whether rising health care costs would hurt or help employment rates? If not, then you are wrong by default.


So I did phrase your stance on health insurance correctly. That's all you had to say.


You're working really really hard to avoid discussing the issue at hand. Makes one wonder *why* you'd do this. Nowhere in this conversation are we discussing the effects of the implementation of any other form of health care reform. I'm only asking you to assess the direct effects of the one that was passed compared to not passing it. Why are you working so hard to avoid facing that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 73 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (73)