Page 130 of 149 FirstFirst ... 3080120128129130131132140 ... LastLast
Results 1,291 to 1,300 of 1482

Thread: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

  1. #1291
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by Romulus View Post
    Like Marx, who was too busy describing the evils of capitalism to describe how socialism would actually work, leaving it to Stalin and Mao to work out the details. Keynes never defines full employment, which is why every Keynesian economist spent every second of the Bush tenure calling for more spending to create more jobs. Astrologists such as yourself can throw your bones and decipher the arbitrary predictions in any way that pleases your preconceived notions, because those predictions are vague and undefined.
    Again, you are flat-out wrong:

    It follows from this definition that the equality of the real wage to the marginal disutility of employment presupposed by the second postulate, realistically interpreted, corresponds to the absence of 'involuntary' unemployment. This state of affairs we shall describe as 'full' employment, both 'frictional' and 'voluntary' unemployment being consistent with 'full' employment thus defined.

    ...

    Apparent unemployment must, therefore, be the result either of temporary loss of work of the 'between jobs' type or of intermittent demand for highly specialized resources or of the effect of a trade union 'closed shop' on the employment of free labor.

    --J.M. Keynes, "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money"
    Last edited by AdamT; 07-31-12 at 01:11 PM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  2. #1292
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,774

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by Romulus View Post
    every Keynesian economist spent every second of the Bush tenure calling for more spending to create more jobs. .

    Where do you find support for such an absurd claim?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  3. #1293
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Again, you are flat-out wrong:
    Again, this is vague. Frictional unemployment has been determined to be as low as 2% and as high as 13% by various economists. When you don't provide a number or a reasonable range in your definition, you astrologists have lots of wiggle room to say 'he shoulda' and 'I woulda' as you squirm away from the unfalsifiability of your prognostications. In the The Economics of John Maynard Keynes: The Theory of a Monetary Economy Dillard claims it's 3% (on page 21). Well below Bush era unemployment.

  4. #1294
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Where do you find support for such an absurd claim?
    Keynes once called socialists such as yourself "deranged Methodists". He wasn't all bad.

    We can accept accept the desirability and even the necessity of [economic] planning without being a Communist, a Socialist, or a Fascist.--Keynes, BBC Broadcast (March 14, 1932)

    As to your lazy question, you can easily google a random Keynesian economist to find out what they called for during the Bush years. There are no Kulaks around to do your bidding komrade.

  5. #1295
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    11-08-13 @ 12:55 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

    If an honest person would calculate the major expenditures under the Obama administration, then explain how they would be for economic stimulus, I'de be interested in reading what they have to say.

    For example, Obamacare. How does that stimulate the economy exactly? Expansion in Medicaid, Welfare, and Unemployment. How do those stimulate the economy?

    And please don't insult me by saying, "Unemployment is money in people's pockets that they can spend on groceries and stuff". We all know those are very, very short term, and one time stimuluses of our economy. So, when I talk about "stimulating" the economy, I'm looking for something more long term, more substantial, and something that doesn't require the government to first spend money.

    Think of unemployment this way. We are paying non-producers for 99 weeks. Do the math. They are not contributing anything back that is above what they are receiving in benefits, so you aren't stimulating anything. They are only spending the money that the government has given them. That's not stimulus. That's breaking even. And that's only if the person spends 100% of their benefits on things that grow the economy.

    This is why Keynes was so messed up. He couldn't grasp the reality that before the government can spend a single dime, they must first extract it from the private sector via taxes. This is why government stimulus is short lived, and temporary. Private sector growth is what creates surplusses, not government stimulus. Besides, the effect of Obama's stimulus was very weak. It didn't keep unemployment below 8% like he promised. It didn't create 3 million new jobs. They started messing with the numbers when they started including "saved jobs". lol....as if he would know how many jobs were saved. He has no way to calculate that. Yet, leftist pretend economists repeated the rhetoric.

    Wanna create jobs in America? Get the government to operate like a real, private sector business. That means balancing a budget EVERY YEAR, EVERY QUARTER, EVERY MONTH, EVERY WEEK. You operate government just like a business. This would reduce the bloated size of government, and save us money. It would strengthen our currency, and give us far more leverage in foreign trade. It would also curb the out of control regulatory practices of committed liberals who seem hell bent on breaking the backs of companies they dont like. Like oil and gas companies, coal companies, large retailers like Wal Mart, etc. Keep taxes low. We don't have to reduce them from where they are now, but we need to inject stability and certainty in the business sector again. If businesses know that their taxes aren't going to go up because of Obamacare, or simply because liberals raise them, they will want to invest and grow. It's how they make money, by growing their businesses. That means more jobs, higher stock prices, better wages.

    I'm about 100% convinced, that any person who publicly denounces trickle down free market capitalism, has ZERO experience in owning or running a business for themselves. Trickle down IS how it works. You make a lot of money by owning a business, it makes enough money to pay my salary, which in turn pays for all my stuff. That's trickle down people. You work for a company that affords you with a salary that pays for your house, car, clothes, food, insurance, leisure time, college for your kids, internet, cable, and anything else you can afford. Remember that. That's trickle down. Dont like it? Then go start your own company, and distribute the profits however you like. Share every single penny with your workers. You invest your own time and money, then turn around and share all the rewards with the grocery bagger, or the cook, or the receptionist where all they do is answer phones. You wanna put their ideology into practice? Fine, then liberals should start their own companies, and pay their receptionists as much as their chief executive officers. Their janitors as much as their managers. Their waitresses as much as their accountants. Their candy stripers as much as their physicians.

  6. #1296
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,774

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by Romulus View Post
    Keynes once called socialists such as yourself "deranged Methodists". He wasn't all bad.

    We can accept accept the desirability and even the necessity of [economic] planning without being a Communist, a Socialist, or a Fascist.--Keynes, BBC Broadcast (March 14, 1932)

    As to your lazy question, you can easily google a random Keynesian economist to find out what they called for during the Bush years. There are no Kulaks around to do your bidding komrade.

    OR (in other words)

    "I 'know' what I wrote is true, so why bother to provide proof to those who disagree with me."



    oh yeah, and I did do the Google thing - which is why I asked for your supporting 'facts' for your statement
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  7. #1297
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by Romulus View Post
    Again, this is vague. Frictional unemployment has been determined to be as low as 2% and as high as 13% by various economists. When you don't provide a number or a reasonable range in your definition, you astrologists have lots of wiggle room to say 'he shoulda' and 'I woulda' as you squirm away from the unfalsifiability of your prognostications. In the The Economics of John Maynard Keynes: The Theory of a Monetary Economy Dillard claims it's 3% (on page 21). Well below Bush era unemployment.
    I can't imagine any real economist claiming that frictional unemployment could be as high as 13%. Do you have a cite for that?

    In any case, as the quote above indicates, Keynes defines full employment as frictional unemployment + voluntary unemployment -- not just frictional unemployment. I'm quite sure that Keynes would not have approved of massive spending and tax cuts with unemployment in the 4-5% range. And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. All those tax cuts and all that spending did NOT bring down unemployment. All it did was jack up the debt and fuel a galactic asset bubble.
    Last edited by AdamT; 07-31-12 at 03:02 PM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  8. #1298
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    OR (in other words)

    "I 'know' what I wrote is true, so why bother to provide proof to those who disagree with me."



    oh yeah, and I did do the Google thing - which is why I asked for your supporting 'facts' for your statement
    Or (in other words)

    "It is not my job to educate lazy tyrannical socialists."

    If your Bourgeoisie Google tool gives you evidence a Keynesian economist called for austerity measures because we were at "full employment" under Bush, then I'd be happy to see it. If you fail, then I'm sure it's due to corporate greed, or the "ultimate synthesis" of the Hegelian Dialectic process having yet to unfold or something. Right komrade? Nice text color choice...red...you should do all your posts in red.

  9. #1299
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by Romulus View Post
    Or (in other words)

    "It is not my job to educate lazy tyrannical socialists."

    If your Bourgeoisie Google tool gives you evidence a Keynesian economist called for austerity measures because we were at "full employment" under Bush, then I'd be happy to see it. If you fail, then I'm sure it's due to corporate greed, or the "ultimate synthesis" of the Hegelian Dialectic process having yet to unfold or something. Right komrade? Nice text color choice...red...you should do all your posts in red.
    Funny, you insisted on a specific cite and PAGE NUMBER when I made a point about Keynes. Do you really think "it's on the interwebs" is an adequate response?

    While you're looking, give me a cite for an economist who claims that frictional unemployment is 13%.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  10. #1300
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I can't imagine any real economist claiming that frictional unemployment could be as high as 13%. Do you have a cite for that?
    No, I made it up then posted it on Wiki.

    Full Employment in a Free Society by William Henry Beveridge Part II, Sections 1-3 deals with employment as described by various economists from different countries and time periods who collectively quantify "full employment" in a range between 2 and 13%. Beveridge, like Dillard, claims it is 3%. Well below the Bush era rate.

    Even if you accept your lover Boo "Duncan Grant" Radley's range of 2-7%, Bush's rate fell in the middle of that...so your shoulda coulda woulda retrospective astrology can come from either end of the argument.

    In any case, as the quote above indicates, Keynes defines full employment as frictional unemployment + voluntary unemployment -- not just frictional unemployment. I'm quite sure that Keynes would not have approved of massive spending and tax cuts with unemployment in the 4-5% range. And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. All those tax cuts and all that spending did NOT bring down unemployment. All it did was jack up the debt and fuel a galactic asset bubble.
    Sure, it wasn't the Keynesian ideology of keeping interest rates closest to zero (Keynes ridiculously believed interest rate could and should be zero) which effects tens of trillions of dollars of commerce (most especially, home loans)...it was the marginal difference in the tax rate between Clinton and Bush on the top quintile of earners (who can afford homes at high rates). Right? Explain to me how cutting taxes on the wealthy caused the non-wealthy to buy homes they couldn't afford?

    Also, since you're attempting derail the topic with speculation you are "quit sure" about, why do interventionist economists like Keynes and Beveridge always seem to join groups like the British Eugenics Society? I mean, since you are apparently not only a great astrologer, you are highly talented medium who knows where people who have been dead for 66 years come down on the Bush tax cuts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •