Thread: Stop Coddling the super Rich

Originally Posted by heathrf1974

Paying someone to invest money is not labor. That's taking advantage of a current financial position.

Paying someone to invest money is labor. Just not physical labor.

Taking advantage of a current financial position with your money is called being smart.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Of course he didn't reduce spending. He wanted to spend the Soviet Union into bankruptcy and the only way he could get what he wanted was to give the Democrats a blank check on what they wanted.

Then why didn't spending increase if the Democrats were given a blank cheque? How come the economy went so well with no decrease in spending?

Originally Posted by 9aces

Wealthy people certainly are capable of increasing their wealth.

Ever heard the term, it takes money to make money? A lot of the money they're making they aren't making in this country are they?

Exactly, but trying to create empathy for that group is a stretch.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Paying someone to invest money is labor. Just not physical labor.

Taking advantage of a current financial position with your money is called being smart.

It is not labour it is a capital investment cost. Not an operating cost.

Originally Posted by michael h

Now that I've listed the relevant info ... I'd like to offer a simple explanation. Financial capital is tied up overseas ... trillions in MNC profits. Also banks are not making loans ... as a matter of fact a lot of money has gone to bail out Europe with their crisis.

The economy and manufacturing exiting the US ... making the US a more consumer driven economy ...

Manufacturing jobs have a job multiplier .. 2x to 3x. Those multipliers directly effect job growth for most of the jobs you listed in your post. A simple example would be the job loss for machine / tool shops no longer making tools for the 40 to 50 thousand manufacturing plants that exited the US. Losses for the local hair dresser, plumber, carpenter, auto mechanic, new car sales, tanning salon, restaurants, ...

Now the result of the exit of manufacturing jobs fueled the growth of construction starting about 2002. These jobs would peak about 2 million jobs above normal. 2 million good paying jobs they were. But that couldn't last as building is cyclical and prone to bubbles. Both manufacturing and construction can fuel an economy ... but with the exit of both industries as job creators ... what are you left with? Service. Most service is consumer driven and due to high unemployment in two major industries ... you cannot stimulate the US economy. Hence the desperate actions to stimulate the US economy by the Federal government. Well that only stimulated China's economy for a brief period of time.

I'd like to know how many small businesses in the Tri-State area hire anyone with a college degree.
You can't call a business and get someone who speaks English as a first language.
I don't live in isolation and I live in a community with hundreds of people who own small businesses.
They hire newly minted Mexicans and Indians because without big business to fuel the overall economy they can't afford to hire educated citizens.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Of course he didn't reduce spending. He wanted to spend the Soviet Union into bankruptcy and the only way he could get what he wanted was to give the Democrats a blank check on what they wanted.

He bragged about outspending the USSR and you believe for a moment a Pub congress wouldn't approve of anything Lord Reagan asked for?

Originally Posted by 9aces

Paying someone to invest money is labor. Just not physical labor.

Taking advantage of a current financial position with your money is called being smart.

So typing BUY IBM 1000 is labor?
I've done it but I hardly considered it labor?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

I'd like to know how many small businesses in the Tri-State area hire anyone with a college degree.
You can't call a business and get someone who speaks English as a first language.
I don't live in isolation and I live in a community with hundreds of people who own small businesses.
They hire newly minted Mexicans and Indians because without big business to fuel the overall economy they can't afford to hire educated citizens.

Thank you for making a very relevant point about hiring less qualified workers. I experienced this trend after 2000. The reason was less qualified workers could be paid less. To compensate for those of less ability a few more qualified employees were paid more to baby sit them and hold their hand. This meant taking a huge portion of your day to guide them in the basics of their job and was hugely stressful because you could previously delegate other employees to aid them when you were busy. As that ratio of intelligent to dumb ass employees decreased my work load multiplied ... trying to constantly fix the fuckups of unqualified workers. If I had an operation that was military ... and an idiot screwed up a part being inattentive or lazy, I had to immediately shut production down and do a study to prevent a re-occurrence of the problem.

Originally Posted by heathrf1974

Then why didn't spending increase if the Democrats were given a blank cheque? How come the economy went so well with no decrease in spending?

Spending did increase. Did you miss that part?

The economy went well because lots of capital was freed up and put to use?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

So typing BUY IBM 1000 is labor?
I've done it but I hardly considered it labor?

Did you have to evaluate the pros and cons of doing so?
Did you have to make the decision to do so, and have the means to do so?

Wasn't like you did nothing there. Physically it didn't take much, mentally?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

He bragged about outspending the USSR and you believe for a moment a Pub congress wouldn't approve of anything Lord Reagan asked for?

Sure, probably would have spent almost as much as the Democrats did on stuff he didn't ask for too.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Spending did increase. Did you miss that part?

The economy went well because lots of capital was freed up and put to use?

It is true that the financial sector grew in order to keep track of our assets going overseas.

Originally Posted by heathrf1974

Exactly, but trying to create empathy for that group is a stretch.

Who cares about empathy?

It's their money, if they're not working to increase it they're either being lazy or stupid.