|
Post by cpdad on May 22, 2012 19:18:00 GMT -5
so chad...how do you create jobs?...kev.
|
|
|
Post by cpdad on May 22, 2012 19:19:07 GMT -5
hahaha ;D...kev.
|
|
|
Post by chad on May 22, 2012 19:53:29 GMT -5
One of the best films of recent years Honestly, I don't have an answer. There's a lot of moving parts, as I said before. Even the worlds beat and foremost economic experts can't agree, and I can't hold a candle to their understanding of all the intricacies and convoluted interactions that make up the modern global economy. It's bigger, more manipulated (for better and worse), and on a larger scale than history has ever seen. But what I DO know, just like so many other topics other than economics, the answer certainly doesn't consist of one toggle switch, one aspect, and one of my pet peeves is people who can't possibly understand a huge complex system like global economics present like they have "the answer". Charlie posted a good thought, simple facts, and this launched into yet another right vs left diatribe of nonsense. No one side has the whole, complete, and correct solution. Like everything else involving billions of people, the answer is somewhere in the middle after right and left smash their heads against each other for a while. You will rarely see me offer "answers" for political issues, because I can usually see right and wrong in most imperfect arguments (which most are). I haven't spent my whole life studying economics, and I don't think anyone here has either... So I'd never dream of being so pompous to present my tip-of-the-iceberg understandings as the boiled-down 100 word solution to such a huge issue. I agree with the OP that jobs are created in a capitalist system when demand can be satisfied by supply, and the supply can be afforded by consumers. But with the global economy of today, with so many different economic systems and levels of development being so varied between them, and corporations that are large and rich enough to essentially exist outside any one nation's sovereignty and influence if it doesn't suit them, the answer is unwritten and untested. Most of your varied opinions may be right. We certainly won't find an answer without trying them and seeing what happens. Capitalism in a pure form will struggle at times when interacting in a global economy that isn't 100% capitalism. Capitalism isn't a bad thing. It can be corrupted by greedy selfish people, but so can everything else. I guess he said the same thing I've said simply and with class when he replied that his mother said to offer a solution or shush. I just got aggravated when the unicorn popped up. Rude far left and right non-responses like that to a well formed honest thought never fail to troll me.
|
|
|
Post by helens on May 22, 2012 20:14:02 GMT -5
The 'answer' is to have balance. Supply and demand have equilibrium when they are in balance.
When you have excess supply, the demand falls off, prices fall, people get laid off, and then supply falls off again.
When you have excess demand (businesses making less money due to competition) the supply falls off, people must be hired to meet the increased production for increased demand, and then demand falls off again.
Economics is a sine wave, with a need for continual adjustments.
We are in the excess supply stage, need more demand, need to do more hiring.
Consumers generate demand.
Businesses generate supply.
If we need demand right now, who should we be helping?
|
|
|
Post by cpdad on May 22, 2012 20:19:28 GMT -5
no... what charlie posted is nonsense....i like charlie....but if ya wanna know what creates jobs....ask someone that actually creates them....and why they are being created....kev.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on May 22, 2012 20:20:04 GMT -5
Well, I can say that some folks have no sense of humor, obviously. Actually, I was giving Charlie a little tit-for-tat. Sorry to have offended your sense of propriety. (insert halo here) Bill
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on May 22, 2012 20:25:12 GMT -5
Seems like someone would censure our right to free speech, All because it isn't in line with his and his beloved Obama's way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by chad on May 22, 2012 20:38:16 GMT -5
Clever. Though I never remotely said anything about censoring anyone. Oh, guess that makes it un-clever then.
Obama has screwed up a LOT of things. But Romney? Really?
Some folks cling to the "old" ways... Look where the young are standing. "Lazy" folks have nothing to motivate them other than having the honor of paying for the last generation's wars and welfare (social security is welfare), student loans for the next 25 years because you can't hardly get a job without paying into that system too, and all on a whopping $25/hr for jobs (if you can find them) that the prior generation was paid twice that to do before unions and good paying domestic manufacturing jobs you could get without college were destroyed. The ball was solidly in motion before the Obama regime, and he failed to catch it too. Oh, and the 75% social security we might get if things go well and we survive to the ever increasing retirement age in the times of insurance companies playing doctor and the copayment and deductibles we may or may not be able to afford with our half-wage jobs. There really isn't much left after all that... Then they get to sit around and listen to the only things being worked on presenting as the huge, world threatening dilemmas of the gays and the pot and the Mexicans. So some people get lazy. Hard for the young to not feel disenfranchised with the grind when you see it from that perspective.
The old ways are awesome, yay Romney 2012!
I don't love Obama, but next to the alternative, I sure do like him better.
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on May 22, 2012 20:48:56 GMT -5
You may create jobs with your theory, Charlie - but no one will apply for them because someone is redistributing the wealth and giving them free money. Where is the incentive to work? Any jobs you artificially created will go unfilled and the scheme eventually will collapse. You nailed it Toad. You want to create jobs?Simple. Throw Barry out of office and elect a republican. Too bad a true party of Lincoln Republican isn't running. Lee
|
|
|
Post by helens on May 22, 2012 20:51:33 GMT -5
You nailed it Toad. You want to create jobs?Simple. Throw Barry out of office and elect a republican. Too bad a true party of Lincoln Republican isn't running. Lee Here here.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on May 22, 2012 20:52:20 GMT -5
Man oh man, typical socialist blather and smoke and mirrors, Charlie, you've got about half the folks working to support the freebies to the other half right now. You've got the government swiping money from working folks and giving it to the non productive folks to spend and support your stupid stupid theory. You've got the government swiping social security funds from folks who paid into to the fund to support other government spending. You've got an aggressive business hostile government and greedy unions driving companies out of the country. You've got to realize that at some point ( probably already have passed this point) the well is going to go dry and there are simply not enough working folks to redistribute wealth from *L*.
It's easy to create jobs. Simply make it attractive tax wise and workforce wise for businesses to operate here. Get the friggin government out of the way and stop over regulation and harassment by government agencies ( ala Gibson guitars) Make energy cheap by developing American petrochemical resources and pipelines. Work on clean coal ( we have lots of coal) instead of pipe dream sci fi clean energy programs. Stop freebies for the healthy non productive folks and create an incentive for them to go to work. Get the freaking unions into line and write reasonable contracts that make American manufacturing cost effective. Tariffs on unfair trade partners like China. Tax breaks for repatriation of American money and companies. Get off the back of small businesses. Simplify the tax code. Basically, look at whatever freaking Obama is doing and do the opposite and you'll create lots of jobs.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on May 22, 2012 21:12:50 GMT -5
Quote Chad. --- Some folks cling to the "old" ways... Look where the young are standing. "Lazy" folks have nothing to motivate them other than having the honor of paying for the last generation's wars and welfare (social security is welfare) Read more: forum.rocktumblinghobby.com/index.cgi?board=polit&action=display&thread=52799&page=2#ixzz1veeBNlVwChad, Social Security is not welfare. Us old timers paid into it as a retirement fund all of our working lives. It's not our fault that our dear politicians on both sides of the line saw it as their own personal slush fund, to use as they saw fit, with no intention of ever paying back. Welfare it is not. It was paid for with the blood, sweat and tears of us old folks.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on May 22, 2012 21:36:08 GMT -5
Yep, Chad you are so out of touch. Social Security is not welfare. It was supposed to be like a government retirement insurance plan. We paid into it all our working lives as did our employers. If we had taken that same money and paid into a 401K we'd have a bunch of money ( and it would be our money) but the government did not give us a choice but instead robbed us of our investments and our earnings and now depends on the current working folks to pay the tiny monthly check for each of the older folks who are drawing it, a true government ponzi scheme as many have stated.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by mohs on May 22, 2012 21:44:18 GMT -5
Declare War on China
|
|
|
Post by chad on May 22, 2012 21:49:49 GMT -5
Of course it's welfare... How could it not be? It's taxing one group to give to another. I'm not one of you folks who think welfare is a 4 letter word... I meant nothing negative about it. ALL welfare is an insurance plan for this outcome or that one. You just think its a dirty word so you don't want the welfare you are going to be collecting to be called such. It's just a word to describe various programs providing social safety nets to various groups of people, and we've all paid into all of them. The boomers paid in to support the earlier generation, and now the young would be paying in to support the boomers. You didn't pay into a savings account for YOUR future, that money is long gone to your parents. Thing is, the generation starting to tap it is tough to support by the young today given the circumstances, and yet the young are the only ones expected to sacrifice in the face of this recession. The expenses are so much higher due to life expectancy and the cost of living and healthcare, and if it's to be funded completely, it's a MUCH larger piece of the pie than my parents endured. And these costs are just going to go higher and higher.
I'm not at all advocating for eliminating it, but the lack of understanding of the plight the young are facing trying to pay for their own lives plus carry such a huge expense going forward, it's pretty insulting when recipients today seem uncaring that those paying in today feel jaded and worry that we won't get anything when it's our turn to retire after working into our 70s. I'm glad the boomers could comfortably pay for their parents' retirement, but the world has changed and the system doesn't afford the same look forward that you had.
The problems of today aren't mostly the fault of the young, and though it's hard to step back and see the panic they feel about their future as they thrash around in a system designed to fit into an economy that has crashed, calling us lazy isn't going to encourage us to put in that 50 hour workweek to break even after the system pays everyone else first. This generation is one of the first who is having the system do things overwhelmingly TO them rather than FOR them. Can you honestly step back and blame them for feeling disenfranchised when the issues deciding elections are things we don't feel are coming anywhere near to addressing what's screwing up the best years of our lives as far as earning and saving potential for that increasongly crazy, violent, and expensive future staring at us?
Foremost, it's sad that we always bicker and fight and think we are experts as we pick our team and love this politician but hate that one, when the downward spiral has looked the same either way. We shouldn't be hating "welfare"... What kind of insanity wouldn't want to live in a community of people who weather the storm together? Instead we put on the red or blue hat, deride each other even though we are all more or less equally clueless and powerless, and sing the praises of whatever millionaire or billionaire plays for that team.... When in reality, the rest of us are playing a different sport altogether. We are all on the same team, but the game is so distracting we never get to benefit from our collective skills and win the game. I'm not really sure why Mel says I'm "out of touch" by saying the system is broken and the answer isn't simple... But I think "out of touch" would be to say the old ways are sustainable and can pull us out of the mess caused by advanced stage old ways. It's pretty obviously NOT WORKING.
Hopefully we can find the right combination of answers somewhere in grey-land before it's too late and an entire generation says "forget this... I'm moving to Sweden."
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on May 22, 2012 22:07:37 GMT -5
Sounds like someone's mama took their video game away. Go cry to uncle Obama, and he'll redistribute one to you. You young folks make me want to puke.
You talk about the boomers having to pay for the old folks. I am one of those old folks. Just looking at your profile pic, I was probably paying into SS when you were still a wet dream running down your dads leg. None of us expected our elected officials to piss that money away. We expected it to be there for us in our retirement years. All we ask for is to be repaid what we payed in, plus a portion of the interest it should have earned if our crooked government on both side of the line hadn't crookedly swindled us out of our savings. We didn't ask future generations to pay for us. It's the boomers and their spoiled brat kids that expect someone to foot their bills.
All I can say for you young folks is, get a job. Save every cent you possibly can. And don't trust your government to redistribute money in your direction. They're too busy lining their own pockets with it.
|
|
|
Post by chad on May 22, 2012 22:11:28 GMT -5
Yep, Chad you are so out of touch. Social Security is not welfare... ...depends on the current working folks to pay the tiny monthly check for each of the older folks who are drawing it... Sounds like welfare to me. Guess I didn't need to type that last message because you argued with yourself in the same post. Maybe it wasn't intended to be the evil W-word when it started... But the politician robbery, like you said, has made it something else in reality. Something a lot like welfare. And that's OK.. It's just not very realistic right now. Just like that newfangled windmill nonsense. And Jake, did you even read what I wrote? Or is "u <3 obama u stupid kid lol get a job" the only argument you can come up with to everything despite me stating in not-so-uncertain terms that Obama is no solution either? And to me, your post basically sums up as "we put our trust in a bad insurance agent and now we want those boomers and their spoiled brat kids to foot the bill". But it's ok, I'll get off your lawn and get back to the rocks at hand, because I already said SS is great (but broken) and Obama isn't great, even if you didn't read it. And don't worry about saying thanks for the bailout (plus interest for your mistakes). I am actually OK with paying it, because I care about my society. PS: Puke all you want about us young folks, we will take care of that bill for you too, old man
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on May 22, 2012 22:22:52 GMT -5
Quote me. ---We didn't ask future generations to pay for us. It's the boomers and their spoiled brat kids that expect someone to foot their bills
You obviously didn't read very good either Chad.
|
|
|
Post by chad on May 22, 2012 22:29:53 GMT -5
You're right Jake, I didn't read it and missed the "... so I declined my SS benefits because that would be redistribution since the original plan got messed up" at the end of your sentence. Must have been typed in Invisible New Roman.
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on May 22, 2012 23:01:04 GMT -5
No time to play Chad. It's late, and us old folks need our sleep. Want to wake up for a few more years to draw my SS, Medicare, Military retirement and TriCare.
|
|