REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Middle Class Consumers the REAL job creators

POSTED BY: KPO
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 08:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1406
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, April 27, 2012 2:21 PM

KPO

"Love is natural and real. But not for you my love. Not tonight my love..."


By a wealthy venture capitalist, an intersting view:

Quote:

It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.

Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. For the larger part of human history, for example, people were sure that the sun circles the Earth and that we are at the center of the universe. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. The conventional wisdom that the rich and businesses are our nation’s “job creators” is every bit as false.

I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)

Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.

That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.

Theory of Evolution
When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around.

It is unquestionably true that without entrepreneurs and investors, you can’t have a dynamic and growing capitalist economy. But it’s equally true that without consumers, you can’t have entrepreneurs and investors. And the more we have happy customers with lots of disposable income, the better our businesses will do.

That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When the American middle class defends a tax system in which the lion’s share of benefits accrues to the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

And that’s what has been happening in the U.S. for the last 30 years.

Since 1980, the share of the nation’s income for fat cats like me in the top 0.1 percent has increased a shocking 400 percent, while the share for the bottom 50 percent of Americans has declined 33 percent. At the same time, effective tax rates on the superwealthy fell to 16.6 percent in 2007, from 42 percent at the peak of U.S. productivity in the early 1960s, and about 30 percent during the expansion of the 1990s. In my case, that means that this year, I paid an 11 percent rate on an eight-figure income.

One reason this policy is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the average American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, I go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

It’s true that we do spend a lot more than the average family. Yet the one truly expensive line item in our budget is our airplane (which, by the way, was manufactured in France by Dassault Aviation SA (AM)), and those annual costs are mostly for fuel (from the Middle East). It’s just crazy to believe that any of this is more beneficial to our economy than hiring more teachers or police officers or investing in our infrastructure.

More Shoppers Needed
I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the tens of millions of middle-class families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.

If the average American family still got the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would have an astounding $13,000 more in their pockets a year. It’s worth pausing to consider what our economy would be like today if middle-class consumers had that additional income to spend.

It is mathematically impossible to invest enough in our economy and our country to sustain the middle class (our customers) without taxing the top 1 percent at reasonable levels again. Shifting the burden from the 99 percent to the 1 percent is the surest and best way to get our consumer-based economy rolling again.

Significant tax increases on the about $1.5 trillion in collective income of those of us in the top 1 percent could create hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in our economy, rather than letting it pile up in a few bank accounts like a huge clot in our nation’s economic circulatory system.

Consider, for example, that a puny 3 percent surtax on incomes above $1 million would be enough to maintain and expand the current payroll tax cut beyond December, preventing a $1,000 increase on the average worker’s taxes at the worst possible time for the economy. With a few more pennies on the dollar, we could invest in rebuilding schools and infrastructure. And even if we imposed a millionaires’ surtax and rolled back the Bush- era tax cuts for those at the top, the taxes on the richest Americans would still be historically low, and their incomes would still be astronomically high.

We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Middle-class consumers do, and when they thrive, U.S. businesses grow and profit. That’s why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.

So let’s give a break to the true job creators. Let’s tax the rich like we once did and use that money to spur growth by putting purchasing power back in the hands of the middle class. And let’s remember that capitalists without customers are out of business.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-re
ward-job-creators-commentary-by-nick-hanauer.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 27, 2012 3:00 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Wow. Absolutely GORGEOUS! Of course, our righties here won't get it, but that's okay; the rest of us DO! Many thanx.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 27, 2012 3:11 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Consider, for example, that a puny 3 percent surtax on incomes above $1 million would be enough to maintain and expand the current payroll tax cut beyond December, preventing a $1,000 increase on the average worker’s taxes at the worst possible time for the economy. With a few more pennies on the dollar, we could invest in rebuilding schools and infrastructure. And even if we imposed a millionaires’ surtax and rolled back the Bush- era tax cuts for those at the top, the taxes on the richest Americans would still be historically low, and their incomes would still be astronomically high.


That sounds beautiful man...

And yet, far too overly simplistic....

Unfortunately, a puny 3 percent surtax on incomes above 1 million would be a drop of piss in the bucket. Raise the tax to 30% for every American family making over 1 million tomorrow and all you've done is covered less than one day of our government deficit spending.

Meanwhile, if you reduce Government spending in every single office just 1% across the board, you've mitigated 10 times the deficit spending.

Do you really think that the tax raise on the rich will be given directly to the poor anyways?

I mean, of course it will look that way, when taxes on the poor aren't changed, but if the deficit keeps climbing every year afterward, we're all going to have to pay the piper one day, rich and poor alike. (And if there is ANY semblance of the prior years when that day comes, who's going to be squished first??? And if not... let's just say I'm glad that I'm armed and I have several years of rations.)



These are all bullshit issues and talking points. Unless the debt gets back under control, we're all doomed, Liberal and Conservative and Free Thinkers alike.

I seriously doubt our political affiliations will mean f-all to each other when we're roommates in our debtors prison cells, under Chinese Authority....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 28, 2012 12:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Look at the European governments: They're doing what the banks want them to do- cutting spending and slashing government programs to reduce government deficit and it's driving them into recession.

Greece, Spain, and Britain are all falling into significant economic contraction, thanks to the bankers' demands and the w/drawal of $$ from the middle class.

Personally, I don't think the government should be beholden to the banks via government debt, but the problem is because we have allowed the banks to create currency. The answer isn't to bow under the banker's whip but the break the banks altogether, and take currency creation out of their hands.

Also, if we really want to cut wasteful spending we should cut the military.

-----------

BTW- KPO, thank you for posting this article. I'm going to repeat the salient point here, in case the article looks too long and causes peoples' eyes to roll back in their heads:

Quote:

I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)

Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.

That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.



I have been saying this for.... years, now. But rappy, geezer, wulf et. al. discount anything a mere worker might say. Perhaps coming from the font of authority (a very rich person) the authoritarians among us might now pay attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 28, 2012 12:55 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Look at the European governments: They're doing what the banks want them to do- cutting spending and slashing government programs to reduce government deficit and it's driving them into recession .

Greece, Spain, and Britain are all falling into significant economic contraction, thanks to the bankers' demands and the w/drawal of $$ from the middle class.

Thank you, Sig. Aside from mere common sense, I've watched it happen too, and been frustrated at our righties continuing to cry "cut, cut, cut!" and insist taxes on the ultra-wealthy (mind you, I'm not saying just the "wealthy") were inconceivable.

But no, it wouldn't make any difference to them. Look at all the rich people RIGHT NOW who are saying their own taxes should be raised (not just Buffet, if you guys were preparing a come-back), and it means nothing to them. This very article, written by a Rich Person, spells it out clearly yet they'll argue until the cows come home that he's some kind of secret socialist, just wait and see.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:21 PM

OONJERAH



I was very young at the time, might not remember right.

1950's: Excellent economy, yes?
Very high income tax on the millionaires ...
and none of 'em went broke.

We had what we thought was a huge national debt, however.
Did that ever dip? Or just continue to climb for 60 years?
. . . while the Military-Industrial complex was growing
and coming to control all that it saw.



. . . . .The worst and most frequent consequence of paranoia is that it's self-fulfilling.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 28, 2012 2:37 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Hey Signy,

Good points there... just remember to specify there that it was our Congress that allowed the "Federal" reserve to coin our currency. We wouldn't want to make the mistake of letting people who don't know the facts go thinking that all of our problems are because of one individual president or Chase Bank.

The Federal Reserve is the BIGGEST corporation in the world. The only thing that differentiates them from other huge corporations is that they are completely untaxed, just like churches are.

Don't you just LOVE it when they use purposefully misnomers like "Federal Reserve" (Both words completely false in this context), "Patriot Act" (Any true patriot is 100% against this act), "Net Neutrality" (Has anyone even figured out which side to root for on this issue?)




About recessions, times weren't good before Regan was in power either. They definitaly didn't get better overnight when his administration made some serious changes, and interest rates were sky high (My parents lucked out and had only a 14.5% interest rate on their 51 thousand dollar house.... somewhere within a year or two of the time they bought rates peaked at nearly 24%).

I can't find the exact statistic that shows mortgage rates in 1980 at over 23%, but this graph shows that the prime rate in April of 1980 was 20% even, so given that people had been paying about 3.25-3.75% mortgage interest when banks were giving out free money last year, you can do the math.

http://www.wsjprimerate.us/wall_street_journal_prime_rate_history.htm

It was a bitter pill to swallow, but well before the end of Reagan's 2nd term and even before he was still popular enough to be re-elected, the value of the dollar had risen very much with the rates so high, and the GDP was ballooning at over 11% per year. GBI and his failed war didn't do anything to help matters afterward (There's been worse presidents than GBI, but there have been MANY better). Clinton seemed to get things back right track, and overall I think he was a great Democratic president. I only wish he didn't play such a big part in making China the superpower it's becoming today. As it was though, there was over 8% GDP growth on his watch, and even a budget surplus, so all 8% of that growth actually meant something.

Right now, we're stagnant at a GDP of 2.5%, and we're coming dangerously close to the point where the interest alone on our debts outshadows how much money American workers can work to pay in a year after you include all the new debt piled on every day by government agencies, employees, programs and entitlements.

Take a walk down the street and 1 in every 7 people you see will be on food stamps.

Boy, I'd love getting free money for food so I could eat some steak once in a while instead of frozen pizza and mac and cheese with chili beans every night! I still don't understand how you see somebody talking on their cell phone in the register while using their food stamps and go out to your car only to see that person get into a nice car. The very fact that I own a Camry over 15 years old precludes me from getting food stamps.




About cutting the military, I agree very strongly and had always argued that point when I was very vocal against Bush Jr. At the same time though, this isn't a fairytale world we live in, and especially since we've now given China as much power as we have over the last 2 decades and Russia will flip to whatever side is winning, now's not the time to leave ourselves completely defenceless. I say, cut about 1/3rd of the staff and close all the rediculous encampments we have in places like germany where all my brother (and uncle in the past) did out there was get drunk and score. Keep the Carriers fully staffed, Keep bases in strategic places in the US fully staffed, and Keep bases in countries that are close to dangerous situations staffed.

I'm 100% against imperialism, which next to the ridiculous debt Bush the idiot Jr. was running up, was my 2nd biggest problem with his regime. At the same time, when you're top dog, you need to be looking out for the 2nd strongest "Alpha" looking to END you. Maybe we're not even top dog anymore, but I can think of more than a handful of countries that would just love to see us become a 3rd world country and watch riots breaking out on the streets when our infrastructure had been decimated by a string of well executed attacks that put life the way we know it at a stand still.



In the end, our opinions don't matter though. Whatever presidents we vote in are going to continue to do the wrong thing, on either side... and likely even if they were 3rd party. Enjoy the party while it lasts. US is going the way of Greece either way come November and thereafter.....


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:09 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Look at the European governments: They're doing what the banks want them to do- cutting spending and slashing government programs to reduce government deficit and it's driving them into recession.

Greece, Spain, and Britain are all falling into significant economic contraction, thanks to the bankers' demands and the w/drawal of $$ from the middle class.



Whereas prior to cutting spending they were all being driven towards bankruptcy.

Also note that Greece, Spain, and Britain all have significantly higher tax rates than the U.S., and much lower defense spending.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:26 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Look at the European governments: They're doing what the banks want them to do- cutting spending and slashing government programs to reduce government deficit and it's driving them into recession.

Greece, Spain, and Britain are all falling into significant economic contraction, thanks to the bankers' demands and the w/drawal of $$ from the middle class.



Whereas prior to cutting spending they were all being driven towards bankruptcy.

Also note that Greece, Spain, and Britain all have significantly higher tax rates than the U.S., and much lower defense spending.



It's all true Geezer, but it doesn't amount to much in this fiat currency we live in....

My house is paid for, free and clear, but i wouldn't be surprised if "they" comendeered it for position...




That's not anti-Obama speak, idiotis!

I said the same shit when Bush Jr was president.


First, to give them both credit, these aren't easy times....

But 6 years ago I was screaming that GB2 was the worst president we'd ever had.....

And now i'm wishing we were back in 2007....

do the math....

The US is DONE..... stick a fork in us

Thanks GWB and Barry!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


GEEZER, despite the fact that I posted about this before in excruciating detail you haven't learned a thing.

I looked into this because -according to the available information- EU policy should not have fostered an economic crash: their wealth inequity was less than ours, and they have relatively low military spending.

So what happened???

Well, it wasn't "socialist spending" that caused the problem. All EU government budgets- except Greece- were doing quite nicely before 2008. Most of them had government debt loads lower than ours, and many of them were running budget surpluses and using their surplus to pay down their debt even further. For example, Spain's overall debt load was about 30% of GDP and falling while ours was about 75% and rising.

As it turns out, it was the banks. EU bank regulations were even looser than ours, required less capitalization and allowed even stranger investments (they followed Basel II regulations, we followed FDIC). Icelandic banks were done in by sheer self-dealing and corruption; Ireland and Britain by the real estate bubble, Spain and Portugal by improvident (PRIVATE) infrastructural loans by German banks/ investors, and so forth.

I'm not going to bother to post the details again- if you didn't get even the gist of it the first time, it's unlikely it will sink in the second time. But "government debt" didn't create the crash, it was the banks creating funny-money through improvident loans that did them in. Of course, once funny-money evaporated from bank balance sheets, the governments infused REAL money into the financial system, which caused deficit spending. So you got cause and effect bass-akwards.

Now the banks (which caused the problems in the first place) are requiring governments to behave more "prudently" than the banks themselves ever did. The European Central Bank (ECB), the IMF and the ratings agencies have the whip-hand in deciding how to ride out the crisis, and what they are doing is protecting their investors balance sheets at the expense of the EU economies and the average citizen

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 29, 2012 7:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Added more info to my post (above).

What it comes down to is that allowing a small group to either sequester or create money by whatever means possible- whether that is inverted tax rates, private profiteering, or bad bank policy- will cause ANY economy to come crashing down. Money which isn't circulating through production and consumption will cause an economy to grind to a halt.

I hope that by now this is clear, since we've have many real-life examples lately of how "trickle down", speculative loans, or fiscal austerity won't work to get an economy going again. At least we should know by now what NOT to do.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 29, 2012 8:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

What it comes down to is that allowing a small group to either sequester or create money by whatever means possible- whether that is inverted tax rates, private profiteering, or bad bank policy- will cause ANY economy to come crashing down. Money which isn't circulating through production and consumption will cause an economy to grind to a halt.
But I think it's more aptly called "tinkle down".



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:42 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Wow. Absolutely GORGEOUS! Of course, our righties here won't get it, but that's okay; the rest of us DO!


It is a chicken vs egg take. Problem is...without jobs there are no middle class consumers.

He also noted he has the capital, he has the idea, he starts the business, he creates the jobs.

The success or failure of the business is not based on the consumer, it's based in how well he executes each of those parts.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 29, 2012 3:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Wow, "Hero", you claim you're a prosecutor but can't get past reading comprehension 101? What was the writer's takeaway message, exactly?

That he can create lasting jobs without customers, you say????

The writer, if he were to read your post, would prolly bang his head against his keyboard the stupidity of it all. But if you don't believe my interpretation, why don't you go to the bloomberg article and get in touch with this guy and ask him if that's what he meant.

------------------

AFA the chicken and egg problem... hmmm, you're finally getting around to the idea that money "circulates" through an economy. In fact, I believe that's what the writer said. So here's the problem.... if that money gets diverted away from production and consumption... make a one-way trip to someone's vault.... the rest of the economy suffers. Instead of a "virtuous cycle" of customers buying stuff and creating demand so that people can work to fill that demand, the cycle can just as easily turn into a "vicious cycle"... dropping demand leads to fewer jobs leads to dropping demand leads to fewer jobs. So if you can understand that, you've just passed Macroeconomics 101.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 29, 2012 4:26 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by HERO:

He also noted he has the capital, he has the idea, he starts the business, he creates the jobs.

The success or failure of the business is not based on the consumer, it's based in how well he executes each of those parts.




Betamax. HD-DVD. American Motors (Mitt Romney's dad ran that one, and it failed). Microsoft Zune.

Good products, no customers.

"Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your doorstep." Nobody ever coined the adage, "Build a better mousetrap, and you don't need customers or consumers."

The success or failure of business lies in how well one is able to convince consumers that they have a need for the business's products. The success of the business is ENTIRELY based on the consumer.

"Hero" is wedded to the Randian belief that if the guy who invented the iPad were to suddenly decide to quit the world and take his touchscreen and go home, society would collapse without him giving us, by the grace of his invisible market hand, the devices that run our world. He forgets that the only reason Apple sold so many iPads is because CUSTOMERS lined up to buy them. If there were no iPad, the customers would buy something else. If there were no tablets at all, customers would buy things like *food*, or beds, or televisions.

To put "Hero's" theory to the test, to see who needs whom the most, let's try this: A business with a million customers tells them to fuck off, says it will no longer sell to them because it doesn't like their political views. What happens to the business? Does it thrive and flourish because the head of the company had a grand idea? Or does it shrivel and die because it has no customers?

Now let's flip the situation: A million customers tell a company to fuck off, saying they will no longer buy from that company because of its views. What happens to the business?

In either case, without customers, the business dies.

Owners don't create jobs. CUSTOMERS create jobs. No business can exist without customers.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 29, 2012 5:28 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by HERO:

The success or failure of the business is not based on the consumer, it's based in how well he executes each of those parts.

Ummm, I'm thinking here that you really don't understand the meaning of the word 'based'. As in, we are carbon-based-? Capitalism is consumer-based... get it?
No. I guess not.
In your world the business controls the consumer, and that is true to a degree, but not like you think it is. Simplistic seems to be your middle name these days, H.
Quote:



Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

This makes me very sad for you, dude. But, whatever it takes to feel like a not-asshole, I guess.

Yes, you're right Chris... I sometimes feel like the character Rico from Judge Dredd... twisted, needing to see things the way I need to... sometimes, I just feel like crying endlessly -Hero, 2007 *post deleted*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 29, 2012 5:57 PM

OONJERAH


Quote Hero's sig: "Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012"

Quote Chrisisall: "This makes me very sad for you, dude. But, whatever it
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
takes to feel like a not-asshole, I guess."

Oonjerah: It appears that Hero has not passed Detecting Sarcasm 101.



. . . . .The worst and most frequent consequence of paranoia is that it's self-fulfilling.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 1:46 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Betamax. HD-DVD. American Motors (Mitt Romney's dad ran that one, and it failed). Microsoft Zune.

Good products, no customers.

"Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your doorstep." Nobody ever coined the adage, "Build a better mousetrap, and you don't need customers or consumers."



Actually you are wrong. The lack of customers means it was the wrong product or the wrong plan or was not capitalized properly or marketed properly and so on. The business failed because one or more parts of the business model were not executed properly.

In each of your examples the consumers existed and chose other similar products that were properly executed.

So consumers are not a function of the process but rather a measure of success. Jobs come before consumers in any successful development model.

Just look at towns killed from factory or base closures.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 1:48 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by HERO:

The success or failure of the business is not based on the consumer, it's based in how well he executes each of those parts.

Ummm, I'm thinking here that you really don't understand the meaning of the word 'based'. As in, we are carbon-based-? Capitalism is consumer-based... get it?
No. I guess not.
In your world the business controls the consumer, and that is true to a degree, but not like you think it is. Simplistic seems to be your middle name these days, H.
Quote:



Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

This makes me very sad for you, dude. But, whatever it takes to feel like a not-asshole, I guess.

Yes, you're right Chris... I sometimes feel like the character Rico from Judge Dredd... twisted, needing to see things the way I need to... sometimes, I just feel like crying endlessly -Hero, 2007 *post deleted*



Hey, Chris - Feel free to borrow my sig if you'd like. It's one of "Hero's" greatest hits, and I think it's a classic.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 3:44 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Hey, Chris - Feel free to borrow my sig if you'd like. It's one of "Hero's" greatest hits, and I think it's a classic.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


My gift to you my friend, and a sentiment I stand by today. I've always been proud of that line.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 4:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Henry Ford was a lot of things, but stupid - he was not.
We was bloody well aware his own employees were gonna be his best customers, and if he didn't pay them enough to AFFORD the product they were making, his business was doomed, not just for lack of market, but also cause there'd be no incentive to make a quality product...

Think on that, if you plan to BUY one of those cars you're making - really a lot less inclination to halfass the job of putting them together, isn't there ?

But of course, the sacred cows of Randroid philosophy are as immune to logic and reality as their creator was.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 4:44 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


See Chris? That is the danger in EVER agreeing with Hero (If that ever happens...) or even saying something positive sarcastically. He'll mischaracterize or clip it and wear it like a badge of honor for the rest of time. I've learned to be very careful if I'm ever tempted to agree with him (it DID happen once) or say something positive, or even snark in a way that sounds positive, to be sure I don't use his name.

Pathetic, isn't it?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 7:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Actually you are wrong. The lack of customers means it was the wrong product or the wrong plan or was not capitalized properly or marketed properly and so on. The business failed because one or more parts of the business model were not executed properly. In each of your examples the consumers existed and chose other similar products that were properly executed.So consumers are not a function of the process but rather a measure of success. Jobs come before consumers in any successful development model. Just look at towns killed from factory or base closures.
The article- written by a venture capitalist- was very clear. You could have gotten the entire message from the title: Consumers (customers) are the real job creators. Instead of trying to understand the viewpoint of someone who actually HAS "created jobs", you choose to dispute this person's claim from your vantage point of miniscule experience, total ignorance, and failure of logic??? Tell us, Zero, exactly how many jobs have YOU created? How many times have YOU tracked an investment from inception through success (or failure)? So, on what do you base YOUR opinion?

You came within millimeters of understanding the essential problem: that money CIRCULATES through an economy. You called it "chicken and egg" and indeed, since money runs in cycles - from consumer to producer to worker to consumer back to producer- it forms a "cycle" which has no beginning and no end (chicken and egg). Unless, of course, money is siphoned out of that "virtuous cycle", and then there is neither chicken NOR egg. What happened to that glimmer of understanding?

As far as your argument is concerned, you point to army bases and factories to support the idea that jobs comes "before" consumers. The problem with that argument is that the REAL consumers of factory output is OUTSIDE of the town where that factory is located. The REAL consumer which creates army bases is the government. The factory closes because the customers stop buying, just like the army base closes because the military stops spending money.

It's hard to believe that you're the best that our civil service has to offer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 7:10 AM

STORYMARK


As Ive been saying for a while, you can't have a consumer-based capitalist economy without the actual consumers.

Sometimes, a little socialism is the only way to keep capitalism running.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 7:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


To reiterate - The cause of the Great Depression and the Panic of 1893 before that was not socialism. It wasn't even fiat currency (bc we were on the gold standard in 1893 and had been for 20 years). The cause of crashes was unregulated, balls-to-the-wall capitalism. The only reason for Roosevelt's actions was to support capitalism, which drove itself off a cliff with great regularity due to its constantly preying on its very own customers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 7:41 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


"It's hard to believe that you're the best that our civil service has to offer."


Oh, that's not fair, Signy - "Hero" is nowhere near the best that our civil service has to offer!





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 9:33 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
See Chris? That is the danger in EVER agreeing with Hero (If that ever happens...) or even saying something positive sarcastically. He'll mischaracterize or clip it and wear it like a badge of honor for the rest of time.

I laugh at danger.

Hero is the most perfect creature ever to sanctify Earth with imprint of its foot. He is a God among us ants. An omnipotent force of perfection in the Multi'verse.
Not.

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 9:34 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

It's hard to believe that you're the best that our civil service has to offer.

That is such a slam to civil servants everywhere...

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 11:16 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
That is such a slam to civil servants everywhere...


I note for the record that I am not a civil servant. That is a whole different class of govt employee.

We disagree, its as simple as that. You are trying to argue your point, but you can't, so its time for the personal stuff.

On topic I would note that Spain is a good example. It has millions of consumers yet almost 25% unemployment. One would think given all those consumers that your simplistic approach would yield jobs...yet it does not.

I've never seen a bunch of folks just sit around and jobs magically appear. But you build a factory and have a bunch of jobs sitting around and the folks magically appear. Happens everytime.

Yours is Great Leap thinking...jazz hands if you've got the red book under your pillow!

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 2:03 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

We disagree, its as simple as that.

No, you intentionally miss people's points so you can group us all together as 'wrong' so you may feel better about yourself, it's as simple as that.
What you're saying isn't wrong, it's just focusing on the mechanics and not the fuel.
But whatever... you must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong.
*pats Hero on the head*
There. Feel better. Okay?

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 30, 2012 2:39 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


So "Hero" here thinks that if you build a factory, jobs will magically appear, as will customers. You don't even need a product or things that people want to buy - just the factory will do it! Having a factory creates jobs.

Tell us all, "Hero" - how many jobs were created last month in the "pink slime" industry, when customers told their grocery stores they didn't want the stuff? Those factories were built, right? Those were jobs, yes?

And yet, without customers, factories close, jobs are gone.

I thought you said that if you build the factory, jobs will magically appear, as will customers. "Happens every time," you said.

Generally speaking, you don't get to build a factory without customer demand for your product.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 4:37 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And yet, without customers, factories close, jobs are gone.

I thought you said that if you build the factory, jobs will magically appear, as will customers. "Happens every time," you said.

Generally speaking, you don't get to build a factory without customer demand for your product.


It's a nice theory...

But when you produce an overpriced shitty product no one wants to buy, sink all your budget into shoving gas guzzling SUVs at people who want econoboxes, and then the all-but-in-name boycott financially bitchslaps you, you can just go running to the GOVERNMENT whining like a bitch (free market, huh?) and DEMAND that they TAKE the money from the people who didn't want your crummy product and give it to you anyway - and how nice, you don't even have to give them the product in return!
See Also: General Motors.

Or when your "service" and the related hassles cause people to stop using your product entire (TSA, Airlines)
You can do the same.

But of course, yanno, it just ain't Objectivism without the blatant fucking hypocrisy and the outright lies, cause how else to hold up a concept every bit as obviously fictional as the Divine Right of Kings that it's effectively based on ?

-Frem

PS. Ford at least seems to have bought a clue, and is working on an ultra-high efficiency three cylinder engine obviously intended to power economy cars, which woulda been nice FIVE YEARS AGO...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:11 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Frem, as the Repubs are doing, you're mischaracterizing the auto bailout a bit. The gov't didn't just shove money at them, it demanded changes and helped put them back on tack. They're now making hefty products, getting awards and stuff for what they're turning out, demand is picking up, and they're paying us back steadily.

I hear all the bullshit they say, but there is one tiny thing that always gets left out. There were NO investors willing to invest, nobody willing to take the chance, so the companies wouldn't have been saved and there goes another American manufacturing sectorL
Quote:

there did not appear to be any private money on the sidelines. Markets were in disarray and credit was drying up fast.
Personally, I think we've lost enough of them.

Romney is his usual asinine self about it. He's flip-flopped as many times as he usually does, and now is trying to take CREDIT for the bailout. His top advisor says NOW:
Quote:

"[Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that.... The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney's advice."
What a load of bullshit!

But even way back when, HE was in favor of a bailout, just from the private sector (which wouldn't have happened):
Quote:

During the 2008 primary campaign, Romney won Michigan, a victory that was in part attributed to his promises to save the Motor City's main industry. "If I am president, I will not rest until Michigan is back," he said. "Michigan can once again lead the world's automotive industry." Romney's main policy prescription was a series of federal spending for retraining and green tech, to be doled out in $20 billion chunks over five years.
That's when he wrote his now-famous column "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt":
Quote:

If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed. Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself .... Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
Romney called for a "managed bankruptcy," in which company's executives would be replaced and union contracts would be renegotiated with more favorable terms. Reversing his position during the Republican primary, he said shedding excess workers was now essential. He wanted the government to oversee the bankruptcy but for it be paid for with private-sector funding.

By 2009, he had reversed himself again:
Quote:

It'd have been precisely the right thing to do for the economy. To help General Motors at that point, before it had received tens of billions of dollars from the government, go through a structured process either in court or out of court to rid itself of its excessive union contract obligations, would have been the right course, and at that point the government could have helped with warranty guarantees and so forth, with debtor possession financing .... We wouldn't have closed the business down or liquidated it, we instead would have helped it restructure. It was the right course to take, it's being taken now, too late unfortunately.
In 2011, he was still holding to this point, and already twisting things around to take credit for the success of the bailout:
Quote:

"When I wrote that the auto industry was asking for a bailout, we are unwise to send billions of dollars [to companies], instead -- finally -- the president recognized I was right, and finally took the company, in the case at General Motors, the company finally went through bankruptcy and went through a managed bankruptcy, came out of bankruptcy and is now recovering."
Early this year, he went back to his original point:
Quote:

"The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better." Romney once again insisted that GM could have gone through a managed bankruptcy without federal bailout funds.
So now he's claiming it was his idea all along. Which is bullshit--yes, they needed restructuring, and they got it, but the important point is there was no money available from the private sector, and would not have been.
Quote:

That brings us to the present day, and Fehrnstrom's comments. There have been two important shifts in Romney's position. The first is from pre-recession, 2008 campaign Romney, who supported a $100 billion government investment in maintaining Detroit jobs, to recession-era Romney, who adopted the idea that the automakers needed pain -- including potentially significant job loss -- to survive. The major questions here are (1) whether it was feasible for the companies to find private financing to restructure and (2) whether the associated job loss and economic ripple effects would have been acceptable. While Romney is correct that the restructuring was what he suggested, his idea at the time was hardly unique; there was a consensus that the companies needed to be significantly reshaped. The question was how to do it, and he said the answer was without federal funds.

The second shift is from the the stance Romney has taken since his op-ed to Fehrstrom's comments on Sunday. Fehrnstrom is overreaching in claiming that Obama adopted "exactly" what Romney recommended, given his longstanding opposition to the bailouts. It's understandable that Romney would want to align himself with the successful rescue of the auto industry: While the bailouts are still unpopular with Americans overall, a plurality agree that they helped the economy. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/a-short-history-of
-mitt-romneys-views-on-the-detroit-bailout/256513/
how I saw it, anyway.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 6:26 AM

CAVETROLL


There's a basic failure to comprehend events in the past as a guide to the present. Bad debt leading to failure of banks. Excess speculation on the market leading to a collapse of key stocks. Supply far exceeding demand. When one fails, it's bad. When they all fail at the same time, you have an economic disaster. I'm not talking about 2008. I'm talking about 1929.

All through the 80's and 90's regulations put in place after the Great Depression started were dismantled under Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be tarred and feathered for their hand in this too. Massive collusion between banks and government set the stage for a perfect storm of economic disaster.

Banks should be massively regulated. Insurers should not dabble in loan making. Governments should not spend more than they take in.

Simple concepts, yet the elected criminals in Washingtoon can't seem to get it right. And we repeated 1929 in 2008. I thank God I saw the writing on the wall and refinanced my house in 2005. I still didn't anticipate how bad it would be and I lost my job in 2009. I landed another in 2010, but at a 1/4 pay cut. Enough to keep me going for the past 1 1/2 years. But a year on unemployment has wiped out my savings again, just like it did post 9/11. I'm not upside down on my house, and I've never gone net 30 on my mortgage payments. But still there's month left at the end of the money, sometimes.

The current temporary occupant of the White House doesn't seem to get it either. He seems focused on bread and circuses. So I've not much hope for things to get better any time soon.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 2:33 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

So now he's claiming it was his idea all along. Which is bullshit--yes, they needed restructuring, and they got it, but the important point is there was no money available from the private sector, and would not have been.



Just look at Romney's company, Bain Capital, and see how much they were willing to invest in Detroit.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 2:35 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

All through the 80's and 90's regulations put in place after the Great Depression started were dismantled under Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be tarred and feathered for their hand in this too. Massive collusion between banks and government set the stage for a perfect storm of economic disaster.



Did you mean to leave Phil Gramm out of that, or are you just naive about his role in all this? If Frank and Dodd should be tarred and feathered, surely Gramm should be hanged from the nearest lightpost, yes?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 4:39 PM

CAVETROLL


Nope, forgot Gramm. Get another bucket of tar and a feather pillow. We can probably add the executives in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while we're at it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:09 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
Nope, forgot Gramm. Get another bucket of tar and a feather pillow. We can probably add the executives in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while we're at it.




And Dubya, who hailed what he called "The Ownership Society", and took credit for it. Well, until it all collapsed around his ears, of course...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:30 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And Dubya

Worst f*cking president in our history. When Romney wins, he'll seem like a God by comparison, sh*tty as he'll be...

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 3:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Don't forget, this was not just a USA bank problem, this was a first world bank problem,

Did you know that banks create money out of nothing every time they write a loan? Did you know that the money supply in Britain TRIPLED between 1998 and 2007? Did you know that the government had no control over how much money was being created, and that MOST of this increased money supply came from private banks, not government?

Until you understand this, you will never understand the genesis of this latest crisis.

Here is another link explaining the problem:

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/97percent-owned-documentary/

"IF INDIVIDUALS CAN'T PRINT MONEY, WHY CAN BANKS?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 6:22 AM

TWO

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Just look at Romney's company, Bain Capital, and see how much they were willing to invest in Detroit.

The Purpose of Spectacular Wealth, per Mitt Romney's Bain partner -
www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/romneys-former-bain-partner-makes-
a-case-for-inequality.html

“There’s also the fact that Conard applies a relentless, mathematical logic to nearly everything, even finding a good spouse. He advocates, in utter seriousness, using demographic data to calculate the number of potential mates in your geographic area. Then, he says, you should set aside a bit of time for “calibration” — dating as many people as you can so that you have a sense of what the marriage marketplace is like. Then you enter the selection phase, this time with the goal of picking a permanent mate. The first woman you date who is a better match than the best woman you met during the calibration phase is, therefore, the person you should marry. By statistical probability, she is as good a match as you’re going to get. (Conard used this system himself.)”

“In 2000 Romney put Detroit-native Conard in charge of Bain Capital’s New York office and he’s now qualified to explain why what’s good for him and other members of the top 0.1% — his net worth is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars – is in the best interests of everyone else.” www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/05/02/three-reasons-bain-capitaln
omics-fails
/

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:04 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Don't forget, this was not just a USA bank problem, this was a first world bank problem,

Did you know that banks create money out of nothing every time they write a loan? Did you know that the money supply in Britain TRIPLED between 1998 and 2007? Did you know that the government had no control over how much money was being created, and that MOST of this increased money supply came from private banks, not government?

Until you understand this, you will never understand the genesis of this latest crisis.

Here is another link explaining the problem:

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/97percent-owned-documentary/

"IF INDIVIDUALS CAN'T PRINT MONEY, WHY CAN BANKS?"




Also don't forget Credit Default Swaps - this was a bank taking out insurance on loans IT DIDN'T EVEN MAKE OR HOLD, and betting that they'd fail.

And when they made these bets, they leveraged their capital at as much at 50-to-1. Now you've got 50 times as many reasons to hope the loan fails than you do to hope it succeeds! And you've created $50 for every dollar you loaned!

But by all means, let's keep blaming it on the poor. After all, everyone remembers when TARP and Bush threw nearly a trillion dollars at the poor and they turned around and paid themselves billion-dollar bonuses, right?

Oh, wait - that never happened. That was Wall Street that did that, not the poor.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:05 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by two:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Just look at Romney's company, Bain Capital, and see how much they were willing to invest in Detroit.

The Purpose of Spectacular Wealth, per Mitt Romney's Bain partner -
www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/romneys-former-bain-partner-makes-
a-case-for-inequality.html

“There’s also the fact that Conard applies a relentless, mathematical logic to nearly everything, even finding a good spouse. He advocates, in utter seriousness, using demographic data to calculate the number of potential mates in your geographic area. Then, he says, you should set aside a bit of time for “calibration” — dating as many people as you can so that you have a sense of what the marriage marketplace is like. Then you enter the selection phase, this time with the goal of picking a permanent mate. The first woman you date who is a better match than the best woman you met during the calibration phase is, therefore, the person you should marry. By statistical probability, she is as good a match as you’re going to get. (Conard used this system himself.)”

“In 2000 Romney put Detroit-native Conard in charge of Bain Capital’s New York office and he’s now qualified to explain why what’s good for him and other members of the top 0.1% — his net worth is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars – is in the best interests of everyone else.” www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/05/02/three-reasons-bain-capitaln
omics-fails
/






He's just a hopeless romantic, isn't he?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine
Fri, August 29, 2014 07:49 - 166 posts
Getting fit by 3mins of exercise a week?
Fri, August 29, 2014 07:13 - 115 posts
Barack Obama criticised for golf outing with friends straight after James Foley speech
Fri, August 29, 2014 06:57 - 53 posts
Gun Rights Advocates Please explain how the hell this happened
Fri, August 29, 2014 01:38 - 40 posts
Jimmy Crack Corn and I DON'T CARE
Thu, August 28, 2014 20:35 - 8 posts
CLIMATE MCCARTHYISM
Thu, August 28, 2014 18:35 - 68 posts
Another Unarmed Black Teen Killed
Thu, August 28, 2014 18:18 - 396 posts
I don't even know what most of you are talking about anymore.....
Thu, August 28, 2014 18:06 - 26 posts
Saw that comin'.
Thu, August 28, 2014 17:34 - 5 posts
Backlash against rape drug detecting nail polish
Thu, August 28, 2014 17:30 - 8 posts
The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Thu, August 28, 2014 14:13 - 2 posts
Interesting possible Fact, at least to me........
Wed, August 27, 2014 07:36 - 4 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS