The Republican philosophy in action

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
erianaiel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:33 am

Re: The Republican philosophy in action

Post by erianaiel » Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:47 am

Tudamorf wrote:
erianaiel wrote:
Tudamorf wrote: Because those 3% are smarter than the other 97%, yet they give the 97% a job.
Except that the graph at the beginning of this thread, and many many other studies show that they don't.
Really? On the graph it says ExxonMobil employs 80,000 people, and that's just one company.

How many poor people do you know who employ 80,000 people?
You may play with words all you want, but the discussion is not about the number of people employed but about the validity of the Republican claim of 'trickle down economy' creating jobs. THAT has been shown time and again to be a sham, but it is still being defended vigorously. 2005-2007 was an economic boom yet ExxonMobil shedded jobs and pocketed the profit. The economic downturn of 2008 did not noticeably increase the job loss.
This pattern holds for pretty much all big corporations. Their profits keep rising, whether during times of ecomic growth or recession, and the number of people they emply keeps dropping. When they even do create new jobs they generally do it overseas (e.g. GM which was saved from bankruptcy at greate expense with public money and which turned around and thanked the tax payer by closing more factories so they could be moved to countries where there were no pesky labour laws to protect workers from literally being worked to death).

Bush first, and Obama after him borrowed about a trillion dollar to shore up the various banks. Strangely enough the richest 0.1 percent of the population collectively saw their wealth increase by over half a trillion dollar in the past few years. While the rest of the population saw their income and wealth decrease and while a record number of americans became unemployed with little to no hope of finding gainfull employment. What news jobs there are do not pay enough to rise above the poverty line (and in some cases are barely rising above the break even point of costs to maintain the job).

So it is time we stop dancing around the issue and accept that the current economic system of the USA (and to a lesser extent in the rest of the western world) is a vast machinery that grinds the population into poverty by draining out all money of the people and transfers it to the overseas bankaccounts of the richest percent of the population. A group that increasingly becomes a separate class (i.e. no longer marries outside its own class, has no relation as equals outside its own class and has its own social institutions separate from the rest of country. They are not quite at the point of having separate education and land grants, but it is rapidly working on that as well).


Eri

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: The Republican philosophy in action

Post by Tudamorf » Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:16 pm

erianaiel wrote:You may play with words all you want, but the discussion is not about the number of people employed but about the validity of the Republican claim of 'trickle down economy' creating jobs. THAT has been shown time and again to be a sham,
You sound like someone at a welfare or unemployment line complaining about the size of his check.

The rich corporations and individuals are the ones employing all of the poor people. The poor people either take the employment or other handouts, which again come from rich people.

Poor people do not create jobs, or give out handouts to other poor people.
erianaiel wrote:2005-2007 was an economic boom yet ExxonMobil shedded jobs and pocketed the profit
Of course they did. ExxonMobil is not a welfare agency, they are a profit making enterprise. Like any other company, the only reason they hire an employee is that they believe that employee will lead to more revenue than the cost of the employee.

Poor people do the exact same thing, to the extent they can. They milk welfare, employment, and other government handouts to the maximum extent possible to earn revenue, and cheat on their taxes to minimize their costs.
erianaiel wrote:So it is time we stop dancing around the issue and accept that the current economic system of the USA (and to a lesser extent in the rest of the western world) is a vast machinery that grinds the population into poverty by draining out all money of the people and transfers it to the overseas bankaccounts of the richest percent of the population.
The U.S. government is going to spend $3.7 trillion this year. Who do you think pays for that?

User avatar
Zute
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: The Republican philosophy in action

Post by Zute » Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:22 pm

Tudamorf wrote:
AbyssalMage wrote:I guess I missed something. The Koch brothers own, through stocks and acquisitions, a significant amount of the private capital in the US/Europe.
The two brothers together own almost all of Koch Industries, one of the largest private companies in the world.
AbyssalMage wrote:Their is a reason that the worlds wealth is controlled by less than 3% of the population.
Because those 3% are smarter than the other 97%, yet they give the 97% a job.
The Koch brothers were smart enough to have had a parent that invented a process to turn oil into gasoline.
Formerly known as Panamah

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: The Republican philosophy in action

Post by Fyyr » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:37 pm

I have never been employed by a poor person.

Rich people employ people. How you Commies fail to ever realize that, beats the hell out of me.

erianaiel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:33 am

Re: The Republican philosophy in action

Post by erianaiel » Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:34 am

Fyyr wrote:I have never been employed by a poor person.

Rich people employ people. How you Commies fail to ever realize that, beats the hell out of me.
I am neither a communist, nor denying this. Nobody is.
What is at issue is the assumption that making rich people even richer automatically translates into them hiring -more- employees.
THAT has been shown a falacy, and THAT is what the graphs that kicked off this whole sorry discussion aimed to illustrate.
If anything all statistics point in the other direction: that the richest are getting richer because they employ -fewer- people. This simply shows, again, that the tax breaks for the richest percentage of the population has no effect at best, and is counterproductive at worst.

The simple economic truth, that is deliberately ignored in pretty much all discussions of the economic crisis, is that unemployed people do not pay taxes, they do not pay mortgage or rent (or at least they will soon cease doing so), they do not buy much in the way of necessary goods and nothing in the way of luxury goods. In short, they do not contribute economically speaking. The poorest who are basically subsisting are barely doing better. The bigger you make these groups the smaller you make your economic base, and the harder it becomes to get out of a recession. This is why an increasing number of economic experts are warning that forcing austerity measures on Greece is only making matters worse, and why the republican (tea-party) insistence on reducing or stopping government spending programs is, at this point, going to force the country deeper into recession. Right now americans workers are being forced to compete with slave labour in prison camps, and with the 50cts a day income in the poorest and least developed parts of the world. And it is slowly turning the USA into a third world country as a result. People after all can not pay more than they earn and cost living has to be in line with income. Unless you fancy food riots.

A certain degree of uneven distribution of wealth is beneficial to an economy as it promotes ambition and differentiation in products. But if too much wealth gets concentrated in too few hands the effect is highly detrimental. You can't run an economy on subsistence food and luxury goods alone (how many cars does a multi trillionaire need?), and worse is that it destroys the sense of community. The poorest are driven into survival mode (where they will do anything and follow anybody at a chance of improving their situation) and the richests are isolating themselves. Marie Antionette's remark 'If the poor can not eat bread, they should eat cake' is, while almost certainly apocryphal, still an example how societal isolation blinds oneself from very real problems, that could erupt in very violent ways if ignored too long.


Eri

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: The Republican philosophy in action

Post by Tudamorf » Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:49 pm

erianaiel wrote:What is at issue is the assumption that making rich people even richer automatically translates into them hiring -more- employees.
This is a straw man argument that I debunked early on in the thread.

The question is, given that personal tax rates on the wealthy are completely unconnected to job creation, why do you continue to vilify the rich and demand that they pay even more?

What, it's not good enough for you Marxists that the top 1% of earners pay almost 40% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% pay only 3% of all income taxes?
erianaiel wrote:The simple economic truth, that is deliberately ignored in pretty much all discussions of the economic crisis, is that unemployed people do not pay taxes, they do not pay mortgage or rent (or at least they will soon cease doing so), they do not buy much in the way of necessary goods and nothing in the way of luxury goods. In short, they do not contribute economically speaking.
In America, that's not true. They take the $500 a week I give them (which is taxable, by the way) and quickly spend it all on beer, Krispy Kreme doughnuts, lottery tickets, drugs, and all of the other stupid things which kept them in a cycle of low income all their lives.

Unemployment insurance in America is just another stimulus program, funded by employers and other rich individuals.

So being unemployed here is a job in itself: you take money from rich people, and act as a conduit to stimulate the economy by spending it.
erianaiel wrote:still an example how societal isolation blinds oneself from very real problems, that could erupt in very violent ways if ignored too long.
Why do you think we pacify them with handouts?

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: The Republican philosophy in action

Post by Fyyr » Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:40 am

erianaiel wrote:What is at issue is the assumption that making rich people even richer automatically translates into them hiring -more- employees.
You don't make them richer. That's stupid.

That is what the government did with these bailouts. The government gave them money.


But you certainly don't stymie productive people from becoming rich. People deserving of being rich will just do it themselves.

If you can't see the difference(and many politicians can't) then you are a fucking retard.


I don't need the government to be successful. To produce a product or service and be successful. I don't need a bailout or a handout. I am fine with them just staying out of by rectum, on the deal. If you can make a dollar without stealing or fraud, it is yours.

I will say again, NO POOR PERSON EVER HIRED ME,,,EVER. I like rich people, as long as they deserve being rich. If they stole their money, never produced anything, received a bailout from the government than they don't deserve having their money. That's pretty simple. Take it from them, I don't care.


When people from low economic class in the country can not become the best, brightest, and richest...then come back to me. Steve Jobs was an adopted bastard kid raised lower middle class who flunked out of college, look what happened there. When that stops, come back to me, ok.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: The Republican philosophy in action

Post by AbyssalMage » Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:49 pm

erianaiel wrote:What is at issue is the assumption that making rich people even richer automatically translates into them hiring -more- employees.
Fyyr wrote:You don't make them richer. That's stupid.
If you buy their products, you increase their revenue (whether they make a profit/richer or not is another topic). If you are forced to purchase their product because they eliminate their competition or use laws to shield themselves from competitors, you increase their revenue. So guess your 0/1 so far :oops:
That is what the government did with these bailouts. The government gave them money.
The government did a few things with the bailouts. A whole book could be written about it in all honesty(and has been) but the short version:
The monopolies that control are financial system remain intact.
These are the same monopolies that control our political system.
These are the same monopolies responsible for creating, or more accurately, eliminating jobs.
In all, the government was the only "bank" that could offer a loan so that they could remain in business. The same government they payed for to get elected. They paid back the money, well 80% of it and considering banks have a worse return margin %, the government came out ahead investment wise. 0/2 :oops:

Side note: The only people who got screwed in the process were "The People" because this should of been a BIG RED FLAG that they were a monopoly on the market.
But you certainly don't stymie productive people from becoming rich. People deserving of being rich will just do it themselves.

If you can't see the difference(and many politicians can't) then you are a fucking retard.
If you can't see that you can stymie productive people from being rich then you're the "fucking retard." Read my first response. The rich simply force you to purchase their product or use the politicians that they purchased to shield them from competition. 0/3 :oops:
I don't need the government to be successful. To produce a product or service and be successful. I don't need a bailout or a handout. I am fine with them just staying out of by rectum, on the deal. If you can make a dollar without stealing or fraud, it is yours.
Great, how far is that "dollar" going to get you? If the current market is any suggestion, I'll still get ahead of you. Your chance of success is less than 50%. Factor in today's economy and political turmoil, and you have a recipe that you aren't going to get any richer than a HS senior. 0/4 :oops:

Side note: If you can succeed that's great. And everyone should take the risk with careful planning. I know I will eventually, once the market is "better." But saying what you're saying is idiotic.
I will say again, NO POOR PERSON EVER HIRED ME,,,EVER. I like rich people, as long as they deserve being rich. If they stole their money, never produced anything, received a bailout from the government than they don't deserve having their money. That's pretty simple. Take it from them, I don't care.
No poor person ever hired you but I guarantee you they paid your wages. So I guess you owe them more than you can comprehend. 1/5 :shock:
When people from low economic class in the country can not become the best, brightest, and richest...then come back to me. Steve Jobs was an adopted bastard kid raised lower middle class who flunked out of college, look what happened there. When that stops, come back to me, ok.
Considering the country was built on the backs of the poor before the super monopolies we have today and they are prevented from doing just that in today's economy...1/6 :oops:

Steve Jobs was a fucking Dictator. He created a company built on secrecy and intimidation. If all the leaked info being reported on the web about iPhones or iPads wasn't enough proof for you, then I don't know what is.

Second, he made his money basically from the 80's in direct competition to Bill Gates, another HS drop out. His vision for the iPod was revolutionary, but the iPad and iPhone idea's where directly taken from their competition. So he's not as revolutionary as people think. Have people been as successful as these 2 sense the 80's? Yes, but the numbers keep shrinking thanks to my first statement 1/7 :oops:

You are suffering from some version of "Stockholm syndrome." You can't see the facts in front of you even though every warning sign is flying in your face. Revolutions have been fought on "poor vs. rich", and the rich don't have a very good victory record. And personally, any war, whether physical or legal will leave this country is worse shape. Maybe its inevitable (History likes repeating itself) but having to go to extremes in order to straighten things out sucks.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: The Republican philosophy in action

Post by Tudamorf » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:35 am

Fyyr wrote:That is what the government did with these bailouts. The government gave them money.
You mean, loaned them money.

Loaning money to rich people to prevent the catastrophic loss of a major business -- especially when you make a profit off the loan in the end -- is not the same as simply giving them money.

Most of the money the government gave was to poor people, in the form of cash handouts, extra jobs that weren't warranted, free education, free health care, tax credits for low-income breeders, and so on, in the 2009 stimulus plan.

erianaiel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:33 am

Re: The Republican philosophy in action

Post by erianaiel » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:11 am

Tudamorf wrote:
Fyyr wrote:That is what the government did with these bailouts. The government gave them money.
You mean, loaned them money.
No, they gave them money. They called it a loan and it was paid back, but if you look at the terms and the way they paid it back you see that it was a cleverly disguised gift.

Simplified as much as possible to avoid unneccesary distractions:
Government created a trillion dollar out of thin air. (they are the government they can do that. Of course it means that the tax revenue has to be increased eventually to pay it back, or money will have to be lended from somebody which increases the eventual taxation even more because of the interest rates).
Government then lended that money to the banks (at close to zero interest rates) so they would stop believing the others were in iminant danger of going bankrupt and start doing what they were supposed to do, namely getting money from where there is an excess to where there is a shortage (*)
Government ALSO gave out new bonds to eventually pay for the trillion dollar, at considerably more than zero percent interest.
Banks did two things with that trillion dollar: They pumped it into a new bubble, creating several trillion dollar through use of fractional reserve banking (i.e. they treated their debts as assets, something they are now legally allowed to do thanks to 3 decades of financial mismanagement of the government but that will get ordinary citizens arrested for fraud if they try it). They then used those phantom trillions to buy national bonds from the USA and European countries. The difference in interest rates multiplied by a couple of trillion was immediate profit, which they used to 'pay off' their loans. The government keeps lending money at a much lower interest rates than they are paying for their bonds so the money pumping machinery is still running full tilt, transfering money from government (i.e. the tax money everybody is paying) directly into the for profit accounts of the banks themselves.
To congratulate themselves on their cleverness the bankers gave themselves record bonusses while the rest of the economy was still nosediving.
Loaning money to rich people to prevent the catastrophic loss of a major business -- especially when you make a profit off the loan in the end -- is not the same as simply giving them money.
The government is still bleeding millions of dollars per day into the accounts of the banks because they neglected to do two things: Plug the hole that allows the banks to lend cheap and loan at a premium -from the same organisation-. Insist on meaningful reforms of a system that keeps draining money out of the constructive economy (the part that involves good and labour for production) and into the financial econmy (that mostly involves pumping money around all the while using fractional reserve banking to increase the numbers so the stock markest will show 'growth' far in excess of economic production, which remains stagnant or decreases slowly).
The government is most certainly not -making- money, and in 20 year when those trillions worth of bonds must be paid back (to banks who got the money to buy them from that same government to begin with!) things will get pretty interesting. In the chinese curse meaning of the word.
Most of the money the government gave was to poor people, in the form of cash handouts, extra jobs that weren't warranted, free education, free health care, tax credits for low-income breeders, and so on, in the 2009 stimulus plan.
Not many people are denying that Obama (or rather his econmic advisors) badly bungled that plan. Mind that before him the Little Shrub had done the same (in part to buy goodwill for his re-election) and failed for the same reason.
Giving somebody 1000 dollar is not going to do much for the economy. They either spend it right away on some necessity or to pay of the most pressing of their debts. After that they return to survival mode and stop spending because their income does not cover their expenses.
What is needed is not a one time amount of money but stable jobs that pay enough to support a family. Giving half a trillion dollar away to a 100 million households is going to look good for one quarter, but that money will very swiftly indeed drain right out of the economy and into the bottomless bankvaults, simply because everybody has debts to the bank in one way or another (mortgage, credit card, student loans, etc). The banks do not allow that money to be pumped back into the economy because they can create much more profit for themselves by gambling big time with it on the high risk casino that is the international financial market. They can make a garantueed 4pct profit on every dollar through the goverment bond money pump that is running. They can make up to 20pct profit on the newest special investment vehicle. Or they can make half a percent profit on a credit loan. As long as they can close their eyes against the risk and know that the government will back them no matter what, you should need only one guess what the banks will choose to do with that money.

Right now it is easy to focus on Europe and their political mismanagement of an economical crisis in their backyard (one that was largely engineered by american banks I might add), but this only distracts from the fact that the USA is also still haemoraghing money at an unprecedented and unsustainable level. As soon as the European crisis stops claiming everybody's attention it will become clear that the American situation further deteriorated while everybody was busy tsk-ing Europe and its leaders.

The real thruth is that unless and until the international financial system gets reined in and some pretty binding limits are placed on it, they will continue draining money out of the economy that supports the people and use it to pump around ever inflating amounts of -money- while the economical -worth- will keep decreasing. Number vary but it is estimated for every dollar being used in the productive economy there is between 500 and 1000 dollars floating around in the vast overheated bubble that is the financial markets. Solvability rules say a bank should not hold more outstanding debts than 20 (or 30 depending how conservative the government is) for every dollar it owns. Most investment banks are running with a 1000 to 10000 factor. Which is an economic collapse waiting to happen.


Eri

Post Reply