Do or Die
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2016, 08:52 PM
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 04:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  Putting money into the stock market puts money into peoples pockets and companies' coffers.
Spending money on goods and services puts money into the economy.

You have it backwards. Drinking Beverage
Putting money into stock markets not only generates income for yourself but also provides funds for businesses to produce goods and services.

Stocks also lose value.

Buying stock is generally buying it from other shareholders, not from the company that issued it. Only at public offerings, e.g. IPO, does a company receive any money.

Quote:Spending money on consumables means that your money is used up.

No, it means your money has been traded for goods and services. This means that companies earn profit.

Quote:Now saying that we just give people money in order to spend, well where does that money come from?

I haven't said that.

Quote:Saying the rich have heaps, lets take it from them, means that
1. you are giving a disincentive for people to become rich or for the rich to be part of your society.
2. you taking money away from people who would otherwise use that money to start up or invest in businesses.
3. you are assuming that there is an endless supply of money to be taken and redistributed.
4. You are telling people at the bottom end of the chain to not worry about upskilling or working, because you will just give them money.

You are hoping that somehow this "extra" spend will increase sales and hence increase jobs and then jobs will fall into the laps of those that aren't working regardless of the effort or lack of effort they make towards looking for a job. The thing is, there is not enough money to do that. It is also not sustainable, you can't just keep taking money and giving it away, hoping that the poor will spend it, and hoping somehow that this creates jobs and that the poor will then be motivated to take those jobs. It's a completely false economy.

You ought to be encouraging the poor to up-skill, to save and invest, to not take up credit (if possible).
You ought to be encouraging the wealthy to start up businesses and to invest in your economy.

I really don't get this , Take from the rich and give to the poor mentality. I understand you don't like the idea of supporting businesses, so there we are. I'm right wing, you are left wing.

Since I haven't said any of that, I'm wondering who you are addressing. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
02-10-2016, 09:33 PM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2016 04:55 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 04:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 03:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is part of the problem. These guys don't reinvest money or even save for their future, for a house or for their kids education. You give them money and they rush out and spend it, on chips, fizzy drink, smart phones, cable tv, pizza. You name it, they spend, spend, spend, then demand that the govt gives them more money.

And just where do those chips, fizzy drink, smart phones, cable tv, and pizza come from? Facepalm

Quote:When the "rich" put money into the stock market they are investing back into the economy, they are investing into businesses which generally pays many people's wages.

Putting money into the stock market puts money into peoples pockets and companies' coffers.
Spending money on goods and services puts money into the economy.

You have it backwards. Drinking Beverage

Spending and investing.
It isn't one or the other, a healthy economy requires both.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
02-10-2016, 10:12 PM
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Raising wages means that the workers in the economy will have more to spend in the economy.
But then the cost of doing business goes up, So the price of goods and services go up (hence cost of living goes up), OR some businesses go under and there are now less jobs than before (which means less people with money), OR businesses can't afford to hire so many people so they make some redundant or they look for more automation or they look to produce offshore.

Except, they can afford it, they just don't want to spend it. Apple got slapped for dodging taxes for years to the tune of 14.5 billion Euros, and that's not a danger to their business because they're sitting on 223 billion Euros worth of cash reserves. They have those high reserves because they are successful, but also because they've been dodging taxes and in illegal collusion with other tech companies to not poach talent and have to pay more for their workers.

They can afford to, it just means that they'll have really good profit margins instead of obscene ones.


(02-10-2016 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Putting up wages isn't cost free.
If there is an oversupply of willing workers then the price of a worker goes down. If there is a shortage of workers then the price of a worker goes up.
If you support businesses, help them to form and survive then you create jobs. More demand for workers naturally causes wages to go up.

Of course it isn't cost free, but it also isn't benefit free either. When you increase the buying power of the consumers in a consumer driven economy, you boost the entire economy. A billion dollars going back to the poor invigorates the economy in a way that a billion dollars to the wealthiest 1% does not; cause that billion sits in Cayman bank accounts not doing shit except earn interest for someone who doesn't need more wealth.


(02-10-2016 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Artificially raising wages causes businesses to hire less people, it puts people out of work.

In what fucking universe do you live in? How often is it that companies are hiring more people than they need? Where? Where in the actual fuck is this happening?

If you run a business, and you need 20 people to get everything done that you need to get done to run your business, you hire 20 people. You don't hire 30 people, because you can get it done with 20. Now, will raising wages somehow magically make the amount of work that need to be done drop? Will raising wages mean that you have less than 20 people's worth of work to do? No. You'll still need 20 people to get the work of 20 people done. If you cut manpower, then you can't get everything done, which negatively affects your business. If you could have already gotten done with less people, you'd already have fired people. If you stretch your people, they can leave to find comparable work elsewhere (leaving you critically understaffed), provided everyone has to offer the higher wages (the very point of having a minimum wage).

But, those 20 people that you're paying more wages to? They now have more money to spend. They, and everyone else in the economy. Which means more people will have more money to spend at your business. It's the long game, seeing overall better benefits for everyone over the long haul, instead of immediate gains for yourself in the here and now. Stock markets favor immediate gains (buy in, have it raise, sell, repeat), which means that corporations more than ever favor shortsighted thinking. Gouging the buying power of your workers saves you money now, but you're eroding your own consumer base in the process.


(02-10-2016 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The working poor that you conveniently ignore? Then spend their entire pay making ends meet. If their wages went up, the extra wages wouldn't go into savings or the stock market or otherwise be squirreled away, that extra income would almost all be instantly spent and go right back into the economy thus generating more demand.
This is a stretch.
You are saying that if a company producing hammers pays its employees more then their profits will go up rather than down.
Immediately we see that their costs go up, because (let's say they decided, out of the Goodness of their hearts, to give everyone a 10% pay increase). You think, now that those people are going to turn around and increase sales bu buying hammers and now the business is going to be more wealthy than before. Shit, if the world worked like that then we would see buinsess paying each of their employees more and more and more and more becasue in their "greedy" nature they want to make more and more money right. Far out, it seems so easy. Just pay your workers more money and you will get that back + extra in sales. Amazing!

Yes, sales will go up. More people will have money to spend, a few of them are going to finally get that rec room or bathroom renovated that they'd always been putting off because they simply didn't have the money. Between do-it-yourself people and increased demand for contractors to do that work, because more people have more money on hand to do it, there will be a relative rise in demand for tools and materials; hammers included.


(02-10-2016 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  When demand goes up, companies produce more, and to do that they hire more people as their business expands.
There is the idea of govt taxing people less. IF govt taxes people less, then people will have more disposable income and hence money shifts more easily in the economy. I do agree with less taxes if that is possible.

Except that taxes are already low (comparatively), especially in comparison to what other developed nations pay. But, our social services are nowhere near as fleshed out. That being said, corporations don't pay anywhere near their fair share. People decry a 35% rate as exorbitant, but forget that General Electric, despite being one of the largest multinational on earth, regularly gets a tax refund. The system is broken. 35% is meaningless with the innumerable loopholes and paperwork evasions, loopholes and evasions not accessible by the other 99% of the population.


(02-10-2016 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But paying people more and expecting that to increase profits is extremely moronic. If it worked, then businesses would do it without need for govt intervention. But of course it doesn't work. Hence there are people shouting out for raising of minimum wage.

So tell me again, what happens when the consumers can no longer support the economy? When the vast majority of people can barely make ends meet? What happens to a consumer driven economy when the consumer base drastically shrinks? There's a hell of a lot less money to go around for businesses to compete for. That's the direction we've been heading, and the course doesn't look to change anytime soon.

We're under the worst wealth inequality we've ever seen since the Gilded Age, and the burst of that unsustainable bubble was the Great Depression. That took a motherfucking World War to pull economies out of stagnation through war production. The world cannot afford another Great Depression, let alone another World War.


(02-10-2016 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Give a million dollar tax break to Bill Gates, will he spend a million more dollars on clothing and food? No.
It doesn't really work like that.

IN NZ there was a big hoo ha about giving the movie companies tax breaks for making the Hobbit in NZ. Now, without the tax breaks they probably would have made the movies in a different country. NZ would have lost out on a massive industry and also the income provided by the flow on tourism.


That's a one off, and NZ made it back by using that to bank on their tourism; there was a plan to get it back. That's not a systemic underpayment of the richest, unfairly forcing their tax burden onto everyone else.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
02-10-2016, 10:16 PM
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 08:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  Since I haven't said any of that, I'm wondering who you are addressing. Consider
Just in general, we have many people that have been stating that we ought to raise wages, tax the rich more and give to the poor.

Yes I was responding to your post but not all of my comments were directed at you. I know, that's confussing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2016, 10:45 PM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2016 12:39 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 04:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  Putting money into the stock market puts money into peoples pockets and companies' coffers.
Spending money on goods and services puts money into the economy.

You have it backwards. Drinking Beverage
Putting money into stock markets not only generates income for yourself but also provides funds for businesses to produce goods and services.

Buying stock means you are adding capital to the company, but that's different than buying their goods and services. Stocks are not tangible.


(02-10-2016 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Spending money on consumables means that your money is used up.

It goes into taxes, and most of it goes back to whoever provided the good or service. That's not disappearing.


(02-10-2016 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Now saying that we just give people money in order to spend, well where does that money come from?
Saying the rich have heaps, lets take it from them, means that
1. you are giving a disincentive for people to become rich or for the rich to be part of your society.

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. Even in the 1940's, when the top US tax bracket was taxed at 90%, that didn't fucking stop successful people from wanting more! Because even keeping just 10% from that top earning bracket was you doing better and having more than someone else in the bracket below you.


(02-10-2016 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  2. you taking money away from people who would otherwise use that money to start up or invest in businesses.

What extra investment opportunities did Apple partake in that justified their illegally shorting the EU 14.65 billion Euros in taxes?


(02-10-2016 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  3. you are assuming that there is an endless supply of money to be taken and redistributed.

No, but nice strawman you have there.


(02-10-2016 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  4. You are telling people at the bottom end of the chain to not worry about upskilling or working, because you will just give them money.

THEY ARE WORKING YOU CALLOUS FUCK! I just want them to get a fair paycheck, instead of being bled dry for the benefit of the 1%.


(02-10-2016 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You are hoping that somehow this "extra" spend will increase sales and hence increase jobs and then jobs will fall into the laps of those that aren't working regardless of the effort or lack of effort they make towards looking for a job. The thing is, there is not enough money to do that.

Apple's 223 billion Euro cash reserves, and General Electric's federal tax refund, say otherwise.


(02-10-2016 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It is also not sustainable, you can't just keep taking money and giving it away, hoping that the poor will spend it, and hoping somehow that this creates jobs and that the poor will then be motivated to take those jobs. It's a completely false economy.

They will spend it. They're already living paycheck to paycheck. What the fuck else are they going to do with it? Hide it in offshore bank accounts? Are you that fucking stupid?



(02-10-2016 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You ought to be encouraging the poor to up-skill, to save and invest, to not take up credit (if possible).

Increasing skill takes education, an education that is more and more priced out of reach.

You cannot save and invest if you're living paycheck to paycheck, even when you're working 60+ hours a week.

Credit is unfortunately needed sometimes, because they have no savings, and shit happens. Sometimes there is no other option, because infrastructure and social services are underfunded, due in part to the aforementioned lax taxation of the wealthiest. Do you know what the largest cause of personal bankruptcy is in the US? Medical bills. That's not the case in the rest of the developed world, because they have universal health care. Do you know what is the only debt that bankruptcy doesn't wipe out? Student loans. So Trump can fuck over his employees and contractors, hide his money, and wipe it all away with bankruptcy; but your average college students are saddled with decades worth of debt. How is that fair?

Simple answer: It's not fair. The system is rigged to favor those who already have more money than they could ever need, and their greed is both insatiable and incredibly destructive.


(02-10-2016 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You ought to be encouraging the wealthy to start up businesses and to invest in your economy.

They already do, and more often than not they fail. Short of passing out free hookers and blow, the US probably couldn't be any more friendly to start up businesses.


(02-10-2016 08:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I really don't get this , Take from the rich and give to the poor mentality. I understand you don't like the idea of supporting businesses, so there we are. I'm right wing, you are left wing.

No, I don't like the idea of the wealthiest people and corporations being the benefit of massive tax breaks and welfare, while everyone else starves and fights for table scraps.

You are the one that sees the starving orphan Oliver asking "please sir, I want some more", and getting pissed the gal of that little moocher. Why doesn't he save up his soup and invest it in his future? The little ungrateful git, he should be prostrating himself on the floor!

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-10-2016, 12:10 AM
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 10:45 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You are the one that sees the starving orphan Oliver asking "please sir, I want some more", and getting pissed that the gal of that little moocher. Why doesn't he save up his soup and invest it in his future? The little ungrateful git, he should be prostrating himself on the floor!
Well, exactly. With free education the boy ought to be focussing at school, getting qualifications so that he can get a well paid job.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2016, 12:26 AM
RE: Do or Die
(03-10-2016 12:10 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 10:45 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You are the one that sees the starving orphan Oliver asking "please sir, I want some more", and getting pissed that the gal of that little moocher. Why doesn't he save up his soup and invest it in his future? The little ungrateful git, he should be prostrating himself on the floor!
Well, exactly. With free education the boy ought to be focussing at school, getting qualifications so that he can get a well paid job.

There will always be low wage jobs though, unless you think a degree is necessary to clean toilets? Is everyone supposed to be aiming to be an investment banker?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
03-10-2016, 12:37 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2016 05:59 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Do or Die
(03-10-2016 12:10 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 10:45 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You are the one that sees the starving orphan Oliver asking "please sir, I want some more", and getting pissed that the gal of that little moocher. Why doesn't he save up his soup and invest it in his future? The little ungrateful git, he should be prostrating himself on the floor!
Well, exactly. With free education the boy ought to be focussing at school, getting qualifications so that he can get a well paid job.

Honestly, I can't tell if you're being serious.

[Image: giphy.gif]

But for the record, Oliver Twist takes place at a time before state funded compulsory education.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2016, 12:49 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2016 06:00 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Do or Die
Dear Stevil.

It's not that I do not understand the idea behind incentivizing businesses. I get it, I really do. But you cannot give them a blank check under the threat that they'll go elsewhere; because to a point it is an empty threat. There has to be a more equitable equilibrium reached. Europe does, Australia does, your own New Zealand does. They still mange to attract businesses without letting them run roughshod over their populations and environments. They still manage to get their wealthiest to pay back into the system, and they don't all run away. Because markets need people, and businesses aren't just going to abandon the largest consumer market in the world because it's a little more expensive to do business there; because there is still plenty of lucrative business to be had, and if they don't, someone else will. Hold everyone to a higher standard, and those that run away weren't worth doing business with in the first place.

But wanting at least that much for the United States is somehow beyond the pale?

Now fuck off.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
03-10-2016, 01:53 AM
RE: Do or Die
(30-09-2016 01:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(30-09-2016 02:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  You keep talking as if corporations are the messiahs who will save us all with jobs etc, but those same corporations have no allegiance to society,
If you encourage businesses they you have a sustainable source of income. Income for investors and income for workers.

If you don't encourage businesses then where do the jobs come from? Do we instead just sit back and milk the rich? How does that work in the long run?

With regards to the "no allegiance to society" I really don't know what you are getting at. Society has many, many facets. Business supplies income and jobs, skills, goods and services, what more do you want from them?

(30-09-2016 02:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  as you yourself say, they care about profits and profits alone. And often those profits are at the expense of the local population.
At the cost of providing jobs?
(30-09-2016 02:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  Nestle bottles water at a particular location and sells it. A mining company extracts diamonds and sells it. Why *should* they keep all the profits from that?
Why shouldn't they?

(30-09-2016 02:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  At the end of the day a company is just an association of individual humans, what makes their profits so important that it's OK to ignore everyone else?
I don't know what you mean when you say "ignore everyone else"? What do you expect businesses to do over and above, turning a profit?

I'm going to perform a thought experiment. Let's say that there's a big old deposit of diamonds under the desert in Botswana. Let's further say that the De Beers company geologists identify it and De Beers buys the mining rights from the government of the day. They set up two huge mines and begin extracting diamonds of incredible quality and quantity. The diamonds are sold for vast sums. Some of the money comes back to Botswana and is used to improve the mines, and the local economy does grow because there's a knock on effect of mining jobs - local tribesmen are hired as unskilled labour, there's food markets etc.

Now the profits from this mine are stratospheric. There's an incredibly rich deposit down there. De Beers executives rub their hands in glee. It's gravy train all the way.

Tell me something: is this completely fair? De Beers developed the mine, sure, but the diamonds were just *there*. They bought the mining rights, sure, but actually the government of the day didn't realise the value that would be extracted, nor were they in fact a legitimate government since they were a colonial occupying power. The local economy improved, sure, but relative to the profits from the mine, it was just pig swill. The only people who really profit from the mine are De Beers investors who apart from putting up the money to set up the mine initially don't life a finger in the day to day generation of profits. They just sit while the entire country of Botswana pumps their bank accounts full of diamond profits, and a tiny trickle of money is allowed back to keep the pump running.

This is a bit of a fairy story. It did actually happen in Botswana but perhaps not quite as I described. The mines exist but I didn't fact check the history. But the purpose of the fairy story is to illustrate that there's a lack of fairness in the system. I can't see how the diamonds should be the exclusive property of De Beers even though to all intents and purposes they bought the mining rights and everything fair and square.

Anyway, to me that's a microcosm of the relationship of the rich and poor today. In Botswana the democratic government actually decided that this was not a right thing and they forced De Beers into a profit sharing agreement which has benefitted the entire country so that it is now one of the shining lights in Southern Africa, possibly the sole place in the region where genuine good governance is practiced. Something that would not be possible without the diamond profits which otherwise would just be making a fat businessman fatter.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: