Here's a great example of innovation Bryan: I just read an article in USA Today that stated Taco Bell added 15,000 new jobs because of the success of it's new Doritos Loco Tacos. Sounds like innovation to me.Great, the economy's fixed. Rejoice.
Why did you ask "Where does this go?" if you already knew where it went?Because it went nowhere in substance. I'm beginning to see the depths of your pedantry. It would have been far more clear for you to write "I don't get what that means" or something similar. You insisted that I gave no answer when the truth is that you simply disagreed with my answer.
"You'll have people to fill out those forms" doesn't debunk anything. All it does is show that somebody has to do a bunch of work that doesn't increase your profit. Yours, again, is a completely unserious answer.If your business is focused on the nightmare scenario of filling out 1099 forms for nearly every vendor it deals with you can't devote the same amount of time to the next innovation that expands the companies' services. You'll lose capital and time, and in addition you'll have some concerns about the timing of future rollouts because of changes to business taxes and other business costs (like healthcare coverage). It's not ridiculous. It makes good sense if you think about it.No way because you'll have people to fill out those forms. That's what scheduling is for so there will be time to take care of all that stuff. No businessperson sits around and frets about tax changes. This little scenario is infantile. I've seen it debunked many times before.
That's true, but on the other hand Argentina has yet to put a man on the moon by itself. Meaning you're missing the point almost as if that's what you're trying to do.I mentioned a cure for colon cancer in dealing with the issue of whether an innovator's motives should affect his compensation. Your reply here makes zero sense in that context.Yeah and now I'm using the scenario to illustrate that innovation moves ahead in any circumstance.
You're committing the black-or-white fallacy. When innovation is robust, people put money behind it. You pointed out that corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves. Why are they sitting on huge cash reserves instead of spending it on new ideas that will make them more money? Innovation is always happening, you say. So it should be impossible that they're sitting on those huge cash reserves.I'd like to know why you call it a "so called" economic downturn. But chasing down a rabbit trail every 10 seconds isn't going to get us anywhere. You should stick with development of your argument that uncertainty doesn't hamper innovation. I've got plenty of arguments why it does.There is no uncertainty. Innovation is happening right now. You have plenty of arguments why it does, yet you can't provide any examples of it happening. Ever.
New restaurants are opening. New Phones are coming out. New cars are being designed. New roads are being built. Textbooks are being updated and printed. My Windows receives updates. Boeing is designing new planes. A private rocketship just delivered supplies to the space station. I can keep going on and on!!Careful where you try to build those new roads or restaurants. You may be in court for years trying to prove you're not destroying the habitat of the the Prairie Thisrthat. But at least you'll have people making the argument (parallel to having people fill out 1099 forms), so there's absolutely no problem.
You have a wonderfully aggressive method of admitting error.GDP's well below traditional norms for a(n American) recovery.Yeah, there's currently nothing to prop up the big hole left by all the manufacturing jobs that left the country. If a country stops making things by a large percentage, then GDP goes down. A tech bubble, and an artificial Housing/Banking Market did a great job of masking the hole for 20 years or so. Plus Wars.
You've said both. You've said corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves, and now you're saying that they're spending it on innovation. But it can't be both at the same time (the money they're sitting on they're not spending). You've contradicted yourself. I wonder if you'll see the obvious?Okay, so we're innovating up a storm right now. No, but really, if corporations are sitting on large cash reserves right now then why aren't they spending it by investing it on new ideas that will make them more money?They are. I've said that all along.
There's not much doubt the "Laffer Curve" is legit. The problem is figuring out where it bends and how and whether it changes as conditions change. But the economics of Reagan goes back much further than the Laffer curve, including the ideas of Hayek (Hayek won a Nobel Prize for economics just as did Keynes before him).What Reagan espoused about Reaganomics (and what his disciples, since, dogmatically believe they are following) is quite different from the economic policies that were in reality put in place during his administration. Reaganomics quickly turned Keynesian. "...(1) a penchant for continuing deficits, (2) a devotion to fiat paper money and at least moderate inflation, (3) adherence to increased government spending, and (4) an eternal fondness for higher taxes, to lower deficits a wee bit, but more importantly, to inflict some bracing pain on the greedy, selfish, and short-sighted American public. The Reagan Administration managed to institutionalize these goodies, seemingly permanently on the American scene." (italics mine) http://mises.ca/posts/articles/the-death-of-reaganomics-keynesian-redux/ Was the Great Communicator a Great Bamboozler? It seems so. I think your argument's getting confused. When you argue that Obamanomics is superior to Reaganomics and then argue that Reaganomics is basically Keynesian you end up saying Obamanomics and Reaganomics are pretty much the same thing. And you're confusing the issue because "Reaganomics" is widely understood as a supply-side approach (not Keynesian). It's not a revelation that Reagan administration policy was limited in terms of its application of supply-side economics. On the other hand, Reagan did get tax cuts passed for the wealthy and oversaw a robust recovery while also licking inflation via the actions of the Federal Reserve. But if Reagan and Obama are both Keynesian then in what way is Obamanomics superior to Reaganomics?
An ongoing study of income distribution found that the richest 1% in America took 19% of national income last year, their biggest share since 1928. The top 10% of earners held a record 48.2%. During the recovery between 2009 and 2012 real family incomes rose by an average of 4.6%, though this was skewed by a 31.4% increase for the top 1%. For the other 99% incomes rose by just 0.4%.Byran; You still haven't answered why you think the policies that result in the above income distribution, which is the result of the policies you support, is good for 99% of Americans that are not among the economic aristocracy. Quit avoiding the point.
I"m pretty sure I've addressed this point already, Gary. I have no evidence that it is bad for the 99 percent that the top 1 percent garners 19 percent of the income. It doesn't matter to me if it's good for the 99 percent or not. If it's good, then great. If it's neutral, then fine. If it's bad, then the policy needs a defense. I don't accept the premise that it's bad. Nobody's made that case. I think to skip making that case and jump to my defense of the policy represents a fallacious shift of the burden of proof. You're invited to make the case that large disparities in income distribution represent a bad policy that needs defending. Or you can avoid the question.An ongoing study of income distribution found that the richest 1% in America took 19% of national income last year, their biggest share since 1928. The top 10% of earners held a record 48.2%. During the recovery between 2009 and 2012 real family incomes rose by an average of 4.6%, though this was skewed by a 31.4% increase for the top 1%. For the other 99% incomes rose by just 0.4%.Byran; You still haven't answered why you think the policies that result in the above income distribution, which is the result of the policies you support, is good for 99% of Americans that are not among the economic aristocracy. Quit avoiding the point.
"You'll have people to fill out those forms" doesn't debunk anything. All it does is show that somebody has to do a bunch of work that doesn't increase your profit. Yours, again, is a completely unserious answer.You are obtuse! My "fill out the forms" response was an obvious jibe at your explanation of burdens caused by filling out forms. What are you the manager at a McDonald's or something? Sounds like filling out paperwork is cutting close to the bone for you. Neverthless, I thought your 1099 response was ridiculous.
You're committing the black-or-white fallacy.:lol: My aren't you learned in all the proper argumentative terms. I guess that makes you the de Facto referee...
When innovation is robust, people put money behind it. You pointed out that corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves. Why are they sitting on huge cash reserves instead of spending it on new ideas that will make them more money? Innovation is always happening, you say. So it should be impossible that they're sitting on those huge cash reserves.That's a black and white fallacy to me. I could be sitting on large cash reserves and spend lot's of good money on groceries at the same time. Done! What else you got? Haven't you ever heard of budgets and expenditures?
Careful where you try to build those new roads or restaurants. You may be in court for years trying to prove you're not destroying the habitat of the the Prairie Thisrthat. But at least you'll have people making the argument (parallel to having people fill out 1099 forms), so there's absolutely no problem.Yes. A conciliatory blink of the eyes. Hack job! :lol: That means cookie cutter response. That's like AM radio type stupid. What's next? You are going to claim Obama wants to be King? Or the UN is going to take everyone's guns away? Or are you denying that new roads and restaurants are being built as we speak?
You have a wonderfully aggressive method of admitting error.You have a miserably milquetoast way of pointing out my errors...as in- you haven't yet! But you have managed to slink away from answering all of the relevant points made in this thread, such as showing examples of how innovation is hampered right now. Showing or explaining how innovation provides jobs, or rebutting the facts that good paying manufacturing jobs have declined in this nation since Reagan took office. And how innovation, which you say is being hampered is going to fix that. Or what can innovation do to take the place of manufacturing jobs. I mentioned the Taco Bell taco....you didn't seem too impressed. I suppose you didn't get my dripping sarcasm there either.
No, but really, if corporations are sitting on large cash reserves right now then why aren't they spending it by investing it on new ideas that will make them more money?They are spending money on ideas that will make them more money. And they are sitting on large cash reserves. Why do you say that can't do both? :roll:
You've said both. You've said corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves, and now you're saying that they're spending it on innovation. But it can't be both at the same time (the money they're sitting on they're not spending). You've contradicted yourself. I wonder if you'll see the obvious?I'm wondering why you think a company can't be sitting on large reserves of cash and spend some of that money on "innovation". I know I could. Wow let's save a good percentage of money, but still allocate enough for R&D. Or advertisement. Especially when many of these companies have laid off workers or shrunk their labor costs.(which are the biggest cost of doing business.) If I laid off 20-60% of my workforce, I would probably have enough money to save and do "innovation" stuff with. I'm still waiting for you to tell me more about "innovation" stuff.
So combining retail and Fast food, we can see that that may well constitute half or more of all US jobs.
Retail and Fast Food…not exactly big GDP boosters!
No response here eh Bry?
That’s been the real innovation since Reagan took office. Since Reagan that’s what we have steadily slumped into.
There’s your innovation you hack.
"You'll have people to fill out those forms" doesn't debunk anything. All it does is show that somebody has to do a bunch of work that doesn't increase your profit. Yours, again, is a completely unserious answer.You are obtuse! My "fill out the forms" response was an obvious jibe at your explanation of burdens caused by filling out forms. What are you the manager at a McDonald's or something? Sounds like filling out paperwork is cutting close to the bone for you. Neverthless, I thought your 1099 response was ridiculous. You've exhausted my patience with that one. I can't tell if you're simply uninformed or picture yourself as some sort of Super(Gad)fly. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/27/969482/-ACA-s-1099-Bites-The-Dust
TimB-Decreasing taxes on the rich will lead to innovation? Innovation such as that in the financial industries that lead to the WORST economic crisis since the Great Depression? Bryan- Are you seriously trotting out the argument that the financial crisis cancels out any technological innovation that occurs as a result of tax cuts? Is that a cheesy diversion or what?Bryan you just cited innovation that occurred as a result of tax-cuts. Could you please list some of the specific innovations that took place please? Do you have any numbers on how much innovation would have been lessened if those tax cuts were not in place?
TimB-The wealthiest seem to have found ways to effectively have pretty low taxes for some time now. Where is all the innovation that should have lifted our economy? Bryan- It's largely suppressed by uncertainty. The government has reformed financial markets (the administration is still writing the reams of regulations associated with Dodd-Frank), the health care market (more regs, along with the administrations uneven application of the law it helped pass), and has increased taxes while indicating a strong desire to increase taxes more.Uncertainty. What are some metrics we can use to identify that innovation is being held back by uncertainty? Amazon is slated to hire 70,000 temporary workers for the holidays. I'm sure Taco Bell is working on a taco. Maybe they will hire 10,000 more workers part-time and minimum wage... UPS and Fed-EX will be hiring thousands and thousands of temporary holiday workers. I'm sure Apple will release another phone that people can be diverted with. That sounds like alot of innovation to me!{sarcasm} Attempting to describe our perceived economic downturn as a problem of innovation is weak and shortsighted. The US has lower growth and will continue to have lower growth until large scale manufacturing is brought back to the US. If anyone thinks the economy is going to get better by having 3/4s of the workforce employed as service workers making tacos or sending out Amazon boxes they are sadly mistaken. Innovation is an amorphous term that means nothing in the context of Economic discussion. If there is no innovation than business doesn't exist. Therefore if business doesn't exist, there is no economic discussion. I can use the term innovation to describe the wonderful practices that slowly came into vogue during the Reagan years. Those practices were highly accelerated under Clinton and Bush II. That innovation was finding foreign(ie Chinese) factories to make cheap goods and market and sell them in the US. Steve Jobs. You wanna talk about innovation? There's an innovator! Wal-Mart! There's an innovator. Demand the lowest wholesale prices from American manufacturers or undercut them by finding cheap(quality) foreign made stuff and selling it in stores that pay horrendous wages with no benefits. Now 80-90% of the stuff in Wal-Mart(or Target for example) is imported garbage. Sam Waltons kin are on the Forbe's 500 Richest People list. I think they are in the single digit standing...4th, 5th and 6th or something. That's the new innovation!! I am amazed at how people wonder why the economy is in a malaise. Conservatives and GOP have said for years that Taxes and uncertainty have stifled growth and innovation! What if they got their way 100%? What would happen? What growth would we see? What hidden innovations would suddenly emerge that would start reducing unemployment and lifting people into the middle class?
Umm this conversation seems to be turning into a insulting contest rather than an intellectual exchange.That's because there are ideological differences being discussed. Get in the discussion before you just come in and start trying to play referee.
With all due respect to everyone, please seriously study economics before having a conversation.. We can start with the works of Prof. Jeffery Sachs.Why him? You get to pick the "economist" we are all supposed to immediately start centering our discussion around. Exactly, lets start studying some more. I only gave one suggestion. I have no problem if someone suggests another. In fact, I am quite eager to know of any other famous economist who has worked around the world and has online research for lay people
Abdul, I assume that you are Muslim? I wonder whether the Quranic prohibition against money being made by charging interests on loans, may be a good one, as it requires an Islamic financial institution to basically form an investment partnership with those who borrow or invest in order to make money.I'm not an economist so I cant say much But here is something I did find http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2010-10-19-islamicbank19_ST_N.htm Please keep in mind though this is a news source and not an academic one.
Exactly, lets start studying some more. I only gave one suggestion. I have no problem if someone suggests another. In fact, I am quite eager to know of any other famous economist who has worked around the world and has online research for lay peopleEconomists are a dime a dozen. There's an economist for every ideological stripe. If you want to talk pure economics I believe you can only study the economics of the past. ie history. That's because one can view economic practices and see how they worked...in the past. Of course forms of pure economics would be tax codes, accounting rules, trade treaties and grocery budgets. This discussion here in this thread revolves around political/economic histories and forecasts. But please Abdul suggest some tenets from your favorite economist and I will be glad to hear from them. I'm always looking for new info and ideas.
I"m pretty sure I've addressed this point already, Gary. I have no evidence that it is bad for the 99 percent that the top 1 percent garners 19 percent of the income. It doesn't matter to me if it's good for the 99 percent or not. If it's good, then great. If it's neutral, then fine. If it's bad, then the policy needs a defense. I don't accept the premise that it's bad. Nobody's made that case. I think to skip making that case and jump to my defense of the policy represents a fallacious shift of the burden of proof. You're invited to make the case that large disparities in income distribution represent a bad policy that needs defending. Or you can avoid the question. Per Adam Smith:An ongoing study of income distribution found that the richest 1% in America took 19% of national income last year, their biggest share since 1928. The top 10% of earners held a record 48.2%. During the recovery between 2009 and 2012 real family incomes rose by an average of 4.6%, though this was skewed by a 31.4% increase for the top 1%. For the other 99% incomes rose by just 0.4%.Byran; You still haven't answered why you think the policies that result in the above income distribution, which is the result of the policies you support, is good for 99% of Americans that are not among the economic aristocracy. Quit avoiding the point.
Servants, laborers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well, fed, clothed and lodged. Pg. 90
Avarice and injustice are always short sighted. Pg. 423
With the greater part of the rich people, the chief enjoyment of riches consists in the parade of riches, which in their eyes is never so complete as when they appear to possess those decisive marks of opulence which nobody can possess but themselves.
All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the master of mankind. . . . For a pair of diamond buckles perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchange the maintenance of a thousand men for a year. Pg. 444Our merchants frequently complain of the high wages of British labor as the cause of manufactures being undersold in foreign markets, but they are silent about the high profits of stock. They complain about of the extravagant gain of other people, but say nothing, but say nothing of their own. Pg. 648 Where is the justice in today's wealth and income distribution?
I have no evidence that it is bad for the 99 percent that the top 1 percent garners 19 percent of the income. It doesn't matter to me if it's good for the 99 percent or not. If it's good, then great. If it's neutral, then fine. If it's bad, then the policy needs a defense. I don't accept the premise that it's bad. Nobody's made that case. I think to skip making that case and jump to my defense of the policy represents a fallacious shift of the burden of proof. You're invited to make the case that large disparities in income distribution represent a bad policy that needs defending. Or you can avoid the question.Per Adam Smith:
Servants, laborers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well, fed, clothed and lodged. Pg. 90That's somewhat out-of-context, given that we're talking about disparities in wealth, not about poverty. Does anybody actually think that the "greater part" of the U.S. population lives in poverty?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be shifting the question from whether great wealth disparity is wrong to the question of whether it is fair. Should we care whether it is fair for the 99 percent if it isn't bad for the 99 percent? Let's stick with the latter question.Avarice and injustice are always short sighted. Pg. 423With the greater part of the rich people, the chief enjoyment of riches consists in the parade of riches, which in their eyes is never so complete as when they appear to possess those decisive marks of opulence which nobody can possess but themselves.All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the master of mankind. . . . For a pair of diamond buckles perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchange the maintenance of a thousand men for a year. Pg. 444Our merchants frequently complain of the high wages of British labor as the cause of manufactures being undersold in foreign markets, but they are silent about the high profits of stock. They complain about of the extravagant gain of other people, but say nothing, but say nothing of their own. Pg. 648Where is the justice in today's wealth and income distribution?
I’m not going to imply that I’ve studied the data on these pages. But, at a glance it appears that there is not a very rigid correlation between income equality and the standard of living, so Bryan may have a point.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be shifting the question from whether great wealth disparity is wrong to the question of whether it is fair. Should we care whether it is fair for the 99 percent if it isn't bad for the 99 percent? Let's stick with the latter question.It is wrong. Therefore it is unfair. It's definitely unfair, and we all know that unfairness is wrong. Are you suggesting that people should look away from things that are unfair?
I’m suggesting that if something is bad for people then we can expect objective evidence supporting the ill alleged consequences.
In contrast, unfairness does not necessarily have any measurable ill consequences. It becomes a moral argument at that point. That moral argument is better suited to the philosophy forum than politics and social issues. It’s not an easy argument to make. For example, if one were to argue that it is unfair and therefore is bad, and it’s obvious that bad things are unfair, then we have a fairly obvious example of an argument that runs in a vicious (that is, fallacious) circle.
If we’re going to have a productive argument, I suggest sticking with the original assertion, that wealth disparity is harmful, not merely unfair.
It’s not fair that Occam is so much smarter than me. Shall we inject him with brain-damaging chemicals to even the playing field a bit? His greater intelligence is a moral wrong, no?
I'm suggesting that if something is bad for people then we can expect objective evidence supporting the ill alleged consequences. In contrast, unfairness does not necessarily have any measurable ill consequences. It becomes a moral argument at that point. That moral argument is better suited to the philosophy forum than politics and social issues. It's not an easy argument to make. For example, if one were to argue that it is unfair and therefore is bad, and it's obvious that bad things are unfair, then we have a fairly obvious example of an argument that runs in a vicious (that is, fallacious) circle. If we're going to have a productive argument, I suggest sticking with the original assertion, that wealth disparity is harmful, not merely unfair. It's not fair that Occam is so much smarter than me. Shall we inject him with brain-damaging chemicals to even the playing field a bit? His greater intelligence is a moral wrong, no?Perhaps you should have to pick up a few suicides, deal with the broken marriages and bankruptcies as I did after the plant closings. All so your rich buddies can have their play toys.
Perhaps you should have to pick up a few suicides, deal with the broken marriages and bankruptcies as I did after the plant closings. All so your rich buddies can have their play toys.I trust this personal attack is beneath you, Gary.
Bryan wrote
“That’s somewhat out-of-context, given that we’re talking about disparities in wealth, not about poverty. Does anybody actually think that the “greater part” of the U.S. population lives in poverty?"
No, the capitalist aim is to keep the majority of the population hovering just a milimeter above poverty and no more so they can be kept in line and they won’t notice that all the wealth is flowing to the top. They also like to spread the fiction that it’s capitalism that keeps the poor from falling into abject poverty. They should be grateful for capitalism.
Lois