6 of 11
6
What Reganomics has accomplished.
Posted: 29 September 2013 01:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 29 September 2013 12:11 PM
Bryan - 29 September 2013 09:24 AM
VYAZMA - 29 September 2013 05:43 AM

What’s holding innovation back right now like you claimed?

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/186804/

Where does this go?

It goes to centerforinquiry.net, where I already answered the question.  The link goes directly to my post.  You should refuse to click it on principle or something.

Can you answer my question without a link? What’s holding back innovation?

I’ve already answered the question in this thread in my own words.  I’ve taken the trouble to point out exactly where.  It would be rude for you to expect more than that.

I’m confused. You don’t like American subsidies, but you are willing to buy Chinese Subsidized Solar Panels?

Sure, if it’s a good value.  The Chinese subsidy hurts China.  They’re taking the risk that selling for under market value will allow them to corner the market.  When a company sells something for less than its market value it’s smart to buy it.

Because you just previously said “renewable energy, as long as it isn’t subsidized”.

Right, that’s talking about the necessity of subsidies to even make solar competitive against other energy sources.  As long as solar energy is itself subsidized (“Install solar panels for your home and receive a $300 annual tax break!”) it’s not competitive on a level playing field.  That affects whether the Chinese solar panels represent a good value.

I asked you two different questions Bryan.  Keep up and switch gears!
If you would like I can go back and cite the 2 questions contained in 2 adjoining posts.

I answered both questions, as it happens.  Cite it all you like.

Do you still wish to take a crack at the question: “What’s smothering innovation?”, or would you like to further obfuscate?
Try not to post another reply that leads to another post in this thread.

If you think it’s obfuscation to offer you a link to an earlier post in this thread where I had already specifically answered your question then I choose poorly by bothering to answer you.  It’s obfuscation for you to refuse to click the link and claim that I’m obfuscating by answering with the link.  It’s pathetic on your part is what it is.

[ Edited: 29 September 2013 01:55 PM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 04:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Bryan-If you think it’s obfuscation to offer you a link to an earlier post in this thread where I had already specifically answered your question then I choose poorly by bothering to answer you.  It’s obfuscation for you to refuse to click the link and claim that I’m obfuscating by answering with the link.  It’s pathetic on your part is what it is.

No, I did click the link. It took me to a post 2 pages ago that was a foot long.

Plus the argument about uncertainty being a reason for hampered innovation is ridiculous.
That’s the whole idea behind innovation. It rises above any obstacles “perceived” or otherwise.

I’m sure if somebody had the cure for colon cancer it would be out now.
I’d like to know more about innovations you feel are being hampered by this so called economic downturn.
The only downturn is unemployment.  And that is from off-shoring innovation.

Every corporation is sitting on large cash reserves right now.  Wall St is doing great!  Sounds like a rich environment for innovation.
In fact in the history of our Nation’s economy, I don’t remember ever reading about the times when innovation was low or hampered due to uncertainty or Taxes.
Ever!  Perhaps you can cite some previous examples when innovation was hampered or low in bad times, or good times.

I’m still waiting for you to tell me how innovation will bring about jobs.  In general terms…I’m not asking for predictions.
But I suppose I’m jumping ahead.  This will inevitably lead to you explaining how people don’t like to hire in times of uncertainty and low-innovation too.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 05:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 29 September 2013 04:15 PM

Bryan-If you think it’s obfuscation to offer you a link to an earlier post in this thread where I had already specifically answered your question then I choose poorly by bothering to answer you.  It’s obfuscation for you to refuse to click the link and claim that I’m obfuscating by answering with the link.  It’s pathetic on your part is what it is.

No, I did click the link. It took me to a post 2 pages ago that was a foot long.

Why did you ask “Where does this go?” if you already knew where it went?

Plus the argument about uncertainty being a reason for hampered innovation is ridiculous.
That’s the whole idea behind innovation. It rises above any obstacles “perceived” or otherwise.

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.

I’m sure if somebody had the cure for colon cancer it would be out now.

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.

I’d like to know more about innovations you feel are being hampered by this so called economic downturn.

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.

The only downturn is unemployment.  And that is from off-shoring innovation.

GDP’s well below traditional norms for a(n American) recovery.  And if you’re correct then off-shoring innovation can’t stop innovation.  It’ll force even more of it to compensate for the uncertainty of who will take the place of the offshored innovators.

You make some of the worst arguments I’ve ever seen.  And I’ve seen quite a few.

Every corporation is sitting on large cash reserves right now.  Wall St is doing great!  Sounds like a rich environment for innovation.

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?

In fact in the history of our Nation’s economy, I don’t remember ever reading about the times when innovation was low or hampered due to uncertainty or Taxes.
Ever!  Perhaps you can cite some previous examples when innovation was hampered or low in bad times, or good times.

Certainty regarding the regulatory climate was the idea behind President Harding’s “normalcy” campaign theme.  It’s a theme that President Coolidge perpetuated (after Harding died in office) to a huge economic boom, during which his administration focused on paying down the debt left over from WW1.  Hoover was an activist president who returned the nation to high deficit spending in order to fight the recession that followed the crash of ‘29.

I’m still waiting for you to tell me how innovation will bring about jobs.

For the second time, when innovators come up with things people want and need people buy the things they want and need.  And most of them do productive work in order to obtain the money to buy such things.  It’s an utterly simple concept.

But I suppose I’m jumping ahead.  This will inevitably lead to you explaining how people don’t like to hire in times of uncertainty and low-innovation too.

Who would need an explanation for something so obvious?  You?  Recent hiring in the U.S. is predominantly part-time workers, which is not the norm.  Coincidence, you think?

http://www.floatingpath.com/2013/05/30/us-gdp-growth-at-2-4-in-second-estimate-for-q1-2013/

[ Edited: 29 September 2013 08:01 PM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2013 05:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 29 September 2013 05:18 PM

Why did you ask “Where does this go?” if you already knew where it went?

Because it went nowhere in substance.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.  That’s why Wall St. is doing great too. Why do you keep saying corporations and businesses are not investing in innovation?
Of course they are! If IBM, GE, or GM didn’t invest in innovation or new ideas they would go out of business.
I want to know where you get this idea of uncertainty?  Does this whole Congress/Shutdown thing got you on pins and needles?

Certainty regarding the regulatory climate was the idea behind President Harding’s “normalcy” campaign theme.  It’s a theme that President Coolidge perpetuated (after Harding died in office) to a huge economic boom, during which his administration focused on paying down the debt left over from WW1.  Hoover was an activist president who returned the nation to high deficit spending in order to fight the recession that followed the crash of ‘29.

Wow!  Another one of your irrelevant historical asides.  I asked you when in history was innovation ever hampered or stopped.

For the second time, when innovators come up with things people want and need people buy the things they want and need.  And most of them do productive work in order to obtain the money to buy such things.  It’s an utterly simple concept.

But there isn’t enough people to buy those innovations because poverty is at levels we haven’t seen in a long time.
So innovation is just fine. Wealth disparity and income distribution is all out of whack.  That would also explain one of the reasons why GDP is low.
Lot’s of people have low wage jobs that don’t allow them to take full advantage of all the innovations available. Innovations are increasingly becoming available only to the wealthy.

Who would need an explanation for something so obvious?  You?  Recent hiring in the U.S. is predominantly part-time workers, which is not the norm. 

No that’s the new norm.  We get most of our manufactured goods from overseas now.  We just need people here to work part-time working at Wal-Mart to sell the imported goods and at Burger King to feed all of the part-time workers.
Wal-Mart…#1 employer in the US!  95% or more of Wal-Mart’s goods are imported.

[ Edited: 30 September 2013 05:19 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2013 05:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

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.
That can be found by doing a search of the 10 largest US employers.
That’s Wal-Mart, who pays horrendous wages in relation to their profit margins. And employs many Part-time workers.
McDonalds same thing!
Yum Brands(Taco Bell, KFC,) same thing!
Target-same thing.
And UPS, who also employs a large workforce of part-time workers.
IBM is on there, they are innovators! They have good paying jobs.
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!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2013 06:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 30 September 2013 05:32 AM

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2013 07:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 30 September 2013 05:06 AM
Bryan - 29 September 2013 05:18 PM

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.

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.

“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.

 

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.

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’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.

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.

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.

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 have a wonderfully aggressive method of admitting error.

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.

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?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2013 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 29 September 2013 12:59 PM
Bryan - 29 September 2013 04:04 AM

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?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2013 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1765
Joined  2007-10-22

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.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2013 12:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
garythehuman - 30 September 2013 11:11 AM

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2013 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 30 September 2013 07:17 AM

“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? rolleyes

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.

[ Edited: 30 September 2013 12:57 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2013 01:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

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.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2013 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 30 September 2013 12:54 PM
Bryan - 30 September 2013 07:17 AM

“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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2013 05:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

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?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 05:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
VYAZMA - 28 September 2013 11:19 AM
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 28 September 2013 09:36 AM

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

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 11
6
 
‹‹ Service Equity      Atheists In Congress ››