goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Rams on February 06, 2012, 10:12:17 PM
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html)
It's about rough ridin' time somebody said this out loud. LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy. :lol:
-
Rams post
-
Bush's fault
-
Bush's fault
Yeah that's kind of my point. Bush had little to no effect on the economy. Just like Clinton and Obama and Bush Sr. and Reagan and every other president we've ever had.
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html)
It's about rough ridin' time somebody said this out loud. LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy. :lol:
Not completely true. Depends on who has control of the congress and what kind of lackeys are in charge to do the presidents bidding. The economy runs best when there's gridlock.
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html)
It's about rough ridin' time somebody said this out loud. LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy. :lol:
Not completely true. Depends on who has control of the congress and what kind of lackeys are in charge to do the presidents bidding. The economy runs best when there's gridlock.
That's only partially correct, IMO. Control of the Congress is ultimately more important than who the President is, but even that means very little in terms of what happens with the economy. The dirty little secret that no politician is willing to admit is that there is almost nothing they can do, other than enormous sweeping legislation like the New Deal, that has any major effect on the economy as a whole. Things like lowering/raising tax rates and most regulation/deregulation are mere blips on the radar and do virtually nothing to effect normal economic cycles. Even huge sweeping legislation takes so long to filter through the economy that there's really no way to separate it from all of the other variables to determine how much effect it actually has.
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html)
It's about rough ridin' time somebody said this out loud. LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy. :lol:
Not completely true. Depends on who has control of the congress and what kind of lackeys are in charge to do the presidents bidding. The economy runs best when there's gridlock.
Off the top of my head, presidents can also issue executive orders banning all sorts of economic activity (e.g. offshore drilling), unilaterally shutdown economic projects (e.g. Keystone), dispatch regulatory agencies to create rules, regulations, legal opinions, interpretive letters, official guidance, etc. that are oppressive to industry (e.g. EPA), they can sign legislation that is oppressive or burdensome to industry (e.g. dodd-frank), they can create economic uncertainty by demanding sweeping legislation without any roadmap as to how its to be done (e.g. Health Care), they can threaten tax increases cutting into margins.
Seems like they can do a lot to stifle industry, maybe not a lot to grow it.
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html)
It's about rough ridin' time somebody said this out loud. LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy. :lol:
Not completely true. Depends on who has control of the congress and what kind of lackeys are in charge to do the presidents bidding. The economy runs best when there's gridlock.
Off the top of my head, presidents can also issue executive orders banning all sorts of economic activity (e.g. offshore drilling), unilaterally shutdown economic projects (e.g. Keystone), dispatch regulatory agencies to create rules, regulations, legal opinions, interpretive letters, official guidance, etc. that are oppressive to industry (e.g. EPA), they can sign legislation that is oppressive or burdensome to industry (e.g. dodd-frank), they can create economic uncertainty by demanding sweeping legislation without any roadmap as to how its to be done (e.g. Health Care), they can threaten tax increases cutting into margins.
Seems like they can do a lot to stifle industry, maybe not a lot to grow it.
All those things you listed were done under President Obama and yet the economy has grown every quarter since 2010 and the Dow is up 30% in that time.
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html)
It's about rough ridin' time somebody said this out loud. LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy. :lol:
Not completely true. Depends on who has control of the congress and what kind of lackeys are in charge to do the presidents bidding. The economy runs best when there's gridlock.
Off the top of my head, presidents can also issue executive orders banning all sorts of economic activity (e.g. offshore drilling), unilaterally shutdown economic projects (e.g. Keystone), dispatch regulatory agencies to create rules, regulations, legal opinions, interpretive letters, official guidance, etc. that are oppressive to industry (e.g. EPA), they can sign legislation that is oppressive or burdensome to industry (e.g. dodd-frank), they can create economic uncertainty by demanding sweeping legislation without any roadmap as to how its to be done (e.g. Health Care), they can threaten tax increases cutting into margins.
Seems like they can do a lot to stifle industry, maybe not a lot to grow it.
All those things you listed were done under President Obama and yet the economy has grown every quarter since 2010 and the Dow is up 30% in that time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Reading Comprehension.
Furthermore:
1) the economic recovery is anemic by any metric and even worse by historic standards <--- fact
2) LOL at using the Dow as an economic metric (and stock performance metric, see S&P, Russell 2k, etc.). When it was 14,000 under Bush, Obama was all "only rich people get rich off stocks"
-
i guess i thought people knew this, but i dunno.
-
i guess i thought people knew this, but i dunno.
No. Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them. See FSD's posts in this thread. Poor guy's completely buffaloed. :frown:
-
i guess i thought people knew this, but i dunno.
No. Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them. See FSD's posts in this thread. Poor guy's completely buffaloed. :frown:
Well, considering that Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010, I'd say you're the one that is buffaloed
and yet the economy has grown every quarter since 2010
-
Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
:blindfold:
-
Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them.
Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010
Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
:blindfold:
:lol:
-
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DOW_NEXT_STOP_13000?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-07-17-02-07
Now the Dow is within reach of the rarefied 13,000 mark - a level it hasn't seen since May 2008, four months before the financial system almost came apart.
Though there's a long way to go to get the country back to economic health, there are pockets of encouragement. Unemployment is still 8.3 percent, but it's the lowest since February 2009. Economic output grew every quarter last year.
-
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DOW_NEXT_STOP_13000?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-07-17-02-07
Now the Dow is within reach of the rarefied 13,000 mark - a level it hasn't seen since May 2008, four months before the financial system almost came apart.
Though there's a long way to go to get the country back to economic health, there are pockets of encouragement. Unemployment is still 8.3 percent, but it's the lowest since February 2009. Economic output grew every quarter last year.
It just goes to show ya, publicly traded, privately owned companies can really grow at a nice clip when we have a Socialist POTUS. amirite?
-
GROWTH STIFLED READING COMPREHENSION RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE :shakesfist: :curse: :chainsaw: :angry:
my best attempt at FSD.
it really isn't as easy as it looks
-
Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them.
Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010
Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
:blindfold:
:lol:
What's so funny? 1.7% is nearly a 50% decrease from 3.0%. Toe Morton makes a great point here.
-
Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them.
Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010
Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
:blindfold:
:lol:
What's so funny? 1.7% is nearly a 50% decrease from 3.0%. Toe Morton makes a great point here.
He would have if he had said real GDP growth was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than in 2010.
-
Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them.
Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010
Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
:blindfold:
:lol:
What's so funny? 1.7% is nearly a 50% decrease from 3.0%. Toe Morton makes a great point here.
He would have if he had said real GDP growth was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than in 2010.
The toe's comment was taken out of context. He quoted a "growth" comment.
-
TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT
Oh man! That's a favorite of mine. :thumbs:
-
TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT
Oh man! That's a favorite of mine. :thumbs:
It's ok that you didn't understand. LickNecky is a manipulating genius.
-
bwaaaaa haaaaaaa haaaaaaaa
-
Anyone that finds GDP growth rates of 1.7% and 3.0% coming out of this recession acceptable is either poorly educated, a person with mental retardation or an Obama shill (which necessarily implies one of the first two).
There hasn't been a post recession recovery this pathetic in decades. To think US Govt policy has nothing to do with that is incredibly naive and flat out stupid.
In liberalconomics all economic data begins with the bottom point of the "great recession", and even then we're only doing "okay". goodness gracious, the Obamabots have reached new levels of ignorance and delusion. To point to unemployment rates at 8.3% as a sign of improvement is a horrifying transgression.
LickNeckey, you're my man, but you've got to stop riling up the unwashed masses. You're going to cause them look like idiots when they ultimately leave the interwebs and propound their new found mis/contra-knowledge in the real world.
-
Anyone that finds GDP growth rates of 1.7% and 3.0% coming out of this recession acceptable is either poorly educated, a person with mental retardation or an Obama shill (which necessarily implies one of the first two).
There hasn't been a post recession recovery this pathetic in decades. To think US Govt policy has nothing to do with that is incredibly naive and flat out stupid.
In liberalconomics all economic data begins with the bottom point of the "great recession", and even then we're only doing "okay". goodness gracious, the Obamabots have reached new levels of ignorance and delusion. To point to unemployment rates at 8.3% as a sign of improvement is a horrifying transgression.
LickNeckey, you're my man, but you've got to stop riling up the unwashed masses. You're going to cause them look like idiots when they ultimately leave the interwebs and propound their new found mis/contra-knowledge in the real world.
LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy. :lol:
-
Let me help you...
and yet the economy has grown every quarter since 2010
-
Let me help you...
and yet the economy has grown every quarter since 2010
OMG HE REALLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND! :lol:
I mean, I was willing to give you benefit of the doubt. I really thought you just misspoke. But nope. You really think that growing less = shrinking! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Just fantastic stuff. Thanks, toe.
-
Let me help you...
and yet the economy has grown every quarter since 2010
OMG HE REALLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND! :lol:
I mean, I was willing to give you benefit of the doubt. I really thought you just misspoke. But nope. You really think that growing less = shrinking! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Just fantastic stuff. Thanks, toe.
All he said was the percentage of growth in 2011 was about 50% less than in 2010, or 3% in 2010 as opposed to 1.7% in 2011. I know LickNeckey took it out of context, but you could have looked at the original post.
-
I'm gonna give this to you... you're right. My point was that the rate of growth shrunk from 2010 to 2011... your point is about every quarter. Congrats Rams!
-
i guess i thought people knew this, but i dunno.
No. Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them. See FSD's posts in this thread. Poor guy's completely buffaloed. :frown:
Well, considering that Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010, I'd say you're the one that is buffaloed
and yet the economy has grown every quarter since 2010
This is the full original post. What are we taking out of context? The bolded part above is patently false and/or misleading. Toe's comment was either horrible phrased, or he doesn't understand the difference between Real GDP and Real GDP growth, or he honestly thought GDP was CUT IN HALF from 2010 to 2011. I honestly still don't know which one is true. Stop blaming the reader for the author being Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
BTW, my original point remains. The economy may have grown less in 2011 than 2010, but it still grew. And our POTUS is a Socialist job-killing Mooslim.
-
i guess i thought people knew this, but i dunno.
No. Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them. See FSD's posts in this thread. Poor guy's completely buffaloed. :frown:
Well, considering that Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010, I'd say you're the one that is buffaloed
and yet the economy has grown every quarter since 2010
This is the full original post. What are we taking out of context? The bolded part above is patently false and/or misleading. Toe's comment was either horrible phrased, or he doesn't understand the difference between Real GDP and Real GDP growth, or he honestly thought GDP was CUT IN HALF from 2010 to 2011. I honestly still don't know which one is true. Stop blaming the reader for the author being Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
BTW, my original point remains. The economy may have grown less in 2011 than 2010, but it still grew. And our POTUS is a Socialist job-killing Mooslim.
This is what I read from the toe post, as in a "less robust" economy in 2011 than in 2010. 3% growth to 1.7% growth is not something to brag about, and Obama's policies obviously are not working.
-
I really don't believe that a President's economic policies have much, if any, impact on the economy at large. I do think that decisions to go to war have huge impacts on the economy, though.
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
My feeling is that the uncertainty of the cost of doing business in the US has caused the sluggish growth. The cost to employers regarding health care and taxes is a complete unknown until after the election. Corps are sitting on their money waiting to see what happens. We don't even know what the end of this month will bring as far as employment taxes. Horrible environment to try and do business.
-
so you are pretty sure the slight regression of growth is more 1 than 2.
got it
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
My feeling is that the uncertainty of the cost of doing business in the US has caused the sluggish growth. The cost to employers regarding health care and taxes is a complete unknown until after the election. Corps are sitting on their money waiting to see what happens. We don't even know what the end of this month will bring as far as employment taxes. Horrible environment to try and do business.
Do you own a business?
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
My feeling is that the uncertainty of the cost of doing business in the US has caused the sluggish growth. The cost to employers regarding health care and taxes is a complete unknown until after the election. Corps are sitting on their money waiting to see what happens. We don't even know what the end of this month will bring as far as employment taxes. Horrible environment to try and do business.
Do you own a business?
I work full time as a software engineer for the man, and partners in an online retail business that sells patented products we manufacture, some in the US, some in China.
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
My feeling is that the uncertainty of the cost of doing business in the US has caused the sluggish growth. The cost to employers regarding health care and taxes is a complete unknown until after the election. Corps are sitting on their money waiting to see what happens. We don't even know what the end of this month will bring as far as employment taxes. Horrible environment to try and do business.
Do you own a business?
I work full time as a software engineer for the man, and partners in an online retail business that sells patented products we manufacture, some in the US, some in China.
So if orders for your patented products started coming in so fast you couldn't keep up with them and hiring somebody would allow you fill those orders on time, would you hire additional staff right now? If you're not a horrible business owner you would.
See that's the stupid rough ridin' pitch line that we keep hearing. "Oh companies aren't hiring anybody because of uncertainty about health care and taxes." That's such a load of bullshit. If companies need employees to fill orders and complete work they need done, they go out and rough ridin' hire somebody. They don't sit around going "Well gee whiz...I'm just not sure how much how much health care is going to cost me a year or 2 down the road and I'm not sure whether I'll have to pay a couple more percentage points in taxes. So I guess I'll just not fill all these orders that are coming in or make any more of these products that people are demanding."
Employers hire workers if demand for their product or service is high enough. If it's not, they don't. Period. End of rough ridin' story.
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
My feeling is that the uncertainty of the cost of doing business in the US has caused the sluggish growth. The cost to employers regarding health care and taxes is a complete unknown until after the election. Corps are sitting on their money waiting to see what happens. We don't even know what the end of this month will bring as far as employment taxes. Horrible environment to try and do business.
Do you own a business?
I work full time as a software engineer for the man, and partners in an online retail business that sells patented products we manufacture, some in the US, some in China.
So if orders for your patented products started coming in so fast you couldn't keep up with them and hiring somebody would allow you fill those orders on time, would you hire additional staff right now? If you're not a horrible business owner you would.
See that's the stupid rough ridin' pitch line that we keep hearing. "Oh companies aren't hiring anybody because of uncertainty about health care and taxes." That's such a load of bullshit. If companies need employees to fill orders and complete work they need done, they go out and rough ridin' hire somebody. They don't sit around going "Well gee whiz...I'm just not sure how much how much health care is going to cost me a year or 2 down the road and I'm not sure whether I'll have to pay a couple more percentage points in taxes. So I guess I'll just not fill all these orders that are coming in or make any more of these products that people are demanding."
Employers hire workers if demand for their product or service is high enough. If it's not, they don't. Period. End of rough ridin' story.
There are many other reasons to hire other than market demand, and employers are doing a lot more with less. Until they feel confident that the economy is turning and they are able to make long term projections, they will continue to keep the money safe.
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
My feeling is that the uncertainty of the cost of doing business in the US has caused the sluggish growth. The cost to employers regarding health care and taxes is a complete unknown until after the election. Corps are sitting on their money waiting to see what happens. We don't even know what the end of this month will bring as far as employment taxes. Horrible environment to try and do business.
Do you own a business?
I work full time as a software engineer for the man, and partners in an online retail business that sells patented products we manufacture, some in the US, some in China.
So if orders for your patented products started coming in so fast you couldn't keep up with them and hiring somebody would allow you fill those orders on time, would you hire additional staff right now? If you're not a horrible business owner you would.
See that's the stupid rough ridin' pitch line that we keep hearing. "Oh companies aren't hiring anybody because of uncertainty about health care and taxes." That's such a load of bullshit. If companies need employees to fill orders and complete work they need done, they go out and rough ridin' hire somebody. They don't sit around going "Well gee whiz...I'm just not sure how much how much health care is going to cost me a year or 2 down the road and I'm not sure whether I'll have to pay a couple more percentage points in taxes. So I guess I'll just not fill all these orders that are coming in or make any more of these products that people are demanding."
Employers hire workers if demand for their product or service is high enough. If it's not, they don't. Period. End of rough ridin' story.
There are many other reasons to hire other than market demand, and employers are doing a lot more with less. Until they feel confident that the economy is turning and they are able to make long term projections, they will continue to keep the money safe.
What the other reasons employers hire workers other than they need more workers to satisfy demand? I agree that they aren't going to hire until they feel like economy is turning around (demand increasing), but that doesn't have anything to do with uncertainty about taxes and health care. The economy isn't going to improve until consumer confidence picks up and consumer confidence isn't going to pick up until our politicians stop trying to scare the crap out of everybody to win votes. Uncertainty about how much health care is going to cost and whether it's going to cost an extra couple of percentage points of FICA taxes are stupid red herrings. If you need workers to fill orders, you hire workers. If it costs you more to hire those workers, your margins either shrink or you pass along the cost. It's not that complicated.
-
You could split hairs, ie: overtime vs more workers, contract labor vs employees, part time employees vs full time, etc but ultimately big pict wise, I agree.
-
You could split hairs, ie: overtime vs more workers, contract labor vs employees, part time employees vs full time, etc but ultimately big pict wise, I agree.
All of those decisions are still made on a demand basis with little to no regard for health care costs and FICA taxes. If you need somebody to work full time to satisfy demand, you can't hire somebody for part time work instead. Overtime costs time and half and you can only work somebody so many hours. In most cases, employment law governs the contract labor vs W-2 decision. Smart business owners will almost ALWAYS 1099 vs W-2 if they can get away with it.
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
My feeling is that the uncertainty of the cost of doing business in the US has caused the sluggish growth. The cost to employers regarding health care and taxes is a complete unknown until after the election. Corps are sitting on their money waiting to see what happens. We don't even know what the end of this month will bring as far as employment taxes. Horrible environment to try and do business.
Do you own a business?
I work full time as a software engineer for the man, and partners in an online retail business that sells patented products we manufacture, some in the US, some in China.
So if orders for your patented products started coming in so fast you couldn't keep up with them and hiring somebody would allow you fill those orders on time, would you hire additional staff right now? If you're not a horrible business owner you would.
See that's the stupid rough ridin' pitch line that we keep hearing. "Oh companies aren't hiring anybody because of uncertainty about health care and taxes." That's such a load of bullshit. If companies need employees to fill orders and complete work they need done, they go out and rough ridin' hire somebody. They don't sit around going "Well gee whiz...I'm just not sure how much how much health care is going to cost me a year or 2 down the road and I'm not sure whether I'll have to pay a couple more percentage points in taxes. So I guess I'll just not fill all these orders that are coming in or make any more of these products that people are demanding."
Employers hire workers if demand for their product or service is high enough. If it's not, they don't. Period. End of rough ridin' story.
There are many other reasons to hire other than market demand, and employers are doing a lot more with less. Until they feel confident that the economy is turning and they are able to make long term projections, they will continue to keep the money safe.
What the other reasons employers hire workers other than they need more workers to satisfy demand? I agree that they aren't going to hire until they feel like economy is turning around (demand increasing), but that doesn't have anything to do with uncertainty about taxes and health care. The economy isn't going to improve until consumer confidence picks up and consumer confidence isn't going to pick up until our politicians stop trying to scare the crap out of everybody to win votes. Uncertainty about how much health care is going to cost and whether it's going to cost an extra couple of percentage points of FICA taxes are stupid red herrings. If you need workers to fill orders, you hire workers. If it costs you more to hire those workers, your margins either shrink or you pass along the cost. It's not that complicated.
Other reasons to hire include R&D and market expansion, both of which require large amounts of cash and manpower and can take years to pay off. These two things contracted pretty heavily in the last 3 years in a lot of industries.
-
That's such a load of bullshit. If companies need employees to fill orders and complete work they need done, they go out and rough ridin' hire somebody. They don't sit around going "Well gee whiz...I'm just not sure how much how much health care is going to cost me a year or 2 down the road and I'm not sure whether I'll have to pay a couple more percentage points in taxes. So I guess I'll just not fill all these orders that are coming in or make any more of these products that people are demanding."
Employers hire workers if demand for their product or service is high enough. If it's not, they don't. Period. End of rough ridin' story.
When your bi-polar personality disorder is part Arther Laffer and part Donkey
-
i guess i thought people knew this, but i dunno.
No. Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them. See FSD's posts in this thread. Poor guy's completely buffaloed. :frown:
Well, considering that Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010, I'd say you're the one that is buffaloed
and yet the economy has grown every quarter since 2010
This is the full original post. What are we taking out of context? The bolded part above is patently false and/or misleading. Toe's comment was either horrible phrased, or he doesn't understand the difference between Real GDP and Real GDP growth, or he honestly thought GDP was CUT IN HALF from 2010 to 2011. I honestly still don't know which one is true. Stop blaming the reader for the author being Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
BTW, my original point remains. The economy may have grown less in 2011 than 2010, but it still grew. And our POTUS is a Socialist job-killing Mooslim.
Remember the recession when W was president, when gdp growth slowed to just under 1%? Yeah, that's what Morton's Toe is talking about.
If you don't know lickity split about interpreting economic metrics, it's best to just keep quiet.
-
Other reasons to hire include R&D and market expansion, both of which require large amounts of cash and manpower and can take years to pay off. These two things contracted pretty heavily in the last 3 years in a lot of industries.
Fair enough, but R&D only accounts for about 3% of our economy, so that's pretty much a non-starter. And again, companies don't spend money on market expansion when consumer confidence is in the toilet. It has nothing to do with taxes and health care.
-
FSD bringing the strong, well-reasoned arguments per usual. :thumbs:
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
Stocks really surged today on the heels of that Greek debt deal today, huh?
-
FSD bringing the strong, well-reasoned arguments per usual. :thumbs:
yeah, you're right, taxes and economic uncertainty have no material effect on the economy. :thumbs:
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
Stocks really surged today on the heels of that Greek debt deal today, huh?
Hey look everybody, FSD doesn't understand how the stock market works. Big shocker here.
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
Stocks really surged today on the heels of that Greek debt deal today, huh?
Hey look everybody, FSD doesn't understand how the stock market works. Big shocker here.
how DOES it work, rams? magic?
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
Stocks really surged today on the heels of that Greek debt deal today, huh?
Hey look everybody, FSD doesn't understand how the stock market works. Big shocker here.
how DOES it work, rams? magic?
Smart money doesn't get caught up in headlines like "Greek debt deals." All that happened today was that Greece agreed to lay down on the operating table for open heart surgery. They haven't even agreed to let anyone cut them open, and even if they do, there's only about a 50% chance of survival. The fact that they'll eventually get some sort of Eurozone bailout has been cooked into the financial markets for weeks now. How much the initial bailout actually helps is yet to be seen and Greece will have a LOT of work to do get out of this mess. Anyone with any knowledge of the situation whatsoever knows that they're FAR from out of the woods, even if they do get this deal through a divided parliament.
-
i honestly misunderstood Toe's comment and interpreted it as him being full blown Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). it turns out he is just horrible at articulating his point.
now in terms of less robust growth. which has played a larger role in your mind
1. job killing mooslim socialist marxist wannabe POTUS
2. European Debt crisis
thanks i'll listen off the air
Stocks really surged today on the heels of that Greek debt deal today, huh?
Hey look everybody, FSD doesn't understand how the stock market works. Big shocker here.
how DOES it work, rams? magic?
Smart money doesn't get caught up in headlines like "Greek debt deals." All that happened today was that Greece agreed to lay down on the operating table for open heart surgery. They haven't even agreed to let anyone cut them open, and even if they do, there's only about a 50% chance of survival. The fact that they'll eventually get some sort of Eurozone bailout has been cooked into the financial markets for weeks now. How much the initial bailout actually helps is yet to be seen and Greece will have a LOT of work to do get out of this mess. Anyone with any knowledge of the situation whatsoever knows that they're FAR from out of the woods, even if they do get this deal through a divided parliament.
This actually pretty good, nice work Rams.
-
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46464541