Job creators have always been customers!So now the "job creators" must also be the consumers.
Ken
Upvote
0
Job creators have always been customers!So now the "job creators" must also be the consumers.
First of all, CEO's are employees too! Their pay, their bonus or what-ever does not come from the profit; that is part of the expense of doing business; as well as corporate taxes. So you ask where does all this profit go? The same place I have been telling you since day one; to whoever owns the company; which is usually the shareholders.Of course they are! It's called a salary!
But, beyond that, it's been well established that corporate profits are up, up, UP! Where are these profits going? Sure, some go to CEOs in the form of large bonuses, but where are the rest of them going? Not to taxes, and not toward paying all their employees a better wage.
Where is it going?
So tell me where it's going, then. We already know it's not going toward taxes, nor is it going toward better wages for working stiffs. And precious little of it is going toward creating jobs, as the job rate is still stagnating.
Same thing, just a different way of getting there; it all leads to money.Nope. A stock certificate can be sold if someone is interested in buying it; but a check represents a fixed amount of legal tender, payable upon demand. There is no sale involved.
companies have always gone out of business. The point is, there is always a group of people who can afford your products.How many companies went out of business during the Great Depression because people couldn't afford to buy their products?
-- A2SG, 20,000 businesses went bankrupt, and over 1600 banks...
First of all, CEO's are employees too! Their pay, their bonus or what-ever does not come from the profit; that is part of the expense of doing business; as well as corporate taxes.
So you ask where does all this profit go? The same place I have been telling you since day one; to whoever owns the company; which is usually the shareholders.
Same thing, just a different way of getting there; it all leads to money.
companies have always gone out of business. The point is, there is always a group of people who can afford your products.
Job creators have always been customers!
Ken
Didn't you just say stock certificates aren't as good as cash? The profit stays with the company; (reinvested) until the shareholder decides to sell! When money is reinvested into the company, that allows the company to grow and create more jobs.Exactly. It stays at the top, it doesn't go toward creating new jobs or paying employees better, either of which would help our struggling economy.
You won't be able to sell it to those people! There are always people who can afford your products. Now weather or not they feel your products is good enough for the price you are asking is a different story.Point being, if people can't afford your product, you won't be able to sell it;
They don't have to! everone else is buying alsoA small fraction. They could never make up for everyone else.
Didn't you just say stock certificates aren't as good as cash?
The profit stays with the company; (reinvested) until the shareholder decides to sell! When money is reinvested into the company, that allows the company to grow and create more jobs.
You won't be able to sell it to those people! There are always people who can afford your products.
Now weather or not they feel your products is good enough for the price you are asking is a different story.
They don't have to! everone else is buying also
Ken
Right! But until they are sold, they are an investment in the company; do you agree?I actually said they were different. Chiefly, cash is legal tender and can be freely traded anywhere. Stock certificates are a commodity and can be sold, but they aren't legal tender.
There are more jobs! They are just in other countries where much of the record profits are made.Theoretically, sure. At least,that's how it's supposed to work.
So, given that corporate profits are at an all time high, why aren't there more jobs?
There are people who will spend nearly a million dollars on a car! You don't see Rolls Royce going outta business! People spend multiple millions on a luxury Yaht! yet you don't see these boat makers going outta busines! If people can affort to spend millions on cars and boats, they can afford to buy whatever those companies were selling; they just didnt want to.Not for 20,000 businesses in 1932, nor for 170,000-200,000 businesses in 2009.
Whether or not something is worth the price isn't an issue for those who can't afford it in the first place.
Point being, you can only sell your product and make a profit if enough people can afford to buy it. If they can't, say because they don't make enough money, then your business is gonna go under.
Yeah you keep repeating the same error over and over again; does'nt make it right thoughSo it's in the best interest of a capitalist economy for more people, not less, to have access to more money, not less, to buy stuff. That's what keeps the economy growing.
And that, in a nutshell, is why a wide gap in income inequality is bad for the economy.
-- A2SG, as I've been saying all along.....
I think the recovery would be doing a lot better if we didn't have a president flushing nearly a trillion dollars down the toilet under the pretense of a stimulus package as soon as he got into office, and is currently spending nearly 2 trillion on Obamacare.I guess you don't think anything is wrong with the economy then.
I think the recovery would be doing a lot better if we didn't have a president flushing nearly a trillion dollars down the toilet under the pretense of a stimulus package as soon as he got into office, and is currently spending nearly 2 trillion on Obamacare.
When you consider the handicap your president is crippling the economy with, I am surprised there is any recovery at all!
Ken
Right! But until they are sold, they are an investment in the company; do you agree?
There are more jobs! They are just in other countries where much of the record profits are made.
There are people who will spend nearly a million dollars on a car! You don't see Rolls Royce going outta business! People spend multiple millions on a luxury Yaht! yet you don't see these boat makers going outta busines! If people can affort to spend millions on cars and boats, they can afford to buy whatever those companies were selling; they just didnt want to.
Yeah you keep repeating the same error over and over again; does'nt make it right though
Why do you say this?LOL. It's the opposite. Without the stimulus package we would be experiencing somthing closer to the great depression.
So you agree that the super rich do not just sit on top of their money, but that it is invested in the economy?Yes.
Outsourcing just explains why companies are making record profits and the American worker is not benefiting from it, but the shareholders are.Which proves, once again, why outsourcing is such a problem for the US economy. Couple that with massive income inequality and, well, the economy is seriously hurting.
We are not talking about the entire econmy, we are talking about improving a product to make it worth more so people will be willing to pay more for it.Because the rich can't buy everything; and the rich alone cannot support the entire nation's economy.
Because income inequality is not the problem, poor people are the problem! you even admitted yourself that if everybody had enough money, that nobody was poor; but the super rich had even more thus income inequity was even greater than it is now, the economy would be great! That is why your argument keeps failing every time you make it.How you can call it an error is a mystery to me, since it has been proven true time and time again over the past 900+ posts in this thread alone!
So you agree that the super rich do not just sit on top of their money, but that it is invested in the economy?
Outsourcing just explains why companies are making record profits and the American worker is not benefiting from it, but the shareholders are.
We are not talking about the entire econmy, we are talking about improving a product to make it worth more so people will be willing to pay more for it.
Because income inequality is not the problem, poor people are the problem! you even admitted yourself that if everybody had enough money, that nobody was poor; but the super rich had even more thus income inequity was even greater than it is now, the economy would be great! That is why your argument keeps failing every time you make it.
Corporations can't spend money like private businesses. They are required by law to maximize shareholder value. If they spend money needlessly they open themselves to shareholder lawsuits.
I don't know how these corporations run but there is probably a legitimate reason they feel a need to keep higher cash reserves today than they needed 35 years ago. Good thing Ford Motor Company had higher cash reserves approx 5 years ago huh?economy by investing in corporations! Well, that brings up a very pertinent question:
How do corporations spend their money? To a good extent, they don't. According to Moody's, cash holdings for U.S. non-financial firms rose 3 percent to $1.24 trillion in 2011. The corporate cash-to-assets ratio nearly tripled between 1980 and 2010. It has been estimated that the corporate stash of cash reserves held in America could employ 3.5 million more people for five years at an annual salary of $40,000.So while the rich do invest roughly 42% of their wealth in corporations, those corporations actually do sit on their cash rather than spend it on jobs.
Government regulations are a bigger problem today with corporations than they were 35 years ago. If the government cut back on regulations to the 1980's level, we would probably see a lot less outsourcingAlso:
The biggest investment by corporations is overseas, where they keep 57 percent of their cash and fill their factories with low-wage workers. Commerce Department figures show that U.S. companies cut their work forces by 2.9 million from 2000 to 2009 while increasing overseas employment by 2.4 million. They also tap into a "brain drain" of foreign entrepreneurs, scientists, and medical professionals rather than supporting education in America.Still believe outsourcing does no damage to the US economy?
I'm not talking about improving your product to the point that your base is no longer to afford the product; I'm talking about an improvement that allows for a 2%-3% increase in price.But if they CAN'T AFFORD IT, they CAN'T BUY IT, no matter how much you improve it.
You keep saying income inequality is the problem, when I ask why you keep saying and providing links that show how the economy suffers when a large percentage of people cannot afford to buy stuff. That is a poor person problem. If nobody was poor and everybody could afford to buy what they needed, the economy would be better off and it wouldnt matter how much the rich had. Now if you disagree, explain why it does matter how much the super rich has; assuming nobody is poor, and everybody can afford to buy what they want.What?
Could you restate that more clearly? I have no idea what argument you think I've made that you think has failed.
But, from what I can parse from that, I do have a couple of comments:
When did I say that nobody was poor??????
What I did say was that when MORE people have control of MORE money, they spend MORE, and that helps the economy.
Also, income inequality has been rising for decades, and currently is at the highest level since the late 20s.
We all know what happened then.
But, to be honest, I don't know if you actually understand the argument I've been presenting here. If you think my argument has "failed", then I'm afraid I have to say you haven't been paying attention to it.
Or to the current state of the economy, which proves everything I've been saying all along.
-- A2SG, but feel free to try and explain again what you think my argument is and why it's failed, because you didn't do that very well in your final paragraph there....
It's borrowed money that has to be paid back! Do you think it is a coincidence that as soon as he mis-spent all that money, the USA lost it's AAA credit rating?Because less money would be in the economy.