LJ - you were right this is a simple chart/article. It summarizes itself with "Lower profits, higher wages." How will that create jobs? The article, complete with very lovely charts was nothing more than another left wing attack, and totally lacking in substance
More $$$ in hands of working Americans fuels demand for more consumer goods... That's what creates jobs. The Great Depression was all about over supply and not enough cash in hands of middle and lower classes. Consumers drive job numbers because their income goes into market quickly. Dollars paid to rich share holders or to retirement investors don't get spent quickly, but stay invested. Simple, yes. Also correct. Economics 101.
No, the great depression was as a result of corruption in Wall Street, the banking community,the loss of leverage created by institutional failure, and federal government incompetence. Economics 101 is nothing more than a quick overview of socialist economics on the macro and micro level.
How could talk of consumers, supply and demand, wages and profits, possibly be a left wing or socialist anything? Marx would roll over in his grave. But I'm sure you could call Adam Smith a socialist without flinching if you just didn't like something he once said. Looks like your most ingenious argument is your last ("Bite me"), cause that appears to be all you got.
My BITE ME was certainly an improvement on your feminine "Get a Grip" Where is your "irrefutable historic fact"? Its just as I suspected - you are all fluff and no substance.
A little tidbit for you Larry. Your reference,Henry Blodget, is the CEO and Editor-In-Chief of Business Insider . He previously worked on Wall Street before being barred from the securities industry after a conviction for securities fraud. How creditable is he and his website?
Actually, he was charged with civil securities fraud and agreed to the ban as part of a settlement, so he was not 'convicted' of anything.
Nonetheless, he spent decades in the industry and probably still knows what he's talking about, regardless of his personal moral rectitude.
I know you love personal attacks, but there is a reason they are considered logical fallacies - they do not tell you anything about the strength or weakness of the argument itself.
LJ - you were right this is a simple chart/article. It summarizes itself with "Lower profits, higher wages."
ReplyDeleteHow will that create jobs? The article, complete with very lovely charts was nothing more than another left wing attack, and totally lacking in substance
More $$$ in hands of working Americans fuels demand for more consumer goods... That's what creates jobs. The Great Depression was all about over supply and not enough cash in hands of middle and lower classes. Consumers drive job numbers because their income goes into market quickly. Dollars paid to rich share holders or to retirement investors don't get spent quickly, but stay invested. Simple, yes. Also correct. Economics 101.
ReplyDeleteNo, the great depression was as a result of corruption in Wall Street, the banking community,the loss of leverage created by institutional failure, and federal government incompetence. Economics 101 is nothing more than a quick overview of socialist economics on the macro and micro level.
ReplyDeleteAnon3:31, irrefutable historic fact had nothing to do with an economic theory or ideology. Get a grip!
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:12, what wold be the"irrefutable historic fact" that you allude to. By the way BITE ME!
ReplyDeleteHow could talk of consumers, supply and demand, wages and profits, possibly be a left wing or socialist anything? Marx would roll over in his grave. But I'm sure you could call Adam Smith a socialist without flinching if you just didn't like something he once said. Looks like your most ingenious argument is your last ("Bite me"), cause that appears to be all you got.
ReplyDeleteMy BITE ME was certainly an improvement on your feminine "Get a Grip" Where is your "irrefutable historic fact"? Its just as I suspected - you are all fluff and no substance.
ReplyDeleteFYI: Anon 8:12 and Anon 10:02 are not the same person.
ReplyDeleteANON 701 and 929 are different also.
ReplyDelete701/929: I thought I sensed some paranoid schizoprenia and multiple personalities there!
ReplyDeletetouche !
ReplyDeleteLarry, did you ever take Econ 101? Nothing you've ever written suggests you have studied economics.
ReplyDeleteA little tidbit for you Larry. Your reference,Henry Blodget, is the CEO and Editor-In-Chief of Business Insider . He previously worked on Wall Street before being barred from the securities industry after a conviction for securities fraud.
ReplyDeleteHow creditable is he and his website?
Actually, he was charged with civil securities fraud and agreed to the ban as part of a settlement, so he was not 'convicted' of anything.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, he spent decades in the industry and probably still knows what he's talking about, regardless of his personal moral rectitude.
I know you love personal attacks, but there is a reason they are considered logical fallacies - they do not tell you anything about the strength or weakness of the argument itself.
The creditability of the source points to the integrity of his opinions. Peddle your red herring elsewhere
ReplyDeleteAnon 144 is not the same as Anon 144 (not a typo)
ReplyDelete