Obama and His Accomplishments

there is no such argument. The implied point, which is as wrong as teen boys humping, is that the wealthy are so at the expense of everyone else. The point is senseless, unless someone is showing me that inverse relationship. Unfortunately, that inverse relationship is going to be proven to be the opposite of the truth. Median income in America isn't going backward, in real or nominal terms. It's just the convenient red herring tossed about for purposes of inciting class warfare.

Frankly, given the globalization of the economy and our position in leading that charge, working Americans should be getting poorer in real terms, but that has yet to take hold. It's inevitable that our national standard of living move toward the rest of the world's, but the question remains whether the world will rise or ours will fall or both.

 

The consumer class has lacked capital for the history of this country. The lone variant on that was overpriced housing throwing off credit so stupid people could pour it back into more consumerism. It's an unsustainable approach to economics. Find anyone that knows anything about it and they are going to harp on I as the driver of future growth and acceptable unemployment levels.

If you want to grouse about access to capital for the masses, don't [itch bay] when said masses go broke by pissing it into bigger cars and cooler toys. The Fed finally shut down the tap by precluding lending at all levels. Guess what happened? Capital purchases fell to nothing and a huge inventory bubble has just murdered us, among many other things. That said, this magical demand you continue to espouse hasn't really been dampened outside of capital purchases, so explain for me how the consumers are driving the greater economy?

 

the rich getting rich by providing jobs is the very heart of why capitalism works. [itch bay]ing about it is silliness and sour grapes.

 

You still follow this magical ideal that the rich create jobs, but why? When do the rich create jobs for the sake of creating jobs? How did the wealthy get that wealth in the first place? It's simply the collection of resources from a large pool of consumers. And, who would produce something if there's no one there or no one able to buy it? At best, you are at Stage 3 of the economic process, meaning the rich create jobs in response to the production required to satisfy the demands and purchasing power of consumers.

Point blank, if Steve Jobs and Apple produce the ipod and nobody buys it, does he create or cut jobs? If the ipod is a success, does the inverse happen? What is the common variable?

I'm just mystified as to the magical appearance of rich people that sprinkle money throughout the economy, creating artificial supply for the masses (whose purchasing ability, apparently, never changes) and directing them what to buy. It's just absurd. And the housing bubble? It burst because it oversold (or ignored) the available capital of the consumer class. Hell, where was that tap from the fed formulated in the first place? Taxes gathered, largely from the consumer class.

I just don't know of any economist, other than supply-siders, who would argue against the reality that our economy falters when, essentially, consumers buy less stuff. If it's simply the rich, why don't they just perpetually create jobs and then we can always have a healthy economy. I mean, if it's simply about the rich creating jobs.

 

God help me, Unimane's post above makes sense to me. I'm not getting the "blessed are the rich, for they are the creators of prosperity" circular argument.

 

I'm not even sure what the debate is about anymore.

 

there are booms and busts in all economies throughout human history. yes demand matters. consumer spending matters. in teh short term. long term growth comes from investment (remember your econ 101?). as for steve jobs without the rich i very much doubt that apple woudl have stayed in business long enough to invent the ipod.

 

People with capital are going to invest it where they feel they can make the best return on it.

Many will say for the last 3-4 or so years a lot of capital has sat on the sidelines because 0 return was better than loss. Compound that with the fact thank banks won't/can't lend, and you have a recipe for disaster.

That's a grossly oversimplified explanation of it, but it is the best I can do. I feel bad for even attempting to explain something after BPV's dissertation.

 

how it a circular argument? money doesn't magically appear from nowhere to invest. either it must be borrowed or you must find some rich people to give you capital. rich people overwelmingly own their own businesses as well. the "all the rich got their money from mommy and daddy and did nothing to deserve it" and "all great wealth comes from a great crime against the working class" are a pure myths perpetuated by the left.

 

It is circular because what is being said is wealth only comes from wealth.

Walk me through the path of becoming wealthy, assuming no inheritance or theft. Inevitably, it will be about getting more value than cost out of services, products, etc. Nothing wrong with that per se, but to pretend like accumulating wealth has nothing to do with the asymmetrical exchange of goods and services, and that could be manipulated to degrees that have a -- wait for it-- "trickle down" effect on the middle class/workers/masses/proletariat, is... kind of strange.

 

Of course the wealthy create jobs. It's stupid as hell to even begin to think that consumers do. It absolutely takes investment capital to create any product, any at all. They don't arrive because consumers call for them. No, they don't create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. They create jobs by investing to make money. That's how it always starts and there is no alternative. Consumers showing up creates exactly [penis]. Again, take this from the beginning and consumers get you nothing. There is no farging thing as a collection of resources from a large pool of consumers. People are taxed for labor that they put into creating in businesses begun and maintained by investment capital. Clearly consumers matter, but do not exist without the capital investment that pays their salaries. If those gigs didn't exist, this every man that you want to give credit would still be a farm hand. Your stage 3 point is simply stupid.

The Apple point is even stupider. He created jobs by starting the company and then, via his vision and a crap ton of invested capital, he continued creating them. There was no consumer when he and a bunch of investors sunk their money into an idea - none at all anywhere.

How in the hell are you mystified? Take any industry to its founding. Take any jobs to their beginning. None started with a consumer - not a single one. All started with an investment - a bet if you will on the part of an investor or conglomerate. There is no magic and there is no directing. There is gambling on capital, ingenuity and hard work and you highlighted the freaking point beautifully. The consumers aren't driving cutting edge products. They are voting up or down on them and folks lose big more often than folks win big.

This isn't supply side. This is basic economics. It isn't simply the rich. It's the whole system from beginning to end, including heavily our regulatory system. Clearly if consumers didn't exist, then people wouldn't be investing to take advantage of their willingness to buy and give profits. However, this consumer class wouldn't exist without jobs and guess which came first?

 

Where does one get the initial capital to begin the quest to wealth?

Now, if you want to set up your own accounting shop in your spare bedroom and turn it into the next Big 4 firm, it's highly possibly you can do that with minimal amounts of capital and work your way up.

If you want to create a widget, at some point, you have to get capital from somewhere to invest in what it takes to make a widget.

 

generally one gets wealthy by being hired by wealthy people or corporations and working their way up the organization or by starting their own company and borrowing from wealthy people or banks. the number of countries without access to large amounts of capital that have gotten out of poverty are zero. i understand your chicken and egg argument, but forms of money have existed forever. maybe back in the day when you could hunt for beaver skins or something you can create wealth without investment, but in the industrial age that doesn't work out.

 

Have you ever read the book The Millionaire Next Door?

 

maybe I'm not understanding the conversation that is happening, then.

Money was invented by the Lydian Empire of modern-day Western Turkey something like 2500 years ago, btw.

 

yes and before that you could trade and borrow with gold, goats, whatever.

 

required reading in my business.

 

it's not the least bit circular. Wealth doesn't naturally generate wealth. Investment and risk generate wealth in our system.

My buddy became wealthy by starting a mowing company. He eventually got large enough to hire some of our friends to work for him, but did so with a lot of time, effort and money. As he made money, he founded another company and eventually proved good enough at it to raise equity capital. In doing so, he was able to hire several more people and make this productive for this country by creating taxpayers and consumers. He is today wealthy and didn't inherit a red penny. His trickle down impacted a pretty sizable number of lives. The asymmetrical exchange of goods and services is a very basic equation steeped in relative values and as long as it isn't coercive, you're right that there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, everything is right with it.

I don't understand your manipulation point, unless you want to talk about indentured servitude. People aren't forced to get into the trickle down. In fact, our country is moving toward helping anyone avoid it who prefers to.

How is it circular? All of it has a beginning. Every single job and every industry. The problematic piece is the government's part in employing people because the relative values equation is broken, which should, in turn, break the system. Nevermind, it has.

 

I figured as much.

It's just fascinating how the myth of how wealth is created is totally opposite of how it actually happens.

 

but trade has been here as long as people have.