28 Jan 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainInvestment is spending. It is just spending on goods of higher orders. Before investing, saving is required, which is diminished consumer spending, that is refraining from satisfaction present want, delaying satisfaction of those to a later time.
Spending vs. investments. Which results in more job creation?
Are certain forms of investment poorer job creators than others? If so, should government create incentives for preferable investing? Is it already happening?
Comparisons of one to the other is fruitless, as those actions are the results of thinking humans acting in their best interests. Without force or coercion, all humans will not thing and act alike at the same time.
Governments which can't balance a budget are hardly capable of somehow calculating the best way for hundreds of millions of thinking acting people, to act.
29 Jan 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyI knew I loved you, you level-headed Irishman you!
You go right ahead and raise tax to the roof and see how far it gets you.
High tax means no investment and so therefore no jobs and no growth.
So you're back to square 1. No growth, no jobs, no spending power, flat economy,
recession and depression.
Low tax encourages investment, creates jobs, stimulates growth,
increases disposable income, revives the economy and everyone is happy.
It's a no brainer.
29 Jan 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyI didn't alert the posts where he expressed a desire to kill me. They were removed, so I can only assume he's cooling his heels for a couple of days.
Hey you Sasquatch,
What's the story with Moon 69?
Are you all friends again???
That was some exchange you had.
Don't want to see anyone fall out.
I don't understand why people get mad. Why do people get mad?
29 Jan 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672I don't like it when people fall out.
I didn't alert the posts where he expressed a desire to kill me. They were removed, so I can only assume he's cooling his heels for a couple of days.
I don't understand why people get mad. Why do people get mad?
But his reply was extreme.
I didn't know about it.
But I have discovered a mechanism where I can look back
at what got removed.
29 Jan 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyThat is, I believe, more emotion than a website deserves. One of us was in control, and one of us was not.
I don't like it when people fall out.
But his reply was extreme.
I didn't know about it.
But I have discovered a mechanism where I can look back
at what got removed.
29 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyNope. You see, once we begin to pay "our fair share" government can then magically create jobs.
How does taxation create jobs???
The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for the government.
They use this to run public services like schools, hospitals, law and order and roads.
Any government department will tell you that their section is inefficient and half
the yearly budget goes on wages.
Reports say that public servants are inef ...[text shortened]...
buying more goods and services thus fueling the economy and profit
and so creating more jobs.
29 Jan 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
You go right ahead and raise tax to the roof and see how far it gets you.
High tax means no investment and so therefore no jobs and no growth.
So you're back to square 1. No growth, no jobs, no spending power, flat economy,
recession and depression.
Low tax encourages investment, creates jobs, stimulates growth,
increases disposable income, revives the economy and everyone is happy.
It's a no brainer.
It's a no brainerWhen will you brainless wonders appreciate that the evidence shows the opposite to what you claim. The period of growth from the War to the Sixties was a period of high taxation and extensive Government spending - in Britain that included building the NHS, massive social housing programmes, etc etc. The period of low taxation and reducing regulation from the Eighties onwards introduced massive insecurity and the wealth concentrated into fewer hands was employed unproductively in speculation or inflating the value of property and other such nonsense. The systemic problem is one of demand. When ordinary households lack the means to spend on their normal lives, then the wealth stolen from them by the rich goes off in search of speculative gambles instead of useful investment. Today, the corporations are swimming in cash piles and unable to find productive investment opportunities because demand has been sucked out of the economy.
When the neo-liberal economic system collapsed, as it has done, it was not because of government spending but private speculation and unsupported private debt. Any Irishman should have noticed that their taxes are now being used to cover the cost of unregulated gambling by financial speculators. It was the banks that destroyed the Irish economy, like that of Iceland and elsewhere, it was not Government inefficiency or welfare spending. Why the Irish (for example) rescued even merchant banks without criminalising the bankers is a mystery that you might like to discuss. But when you slag off government, you are playing a dangerous game, since that is the institution that is being misapplied by our wealthy masters to suit their own interests when you should be working to put the democratic system to work on behalf of ordinary people.
29 Jan 13
Originally posted by normbenignOutsourcing has changed where some of the investing is spent. If you buy stock shares of Apple Corporation much of that money ends up in China.
Investment is spending. It is just spending on goods of higher orders. Before investing, saving is required, which is diminished consumer spending, that is refraining from satisfaction present want, delaying satisfaction of those to a later time.
Comparisons of one to the other is fruitless, as those actions are the results of thinking humans acting i ...[text shortened]... of somehow calculating the best way for hundreds of millions of thinking acting people, to act.
Not all spending is the same anymore. Even if I accept your conclusion investing is not equal in creating domestic jobs. The rules have changed.