Quote from: kopema on October 20, 2013, 04:15:33 PM
When Godbama keeps saying that anyone who doesn't want socialized medicine must also vehemently oppose "roads and bridges," what ELSE could morons possibly think the Tea Party consists of?

Good analogy, and proof the Dim party knows their children ell.

Quote from: Solar on October 20, 2013, 04:12:59 PM
Govt is a net drain on the economy, it producers absolutely nothing, it is a leech on a free mkt. economy.
To make the claim that you are somehow simply shuffling the deck is rather odd, don't you think?
Did you not just create an opening for another employee to take his previous job?
If the position is not productive, then it should not exist, the reason it exists in the first place, is due to need.
Robotics reduces the need for labor in assembly line production, but someone has to build the robots, do they not?
True, it's why socialism will never succeed.

I agree, the overall net affect of our current government is a drain.  But not all government does is negative.  Certainly SOME of what government does is needed.  The Founders addressed this and using Jefferson's 3 criteria at the convention (which Franklin, Washington and others deferred) they came up with just a few.

You are simply shuffling the deck.  If employment is full it is mathematically guaranteed to be a shuffle.  Even if employment isn't full you will likely be hiring someone already motivated by demand for the produce of another's labor and as such they will be working.  Your hiring hasn't increased the demand of those unwilling to work so even if you hire the unemployed they are unemployed who were motivated to begin with.  But I see your point and find it only semantically different.

Robots are a perfect example of how wealth is created.  Anyone involved in the more efficient use of labor (employers, managers, employees, consumers, government officials reducing regulations and inventors of robots) create wealth.

I agree, Socialism does not and can not work as efficiently as free market capitalism.  Free market capitalism is the most efficient system attainable.  Socialism is in fact a positive feedback system guaranteed to be unstable without external feedback.

Socialism can work with external feedback (Hillary's village) though never as efficiently as capitalism.  Any deviation from the free market is to the detriment of the nation.  Liberals profess the "safety net" it provides for the less able makes this somehow preferable yet they never address the instability or sustainability issues of Socialism.

Quote from: Telmark on October 20, 2013, 02:58:45 PM
Dear LibDave;

You have absolutely no understanding of economics.

None whatsoever.

I've clearly proven this to you more than once. Btw, I find it "more than coincidental" that you continue to insist on using "husband and wife" analogies while proving that you don't know what you're talking about. Fact is that I've seen this same "husband and wife analogy" tactic from "different" screen names both in here, and in other political forums.

What screennames?  I'll check them...

Quote from: LibDave on October 20, 2013, 03:40:19 PM
I like these answers.  They are valid and I find little fault in your responses.

I don't care.

Quote
  My only question would be, if I am a risk taker with a demand for labor, and I employ someone in this regards, their labor is no longer applied elsewhere.

That's correct.  Our creator only gave us a finite number of hours in the day, and we need to sleep.  Therefore, workers can only be in one place at one time, and not two simultaneously.  Great observation.

Quote
  Assuming full employment reached, doesn't this result in no net gain of employment?

I have no idea what this means.  People change jobs, people get fired, people die, new skills and technologies evolve, etc., so there is always turnover and an influx of labor.  Even if there was this "full employment", the shortage of skill supply with an increase of its demand would mean the value of the labor increases.  So, another company that requires the same skill sets would need to increase the wage or compensation to lure the talent over.

Quote
  Government too has demand for labor like any corporation or individual.

Incorrect.

Quote
What if I employ someone in labor

I would advise you first give birth to the child, take time to recover, and let someone else handle the HR functions during this time.

Quote
which results in less valuable product from their previous endeavor?

I have no idea what you are asking.  Please try and make a little more sense, because I'm too tired to dumb myself down.

Quote
  I can still make a profit yet something has changed.  Certainly then I haven't created a job, or have I?

I have no idea what you are asking.  Please rephrase.

Quote
While all you said is true, I believe Adam Smith broke it down to its core.  Jobs cannot be created, they exist and are limitless.  When I work on my lawn am I ever finished?  I could always do more.  Labor is limited by the number and skill of those employable and the amount available tends to stay relatively fixed.

If you want to say skill sets remain perpetual and always the same, and everything remains the same, then fine.  I don't have any desire to introduce you to reality.  I suggest you have a talk with Flash developers, or 8-track tape designers.

Quote
So if employment is limitless

I have no idea what that means.  You said that.

Quote
and Labor is relatively fixed in terms of the available workable hours the only variable would seem to be an increase in the skills of the work force or more efficient use of that labor.  It would seem the question must be altered from one of employment to one of production.

Please start making sense.  Please.

Quote
As Smith pointed out --- it is production which matters as the true source of the wealth of nations.  In as much it is ironic the most effective means for increasing the wealth of nations is through the reduction of "jobs" through the more efficient use of labor.  Anyone who assists in producing more with less labor is responsible for creating wealth by freeing up labor to perform another of the limitless employment opportunities available.

Yes, employers try to do more with less and with more efficiency.  I'll alert the media to this ground breaking revelation.

Quote
The most detrimental cause of the inefficient use of labor is brought about by a reduction of incentives (demand).  Which you very succinctly pointed out.  All factors which limit or reduce incentive to produce at maximum efficiency should be eliminated.  These include taxation, and entitlement to name just two.  Employment does indeed seem to be driven by "demand for the goods produced by another's labor", whether one be the employer or employee (or consumer for that matter).  This definition makes no distinction between employer, employee, or consumer.

Consumers are the least identified employer.  Though many don't realize it, the most prolific employer in the country is the average consumer.  Every time you go to the store and purchase the goods of another's labor you are an employer.  In fact you are the most efficient employer known.  You get to see the fruits of the labor you employ AFTER such labor has been dedicated.  As such your omnipotence in matters of employment is assured as only you can attest to the value of what is produced.

My point in asking was to show we don't have an employment problem.  We have a motivation problem.  And as you pointed out taxation reduces incentive to hire for profit and entitlement reduces incentive to work as it becomes unnecessary.  I very much like your responses.  They were pretty much spot on IMHO though others may disagree.

No one here disagrees with basic economics.  I'm still waiting for you to make the point where conservatives are sounding like liberals.  Please post them.

Quote from: LibDave on October 20, 2013, 04:37:05 PM
I agree, the overall net affect of our current government is a drain.  But not all government does is negative.  Certainly SOME of what government does is needed.  The Founders addressed this and using Jefferson's 3 criteria at the convention (which Franklin, Washington and others deferred) they came up with just a few.

I agree, Govt is important, a necessary evil, but regardless, it's still a net drain on the economy, it only takes from those that earned it in the first place.

QuoteYou are simply shuffling the deck.  If employment is full it is mathematically guaranteed to be a shuffle.  Even if employment isn't full you will likely be hiring someone already motivated by demand for the produce of another's labor and as such they will be working.  Your hiring hasn't increased the demand of those unwilling to work so even if you hire the unemployed they are unemployed who were motivated to begin with.  But I see your point and find it only semantically different.

Employment is never full, there is always a demand for labor, even in bad times, though the pay may not be worth the work.
I think you are looking at existing skilled labor, but neglect entry level positions, like say, burger flippers, once these kids have experience in the work arena, they have a resume they can take to a better paying position, in turn leaving an opening for another inexperienced worker.
Granted, it's not a skill, but they have a proven track record that shows they are reliable which makes them a desirable commodity.

QuoteRobots are a perfect example of how wealth is created.  Anyone involved in the more efficient use of labor (employers, managers, employees, consumers, government officials reducing regulations and inventors of robots) create wealth.

I agree, Socialism does not and can not work as efficiently as free market capitalism.  Free market capitalism is the most efficient system attainable.  Socialism is in fact a positive feedback system guaranteed to be unstable without external feedback.

Socialism can work with external feedback (Hillary's village) though never as efficiently as capitalism.  Any deviation from the free market is to the detriment of the nation.  Liberals profess the "safety net" it provides for the less able makes this somehow preferable yet they never address the instability or sustainability issues of Socialism.

Yeah, I'll never understand the appeal of socialism. The way I see it, there are two kinds of people that see it as a viable system, the lazy, and the power hungry, i.e. dictator, everyone in between is merely a slave to the other two.

Like the Russians used to say, they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.

LMAO at taxed.  You sound every bit like a liberal.  You have no understanding of economics of which I can discern.  In fact you didn't make a single point in your whole post which could possibly distinguish you from ANY position.  Nothing but emotionally based rants.  You do nothing but spout vitriol and drivel about how wrong everyone is yet don't understand a single thing they attempt to show you.

Is anyone of the belief the GOP would be well served hiring taxed as their spokesman?  Somehow I doubt it.  Your delivery is so mind numbing I would seriously doubt you have EVER convinced someone to see things in a different light or even managed to convey you have a light on in there somewhere to convey.

As for the other intelligent Conservative responses I agree highly.  I too am as conservative as they come economically for the most part.  I follow the Austrian School of Economics fairly closely as do you all evidently.  Taxed I assume professes he does but who knows.  Who can get passed the drivel?

I distinguish myself from Conservatives on social issues where I believe they have it wrong.

Quote from: LibDave on October 20, 2013, 05:36:33 PM
LMAO at taxed.  You sound every bit like a liberal.  You have no understanding of economics of which I can discern.  If fact you didn't make a single point in your whole post which could possibly distinguish you from ANY position.  Nothing but emotionally based rants.  You do nothing but spout vitriol and drivel about how wrong everyone is yet don't understand a single thing they attempt to show you.

Is anyone of the belief the GOP would be well served hiring taxed as their spokesman?  Somehow I doubt it.  Your delivery is so mind numbing I would seriously doubt you have EVER convinced someone to see things in a different light or even managed to convey you have a light on in there somewhere to convey.

I'm being called a lib by someone with Lib in his screen name.  Too funny...

Quote from: LibDave on October 20, 2013, 05:36:33 PM
LMAO at taxed.  You sound every bit like a liberal.  You have no understanding of economics of which I can discern.  If fact you didn't make a single point in your whole post which could possibly distinguish you from ANY position.  Nothing but emotionally based rants.  You do nothing but spout vitriol and drivel about how wrong everyone is yet don't understand a single thing they attempt to show you.

Is anyone of the belief the GOP would be well served hiring taxed as their spokesman?  Somehow I doubt it.  Your delivery is so mind numbing I would seriously doubt you have EVER convinced someone to see things in a different light or even managed to convey you have a light on in there somewhere to convey.

Dave, it would be a good idea to use the quote tab, you just attributed that post to the wrong poster.
Taxed won't appreciate it.

Quote from: Solar on October 20, 2013, 05:41:23 PM
Dave, it would be a good idea to use the quote tab, you just attributed that post to the wrong poster.
Taxed won't appreciate it.

haha, NOW I'm officially confused...

Quote from: taxed on October 20, 2013, 05:43:04 PM
haha, NOW I'm officially confused...

I think he meant Telmark. Hell, I could be wrong.
He did the same to me, attributed a post by Supposn to me. I know, we post soooo much alike, have the same belief system, it's downright scary.

Quote from: Solar on October 20, 2013, 05:41:23 PM
Dave, it would be a good idea to use the quote tab, you just attributed that post to the wrong poster.
Taxed won't appreciate it.

I'm sorry?  Did I confuse taxed's response with someone else's.  Wasn't he the one going on about how he didn't understand followed by snide remarks and insults?  If not my apologies.

I do like the earlier point...

Quote from: Solar on October 20, 2013, 05:25:52 PM
...once these kids have experience in the work arena, they have a resume they can take to a better paying position, in turn leaving an opening for another inexperienced worker.
Granted, it's not a skill, but they have a proven track record that shows they are reliable which makes them a desirable commodity.

I take in the homeless, drug addicts, and abused women and get them back on their feet as working productive citizens.  I'm quite good at it.  Nowadays (last 5 years) it has become increasingly difficult as the government is their Enabler in Chief.  You can't convince their enabler to cut them off because government just doesn't care.  They just keep sending checks.  While still successful it has made it much more difficult.

Few are more informed than I as to the real affect entitlements are having in this regards.  I am all too aware of what it has done to provide disincentives to the "entitled".

An interesting topic I would love to share my experiences with.  Though all of you are aware it goes on, I'm sure my personal knowledge of it's extent would surprise you.  I see it years before the general public becomes aware due to what I do.  I could fill a whole book with anecdotes and stories about all I have seen.

Quote from: taxed on October 20, 2013, 05:14:46 PM
I don't care.

That's correct.  Our creator only gave us a finite number of hours in the day, and we need to sleep.  Therefore, workers can only be in one place at one time, and not two simultaneously.  Great observation.

I have no idea what this means.  People change jobs, people get fired, people die, new skills and technologies evolve, etc., so there is always turnover and an influx of labor.  Even if there was this "full employment", the shortage of skill supply with an increase of its demand would mean the value of the labor increases.  So, another company that requires the same skill sets would need to increase the wage or compensation to lure the talent over.

Incorrect.

I would advise you first give birth to the child, take time to recover, and let someone else handle the HR functions during this time.

I have no idea what you are asking.  Please try and make a little more sense, because I'm too tired to dumb myself down.

I have no idea what you are asking.  Please rephrase.

If you want to say skill sets remain perpetual and always the same, and everything remains the same, then fine.  I don't have any desire to introduce you to reality.  I suggest you have a talk with Flash developers, or 8-track tape designers.

I have no idea what that means.  You said that.
Please start making sense.  Please.

Yes, employers try to do more with less and with more efficiency.  I'll alert the media to this ground breaking revelation.

No one here disagrees with basic economics.  I'm still waiting for you to make the point where conservatives are sounding like liberals.  Please post them.

I thought it was just me that had trouble following some of his points.
But if you really need to feel confused, reply to Supposn.

Quote from: LibDave on October 20, 2013, 06:07:03 PM
I'm sorry?  Did I confuse taxed's response with someone else's.  Wasn't he the one going on about how he didn't understand followed by snide remarks and insults?  If not my apologies.

I do like the earlier point...
I take in the homeless, drug addicts, and abused women and get them back on their feet as working productive citizens.  I'm quite good at it.  Nowadays (last 5 years) it has become increasingly difficult as the government is their Enabler in Chief.  You can't convince their enabler to cut them off because government just doesn't care.  They just keep sending checks.  While still successful it has made it much more difficult.

Few are more informed than I as to the real affect entitlements are having in this regards.  I am all too aware of what it has done to provide disincentives to the "entitled".

An interesting topic I would love to share my experiences with.  Though all of you are aware it goes on, I'm sure my personal knowledge of it's extent would surprise you.  I see it years before the general public becomes aware due to what I do.

You're a more patient man than I, and I agree, it will only get worse as the Marxist via EOs usurps congress an puts even more on the welfare roles.

I learned it first hand in 1966 when LBJ forced the 235 program down our throats, that every new third home built had to be for low income, or rather no income housing.
LBJ then bull dozed the Chicago [projects and moved them into nice neighborhoods, I don't need to tell you what happened to the neighborhoods, or the fact that 50 years later, they have yet to recover.

Quote from: taxed on October 20, 2013, 05:14:46 PM
I don't care.

That's correct.  Our creator only gave us a finite number of hours in the day, and we need to sleep.  Therefore, workers can only be in one place at one time, and not two simultaneously.  Great observation.

I have no idea what this means.  People change jobs, people get fired, people die, new skills and technologies evolve, etc., so there is always turnover and an influx of labor.  Even if there was this "full employment", the shortage of skill supply with an increase of its demand would mean the value of the labor increases.  So, another company that requires the same skill sets would need to increase the wage or compensation to lure the talent over.

Incorrect.

I would advise you first give birth to the child, take time to recover, and let someone else handle the HR functions during this time.

I have no idea what you are asking.  Please try and make a little more sense, because I'm too tired to dumb myself down.

I have no idea what you are asking.  Please rephrase.

If you want to say skill sets remain perpetual and always the same, and everything remains the same, then fine.  I don't have any desire to introduce you to reality.  I suggest you have a talk with Flash developers, or 8-track tape designers.

I have no idea what that means.  You said that.
Please start making sense.  Please.

Yes, employers try to do more with less and with more efficiency.  I'll alert the media to this ground breaking revelation.

No one here disagrees with basic economics.  I'm still waiting for you to make the point where conservatives are sounding like liberals.  Please post them.

Seriously, don't you EVER get tired of arguing with arrogant retards? 

Supposn's thread has seventeen freaking pages of this crap -- and it's still going strong.  Some moron posts mountains of pretty much randomly-assembled buzzwords, and people keep talking to him like you're absolutely positive that you are teaching the world's smartest and most receptive six-year-old the remedial fundamentals of how economics work.

Can you point to one thing - and I mean this, I'm not just being facetious here; I would genuinely love to see this - can you point to even the tiniest little tidbit that one of these guys then proceeded to show that he clearly understood, corrected himself and went on to demonstrate that he could coherently implement?

'Cause I don't think that's happened - like, ever.   And I'm pretty sure it never will.

lol Solar.  No need, I have counter-posted him.

I'm from Chicago or at least my family hails from there originally.  Go Bears!!!  I wasn't aware of 235.

If you want I can post my first hand accounts of those I have met along the way for other's comments and edification.  It truly does go well beyond what even you may be aware.  You would be shocked at the extent.

I laughed my ass off when Debbie Wasserman Schultz unequivocally and repeatedly stated "There is currently absolutely no fraud in the food stamp program."  Talk about out-of-touch with her base (and they are her base).