Please, you put a whole argument in my mouth to strawman me and now you’re crying like a pussy that I showed just how stupid the standard liberal argument is? If you genuinely have a more nuanced view, throw it out there, or be a huge pussy and refrain from actually making an argument. If that’s the case there’s no reason to pay attention another thing you stupidly spew into this thread.
Cheap paperclips do create jobs, the fact that you don’t understand this seems to confirm my assessment of your economic expertise. Demand is created when you introduce efficiency. Increased efficiency increases economic growth, this is something economist in the 1860s understood, but liberals in 2012 still don’t grasp.
Or just open any of the political threads on these forums, you’ll have so much primary source material for how stupid liberals are on economics that any need for citation is simply non-existent.
It’s akin to walking through the forest and wondering whether or not trees have leaves, you’ll have your answer instantaneously.
That’s an unambiguous admission that my characterization of the standard liberal economic argument is exactly what you think, in which case I have already soundly shown how stupid it was, so my work with you is now done.
Unregulated capitalism generates maximum wealth by delivering the lowest possible value for the highest possible price.
Job creation happens at the lowest, most competitive level of capitalist ventures. Large companies generate value by ever increasing economies of scale and by buying up the competitive low level companies.
All unregulated capitalism ensures is mega corps employing the cheapest possible labor and buying up the competition to move towards monopoly and plutocracy.
You’ve exaggerated on unregulated capitalism, not all industries are susceptible to monopolization and emergence of mega-corporations like that, for one. But it’s mostly irrelevant, no one here is arguing for unregulated capitalism. I’m not, Mitt Romney isn’t, I don’t even know that the Cato Institute is arguing for true unregulated capitalism.
Martin, you seem to think companies hire people because they have more money, which is stupid. A person is hired if the marginal return the employees generates is greater than the cost. It doesn’t matter if the company saved money on office paper.
That is a very silly mistake for a person who claims to be the economics genius in the thread.
Canadians are less personally indebted than Americans, but they are not, in actual terms, getting less indebted personally. Canadian personal debt climbs every year.
Several of those won’t directly lead to job creation, several of them will. On the scale of a whole economy, lower prices of a class of products most businesses buy will lead to some job creation in aggregate.
The way I said “getting less indebted personally” didn’t really come out very clear, I didn’t mean they were reducing their personal debt but that they “got into less personal debt than Americans.” I don’t know if that’s still true right now, as after the recession I know Americans have been hyper-aggressively paying down personal debt for various reasons, but historically (most of my life) every article I’ve ever read on personal indebtedness showed Americans were much more profligate spenders than almost any other country in the world, so in general since the 90s part of what Canadians did right that we didn’t was avoided getting as deeply in personal debt as we did.
Dude, you’re melting down. Calling another poster a “pussy”, as if you were a teenaged roughneck trying to egg on his friend to do something stupid? Obama’s a “demon” who hates capitalism? Seriously? I’ve always taken you to be somewhat more reasonable than that. Step back, take a few deep breaths, calm down — or at least try harder to sound like an adult when you flame.
To answer a previous inquiry, Obama isn’t a socialist, and I’ve never thought he was. He basically seems to be an advocate of “State Capitalism” in which he believes he can have his cake and eat it too. He isn’t opposed to the free market, capital investments, investors earning a return and all that go with normal capitalism. However, the key part of capitalism he appears to be opposed to is the part where lesser competitors are driven out of business.
Obama wants to let capitalism exist but to “help pick winners and losers, when appropriate” when appropriate is complicated but it appears to correlate with people who made big campaign contributions to him and companies with strong union presence and etc. Basically winners that are politically in tune with him. But the banks? Well, the banks donated massive amounts of money to Obama in 2008, so at least at one point in time it’s hard to argue Obama wasn’t a “big bank man”, he even hired big bank guys to help him run the country.