U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-07-2013, 11:27 PM
 
4,441 posts, read 3,189,493 times
Reputation: 2823

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
I can't even understand what you are trying to say. If it costs me $20 per hour to provide for a worker, I am going to need the gross receipts to be above $20 just to pay for labor . If the marginal profit is $1 and then suddenly "da guberment" decides I need to contribute $1 more to SS, I have reached the break even point. That is typically when staff reduction begins to occur and/or wages are frozen.

No employer cares what you make, just what you cost them. FICA costs them.


You will learn that in any introductory micro economics course, and having had a business of my own, I see no reason that I would disagree with it.
Right, FICA costs them and wages cost them and benefits cost them, so the argument that FICA is passed on to the consumer is no different than wages or benefits. The cost of doing business!

Perhaps you would have understood better, if I got all long winded and touted my credentials?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2013, 11:39 PM
 
19,337 posts, read 16,934,141 times
Reputation: 7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281 View Post
Right, FICA costs them and wages cost them and benefits cost them, so the argument that FICA is passed on to the consumer is no different than wages or benefits. The cost of doing business!

Perhaps you would have understood better, if I got all long winded and touted my credentials?
No you don't understand the position at all.


FICA is an unnecessary tax on labour while the other costs are necessary expenses. Perhaps once again if you read it in context, but you didn't, again. There is plenty of idle wealth and asset bloated incomes that have no product at all. Its money collected in toll booth economies otherwise known as economic rent...universally accepted as fact in classical economics. Cast into doubt when rentiers started publishing.

All FICA does is fund government operations because they are stuffed full of debt instruments. That means the only retirement capital is a future obligation on the economy that exists then. What's the trust fund? Whats an island with a population of one and a chest full of sea shells? Tell me?

And since knowing the material doesn't matter then perhaps you can compare BF Skinner to Adam Smith and show where you believe Smith's writings show conflicts with operant conditioning developed by Skinner. Any random opinion based upon nothing will do apparently, and any insistence that people actually read and understand the subject they discuss is obviously just a blow hard. Just random guesswork is all we need.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 12:04 AM
 
19,337 posts, read 16,934,141 times
Reputation: 7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Yeah I do believe in trickle down if you are willing to accept the drip. Many folks aren't and would rather fight the system instead of participating in it. We each have to decide and it really is truly more than the top one percent who are prospering a lot more. I just wish pundits would spend more time trying to teach and help the middle class with wealth accumulation instead of consumption. We could do so much more for people if we encouraged intergenerational wealth accumulation and supported the traditional family structure more so it could take hold again. Did the president ever try to see if he could get the Republicans on board for letting the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone and not just those above a certain income level. Now what was the problem with the sequester again? Was it a short term or long term problem/solution.
Rent seeking is job killing. That is what the rich do in spades. How does investing in the ground and waiting for people who want to use it to pay more going to trickle down? Where is the supply putting up toll booths?

Rent Seeking, Laisser Faire & State Capitalism

Rising ground rents doesn't supply more ground. Its just makes it costly.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 06:20 AM
 
8,187 posts, read 8,618,478 times
Reputation: 11730
Warning, warning....Rant to follow...

Quote:
We need to be increasing SS, not de-funding or "reforming" it.
What we need is for people to stop living beyond their means -- and SAVE more for their OWN dang retirement.
(which, I know, I know, some might argue would slow the economy through less spending. But I think SAVING spurs investment....so that would be my position)

AND I'd get rid of -- I don't know how many exactly, but -- a WHOLE LOT of government jobs. Education Dept. -- bye-bye, Interior -- bye-bye...Housing...bye-bye.....at least in their present form. Census and Nat. Wx Service see-ya....Library of Congress,,,bye...National Endowments for Arts and Humanities....gone.

I want al that done...then we can talk about raising my taxes.

I'm sick and tired of the Fed Gov. being as huge and over reaching as it is. It's into things it NEVER SHOULD HAVE gotten into. It's not supposed to be mother, father, nanny, personal behavior overseer, or anything else that's way beyond original intentions.

Will we ever end up like Greece (I don't know) ......or France or Britain where they want to tax 'the ultra rich' (however they define that) so much that more people are leaving. Heck, the U.S. isn't that bad but it was bad enough for the co-founder of Facebook to 'supposedly' give up his U.S. citizenship before the IPO. The kid made millions (billions?) and still wanted to save taxes -- even though he still would have had HUNDREDS OF millions left. People HAVE left the U.S. for tax reasons.

The country's entire leadership (what's that)...and seeming lack of TRUELY, HONEST STATESMEN -- is absolutely frustrating.
(Billions spent on an election to get the same result.)

I'm no economist....if I'm off base I expect I'll be taken to the woodshed in short order.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 07:39 AM
 
31,025 posts, read 37,008,009 times
Reputation: 13315
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
rent seeking is job killing. That is what the rich do in spades. How does investing in the ground and waiting for people who want to use it to pay more going to trickle down? Where is the supply putting up toll booths?

rent seeking, laisser faire & state capitalism

rising ground rents doesn't supply more ground. Its just makes it costly.
wtf! If I make an investment for $10,000 and the rich dive in with millions isn't my $10,000 bolstered by their increased demand? Do I give a rats butt that I only profited $5,000 in two years and they profited ten million? You may but I don't. I am in my own lane driving and trying to move forward and if some one wants to create a tailwind and help me get there sooner as they zoom past me. Ok!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:14 AM
 
19,337 posts, read 16,934,141 times
Reputation: 7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
wtf! If I make an investment for $10,000 and the rich dive in with millions isn't my $10,000 bolstered by their increased demand? Do I give a rats butt that I only profited $5,000 in two years and they profited ten million? You may but I don't. I am in my own lane driving and trying to move forward and if some one wants to create a tailwind and help me get there sooner as they zoom past me. Ok!
That is your example of what can happen.



scenario #1

A man finds a field and plows it.

scenario #2

A person plants his flag in the field and declares in the name of of the Queen its now his

He rents it to a man who plows it.


All things being equal which has the lower cost structure? How many people are doing work?



Scenario #3

A person plants his flag in the field and declares in the name of of the Queen its now his.

He sells it to a land speculator who purchases it with a mortgage.

The land speculator sells it for double what he paid to a man who will plow i. The plowman now pays a mortgage with interest.

All things being equal which has the lower cost structure? How many people are doing work?


This was obvious to all economists in the 19th century. Now we have supply side with a track record of obvious renterism and income inequality. The only reason anyone other than the beneficiaries would believe supply side is mass insanity.

Supply side in a nut shell

* When the poor and middle class give money to rich people it makes the poor and middle class richer.

Absolutely brilliant.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:17 AM
 
31,025 posts, read 37,008,009 times
Reputation: 13315
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
That is your example of what can happen.



scenario #1

A man finds a field and plows it.

scenario #2

A person plants his flag in the field and declares in the name of of the Queen its now his

He rents it to a man who plows it.


All things being equal which has the lower cost structure? How many people are doing work?



Scenario #3

A person plants his flag in the field and declares in the name of of the Queen its now his.

He sells it to a land speculator who purchases it with a mortgage.

The land speculator sells it for double what he paid to a man who will plow i. The plowman now pays a mortgage with interest.

All things being equal which has the lower cost structure? How many people are doing work?


This was obvious to all economists in the 19th century. Now we have supply side with a track record of obvious renterism and income inequality. The only reason anyone other than the beneficiaries would believe supply side is mass insanity.

Supply side in a nut shell

* When the poor and middle class give money to rich people it makes the poor and middle class richer.

Absolutely brilliant.
I live my practical life style and you can live your theory lifestyle. We each have to chart our path and you are welcome to chart yours and I am happy to live mine. My issue is when people insist or plotting their path and then want the fruits of someone elses path down the road. I have seen to many people live their lives by ideology and not the practicality of what will work for them and help them to move forward.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:45 AM
 
2,988 posts, read 3,785,714 times
Reputation: 4249
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
We were discussing the facts. The facts of my opponent were wrong. He said Adam Smith was flawed because of rational expectations which was a theory developed in the 20th century and adopted by Chicago school neoclassical/neoliberalism what have you. About the only similarity is cherry picking the trade theory and division of labor.
You could at least tell the truth about what your "opponent" actually said; after all, it's now a matter of public record, right here in this thread.

He said "people behave as rational decision makers." You then repeatedly misrepresented this by trying to turn it into a play on modern jargon, which uses the expression "rational expectations." This literal expression, being modern jargon, is absent from classical economics. But of course the essential idea (although not the jargon) is commonplace throughout classical economics, as exemplified by Adam Smith's famous notion "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher . . . but from their own self interest."

So the "opponent" said to himself, "Self, please tell me why this poster gwynedd persists in doing this kind of thing, only to dig himself deeper and deeper into a conversational hole?"

After some thought, Self then replied: "It may be a matter of simple cognitive dissonance. Perhaps he is struggling to hold on to two sets of contradictory ideas, the ideas behavioral psychology, and the ideas of classical economics. After all, he has claimed expertise in both of these, and they are like oil and water."

After further thought, Self said "I think that gwynedd would do much better in advancing his ideas if only he would spend less of his effort trying to spit contemptuously on everybody else. You know, threatening to 'just out them as a fraud,' calling them 'ignorant,' and so forth."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 11:47 AM
 
19,337 posts, read 16,934,141 times
Reputation: 7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
I live my practical life style and you can live your theory lifestyle. We each have to chart our path and you are welcome to chart yours and I am happy to live mine. My issue is when people insist or plotting their path and then want the fruits of someone elses path down the road. I have seen to many people live their lives by ideology and not the practicality of what will work for them and help them to move forward.

I don't know what life style has to do with it. You said everyone can just join in trickle down economics. It seems clear to me that supply side economic is completely flawed because it believes all transactions create supply. Not only is this in dispute today, it was unanimously rejected in the past. Even as something as obvious as military spending used in conquest is clearly a zero sum transaction which seizes existing wealth. Lots of money is aimed at seizing wealth, not creating it. How can I possible believe "trickle down" when land falls under the same account as capital or political bribes(contributions) are capitalized under public relations? The current dogma very well defines being mugged as receiving a service.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 12:30 PM
 
31,025 posts, read 37,008,009 times
Reputation: 13315
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
I don't know what life style has to do with it. You said everyone can just join in trickle down economics. It seems clear to me that supply side economic is completely flawed because it believes all transactions create supply. Not only is this in dispute today, it was unanimously rejected in the past. Even as something as obvious as military spending used in conquest is clearly a zero sum transaction which seizes existing wealth. Lots of money is aimed at seizing wealth, not creating it. How can I possible believe "trickle down" when land falls under the same account as capital or political bribes(contributions) are capitalized under public relations? The current dogma very well defines being mugged as receiving a service.
Hmmmm, you miss my point. I am not really into what you do as I have long since learned the following:

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink
That doesn't mean you have to assume the mentality of the horse and go thirsty yourself.

You obviously have a different financial strategy and are drinking from a different pond and that is how America works. Halliburton was a good investment in the post 9/11/
Afghan/Iraq war period, however for many ideology made them go elsewhere. Gun manufacturers have been on a role lately and have bolstered the return of several public pension funds. Again what is the person of pension fund investment? ROI to meet contracted payout obligations or ideology as guns are legal. You are talking about supply side economics and I talking about expanding personal wealth by getting in on investments early in the game and hopefully riding the big money up. What strategies are you using to secure your present and most importantly retirement well being. I am sure with your background you are doing things that others could learn from. Pension? Investments? The traditional three legged stool etc etc. Per the OP payroll taxes have not been extended is that something of immediate impact to you or are you either retired or comfortable enough that it isn't that impactful? Being retired it isn't the biggie for me at all in terms of paying them but in terms of market reaction I had considerable PERSONAL interest.

Last edited by TuborgP; 01-08-2013 at 12:39 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top