Economics should be taught in schools. It's amazing how many people don't understand the consequences of artificially increasing the cost of goods and services.
I didn't understand the gobbledygook you posted. Try English next time. BTW, your examples are bullshit. Read what the "craaaazy libruls" at Forbes have said about tax cuts creating jobs. The next time you try to make that claim, bring something more than your unsupported and lazy musings: https://www.forbes.com/sites/billharris/2012/11/05/tax-cuts-dont-create-jobs/#160571fd2293
Tariffs are not the same as wage and price rises. Tariffs can be raised or lifted as required. Ever tried to reduce someone's wages? In most families extra money means a higher standard of living, more commitments. A new car on HP. Ouch.
I didn't ask the magazine. I asked you. If you don't know enough to comment you can always post links without acting like you understand the subject.
If we assume the rate profits going to the owners & shareholders will remain constant, then you're right, prices will rise. But if we raised wages and sent a bit smaller profit margin to the owners & shareholders, then that extra pay would spark a boom in demand. One significant problem with our economy is that all the profits are going to the owners & shareholders rather than being shared more with the workers who make any business success possible. And, over the years, the percentage of profits going to that select, wealthy few, has done nothing but increase. The resulting disproportion in wealth distribution hurts not only the economy, but creates social & political upheavals over time tat are dangerous to all.
Let's take an example of economics. You raise, by statute, the wages of car workers in the US. Toyota, USA, are forced to pay the extra to their workers. Several things to consider. How much is it going to increase their costs and thus the price of their cars. on the open market. Will it price their new cars out of the market to be replaced by cheaper used cars Is it cheaper to produce those cars in Japan were wages are lower, and transport them to the USA. How will it affect their profits and their shareholders dividends? That's just simple economics. There is actually more to consider like the economic consequences on workers and firms reliant making parts etc. Taking into account the massive, economic modern container ships, a trip across the Pacific is not so daunting or expensive. Apply that across the board to many goods produced cheaply in China, India etc. Transport costs - per item -are reducing every year. It's not just a matter of raising wages to get people to spend more.
I cited to a source. You should learn to do the same instead of just making **** up like "lower taxes = jobs jobs jobs!" Please educate yourself, my ideological amigo. As an aside, I find it amusing that the Trumpers will sob about a lack of sources, or screech about "prove it! Waaahh!" but will also go into the same wailing and crying routine when a source is used. You want it explained, read the article. If you don't get the "big wurds", then ask me to explain it. There.
But the shareholders and owners are the ones with the money. Like it or not you can't do without their money. Those with money are the ones who invest that money with investment companies, insurance companies, stocks and shares. They take interest at a rate prescribed. That investment company, etc. etc. then lend that money, at interest rates, down the chain to firms and individuals who employ others. Banks, Building Societies use the money of their rich clients and savers - and the interest from borrowers - to fund small businesses and mortgages. So that money you purchase your house with comes from a rich man. Without it the bank has less to use. These people are essential - unless you can get the Government to do all the above.
Exactly. This is a basic economic premise that I have tried to explain. Tax cuts don't create jobs. They don't do that now, and have not done so in the past. It's like trying to explain to someone that dousing yourself in gasoline and lighting a match isn't safe, but they've been told that it is a "healthy experience" so they do it anyway.
That's a nice argument in support of the status quo. Problem is, the status quo is unstable socially, and becoming more so over time. The current status quo is the largest inequity in wealth distribution America has ever had. Eventually, it'll topple--peacefully or not. We're at the same point in terms of wealth distribution that France was in 1789, when the French Revolution started. The wealthy then paid no attention to the plight of the poor, and paid the price. I hope America's wealthy are smarter.
Of course they'e essential, but that hardly means that giving them extra income = "jobs jobs jobs!". Demand creates jobs, not the temporary sugar high of rich people having extra money. Show me a study that it changes their spending habits by increasing demand instead of going through this tedious and incorrect explanation.
Actually, both create jobs. Lower taxes equals more money to spend. Higher taxes create government jobs. Also, the term "Tax cuts" makes it look like they are doing us a favor. Its our money and it should be their duty to be responsible with it. What we need is spending cuts.
Uh, no. You don't hire people because you received a tax cut. You hire people if you have unmet demand that can be met with additional employees. I got a tax cut. I didn't hire anybody. A "favor"? Do you like roads, schools and other public services? Clue: That's partly what our taxes pay for.
No. Tax rates have no relevance to job creation. Only an increased demand for production does. This is basic Econ 101. What we need are a reversal of trumps Tax cuts, with moderate increases, coupled with a decrease in military spending as well as single payer healthcare. The deficit would disappear, and we could start paying down the debt.
Well, people are spending, so if you haven't hired anyone, you either don't own a business, or don't provide a product/service that people want. If you end up with more of your own money, you will either spend it (Creating demand) or invest it. Both create jobs. I live here in California and our roads are crumbling in spite of spending more than twice per mile of road than the national average. Our taxes are among the highest, yet the education we are paying for falls far below states with lower taxes. Can we return this bad product or are we stuck with a lemon? Until we start demanding results, the government will continue to spend our money like a thief with a stolen credit card.
You are incorrect. Increased demand can only be the result of increased spendable income. What you are supporting is rewarding irresponsibility. Our debt is not the result of earners not being taxed enough. Their irresponsible spending cannot be cured by giving them more money. California is a great example. In spite of having extremely high taxes, we are the poverty capitol of the US.
We need to improve worker skills, fix our infrastructure that impacts productivity, do more R&D, and add to our capital base. We should cut business taxes and raise personal taxes on higher income groups. Those are real supply-side fixes. How about making sure we have real competition in business? I'd start with healthcare. Single-payer won't help much if we let insurers, drug companies, and doctors continue ripping us off.
It is that simple as long as these 2 facts remain true. 1. Americans are not undertaxed. 2. The debt is caused by overspending, not undertaking.
That's peculiar... California, the richest and most Progressive state in America, refused go with Soviet Single Payer because they said it would bankrupt the state. If the most Progressive state thinks the Richest state can't afford it, how do you expect it will work?
It will work like every other first world country that hasn’t it. Better care than we get now, at a fraction of the cost of what we currently pay.
