Tax cuts = more jobs

Not finished digging yet?

 

A new catch phrase. He’s a roll. And here comes the next repetition right below.

 

You have not posted anything to comprehend. You refuse to answer because you took on a position you cannot defend.

You did admit that the need for labor is in direct proportion to the demand for the product/service.

Dick has $100.00 in his pocket. He may demand $100.00 of goods and services.
The tax man takes $33.33. How much in goods and services can Dick now demand?

 

but you know this is false.

no. it's in proportion for a demand of increased production.

nope. He can demand up to his max credit limit, which is what most americans do.

depends on his credit limit.

This is what I mean when I say you don't even know the basics.

 

https://www.moneycrashers.com/leading-lagging-economic-indicators/
https://www.wtwealthmanagement.com/documents/pdf/WTWealth_2014-07_MajorLeadingList.pdf

 

Keep up, that merely repeats what I've said.

That isn't a different source. Perhaps be a tad more honest?

 

You can expand my example over several years if you want. You will end up in the exact same place you are stuck in now. Since credit is issued based on credit history, the ability to borrow is still in direct proportion to the amount of spending power that the government hasn't taken.

Now you can explain how someone can borrow against money they don't keep.

 

schooling you on basic economics? ok.

your scenario involved having $100 in your pocket. I showed why that was nonsense.

huh?

 

Actually, it contradicts what you've said, but honesty is likely to be ignored no matter how many links are supplied.

 

I was just trying to make the math simple for you. Now you are dodging 2 questions.

 

not sure how directly addressing your posts, and refuting your arguments is a dodge. looks like basic vocabulary and definitions is also something you don't know anything about.

 

You have not addressed my posts; you have only dodged and resorted to cheap shots.

You claim to have superior knowledge of business and economics, but can't make a single point. You have only become more entangled in your own web. Now you have proposed that people can borrow against money the government took from them. I would love to hear how you think that can happen, but know that another dodge and a cheap shot is coming next.

 

Where? I said that employment is the lag as the quality of employment first is attacked (such as reduced hours). You pick the same crap site that doesn't say anything different. You then have the naivety (I'm being generous here!) of picking a different url which posts the exact same stuff, pretending two sites. Imagine if you actually were relevant?

 

Google is not his friend.

 

you know this is false. I directly addressed your posts, and specifically showed you how and why you are wrong.

I don't claim to have superior knowledge. But my points have been quite clearly made.

Where are you getting lost? What is it about credit that you don't understand?

 

Since you have a short term memory loss on your own words....

Post #571.

 

And here we are at the beginning of the circle you keep running around in. You can't answer the questions so you defend an imaginary answer you never gave. You have not made any points.

The truth is that you cannot create an increased demand for a product/service with money that was taken from you. Since it is not possible, you have no choice but to dodge the question or admit you are mistaken.

The same goes for borrowing against money that was not at your disposal when establishing credit worthiness. It is not possible.

 

Are you trying to be more aimless than the other fellow? You've posted two sites. The first was what the original fellow achieved, not realising that it really just referred to the employment lag (via reference to hours impacts on income etc). The second was the same stuff. You pretended it wasn't and that failed in the honesty stakes!

 

False. Try reading it the next time. Increases in wages do not LEAD into economic growth, they are the RESULT of economic growth, hence, their lag position.....
People do not normally receive aggressive wage increases unless the business environment is on the upswing. If the economy is doing well, competition for employees grows, and so does the wage being paid, to either entice, or retain.

With your method of thinking, I'd like to recommend you do not open your own business.

 

Exactly. Wage increases lag economic growth increases. It’s a very straightforward fact that our mutual friend is having trouble understanding.

 

This merely confirms that you're ignorant about these matters. Wage, amongst your kind, is seen as simple supply and demand. You have referred to site (admittedly a cretinous one, on a par with 'lets try and teach a grub') that confirmed the bleedin obvious: the quality of labour deteriorates such that employment is the lag.

Thankful for your comment. I'm a successful businessman. Its dead weird that I haven't failed. Your reinvention of economics must be a confusing factor!

 

I bet you are a wonder to your employees, if they speak English.... Amazing how obtuse so many business owners have become in today;s world. Me, me me, and more me...

 

you know both of those statements are false.

you are mistaking your inability to comprehend, with me dodging. Your question was directly answered. Demand is created by want/need for a product/service. How much money you actually have, is irrelevant.

so we can add credit to the long list of things you don't know anything about.

 

Brilliant! My kind is, exactly, what? The minds behind the understanding of how economies work? How wages and job growth fluctuate based, oh, let me capitalize that, BASED on how the economy is growing or deflating?

If you increase wages without economic growth already occurring, you aren't going to create growth in the general economy. You apparently think giving people an extra $5 a week is going to cause some sort tsunami effect. There has to be a multitude of leading (there's that pesky little word again) factors that gives an employer a understanding that sufficient growth will occur in their corner of the economic world that will increase the demand for their product. Then they either staff up, or increase the wages AFTER those orders come in. Lead indicators give them that heads up.

Of course, you are more then welcome to pay your employees more to stand around with their thumbs up their arses, on the vague hope that demand increases. It's your pound, after all. But of course, your screen name 'Reiver' certainly tells a different story.....

 

How many will get jobs to fill that market demand that GM will no longer meet? My customers Nissan, Hyundai are expanding and Toyota/Mazda building a new modern huge factory in my state who I hope to be a new customer. How much will my business go up? How much will the business at the tier one and tier two suppliers. LOTS I hope. GM should have failed years ago but Obama gave them a repreve at a huge taxpayer expenses shafting the people to whom GM owed money.