Interesting explanation. I thought it was going to be some conspiracy crap at first, but I was relived.
Incorrect though, the taxes taken to fund the creation of new jobs means even more tax revenue from the people who have the new job. This leads back to the citizens.
Learn2Economics.
Would've been better without the shitty accents and the cheesy piano music.
I'd still rather they didn't increase taxes to fund new jobs. Plus if the construction is funed by the goverment they have to keep taking taxes from everyone else PLUS the workers. But if they did not fund the construction job, and did not increase taxes the citizens. The citizens still would put more money into buying goods and products strengthing the economy of stores, and in return the stores could have enough money to hire new people, so those people who were geting moeny by working for goverment construction jobs, could instead be paid by idividually owned store, or company owners.
[editline]07:36PM[/editline]
You're missing the point Micr0.
This guy is stupid, 1. He's talking as if where money goes changes drastically weather jobs are created. 2. Sounds like a shaded [spoiler]Republican[/spoiler] political agenda especially with the 9/11 footage. 3. When there was wartime none of it directly destroyed anything in our economy so the analogy does not apply.
Also something you may not know about our fucked up financial system is the government doesn't make new money by inflation it just asks for theoretical money from big banks Chase etc. Then the bank synthetically adds money by computer(no gold backing it up) and loans it out. Doesn't sound right does it? well thats what happens when capitalism is unrestrained and big business gets that much power, to affect/buy there own policies governing there own selves.
No system of government is perfect, thats capitalisms flaw is that anyone with enough money can change any rule he wants especially to keep themselves wealthy. America means freedom, the freedom to screw over the little guy as much as you want.
[QUOTE=Lightbourne;23926199]Incorrect though, the taxes taken to fund the creation of new jobs means even more tax revenue from the people who have the new job. This leads back to the citizens.
Learn2Economics.[/QUOTE]
Except the tax revenue from the new jobs is just recycled tax revenue from the citizens and nothing was created but a job.
Learn2Economics.
[QUOTE=JDER14;23926471]
You're missing the point Micr0.[/QUOTE]
I understand the point, I'm just saying that the video is hard to watch.
[QUOTE=JDER14;23926471]I'd still rather they didn't increase taxes to fund new jobs. Plus if the construction is funed by the goverment they have to keep taking taxes from everyone else PLUS the workers. But if they did not fund the construction job, and did not increase taxes the citizens. The citizens still would put more money into buying goods and products strengthing the economy of stores, and in return the stores could have enough money to hire new people, so those people who were geting moeny by working for goverment construction jobs, could instead be paid by idividually owned store, or company owners.
[editline]07:36PM[/editline]
You're missing the point Micr0.[/QUOTE]
Heres the catch people like to save money. You want less taxes for civil projects? Well civil projects = infrastructure, and guess what our infrastructure is long past dew a revamp.
Fun fact historians agree that a failed infrastructure lead to the fall of Rome.
[QUOTE=redwinterwol;23926577]This guy is stupid, 1. He's talking as if where money goes changes drastically weather jobs are created. 2. Sounds like a shaded [spoiler]Republican[/spoiler] political agenda especially with the 9/11 footage. 3. When there was wartime none of it directly destroyed anything in our economy so the analogy does not apply.
Also something you may not know about our fucked up financial system is the government doesn't make new money by inflation it just asks for theoretical money from big banks Chase etc. Then the bank synthetically adds money by computer(no gold backing it up) and loans it out. Doesn't sound right does it? well thats what happens when capitalism is unrestrained and big business gets that much power, to affect/buy there own policies governing there own selves.
No system of government is perfect, thats capitalisms flaw is that anyone with enough money can change any rule he wants especially to keep themselves wealthy. America means freedom, the freedom to screw over the little guy as much as you want.[/QUOTE]
1. Irony
2. Hahaha, REPUBLICAN PROPOGANDA
3. Actually our economy turned to making bombs and tanks, which where in turn exploded and exploded respectively. Seems like quite a bit of the fruits of our labour was destroyed.
4. You blame unregulated capitalism for these big banks because you are completely ignorant of economics and history. The government regulated that the fake money banks create is valid "legal tender" and must be accepted. The government regulated the whole fiasco with the banks to begin with, none of it would have happened had the government not gotten involved and forced its regulations on the money supply.
This fallacy relies on the fact that the baker will spend his money on the suit; if he is saving his money, it forces his hand. The people who would've spent money on things aren't for whatever reason, the new jobs created are commonly going to very poor people who will spend 100% of their income, money circulates when it wasn't previously. This isn't even a sustainable solution, just an emergency solution to create jobs when no-one else was hiring.
[QUOTE=redwinterwol;23926666]Heres the catch people like to save money. You want less taxes for civil projects? Well civil projects = infrastructure, and guess what our infrastructure is long past dew a revamp.
Fun fact historians agree that a failed infrastructure lead to the fall of Rome.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for proving my theory
[QUOTE=Gargatul0th;23926706]4. You blame unregulated capitalism for these big banks because you are completely ignorant of economics and history. The government regulated that the fake money banks create is valid "legal tender" and must be accepted. The government regulated the whole fiasco with the banks to begin with, none of it would have happened had the government not gotten involved and forced its regulations on the money supply.[/QUOTE]
Regulation is not something that is either there or not. If the current regulation isn't working, fix it instead of abandoning it. People don't repeal laws when they are no longer working and regulation shouldn't be discarded completely just because it has been innefective.
[QUOTE=Gargatul0th;23926706]1. Irony
2. Hahaha, REPUBLICAN PROPOGANDA
3. Actually our economy turned to making bombs and tanks, which where in turn exploded and exploded respectively. Seems like quite a bit of the fruits of our labour was destroyed.
4. You blame unregulated capitalism for these big banks because you are completely ignorant of economics and history. The government regulated that the fake money banks create is valid "legal tender" and must be accepted. The government regulated the whole fiasco with the banks to begin with, none of it would have happened had the government not gotten involved and forced its regulations on the money supply.[/QUOTE]
1. What?
2. OH yes because propaganda has never ever happened anywhere ever right?
3. For that point to make any sense to the videos conclusion WW2 would have haft to have ended in a debt of tanks.
4. So JP Morgan loaning billions of dollars under the table to the worst applicants intentionally has nothing to do with the "financial crisis?"
Just how many mental leaps did you just make there?
Another fun fact: The top 1% wealthiest people in america own ~60% of the nations money, that same % is taxed the least per dollar.
[editline]12:01AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gargatul0th;23926733]Thanks for proving my theory[/QUOTE]
What on earth are you talking about?
[QUOTE=Devodiere;23926793]Regulation is not something that is either there or not. If the current regulation isn't working, fix it instead of abandoning it. People don't repeal laws when they are no longer working and regulation shouldn't be discarded completely just because it has been innefective.[/QUOTE]
What if it was the source of the problem to begin with?
[editline]08:22PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=redwinterwol;23926899]1. What?
2. OH yes because propaganda has never ever happened anywhere ever right?
3. For that point to make any sense to the videos conclusion WW2 would have haft to have ended in a debt of tanks.
4. So JP Morgan loaning billions of dollars under the table to the worst applicants intentionally has nothing to do with the "financial crisis?"
Just how many mental leaps did you just make there?
Another fun fact: The top 1% wealthiest people in america own ~60% of the nations money, that same % is taxed the least per dollar.[/QUOTE]
And what of the government that through regulation forced them to give bad loans? Mental leaps are what you have done your whole life.
[QUOTE=redwinterwol;23926899]What on earth are you talking about?[/QUOTE]
It's that irony I was talking about earlier.
I would just prefer to pay very high taxes for the government to regulate business rather than business regulate itself.
This way we would of already paid for everything we need for one sum every so often. It would kinda be like having benefits for having a business except the government would pay you from taxes. The more smarter you are, the more money you have for being able to operating a more important business. This way the government controls literally everything that happens by its power. In a democracy the people could choose who the best figurehead is within the government to rule. The rich are taxed more and bankers have a robin hood tax therefore making the economy fair for the people of the lower orders by spending it on public sectors like healthcare for everybody.
[QUOTE=skifer;23927574]I would just prefer to pay very high taxes for the government to regulate business rather than business regulate itself.
This way we would of already paid for everything we need for one sum every so often. It would kinda be like having benefits for having a business except the government would pay you from taxes. The more smarter you are, the more money you have for being able to operating a more important business. This way the government controls literally everything that happens by its power. In a democracy the people could choose who the best figurehead is within the government to rule. The rich are taxed more and bankers have a robin hood tax therefore making the economy fair for the people of the lower orders by spending it on public sectors like healthcare for everybody.[/QUOTE]
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
[QUOTE=Gargatul0th;23927260]What if it was the source of the problem to begin with?[/QUOTE]
If stifling or ineffective regulation was in place then it should be altered so it continues to keep things from going out of control while not being too restrictive. There is a balance that needs to be found and pure deregulation will just plunge the industry into chaos.
[QUOTE=Gargatul0th;23927738]A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.[/QUOTE]
But what about in a form of a republic, where the people are allowed to "go" against an oppressive government?. I don't think a society would stand for a government that fucks them up without anarchy which pretty much happens even throughout history. Its just about trust into the right man for the right job. I would love to see politicians put through a test to become leader.
[QUOTE=skifer;23928064]But what about in a form of a republic, where the people are allowed to "go" against an oppressive government?. I don't think a society would stand for a government that fucks them up without anarchy which pretty much happens even throughout history. Its just about trust into the right man for the right job. I would love to see politicians put through a test to become leader.[/QUOTE]
If you ever find this magical place tell me about it so I can come live there instead.
[QUOTE=Lightbourne;23926199]Incorrect though, the taxes taken to fund the creation of new jobs means even more tax revenue from the people who have the new job. This leads back to the citizens.
Learn2Economics.[/QUOTE]
However, too high taxes leads to inefficiency and a humongous dead weight loss. Taxes should always be instituted where the tax revenue can be maximized without the dead weight loss overpowering the revenue. Not too high, not too low.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
