« First « Previous Comments 185 - 206 of 206 Search these comments
The Fortune 500 clears $11.75T in revenue
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/full_list/index.html
73% of total US GDP.
Do you happen to know that only corporate profit, not revenue, contribute to GDP?
Throw out your clowncar rightwing economics books and learn some real economics:
Of course I know what pareto-principle is. I also have enough common sense to realize that Fortunate 500 companies do not generate 73% of total US GDP.
Do you happen to know that only corporate profit, not revenue, contribute to
GDP?
Value add would probably include more than profit. Wages most probably. Fees paid to vendors perhaps. A percentage of capital investments maybe.
Is this in reference to domestic products or foreign produced products? It makes sense that if they were foreign produced that they would not be counted. But it does not make sense if they were produced domestically they would not be included?
Unless the car maker makes a profit, the value of the car in GDP is already fully accounted for by the input factors: the wages, the parts vendors etc. So nothing is contributed by the car maker itself unless there is added value, i.e. profit.
how is that fundamentally different from a gang of vandals?
This is not related to my point. It wouldn't be, btw. I was simply contradicting your point that "only corporate profit" contributes to GDP.
Are you claiming that if every unprofitable corporation were eliminated, there would be no net effect on GDP?
You know there are unstream and downstream relationships that would be damaged. You know the workers unemployment (if even temporary) would damage GDP. So just admit a Company contributes more to GDP than simply its profit.
Are you claiming that if every unprofitable corporation were eliminated, there would be no net effect on GDP?
There would be a positive net effect on GDP. That's literally what the math says.
You know there are unstream and downstream relationships that would be damaged. You know the workers unemployment (if even temporary) would damage GDP. So just admit a Company contributes more to GDP than simply its profit.
That's a different issue altogether. You are assuming the workers and intermediate products vendors can not find alternative customers. Regardless they can or can not, the contribution from a money losing company to GDP is literally negative. That's just simple arithmetic.
I wog said:
"There are three ways to put money into the hands of consumers:
1. debt
2. wages
3. government entitlements
If you know of a 4th way, please tell me."
and I gave three examples of other sources of money for consumers to spend.
4. interest
5. rent
6. sales of property/goods
to which I wog replied:
"Absolutely not. Interest is money moving up the scale. It's earnings on capital. Same with commerce. At best it's in the same category as wages. Sale of property and goods is only an increase in spending money if it's done at a profit and then again it's earnings on capital."
so in other words....
in I wog world. Wages = interest
in I wog world: Wages = Rent
in I wog world: Wages = selling property
in I wog world there are only three ways that consumers get money, borrow it, earn an hourly wage, government gives it to you.
I am glad we don't live in I wog world!
Oh,
and here is one more way to increase demand by consumers via lower costs and/or higher incomes.
7. lower or eliminate income/sales taxes
Oh,
and here is one more way to increase demand by consumers via lower costs and/or higher incomes.
7. lower or eliminate income/sales taxes
8. Allow the production and sale of illegal goods( eg absinthe, sassafras oil, etc )
9. Eliminate quotas( eg sugar, ethanol ,etc )
In another thread I wog said: "EVERYONE CALLED THE FUCKING REAL ESTATE BUBBLE!!!! The reason it continued for as long as it did was people who DIDN'T CARE it was a bubble were giving away free mortgage money. NOT investors."
I especially like how you admit that banks were giving away free money, money which they essentially created out of thin air mind you. Brilliant demonstration of how the supply is VERY flexible under our current Keynsian Nightmare system of fractional reserve banking bets backed by the FED.
I don't know any American with no children who is willing and able to work that
cannot earn enough to have the necessities and a little discretionary income to
boot.
You need to get out more.
If what Keynes said is true then there would have been no economy before central
bankers.
What did Keynes say?
Then tell us what Keynes said
Keynes said a whole bunch of things. However, I'm trying to find out to what you are specifically referring when you said this:
If what Keynes said is true then there would have been no economy before central
bankers.
I'm assuming there is something he said that made you write that...
Then tell us what Keynes said
Keynes said a whole bunch of things. However, I'm trying to find out to what you are specifically referring when you said this:
If what Keynes said is true then there would have been no economy before central
bankers.I'm assuming there is something he said that made you write that...
The basic concept that I'm getting from keynesians is that the economy is created by government spending.
The basic concept that I'm getting from keynesians is that the economy is
created by government spending.
For someone who talks about Keynesian economics as much as you do, I would have expected at least a cursory understanding beyond typical coservative talking points. Obviously I gave you too much credit.
What also creates demand is investment in small business
Really? How does that work? Please explain in more detail.
The basic concept that I'm getting from keynesians is that the economy is
created by government spending.For someone who talks about Keynesian economics as much as you do, I would have expected at least a cursory understanding beyond typical coservative talking points. Obviously I gave you too much credit.
Yes clearly, can you explain your perspective?
The fundamental problem with capitalism is that profits always move money up the pyramid. There needs to be some system to move money down the pyramid, however this particular FACT doesn't appear to interest free-market lunatics and they just assume there will always be customers regardless of who holds all the cash.
Austrians explain that by time-demand problems.
You see, rich genius self-actualized entrepreneur decides he will put off buying a diamond dog collar for Tibbles, his toy puddle, until later, and use the money to invest in a new enterprise, a chain of convenience stores.
Bumette the baglady spends all her resources on buying a hotdog because she is hungry.
Therefore, we can see why rich genius the self-actualized entrepreneur is rich and Bumette the baglady is poor. The former delays consumption, but the latter irresponsibly spends all their resources on immediate gratification.
Of course the bag lady could do some work? You know pull over
and ask one of them will work for food fellers to get in your car and you will put them to work and see what happens.
The main dynamic behind this is comparative advantage which is the foundation of
the modern economy
What's the comparative advantage that the Chinese have in manufacturing? Do you consider the fact that they have lots of people willing to work for nothing a comparative advantage?
The main dynamic behind this is comparative advantage which is the foundation of
the modern economyWhat's the comparative advantage that the Chinese have in manufacturing? Do you consider the fact that they have lots of people willing to work for nothing a comparative advantage?
Their comparative advantage is lots of low cost labor.
You do realize the per capita income in China has gone from $500 per year to $7000 per year in the last 10 years?
Look we have been over these points many times.
I don't have the time to do this.
I will give you one last comment each
You do realize the per capita income in China has gone from $500 per year to
$7000 per year in the last 10 years?
I sure do.
The interesting scenario is what would happen under following conditions:
1) Those who have disposable income would never finance anything except the house - cars/clothes/vacations/other discretionary items would be paid in cash/atm/credit card paid off before interest comes due
2) People would hunker down and constrict spending on discretionary items and save as much money as possible for a few years.
Would these behaviors teach the elites not to take things for granted?
« First « Previous Comments 185 - 206 of 206 Search these comments
http://mises.org/daily/6420/Two-Sides-of-the-Same-Debased-Coin