Corporate Profits hit a new record high!

[cwjerome]

Stimulating the economy with measures meant to create greater demand, such as some targeted tax cuts with some targeted tax increases, various incentives, low interest rates and increased government spending would help revive some of this job loss. We do have a demand problem but we also have a structural problem that can only be addressed by more education and innovation. I am not sure how you are so one-sided and black and white, ignoring this massive paradigm shift the world's economies are going through. There is a large structural problem... this is not the 1950s or even the 1990s. This is the information age and highly educated and highly skilled jobs are required more than ever. You simply can't prop an economy on the routine, low skill jobs of the past. Most of those can -and will- be done by people in developing countries or technologies.

 

[Engineer]

This is the information age and highly educated and highly skilled jobs are required more than ever. You simply can't prop an economy on the routine, low skill jobs of the past. Most of those can -and will- be done by people in developing countries or technologies.

If that's true, then the US has become ancient Rome 2.0 and WILL fall. We simply do not have the discipline to push "enough" education to cure our ills. Without wealth producing, good paying jobs for the masses, we will be doomed to a race to equilibrium. Of course, with unequal currencies and unfair (so called free) trade, the rest of the world may just well become better off than the masses of the US. Time will tell.

 

[cwjerome]

If that's true, then the US has become ancient Rome 2.0 and WILL fall. We simply do not have the discipline to push "enough" education to cure our ills. Without wealth producing, good paying jobs for the masses, we will be doomed to a race to equilibrium. Of course, with unequal currencies and unfair (so called free) trade, the rest of the world may just well become better off than the masses of the US. Time will tell.

I'm not as pessimistic. Much of the world now wants to do the jobs we were doing 50 and 25 years ago. We just need to move on. I believe we are intelligent, creative, innovative, and motivated enough to continue to be on the cutting edge of newer, better jobs... especially with the right public policies. Look, things will never be the same as when the system was rigged in favor of the US after WWII. It's not so much we are falling behind, it's just the rest of the world is finally starting to catch up. In the end, I believe that's a good thing for humanity.

We can't hold onto the past or just give up either... we can do this.

 

[Engineer]

I'm not as pessimistic. Much of the world now wants to do the jobs we were doing 50 and 25 years ago. We just need to move on. I believe we are intelligent, creative, innovative, and motivated enough to continue to be on the cutting edge of newer, better jobs... especially with the right public policies. Look, things will never be the same as when the system was rigged in favor of the US after WWII. It's not so much we are falling behind, it's just the rest of the world is finally starting to catch up. In the end, I believe that's a good thing for humanity.

We can't hold onto the past or just give up either... we can do this.

Fair enough I suppose. Just as we can't borrow our way to prosperity, we can't import our way there either. The rest of the world seems much more disciplined than us and will not only take our bread and butter jobs of the past but are in the process of taking (or stealing) our IP jobs of now and the future. With that said, I'm tired and going to bed but I do hope that your optimistic view wins out. I would much rather be wrong in my opinion but the view of the US over the last decade(s) seems to favor my point of view.

 

[Nemesis 1]

We are talking Corporate Profits right . These are public commpanies are they not . Who owns these companies? Oh ya the share holders. So how many share holders .
CORPORATIONS ARE THE PROBLEM . When China ends up owning IBM than maybe the world will wake up . John deere Ford These companies end up being owned by foreign gooberment . We should not be allowed to sell stocks to foreign investors ., This is the model for one world gooberment . Tho I do see many here long for a 1 world gooberment poor stupid bastards.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

We are talking Corporate Profits right . These are public commpanies are they not . Who owns these companies? Oh ya the share holders. So how many share holders .
CORPORATIONS ARE THE PROBLEM . When China ends up owning IBM than maybe the world will wake up . John deere Ford These companies end up being owned by foreign gooberment . We should not be allowed to sell stocks to foreign investors ., This is the model for one world gooberment . Tho I do see many here long for a 1 world gooberment poor stupid bastards.

Yes... let's deny that it is now a global economy and make believe that it is still only a national economy



Derp derp. Don't you have an Occupy Streets While Sleeping in Tents movement to go to?

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not as pessimistic. Much of the world now wants to do the jobs we were doing 50 and 25 years ago. We just need to move on. I believe we are intelligent, creative, innovative, and motivated enough to continue to be on the cutting edge of newer, better jobs... especially with the right public policies. Look, things will never be the same as when the system was rigged in favor of the US after WWII. It's not so much we are falling behind, it's just the rest of the world is finally starting to catch up. In the end, I believe that's a good thing for humanity.

We can't hold onto the past or just give up either... we can do this.

Meh. The whole "Europe in rubble" routine doesn't really hold up to any scrutiny at all-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/the-europe-in-rubble-excuse/

The difference was that American Capitalists had to rely on American Labor, and we all prospered as a result. Now they've dumped their dowdy old wife for a new Chinese mistress, one who'll do unspeakable things, and think they can escape paying alimony.

So far, they've been getting away with it.

 

[OverVolt]

Meh. The whole "Europe in rubble" routine doesn't really hold up to any scrutiny at all-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/the-europe-in-rubble-excuse/

The difference was that American Capitalists had to rely on American Labor, and we all prospered as a result. Now they've dumped their dowdy old wife for a new Chinese mistress, one who'll do unspeakable things, and think they can escape paying alimony.

So far, they've been getting away with it.

Not a fan of Krugman

 

[cwjerome]

Krugman.

Maybe you and him are right and the US was not in a uniquely vigorous and privileged position after WWII. It's not like we became a superpower or anything

 

[Jhhnn]

Stimulating the economy with measures meant to create greater demand, such as some targeted tax cuts with some targeted tax increases, various incentives, low interest rates and increased government spending would help revive some of this job loss. We do have a demand problem but we also have a structural problem that can only be addressed by more education and innovation. I am not sure how you are so one-sided and black and white, ignoring this massive paradigm shift the world's economies are going through. There is a large structural problem... this is not the 1950s or even the 1990s. This is the information age and highly educated and highly skilled jobs are required more than ever. You simply can't prop an economy on the routine, low skill jobs of the past. Most of those can -and will- be done by people in developing countries or technologies.

Meh. The place where targeted taxcuts would do the most good, at the bottom of the economic foodchain, aren't available. to the federal govt. As I pointed out earlier, they're already paying negative income taxes. That was part of the political genius of the Bush tax cuts- it covered the massive income shift to the top, at least in part, and at least for awhile. That's run its course. The same can be said of the housing bubble, which furnished liquidity in the form of credit to millions of families in lieu of wages. Cashout Refis were an enormous part of it, putting people further behind in ever achieving positive net worth. They were led to believe they'd achieved it, which was what prompted them to borrow part of it back, but, well, when it all fell down they had negative equity & the perps had much, much bigger balances in their worldwide diversified portfolios. Others left holding the empty bag are pensions, mutuals, endowments and anybody else who had invested in what had traditionally been very safe, stodgy & staid MBS. It struck a very hard blow at the heart of middle class wealth- the equity in our homes. El Fukkolo, by design.

Today's conversation goes like this-

Capitalists: We need low taxes to create jobs!

The rest of us who are actually paying attention: What jobs? You won't create jobs when there's low demand.

Capitalists: We need low taxes to create investment to create jobs!

The same rest of us: What jobs? All we see is offshoring & asset inflation. We need to raise your taxes a little to have govt create our own jobs, since you have no incentive to do it yourselves.

Capitalists: Aaiiieee! No! It'll be like the invasion of Poland! The end of America! We need to bargain- what do you say if we throw upper middle class people under the bus & you let us keep everything? That'll work!

The rest of us: We don't think so. We're here because you led us here, and we don't like it, it's not good for us, just for you. You'll need to give in a little.

Meanwhile, the delusionist Libertopian chorus comes up in the background: Smaller Govt! Cut taxes! Cut Entitlements! Free Market!

As if Big Govt weren't the only way to counter the increasing concentration of income, wealth & power into the hands of a very, very few.

It's not like govt spending doesn't create high skill jobs, either. Any sort of infrastructure project requires engineers & IT people, surveyors, & people to build & maintain the equipment. Planners & lawyers & appraisers & safety officers, too- you name it. Better support for education creates high skilled jobs, and revamping the govt's whole information system would require a lot of expertise, but only if govt could figure out how to not buy crap software from vendors...

If we don't put money into education, we won't have better educated people to meet the challenges you're talking about. If we don't create better infrastructure, we won't be able to support more commerce. And if we can't figure out how to put less than gifted people to work, we'll just have more welfare.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not a fan of Krugman

Of course not- he tends to cite inconvenient facts.

 

[Jhhnn]

Krugman.

Maybe you and him are right and the US was not in a uniquely vigorous and privileged position after WWII. It's not like we became a superpower or anything

It's not like being a Superpower has done us much good lately. A big part of our problems with people in other parts of the world are a direct result of trying to throw our weight around.

The Soviets were supposedly a Superpower, as well, but it came apart on them because they couldn't overcome their own internal divisions & bureaucracy. The Europeans & the Japanese did quite well for themselves, eschewing military might in favor of economic might.

In certain respects, the fact that they had to build much of it from scratch meant it was more modern & productive, and the fact that their govts subsidized industries like Steel, autos, energy, & so forth played a big part in it. The fact that the Japanese paid very close attention to visionaries like Deming, the father of modern quality control, played a huge part in their success. Much of what he offered is still anathema to American management headsets.

The US enjoyed a very strong partnership between Labor & Capital during that period, largely because Capital couldn't really find a better more profitable partner. Tariffs, transport costs, extreme political instability & hostility, even lack of basic education in many foreign work forces denied it to them.

There's still profit in hiring Americans, just not as much profit. If we want to take lessons in how to make capitalism work for more people, we have examples in Japan & Germany, particularly Germany, where corporate responsibility isn't defined as being solely to the shareholders, but to communities and the whole nation.

In those countries, "You didn't build that" is axiomatic, understood- they know they depend on each other, and act accordingly. We seem to have forgotten that over the last 30 years or so.

 

[OverVolt]

I'm more of a Friedman type.

 

[OverVolt]

Of course not- he tends to cite inconvenient facts.

lol

 

[Michael]

I noticed that the fiscal cliff discussion is giving Oracle shareholders next year's dividends this year.

Michael

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Capitalists: We need low taxes to create investment to create jobs!

The same rest of us: What jobs? All we see is offshoring & asset inflation. We need to raise your taxes a little to have govt create our own jobs, since you have no incentive to do it yourselves.

Government
Create
Jobs

3 words that shouldn't be used together. Jesus fuck basic economics and government classes need to be mandatory

Seriously - liberals, this is the type of logic you have on your side. Government creating jobs. Socialism 101.

 

[Veliko]

Government
Create
Jobs

3 words that shouldn't be used together. Jesus fuck basic economics and government classes need to be mandatory

Seriously - liberals, this is the type of logic you have on your side. Government creating jobs. Socialism 101.

If anything, you've proved his point.

It seems that the more likely you are to shout about socialism, the less you actually know about it.

 

[Veliko]

If we're going to make big generalizations I will go ahead and say"the rich" do a lot of dumb things. I am not here to defend the rich, but I will say some of that blame is misplaced. As far as this discussion goes, my focus isn't so much on the rich, it's on business... small, medium, and large. For the most part they are simply doing what it takes in a global marketplace. I don't blame small, medium, and large businesses relying more on technology and outsourcing any more than I would blame a sprinter having the best possible shoes or a farmer using every inch of his field. They are trying to survive given the facts of reality.

And you're back to defending them again.

 

[OverVolt]

If anything, you've proved his point.

It seems that the more likely you are to shout about socialism, the less you actually know about it.

Lol he is right.

Unfortunately, through intellectual sloth and government design, not one in a hundred people these days – no matter what geography confines their backsides – has the slightest idea of what makes an economy function properly. And so they are no better able to understand the nature of their current situation or the actual solutions than was a cave man witnessing his first volcano and turning to the sun for an answer.

Unless it is a a state run mine or something along those lines, government jobs don't create wealth. Forget money, we're talking food, cars, buildings, actual stuff.

Without a strong backbone to the economy producing alot of real wealth, we'll all get poorer. Drop in standard of living through any means. Doesn't matter if its stagnant wages, or inflation, or both. We'll all get equally poor, terrific, but still poor.

The more the standard of living drops, the more people clamor for bigger govt. that part is just inevitable. So I'm rather ambivalent towards what is going on. I don't like it, but I respect the fact it in all likelihood it will play out this way.

 

[Veliko]

He isn't right, he completely ignored the gist of Jhhnn's post, and started shouting about socialism like some paranoid nutcase from the 1960s.

As did you.

The problem isn't with the standard of living, but with the gap between the rich and the poor. This gap is increasing, and as anyone with a knowledge of history will tell you, when it gets too big, the poor start chopping off the heads of the rich.

When that happens, all this talk about the market is rendered utterly irrelevant.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

He isn't right, he completely ignored the gist of Jhhnn's post, and started shouting about socialism like some paranoid nutcase from the 1960s.

As did you.

The problem isn't with the standard of living, but with the gap between the rich and the poor. This gap is increasing, and as anyone with a knowledge of history will tell you, when it gets too big, the poor start chopping off the heads of the rich.

When that happens, all this talk about the market is rendered utterly irrelevant.

Yeah, sorry - you're just retarded to boot. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200

Really? My statement was simple: Government doesn't create jobs. Is that so hard to understand? Jobs are created by demand, and people make demand. Government doesn't create demand. Any disagreeing with what I just said had better still be in grade school. Either that - or you desperately need to go back.

The concept of "Government creating jobs" is a surefire way to make any gap in the lower / upper class only higher.

 

[Ausm]

He isn't right, he completely ignored the gist of Jhhnn's post, and started shouting about socialism like some paranoid nutcase from the 1960s.

As did you.

The problem isn't with the standard of living, but with the gap between the rich and the poor. This gap is increasing, and as anyone with a knowledge of history will tell you, when it gets too big, the poor start chopping off the heads of the rich.

When that happens, all this talk about the market is rendered utterly irrelevant.

No need to try to talk any sense into the Alt parody Bot.

 

[Veliko]

Yeah, sorry - you're just retarded to boot. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200

Really? My statement was simple: Government doesn't create jobs. Is that so hard to understand? Jobs are created by demand, and people make demand. Government doesn't create demand. Any disagreeing with what I just said had better still be in grade school. Either that - or you desperately need to go back.

The concept of "Government creating jobs" is a surefire way to make any gap in the lower / upper class only higher.

Once again: you completely ignored the actual gist of his post, and your spiel above has nothing to do with it.

Here's a little hint: the bit where he says "We need to raise your taxes a little to have govt create our own jobs" isn't the main gist of what he was saying.

 

[OverVolt]

That article was worse than troll %^&$ on ATOT, but anyway the growth after WWII was initially due to wages from the war as a base from which to leverage up fractional reserve banking.

The difference between then and now is that individuals were not saturated with credit and so we actually could grow our way out of the WWII govt. debt. Compare this to now where you have underwater mortgages for 500k and Lawyers with 200k school debt making 50k gross, etc. Credit cards also helped along the way. Increase in the rate of lending = perceived growth. Which is why are are currently screwed so bad unless there is like 100% inflation over the next 5 years because everyone is tapped out.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, sorry - you're just retarded to boot. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200

Really? My statement was simple: Government doesn't create jobs. Is that so hard to understand? Jobs are created by demand, and people make demand. Government doesn't create demand. Any disagreeing with what I just said had better still be in grade school. Either that - or you desperately need to go back.

The concept of "Government creating jobs" is a surefire way to make any gap in the lower / upper class only higher.

So, uhh, govt doesn't create demand when they hire contractors to create infrastructure? When they pay for people to maintain it, to do research, to teach, to inspect, to regulate, to police & provide fire protection along with a myriad of other things?

You're only right in the sense that people provide demand, but they need incomes to actually do that. That phenomenon isn't spread evenly across income classes, either. If a middle class family increases their income by 50%, they'll increase demand a lot more in a relative way than if Mitt doubles his income, because Mitt is already past saturation in terms of demand. He can already buy anything he wants. More money won't change his spending at all, which obviously isn't true for people who didn't have a job in the first place.

Raving on about ebil soshulism is mindless prattle. It only exists as an adjunct to capitalism, as a way to make capitalism serve more than a very, very few, and it's worked that way since long before either of us were born. Think of it as a constructive alternative to revolution- think of the future.