Corporate Profits hit a new record high!

[s0me0nesmind1]

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.

Once again, you see "GOVERNMENT ORDERED ROADS BUILT. THEREFORE THEY MAKE DEMAND!"

You are so fucking flawed it's... incomprehensible where you get such bad knowledge from.

The demand is SIMPLE. When a road needs repair/expanded - what pushed that to be done? The people DRIVING ON IT you fucking dolt. Why the fuck would someone fix a road that isn't being used? They build more roads, because there is something that will profit from it. That road could be out towards a place of expansion for more homes. More outlets. More malls. More stores. People are creating that demand, the government didn't wake up and say "Hmmm, build roads" "But Where?" "I dunno lol!!!"

People are demanding lower oil prices now - that is in direct relation to demanding more drilling in the US instead of importing it all. But go ahead, keep kidding yourself. Jesus fuck, where is the logic these days? What was so commonly known is now rare.

Not to mention you completely turned around from your initial stance. Go figure 🙄

 

[Retro Rob]

Once again, you see "GOVERNMENT ORDERED ROADS BUILT. THEREFORE THEY MAKE DEMAND!"

You are so fucking flawed it's... incomprehensible where you get such bad knowledge from.

The demand is SIMPLE. When a road needs repair/expanded - what pushed that to be done? The people DRIVING ON IT you fucking dolt. Why the fuck would someone fix a road that isn't being used? They build more roads, because there is something that will profit from it. That road could be out towards a place of expansion for more homes. More outlets. More malls. More stores. People are creating that demand, the government didn't wake up and say "Hmmm, build roads" "But Where?" "I dunno lol!!!"

People are demanding lower oil prices now - that is in direct relation to demanding more drilling in the US instead of importing it all. But go ahead, keep kidding yourself. Jesus fuck, where is the logic these days? What was so commonly known is now rare.

Not to mention you completely turned around from your initial stance. Go figure 🙄

Judging by the amount of needless insults and "F" bombs in your posts, you probably have a dangerously low vocabulary and even lower reading comprehension skills.

Try addressing the posts and not the person. Maybe you won't look so stupid.

 

[OverVolt]

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.

I can't even tell what side of things people are on anymore, but there really aren't sides anyway IMO.

Government is immune to pricing mechanisms in the market. Sure they "sort of" contract out the work to private companies but the Government doesn't have to worry about taking a loss. If it builds a road to nowhere, so what. They were trying to build that bridge from Alaska to Russia to "stimulate" the economy.

The rub is that it is a waste of the REAL resources used to create the bridge. The need to build the bridge is to fix a problem that exists only on paper, there was never any demand for that bridge.

So what all this debt monetization does is lead to a huge misallocation of real wealth. A private company that built a toll bridge to a cliff would go out of business hilariously fast, but the Government is immune so such pricing mechanisms. Instead it "stimulates" the economy, but it doesn't generate any WEALTH.

So the take away is the more the government spends the more resources we waste on NON wealth producing projects. IE, we have less stuff overall, because we wasted the actual oil/concrete/steel/peoples effort.

That is not to say that government spending is always bad. In the case of roads like you guys said, they are paid for with everyone's taxes so we can all get around. There is a limit to how big the government can get, and its never been bigger, so I think the answer is obvious as to what is sucking dry all the wealth producing resources and wasting them.

That same immunity to pricing mechanisms is useful when regulating a power monopoly or making a road into a poor community but we have to be careful to what extent we rely on it. People have really forgotten the basics and things have gone full-retard. We build houses even though we already have enough houses. We subsidize electric cars even though they can't stand on their own in the market. Meanwhile bridges meant to last 50 years are putting in their 73rd year of service etc.

 

[buckshot24]

So the take away is the more the government spends the more resources we waste on NON wealth producing projects. IE, we have less stuff overall.

We also waste resources on compliance with government regulations and ridiculously complicated tax laws.

 

[Matt1970]

Once again, you see "GOVERNMENT ORDERED ROADS BUILT. THEREFORE THEY MAKE DEMAND!"

You are so fucking flawed it's... incomprehensible where you get such bad knowledge from.

The demand is SIMPLE. When a road needs repair/expanded - what pushed that to be done? The people DRIVING ON IT you fucking dolt. Why the fuck would someone fix a road that isn't being used? They build more roads, because there is something that will profit from it. That road could be out towards a place of expansion for more homes. More outlets. More malls. More stores. People are creating that demand, the government didn't wake up and say "Hmmm, build roads" "But Where?" "I dunno lol!!!"

People are demanding lower oil prices now - that is in direct relation to demanding more drilling in the US instead of importing it all. But go ahead, keep kidding yourself. Jesus fuck, where is the logic these days? What was so commonly known is now rare.

Not to mention you completely turned around from your initial stance. Go figure 🙄

Speaking of roads, NY doesn't know what the fuck to do with the Obama money it got. They just re-paved the highway through the southern end of Syracuse. They just did the highway 3 years ago and it was still in great shape.

You will have to excuse Jhhnn. He thinks the Gov creates wealth. He also think the very rich created their wealth because of low taxes and that increasing their taxes will not decrease their wealth potential.

 

[Ausm]

Speaking of roads, NY doesn't know what the fuck to do with the Obama money it got. They just re-paved the highway through the southern end of Syracuse. They just did the highway 3 years ago and it was still in great shape.

You will have to excuse Jhhnn. He thinks the Gov creates wealth. He also think the very rich created their wealth because of low taxes and that increasing their taxes will not decrease their wealth potential.

Why would it? More importantly why would you care?

 

[Matt1970]

Why would it? More importantly why would you care?

Because you can't claim they got that way because of low taxes and then claim removing those low taxes will have no effect. Do you not see the error in that logic? And why do I care? Because that same logic will be used to raise taxes on everyone once congress figures out it cannot raise enough revenue by taxing the rich alone.

 

[Ausm]

Because you can't claim they got that way because of low taxes and then claim removing those low taxes will have no effect. Do you not see the error in that logic? And why do I care? Because that same logic will be used to raise taxes on everyone once congress figures out it cannot raise enough revenue by taxing the rich alone.

The Bush Tax cuts were irresponsible in the first place and they should all be ended in my opinion.

 

[werepossum]

I can't even tell what side of things people are on anymore, but there really aren't sides anyway IMO.

Government is immune to pricing mechanisms in the market. Sure they "sort of" contract out the work to private companies but the Government doesn't have to worry about taking a loss. If it builds a road to nowhere, so what. They were trying to build that bridge from Alaska to Russia to "stimulate" the economy.

The rub is that it is a waste of the REAL resources used to create the bridge. The need to build the bridge is to fix a problem that exists only on paper, there was never any demand for that bridge.

So what all this debt monetization does is lead to a huge misallocation of real wealth. A private company that built a toll bridge to a cliff would go out of business hilariously fast, but the Government is immune so such pricing mechanisms. Instead it "stimulates" the economy, but it doesn't generate any WEALTH.

So the take away is the more the government spends the more resources we waste on NON wealth producing projects. IE, we have less stuff overall, because we wasted the actual oil/concrete/steel/peoples effort.

That is not to say that government spending is always bad. In the case of roads like you guys said, they are paid for with everyone's taxes so we can all get around. There is a limit to how big the government can get, and its never been bigger, so I think the answer is obvious as to what is sucking dry all the wealth producing resources and wasting them.

That same immunity to pricing mechanisms is useful when regulating a power monopoly or making a road into a poor community but we have to be careful to what extent we rely on it. People have really forgotten the basics and things have gone full-retard. We build houses even though we already have enough houses. We subsidize electric cars even though they can't stand on their own in the market. Meanwhile bridges meant to last 50 years are putting in their 73rd year of service etc.

Excellent post. This is one reason government stimulus is excellent to stop the bleeding but has little long-term stimulus effect - it's not designed as part of a wealth-creating plan, but is designed to create short-term demand only. As such its effect is inherently limited, or as Roosevelt learned, as soon as the extra money goes away its stimulus effect disappears as well. Even where government spending is well-designed to help create wealth, such as making a river navigable or increasing the traffic per unit time that a road system can carry, its decisions are at least partially for political reasons, so that even the smartest government spending tends to be crippled. Also, no particular group of us, no matter how well-selected, will ever be smarter than all of us.

 

[Matt1970]

The Bush Tax cuts were irresponsible in the first place and they should all be ended in my opinion.

Thanks for answering the question. [/sarcasm]

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The Bush Tax cuts were irresponsible in the first place and they should all be ended in my opinion.

So.... why did Obama extend them again? Twice?

 

[Matt1970]

We ran him off again.....

 

[Jhhnn]

We ran him off again.....

Hardly. I have a real day job, one where I don't get to rave online about ebil soshulists all day long.

So, uhh, the interstate highway system, built during the Eisenhower years, was strictly on the basis of demand? Really? He had to pander to national security interests to get it done, to build for the future that we all enjoy. And he had to hold taxes high to get it done, too.

So who benefits most from that, anyway? People who rarely travel much of anywhere, or capitalists who use it to make more money? Agribusiness who uses it to bring their crops to market? WalMart, or some urban dweller who doesn't even have a car?

Who subsidized the internet at its creation, people who had no idea what it would be like, who couldn't create demand in advance, or some far sighted govt bureaucrats?

Miniaturized electronics? From the space program, both military & civilian. Advances in science & medicine? govt grants. State colleges & universities? same. Pure food, drugs & cosmetics? same. Air traffic control? FAA? FEMA? there's a lot more of the same, things that private industry really can't do very well.

All of those things provide employment & help maintain demand, even when the sacred free market takes a nosedive.

Now, of course, now that the wreckage of that deregulated free market headset is all around us, Righties see it as a great opportunity to shrink govt. As if we can cut spending to force layoffs to vanquish unemployment, huh?

If trickedown economic theory really served us all, how could we possibly have record corporate profits and high persistent unemployment at the same time?

Maybe somebody or somebodies need to re-evaluate their basic assumptions about how the economy works, huh? Probably not- they'll just try to bend reality to fit into their own preconceived notions, to avoid cognitive dissonance at all costs. Which puts us right back at Colbert's prescient concept of Truthiness- it's true because they believe it to be true- facts, figures, graphs & contrary evidence be damned. It's all about Faith, about faith in the idea that they couldn't possibly be wrong, about anything, ever.

Wrap your heads around this, if you possibly can- I have my doubts-

http://www.frumforum.com/were-our-enemies-right/

 

[Exterous]

🙄

I understood they were US corporations (meaning they are incorporated in the USA, or are foreign incorporated subsidiaries of US based parent companies).

But all large US corporations have vast foreign based operations. I.e., "US corporations" make a lot of their profit in foreign countries. From what I've read much of their business growth for the years has come from these foreign markets. OP is assuming the growth is coming from US based operations. I see no reason to make that assumption.

Fern

The WSJ had an article that partially covered this today. Illinois Tool Works Inc is only generating 40% of its revenue in the US, GE 45%, Wabco 3%, Dover 60%, Emerson 59%

The article was more focused on how the US tax codes was encouraging companies to hold and invest their money overseas but does go to show that a number of large US based companies make a substantial amount of their profit overseas

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Hardly. I have a real day job, one where I don't get to rave online about ebil soshulists all day long.

So, uhh, the interstate highway system, built during the Eisenhower years, was strictly on the basis of demand? Really? He had to pander to national security interests to get it done, to build for the future that we all enjoy. And he had to hold taxes high to get it done, too.

So who benefits most from that, anyway? People who rarely travel much of anywhere, or capitalists who use it to make more money? Agribusiness who uses it to bring their crops to market? WalMart, or some urban dweller who doesn't even have a car?

Who subsidized the internet at its creation, people who had no idea what it would be like, who couldn't create demand in advance, or some far sighted govt bureaucrats?

Miniaturized electronics? From the space program, both military & civilian. Advances in science & medicine? govt grants. State colleges & universities? same. Pure food, drugs & cosmetics? same. Air traffic control? FAA? FEMA? there's a lot more of the same, things that private industry really can't do very well.

All of those things provide employment & help maintain demand, even when the sacred free market takes a nosedive.

Now, of course, now that the wreckage of that deregulated free market headset is all around us, Righties see it as a great opportunity to shrink govt. As if we can cut spending to force layoffs to vanquish unemployment, huh?

If trickedown economic theory really served us all, how could we possibly have record corporate profits and high persistent unemployment at the same time?

Maybe somebody or somebodies need to re-evaluate their basic assumptions about how the economy works, huh? Probably not- they'll just try to bend reality to fit into their own preconceived notions, to avoid cognitive dissonance at all costs. Which puts us right back at Colbert's prescient concept of Truthiness- it's true because they believe it to be true- facts, figures, graphs & contrary evidence be damned. It's all about Faith, about faith in the idea that they couldn't possibly be wrong, about anything, ever.

Wrap your heads around this, if you possibly can- I have my doubts-

http://www.frumforum.com/were-our-enemies-right/

Great post. I am shocked that more people who were on the right for most of their lives didn't vote for the other team this time around like I did. It's as if people have joined politics with their religious beliefs and to challenge their view is to question their faith.

It's a very weird time, especially given the vast amount of resources out there where you can find factual information that proves exactly what you, and the article in your link, are talking about is true. It's almost as if most people just stop learning at a certain point and decide to never research or question their own beliefs or just the world around them in general anymore.

 

[OverVolt]

^

Look at the first comment, lol. The communists were right? Did I read this right? WTF is this crap. The USSR collapsed in the 90's.

 

[OverVolt]

Point being, Krugman could have correctly predicted in 2002 how many points the Dow would fall in 2008, on what day, and which companies would need to be bailed out, and the ideologues at NR would still deride him as a “left wing loon,” “out of touch with reality,” and a “socialist/communist/fascist” for his observations. Reality means nothing to the ideologue, only loyalty.

WTF is this stuff lol. Its ridiculous, what have I walked into here on P&N, lol.

 

[Zorkorist]

Jhnn, and other communists are on a roll, because Obama won a second term.

There's no question that they hate everything America stands for.

-John

 

[Matt1970]

Hardly. I have a real day job, one where I don't get to rave online about ebil soshulists all day long.

So, uhh, the interstate highway system, built during the Eisenhower years, was strictly on the basis of demand? Really? He had to pander to national security interests to get it done, to build for the future that we all enjoy. And he had to hold taxes high to get it done, too.

So who benefits most from that, anyway? People who rarely travel much of anywhere, or capitalists who use it to make more money? Agribusiness who uses it to bring their crops to market? WalMart, or some urban dweller who doesn't even have a car?

Who subsidized the internet at its creation, people who had no idea what it would be like, who couldn't create demand in advance, or some far sighted govt bureaucrats?

Miniaturized electronics? From the space program, both military & civilian. Advances in science & medicine? govt grants. State colleges & universities? same. Pure food, drugs & cosmetics? same. Air traffic control? FAA? FEMA? there's a lot more of the same, things that private industry really can't do very well.

All of those things provide employment & help maintain demand, even when the sacred free market takes a nosedive.

Now, of course, now that the wreckage of that deregulated free market headset is all around us, Righties see it as a great opportunity to shrink govt. As if we can cut spending to force layoffs to vanquish unemployment, huh?

If trickedown economic theory really served us all, how could we possibly have record corporate profits and high persistent unemployment at the same time?

Maybe somebody or somebodies need to re-evaluate their basic assumptions about how the economy works, huh? Probably not- they'll just try to bend reality to fit into their own preconceived notions, to avoid cognitive dissonance at all costs. Which puts us right back at Colbert's prescient concept of Truthiness- it's true because they believe it to be true- facts, figures, graphs & contrary evidence be damned. It's all about Faith, about faith in the idea that they couldn't possibly be wrong, about anything, ever.

Wrap your heads around this, if you possibly can- I have my doubts-

http://www.frumforum.com/were-our-enemies-right/

Even you can't be this stupid.

Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Reader’s Digest between 1950 and 1970, and someone in the same period who read only The Nation or The New Statesman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of Communism? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?

Ya, the communists had it right. They had plenty of time to reflect on it while they were standing in lines waiting for bread.

This is why you fail.

What you also fail to understand is everything you listed above was all paid for from taxing capitalism.

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

China already owns IBM, ever heard of Lenovo?

That used to be IBM ThinkPad laptops, they gave it to China and just changed the name.

Boeing is about to do the same thing.

You next plane will be made in China.

 

[Ausm]

So.... why did Obama extend them again? Twice?

To appease your party to continue the tax cuts for the Middle Class that they desperatly needed in the middle of a Recession. You sound like you suffer from Romnesia.

 

[Matt1970]

To appease your party to continue the tax cuts for the Middle Class that they desperatly needed in the middle of a Recession. You sound like you suffer from Romnesia.

But the were irresponsible right?

 

[Exterous]

China already owns IBM, ever heard of Lenovo?

That used to be IBM ThinkPad laptops, they gave it to China and just changed the name.

Boeing is about to do the same thing.

You next plane will be made in China.

Really? China owns IBM?

International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE: IBM), or IBM, is an American multinational technology and consulting corporation, with headquarters in Armonk, New York, United States

China bought a part of the business that IBM sold off. SOLD. They did not 'give'. China did not buy IBM, they bought a business unit they wanted to sell off. Why did they sell? Because their PC business was losing money. (4 years of losses close to $600m if memory serves) I believe they also got part of the Lenovo company in the deal

Given Dell and HPs rapidly falling PC sales figures and stock price compared to how well IBM is doing it seems like a smart thing for them to have done

Good God man - think a little bit before you post

 

[Jhhnn]

^

Look at the first comment, lol. The communists were right? Did I read this right? WTF is this crap. The USSR collapsed in the 90's.

Even you can't be this stupid.



Ya, the communists had it right. They had plenty of time to reflect on it while they were standing in lines waiting for bread.

This is why you fail.

What you also fail to understand is everything you listed above was all paid for from taxing capitalism.

Both of you fail utterly & completely at reading comprehension. On the Right Fringe, both breathing & raving are apparently autonomic functions, lucky for you.

 

[Ausm]

But the were irresponsible right?

You consider spending money you don't have as responsible?