A REALLY bad day for liberals

[KLATTU]

No, high tax rates are not that. High wages are that.

Backwards again. High wages Trickle DOWN from the wealth creators.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Backwards again. High wages Trickle DOWN from the wealth creators.

and percolate up in the form of a market for production, as well as to government in the form of taxes paid.

 

[Absentglare]

Backwards again. High wages Trickle DOWN from the wealth creators.

What do you not understand?

Putting poor people to work creates wealth. Wealthy people do not create wealth. Wealthy people's wealth, being put into the hands of poor people, is what creates wealth. By creating more goods and services, we create wealth.

 

[MTAtech]

Backwards again. High wages Trickle DOWN from the wealth creators.

Where do those "wealth creators" get the money that you say trickles down, if not from selling something to the masses?

 

[KLATTU]

What do you not understand?

Putting poor people to work creates wealth. lth.

...and then the wealth TRICKLES DOWN to the workers. You're catching on!

 

[KLATTU]

Where do those "wealth creators" get the money that you say trickles down, if not from selling something to the masses?

form people who work for other wealth creators . It TRICKLED down to them .

 

[MTAtech]

form people who work for other wealth creators . It TRICKLED down to them .

Then what you are saying is what I and others have been saying, aggregate demand is the engine that creates wealth. However, what you saying is that wealth trickles up -- people buy what they want and need and the supplier of those needs accumulates that as income.

As an aside, it is fascinating to me that the conservative narrative has morphed into this belief that the wealthy possess magical powers that provide the rest of us with what we need (and the implicit underlying message is that they should be then exalted and showered with tax breaks.) This is far from where mainstream Republicans were. This is part of the 1956 Republican platform:

President Eisenhower said: "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."

What? Labor creates the wealth of the nation, not the "job creators?"

 

[KLATTU]

Then what you are saying is what I and others have been saying, aggregate demand is the engine that creates wealth. However, what you saying is that wealth trickles up -- people buy what they want and need and the supplier of those needs accumulates that as income.

As an aside, it is fascinating to me that the conservative narrative has morphed into this belief that the wealthy possess magical powers that provide the rest of us with what we need (and the implicit underlying message is that they should be then exalted and showered with tax breaks.) This is far from where mainstream Republicans were. This is part of the 1956 Republican platform:
What? Labor creates the wealth of the nation, not the "job creators?"

LOL just a bunch of politician jibberish to pander to the workers. After all, there are many workers ( aka voters) and few creators. Politicians all know that math.

 

[KLATTU]

Th
What? Labor creates the wealth of the nation, not the "job creators?"

Labor CREATES nothing. They work for the entreprenuer. A bunch of guys were sitting around CREATING until Henry Ford came along and THEN they RECEIVED ( not created) some wealth FROM him. Trickle DOWN.

 

[MTAtech]

Labor CREATES nothing. They work for the entreprenuer (sic). A bunch of guys were sitting around CREATING until Henry Ford came along and THEN they RECEIVED ( not created) some wealth FROM him. Trickle DOWN.

Take it up with Ike, who said the opposite.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Labor CREATES nothing. They work for the entreprenuer. A bunch of guys were sitting around CREATING until Henry Ford came along and THEN they RECEIVED ( not created) some wealth FROM him. Trickle DOWN.

And Ford understood that the workers had to have the money to buy what they were producing, or there would be no market. That's why he paid wages higher than other entrepeneurs of his day.

 

[Empirica]

Take it up with Ike, who said the opposite.

Really? Might you have possibly misunderstood what he actually meant?

Could you produce a reliable link to where Ike "said the opposite" please?

 

[KLATTU]

And Ford understood that the workers had to have the money to buy what they were producing, or there would be no market. That's why he paid wages higher than other entrepeneurs of his day.

LOL. you got suckered by that errant nonsense, too?? It's a left wing zombie meme. No matter how painfully stupid it is on the face of it ,it won't die.

As if a company could ever be profitabale by selling their products to their employees. LAFFRIOT. Yeesh

McArdle elucidates:

The other day, I noted in passing that it is arithmetically impossible, except in some bizarre situation with little bearing on the real world, to make money by paying your employees more and thus enabling them to afford your products.

Someone asked me to show my work. So let’s run a simple model based on Henry Ford’s legendary $5-a-day wage, introduced in 1914, which more than doubled the $2.25 workers were being paid.

That’s about $700 a year, almost enough to buy a Ford car (the Model T debuted at $825). Now let’s assume, unrealistically, that the workers devoted their extra wages to buying nothing but Model Ts; as soon as they bought the first one, they started saving for the next.

Is Ford making money on this transaction? No. At best, it could break even: It pays $700 a year in wages, gets $700 back in the form of car sales. But that assumes that it doesn’t cost anything except labor to make the cars. Unfortunately, automobiles are not conjured out of the ether by sheer force of will; they require things such as steel, rubber and copper wire. Those things have to be purchased. Once you factor in the cost of inputs, Ford is losing money on every unit.

But can the company make it up in volume, as the old economist’s joke goes? Perhaps by adding the workers to its customer base, Ford can get greater production volume and generate economies of scale. But Ford sold 300,000 units in 1914; its 14,000 employees are unlikely to have provided the extra juice it needed to drive mass efficiencies.

Henry Ford Paid His Workers $5 a Day So They Wouldn't Quit, Not So They Could Afford Model Ts - The Truth About Cars

 

[KLATTU]

Take it up with Ike, who said the opposite.

Rule # 1 graashopper. Never get suckered in by what a pandering politicians says.

 

[Dittohead not!]

LOL. you got suckered by that errant nonsense, too?? It's a left wing zombie meme. No matter how painfully stupid it is on the face of it ,it won't die.

As if a company could ever be profitabale by selling their products to their employees. LAFFRIOT. Yeesh

McArdle elucidates:

The other day, I noted in passing that it is arithmetically impossible, except in some bizarre situation with little bearing on the real world, to make money by paying your employees more and thus enabling them to afford your products.

Someone asked me to show my work. So let’s run a simple model based on Henry Ford’s legendary $5-a-day wage, introduced in 1914, which more than doubled the $2.25 workers were being paid.

That’s about $700 a year, almost enough to buy a Ford car (the Model T debuted at $825). Now let’s assume, unrealistically, that the workers devoted their extra wages to buying nothing but Model Ts; as soon as they bought the first one, they started saving for the next.

Is Ford making money on this transaction? No. At best, it could break even: It pays $700 a year in wages, gets $700 back in the form of car sales. But that assumes that it doesn’t cost anything except labor to make the cars. Unfortunately, automobiles are not conjured out of the ether by sheer force of will; they require things such as steel, rubber and copper wire. Those things have to be purchased. Once you factor in the cost of inputs, Ford is losing money on every unit.

But can the company make it up in volume, as the old economist’s joke goes? Perhaps by adding the workers to its customer base, Ford can get greater production volume and generate economies of scale. But Ford sold 300,000 units in 1914; its 14,000 employees are unlikely to have provided the extra juice it needed to drive mass efficiencies.

Henry Ford Paid His Workers $5 a Day So They Wouldn't Quit, Not So They Could Afford Model Ts - The Truth About Cars

It only works if other employers are also paying higher wages.

How would those maquiadoras in Mexico do if there were no handy nation with higher wages to export to?

 

[KLATTU]

It only works if other employers are also paying higher wages.

How would those maquiadoras in Mexico do if there were no handy nation with higher wages to export to?

LOL. Right. so Ford raised HIS wages so his workers would buy OTHER company's products, then crossed his fingers and hoped that other companies would do the same.
Shoulda quit why you were behind .

NEWSFLASH- That is most assuredly NOT why Ford raised wages.

 

[Dittohead not!]

LOL. Right. so Ford raised HIS wages so his workers would buy OTHER company's products, then crossed his fingers and hoped that other companies would do the same.
Shoulda quit why you were behind .

NEWSFLASH- That is most assuredly NOT why Ford raised wages.

but that's the effect when employers do raise wages: workers are better able to buy their products, markets increase.

 

[jaeger19]

Completely unchecked, without any regulation, for example, wealthy people do NOT make the world a better place. They make THEIR personal reality a better place by making everyone else's world a worse place.

Your argument is completely ignoring my point. A strong economy requires both supply AND demand. These are market forces. If you empower one, and suffocate the other, it creates an imbalance that is bad for economic growth. That's why "giving all the money to poor people" is exactly as ridiculous as "charging the rich people zero taxes," they are both nonsense positions on the extremes of what we already know works.

Hey...you must be channeling Jasper.. because now you are agreeing with my position that I have held all along. Lowering taxes to zero on the rich is just as ridiculous as "taxing those rich to solve inequity"..

 

[jaeger19]

LOL. Right. so Ford raised HIS wages so his workers would buy OTHER company's products, then crossed his fingers and hoped that other companies would do the same.
Shoulda quit why you were behind .

NEWSFLASH- That is most assuredly NOT why Ford raised wages.

Newsflash.. Ford raised his wages because people were buying his products, and to MEET DEMAND for his products he had to attract more and higher quality workers to his plants. Of course.. as he paid more, then other companies who competed for workers had to raise their wages or lose their workers to ford.. and this increase in wages led to more consumption and more expensive consumption (increase demand) .. which drove other businesses.

Of course those businesses needed to increase to meet demand.. and that meant more and better workers.. which put more wage pressure on ford and other companies..and wages increased again.

Reality is that the economy revolves around demand and the ability to pay for that demand.

I'll tell you what.. if you think entrepreneur CREATE demand.. I suggest you go take a couple of million.. and start up making 8 track tapes.. and then tell us in a year how business is doing. Should be fine right.. because you can create demand...

 

[KLATTU]

New

I'll tell you what.. if you think entrepreneur CREATE demand.. I suggest you go take a couple of million.. and start up making 8 track tapes.. and then tell us in a year how business is doing. Should be fine right.. because you can create demand...

LOL. Well maybe you should tell that to the estate of SteveJobs. Apple is constantly CREATING demand for thie products . Mario Batali sure did a great job of creating demand for his products. you can't NEAR his places!

And who knows somewhere, some clever fellow or lass might even figure out a way to start a retro business with 8 track tapes.

 

[Dittohead not!]

LOL. Well maybe you should tell that to the estate of SteveJobs. Apple is constantly CREATING demand for thie products . Mario Batali sure did a great job of creating demand for his products. you can't NEAR his places!

And who knows somewhere, some clever fellow or lass might even figure out a way to start a retro business with 8 track tapes.

because Apple is known for creating a market for retro, right?

 

[KLATTU]

but that's the effect when employers do raise wages: workers are better able to buy their products, markets increase.

But that's not WHY he raised wages in the first place. He most assuredly did NOT do it in hopes of setting off a chain reaction which which would eventually work to his advantage. He did it to bury his competition which is what companies generally do. They act in self interest, no the common good.

 

[Dittohead not!]

But that's not WHY he raised wages in the first place. He most assuredly did NOT do it in hopes of setting off a chain reaction which which would eventually work to his advantage. He did it to bury his competition which is what companies generally do. They act in self interest, no the common good.

So, his raising wages had an unintended consequence.

 

[KLATTU]

because Apple is known for creating a market for retro, right?

No. Never said or implied any such thing. Apple does not dabble in the retro market. But others do. You missed the point .

 

[Dittohead not!]

No. Never said or implied any such thing. Apple does not dabble in the retro market. But others do. You missed the point .

The point you tried to make was that the producers make the market, right? Or did I really miss your point?