• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top Obama Adviser: Unemployment Won't Be Key in 2012

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
70,061
Reaction score
36,369
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I bet you can't name one example of a business picking up a large amt of business from a newly defunct company without needing to hire any new employees to handle the workload.

cute how you are switching over to the new goalpost of any, which i suppose is a way of seeking to avoid the point that unemployment still increases?

We are talking about tax cuts. And tax cuts dont create jobs

not directly, no, they don't. what they do is make it easier for employers to create jobs.

And every business owner knows that tax rates change regularly

not necessarily; the Bush Tax rates stayed in place for years.

Uncertainty is a part of doing business.

it is part of the challenge of doing business, and part of the challenge of creating jobs. increase the uncertainty, increase the challenge, and you decrease business and decrease employment.

And a raise in income tax rates does not turn a profitable employee into an unprofitable one because income tax only applies to the profits an employee brings in. Income tax increases can result in a lower return per employee, but unless the income tax rate exceeds 100%, the employee will still be able to afford them because every business can afford a profit.

and, again, you are choosing to ignore relative levels of risk. for the model you propose, AAA bonds and junk bonds should have the same rate of return.

Then you dont know what demand is. In economics, it is possible to have a demand for things that don't exist. There is a demand for a cure (and treatments) for AIDS. That's why Big Pharma is investing so much money in finding a cure or treatments for it. And since people have money to pay for these cures and treatments, it is appropriate to call this "demand" in the economic sense of the word

in no way does the fact that potential demand exists for things that do not yet exist alter the fact that demand as actually expressed is a function of supply. A poor person with AIDs in Africa has a nearly perfectly inelastic "potential" demand for a cure, but his actual "demand" will be what he can afford to pay.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,527
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cute how you are switching over to the new goalpost of any, which i suppose is a way of seeking to avoid the point that unemployment still increases?

The point is that your scenario has never happened so it can't contribute to unemployment.



not directly, no, they don't. what they do is make it easier for employers to create jobs.

Then how come the economy lost millions of jobs after bush* cut taxes? Why has unemployment increased whenever taxes have been cut?


not necessarily; the Bush Tax rates stayed in place for years.

And then they changed. You said they are permanent. They are not.


it is part of the challenge of doing business, and part of the challenge of creating jobs. increase the uncertainty, increase the challenge, and you decrease business and decrease employment.

If you can't compete, then you probably shouldn't. Millions of americans have made millions of dollars under a higher tax rate, and unemployement decreases when tax rates are raised.



and, again, you are choosing to ignore relative levels of risk. for the model you propose, AAA bonds and junk bonds should have the same rate of return
.

nonsense, which is why you post no explanation or evidence for this made up claim

in no way does the fact that potential demand exists for things that do not yet exist alter the fact that demand as actually expressed is a function of supply. A poor person with AIDs in Africa has a nearly perfectly inelastic "potential" demand for a cure, but his actual "demand" will be what he can afford to pay.

Wrong. Demand can exist for goods and services that do not exist. It is not "potential demand". It is demand. Period, end of sentence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_(economics)
In economics, demand is the desire to own anything, the ability to pay for it, and the willingness to pay[1] (see also supply and demand). The term demand signifies the ability or the willingness to buy a particular commodity at a given point of time.

As even you can see, there is nothing about needing the good or service to exist. All there needs to be is a desire to buy, and the ability and willingness to pay for it.

And believe it or not, there are HIV+ people who are not poor africans. I guess you left them out because they have the ability to pay and the willingness to pay. Cooking the books like that is misleading
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
70,061
Reaction score
36,369
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The point is that your scenario has never happened so it can't contribute to unemployment.

in no way does that follow. firstly, i'm willing to bet that it definitely has happened before - you are not accounting for geography. when a supplier in the US shuts down and is replaced by a supplier from China; yeah, those workers aren't moving across the pacific to work at the new plant. secondly, in no way does what you are arguing alter the basic fact that when you make labor more expensive and push employers into capital investment instead, you increase unemployment.

Then how come the economy lost millions of jobs after bush* cut taxes?

and created more - the unemployment rate, remember, decreased.

Why has unemployment increased whenever taxes have been cut?

unemployment decreased following the 2003 tax cuts,

art01.gif


following Clinton cutting taxes and Reagan cutting taxes:

UnemplR09-2008.jpg


and following Kennedy cutting taxes.

US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif



you will note, however, that when taxes increased in the early 90's, so did unemployment. just as it did when taxes increased in the early 30's.


And then they changed. You said they are permanent. They are not.

a decade time horizon is pretty solid for an employer. a year or 18 months really isn't.

If you can't compete, then you probably shouldn't. Millions of americans have made millions of dollars under a higher tax rate, and unemployement decreases when tax rates are raised.

you are missing the point. there are people who could compete that we are driving out with an unnecessarily high regulatory burden. you seem to think the only ones who worry about or are effected by this cost are the employers - you couldn't be more wrong. if the minimum wage is $7.50 an hour, but the regulatory burden of hiring an additional employee comes out to $3.50 an hour, then anyone whose labor isn't more productive than $11.00 an hour isn't getting hired. lower that regulatory burden to $1 an hour, and anyone whose labor can bring in more than $8.50 an hour (which is far more people) become employable.

nonsense, which is why you post no explanation or evidence for this made up claim

you are pretending that you can ignore relative levels of risk. you wave it away by saying that business owners and employers should be able to deal with risk; as though risk were a single-metric entity rather than a sliding scale. people accept risk for rates of return. lower the rate of return, you lower their willingness to engage in risk. this is the fundamental point that you are refusing to accept.

Wrong. Demand can exist for goods and services that do not exist. It is not "potential demand". It is demand. Period, end of sentence

yes. and it is infinite. it is also economically pointless.

demand as a function of "what people can buy", however, is not economically pointless. when you are asking "what is the demand for my product", you couldn't give two rats tails about "in a hypothetical world where resources weren't scarce and we all had infinite wealth how much of my product would be purchased", you are asking "how much of my product are people willing to buy". people can only buy (that is, express their demand through purchase) with production that has been previously accomplished. there is literally near-infinite demand for tourist trips into outer space. however, since the supply of wealth is low enough currently that everyone cannot afford to go into space, that "potential demand" is not going to be expressed in any kind of a market.

because goods exist on a supply demand curve. when you hike the price of a good through raising the regulatory burden or price of production, you lower the demand for it.

As even you can see, there is nothing about needing the good or service to exist. All there needs to be is a desire to buy, and the ability and willingness to pay for it.

there you go, highlighted that key word for you. the ability to pay for it. which is your supply of items (be it money or other goods) to trade for it.

And believe it or not, there are HIV+ people who are not poor africans.

that is correct, and it in no way alters the point. HIV+ Africans have no economically discernable demand for expensive treatment because they cannot afford it. at the current prices, their demand is zero. "potential" demand notwithstanding, anyone who foolishly sets up a business to try to mass-market sub-saharan africans HIV treatment for $3,000 a month will find he has a failing business model.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,527
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
in no way does that follow. firstly, i'm willing to bet that it definitely has happened before - you are not accounting for geography. when a supplier in the US shuts down and is replaced by a supplier from China; yeah, those workers aren't moving across the pacific to work at the new plant. secondly, in no way does what you are arguing alter the basic fact that when you make labor more expensive and push employers into capital investment instead, you increase unemployment.



and created more - the unemployment rate, remember, decreased.



unemployment decreased following the 2003 tax cuts,

art01.gif


following Clinton cutting taxes and Reagan cutting taxes:

UnemplR09-2008.jpg


and following Kennedy cutting taxes.

US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif



you will note, however, that when taxes increased in the early 90's, so did unemployment. just as it did when taxes increased in the early 30's.




a decade time horizon is pretty solid for an employer. a year or 18 months really isn't.



you are missing the point. there are people who could compete that we are driving out with an unnecessarily high regulatory burden. you seem to think the only ones who worry about or are effected by this cost are the employers - you couldn't be more wrong. if the minimum wage is $7.50 an hour, but the regulatory burden of hiring an additional employee comes out to $3.50 an hour, then anyone whose labor isn't more productive than $11.00 an hour isn't getting hired. lower that regulatory burden to $1 an hour, and anyone whose labor can bring in more than $8.50 an hour (which is far more people) become employable.



you are pretending that you can ignore relative levels of risk. you wave it away by saying that business owners and employers should be able to deal with risk; as though risk were a single-metric entity rather than a sliding scale. people accept risk for rates of return. lower the rate of return, you lower their willingness to engage in risk. this is the fundamental point that you are refusing to accept.



yes. and it is infinite. it is also economically pointless.

demand as a function of "what people can buy", however, is not economically pointless. when you are asking "what is the demand for my product", you couldn't give two rats tails about "in a hypothetical world where resources weren't scarce and we all had infinite wealth how much of my product would be purchased", you are asking "how much of my product are people willing to buy". people can only buy (that is, express their demand through purchase) with production that has been previously accomplished. there is literally near-infinite demand for tourist trips into outer space. however, since the supply of wealth is low enough currently that everyone cannot afford to go into space, that "potential demand" is not going to be expressed in any kind of a market.

because goods exist on a supply demand curve. when you hike the price of a good through raising the regulatory burden or price of production, you lower the demand for it.



there you go, highlighted that key word for you. the ability to pay for it. which is your supply of items (be it money or other goods) to trade for it.



that is correct, and it in no way alters the point. HIV+ Africans have no economically discernable demand for expensive treatment because they cannot afford it. at the current prices, their demand is zero. "potential" demand notwithstanding, anyone who foolishly sets up a business to try to mass-market sub-saharan africans HIV treatment for $3,000 a month will find he has a failing business model.

To address your last point first, you are only spouting nonsense about africans with HIV because I have proven that demand can exist for products that dont yet exist, which is contrary to what you claimed earlier. Since I found all of the points you made to be as equally as non-responsive to the point as this argument was, I see no point in addressing your points if you wont address mine.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ever since Obama and dems took over they told us they would and could create jobs. I am heartened to see libs in here now realize and admit the gov can do no such thing. What gov CAN do is create a job friendly environment though. Obama and dems have done precisely the opposite and now here we are in this stagnant economy.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,527
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ever since Obama and dems took over they told us they would and could create jobs. I am heartened to see libs in here now realize and admit the gov can do no such thing. What gov CAN do is create a job friendly environment though. Obama and dems have done precisely the opposite and now here we are in this stagnant economy.

Ever since the teabaggers first ran for congress, they have told us that they would and could create jobs. Since they took control of the house, they have not passed one jobs bill, and unemployment has risen.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
70,061
Reaction score
36,369
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
To address your last point first, you are only spouting nonsense about africans with HIV because I have proven that demand can exist for products that dont yet exist, which is contrary to what you claimed earlier.

no, i have said that potential demand is useless as an economic measurement because Demand in the sense of "what people will buy" is a function of what supply they have to trade for it.

Since I found all of the points you made to be as equally as non-responsive to the point as this argument was, I see no point in addressing your points if you wont address mine.

:lol: okay. sure, :) :2wave:
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
70,061
Reaction score
36,369
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ever since the teabaggers first ran for congress, they have told us that they would and could create jobs. Since they took control of the house, they have not passed one jobs bill, and unemployment has risen.

you are incorrect - House Republicans have indeed passed measures that, if the Senate would vote for and the President sign, would increase employment. An actual budget, for example, as well as measures to decrease the regulatory burden on employment.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,527
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
no, i have said that potential demand is useless as an economic measurement because Demand in the sense of "what people will buy" is a function of what supply they have to trade for it.

I'll post the definition of "demand" again, so that you can continue to contradict the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_(economics)

In economics, demand is the desire to own anything, the ability to pay for it, and the willingness to pay[1]

Gee, I don't see anything about the desire having to be for something that exists. I'm pretty sure the definition says "the desire to own ANYTHING"
 
Last edited:

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,527
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
you are incorrect - House Republicans have indeed passed measures that, if the Senate would vote for and the President sign, would increase employment. An actual budget, for example, as well as measures to decrease the regulatory burden on employment.

The first graph shows job growth when the dems controlled the House. The 2nd shows job growth when repubs controlled the House.

What is the difference?

beforegop.jpg


aftergop.jpg


*GOP GOVERNORS/Elected Officials Are Responsible For State Joblessness & UNEMPLOYMENT | Sabotaging America’s Economy For Political Gain | 3CHICSPOLITICO
 

Red Crow

Holy Crap!
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
3,429
Reaction score
2,119
Location
Hawaii, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
President Obama’s senior political adviser David Plouffe said Wednesday that people won’t vote in 2012 based on the unemployment rate.

...Most economists expect a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to show that the nation added about 100,000 jobs in June. That’s not enough to keep up with population growth, let alone lower the unemployment rate or make a dent in the 9 million jobs lost during the so called Great Recession.

It’s looking more and more like Obama will have to do something no president has done since Franklin Roosevelt: Win reelection with unemployment around 8 percent....

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Plouffe said, according to Bloomberg. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’ ”

The remarks will likely irritate Democrats who think Obama and his political team have taken their eye off jobs....​



Ya think?



January 2010: Jobs Number One Issue With Americans
February 2011: Unemployment Number One Concern for Americans

The man is lying through his teeth. He thinks that only the elites pay attention to the present economy situation.

I came to the conclusion that Obama is competing against Carter. :)
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
120,128
Reaction score
12,071
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The man is lying through his teeth. He thinks that only the elites pay attention to the present economy situation.

I came to the conclusion that Obama is competing against Carter. :)

He is competing against Carter and the only one that is happy about it is Carter who no longer will be considered America's worst President. I am sure he will have a wonderful Birthday party on August 2 as well.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,527
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He is competing against Carter and the only one that is happy about it is Carter who no longer will be considered America's worst President. I am sure he will have a wonderful Birthday party on August 2 as well.

Actually, he's trying to be reagan, and from the looks of the budget deficit, he's succeeding
 
Top Bottom