# Why the rich are not the job creators



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

http://www.geekwire.com/2012/controversial-ted-post-nick-hanauers-talk-taxing-rich/


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Well- I know that the poor create lots of jobs- social workers, police, grant writers, non-profit employees, etc.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

:hysterical:ound::cowboy:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I have held a few jobs over the years.... but I dont recall every being hired by any poor folks. :shrug:


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Why with all the pour folks around where are the jobs. They are hording money so that they can be pour without offering a job to anybody.ound:ound:ound::hysterical:


----------



## pmondo (Oct 6, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have held a few jobs over the years.... but I dont recall every being hired by any poor folks. :shrug:


I never got a job from a poor person all 49 years I have worked


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

*BEE ESS*.

Venture Capitalists and other "rich people", certainly do "create jobs", when they take the risk and put up the money, to form new businesses, usually rather large in scope.

Joe Bob might start his own roofing business with his pickup truck, hoping to make money and eventually hire a couple of roofers, but they are doing the exact same, at only a much larger scale.

If they did not put up the money and risk, there would be no business, to hire any employees.

The guy is just looking for attention.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

But they don't always take the risk. Part of the reason for the slow economy now. Too much money sitting on the sidelines. Steve Jobs advocated taking greater risk and increasing r and d during economic downtimes as the costs were less. Wish more saw it his way. Largest corps and those investors working in mergers and acquisitions also tend not to create jobs. If I'm merging another business into my own I am more likely to get rid of redundant jobs before expanding new hiring. The rich sometimes do create jobs but the act of being rich doesn't guarantee they will.

I've never worked for anyone I would consider truly rich. I have worked for some who became more than comfortable through hard work.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

steff bugielski said:


> http://www.geekwire.com/2012/controversial-ted-post-nick-hanauers-talk-taxing-rich/


Read some of it. Looks like a 'chicken or egg' argument, to me.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Read it- what ultimately creates jobs is increased demand for goods or services. Even the rich don't build widgets for the sake of building widgets. They build them to sell them at a profit.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Hey,I'm going to ask the homeless bum on the corner begging....can I have a job-Stef said you were hiring...I'll get back to you on when I start


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

zant said:


> Hey,I'm going to ask the homeless bum on the corner begging....can I have a job-Stef said you were hiring...I'll get back to you on when I start


If you don't have to join the union put in a word for me at least for part time :cowboy::bandwagon:


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Stef, if you aren't happy with the amount of jobs that rich people are creating, why don't you join with your poor friends and create a big manufacturing plant that will offer great wages, union jobs, extensive benefits, and products that will be in high enough demand that Americans will pay the bills? 

Quit complaining and just do it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

One thing I learned when I was young.
Some people talk a good talk and some people do the work.
People have all kinds of ideas about what would help make jobs. They never do the work, just talk the talk.
We have too many people who talk. We need more people who will do the work.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Read it- what ultimately creates jobs is increased *demand* for goods or services


LOL
Demand doesn't "create jobs"
INVESTORS create jobs to MEET demands.

You can WANT (demand) something forever but until someone puts up the MONEY to create the jobs to produce it, you will be out of luck


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> But they don't always take the risk. Part of the reason for the slow economy now. Too much money sitting on the sidelines. Steve Jobs advocated taking greater risk and increasing r and d during economic downtimes as the costs were less. Wish more saw it his way. Largest corps and those investors working in mergers and acquisitions also tend not to create jobs. If I'm merging another business into my own I am more likely to get rid of redundant jobs before expanding new hiring. The rich sometimes do create jobs but the act of being rich doesn't guarantee they will.
> 
> I've never worked for anyone I would consider truly rich. I have worked for some who became more than comfortable through hard work.


There are risks and there are foolish risks. Those guys aren't stupid. Would you invest in a new coal mine today with Obama in office? Government policy certainly plays a role in how high some risks are.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

I was hired by a poor person - ME. I created my own job. I've also worked for others and made them richer. Got tired of it and that rat race.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> But they don't always take the risk. Part of the reason for the slow economy now. Too much money sitting on the sidelines. Steve Jobs advocated taking greater risk and increasing r and d during economic downtimes as the costs were less. Wish more saw it his way. Largest corps and those investors working in mergers and acquisitions also tend not to create jobs. If I'm merging another business into my own I am more likely to get rid of redundant jobs before expanding new hiring. The rich sometimes do create jobs but the act of being rich doesn't guarantee they will.
> 
> 
> The reason all that money is sitting around is because people with it know if they invest and it makes more they will just lose it to the government.
> ...


Maybe because you are either not providing a service they want or need or you just don't know the right people to get hired by them. 

I helped a buddy out in his plumbing business. He called me one night and told me to wear 'nice' clothes and shoes that are easily removable to work the next day. He wouldn't tell me why only that I'd find out. Got to work drove off in the trucks and drove and drove and drove. Then we came to this huge gate drove through it and up to what I found out later was the "main" house. The bathroom we were working in was bigger than my livingroom. It had a shower stall you could have washed a draft horse in and a bathtub that looked like a training pool for Olympic swimmers. And this wasn't even the master bathroom. I found out later the toilet we were hired to fix cost almost $2,000 1990 dollars! After we got back I asked how in the world did he get that job, it was 50 miles from his shop. He said it was one of those he did a job for someone who told someone who told someone who told this guy about him.

I used to have a friend who did custom mill work on "summer homes". Think John Kerry, John Edwards and Ted Kennedy type summer homes. He offered a service which no one else in the area offered.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Dang, these threads are getting old and predictably boring. So few laughs anymore.

Matt

PS, I want those 2 minutes of my life back...LOL!
Get a job, make a job, figure it out, or stop using straw men to justify your failed beliefs. Sheeeesh!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> One thing I learned when I was young.
> Some people talk a good talk and some people do the work.
> People have all kinds of ideas about what would help make jobs. They never do the work, just talk the talk.
> We have too many people who talk. We need more people who will do the work.


We had a saying when I was in college. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do either go into politics.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Hmmm...I just thought of another angle on this, Stef. What if you are right? What if the well off, rich, super rich, or even mega rich don't create jobs? So what? Is it their obligation to create jobs? Do they owe a certain number of jobs to you or anyone else? 

As long as they got their wealth legally, they are entitled to it. I'll bet you have resources around your home or farm that you don't fully use to the benefit of the USA. Does that mean you are a bad person, that you should be punished with higher taxes, or that resource should be taken away from you?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Read it- what ultimately creates jobs is increased demand for goods or services. Even the rich don't build widgets for the sake of building widgets. They build them to sell them at a profit.


Hum. . .Ever study the history of TV or something a bit more modern the iPod? When they were first being made there was NO demand for them. Do you think there were people standing around going "Man I wish I had a TV." in the late 40s and early 50s and companies heard about it and started producing them?

Both products were produced and hyped and THEN the demand came.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Poppy- I wouldn't invest in a new coal mine no matter who's in office. A nice natural gas well, yes indeed.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm- read your own post. Without demand there is no incentive to create the job to fill it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

But Steve jobs was sure there would be demand. He also risked all the R and D costs during slow economic times because costs atelier lower then. Demand, or the anticipation of demand, drives production. Simply put, I ain't gonna build it if I don't think I could sell it.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> But Steve jobs was sure there would be demand. He also risked all the R and D costs during slow economic times because costs atelier lower then. Demand, or the anticipation of demand, drives production. Simply put, *I ain't gonna build it if I don't think I could sell it*.


Try being a land developer or builder...months of prep work, lots of hard earned dollars and a spec hous and a sample house...not certain if it will sell, but believe the market will come into the picture.
YOU try risking it all. Fail, Lose! Win...you have to build 30 more house, keep 12 to 40 people (not counting subcontractors) employed, and hope they sell.
Please, give this argument up, unless you feel like setting down with a pot of coffee...I'm sick of it. Either that, or strike out on your own. With YOUR OWN MONEY and take the risks that FACE YOU AND THOSE YOU EMPLOY; or HUSH UP. 
SO tired of the carp from some folks.

Matt

Any infractions?


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

Wow you people really don't know how the real world works.
The very wealthy do not create jobs. What this guy was saying was, I have 20 million times more money than you, but I do not spend 20 more money. I do not buy 20 x as many houses or cars. I have my money in the bank.

The middle class tends to spend close to 100% of their income. Think about it, how much of your income do you spend?
I spend just about 100% of my income and if I made 10% more I probably will spend that also.
That spending is what keeps the economy going, the flow of money. Once again we are talking economics and I realize that might be hard for some to follow.

The wealthy do not spend any where near 100% so where is the rest of their money going? Not back into the economy.

This is not my opinion these are facts. Look it up.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

steff bugielski said:


> The middle class tends to spend close to 100% of their income. Think about it, how much of your income do you spend?
> I spend just about 100% of my income and if I made 10% more I probably will spend that also.
> That spending is what keeps the economy going, the flow of money. Once again we are talking economics and I realize that might be hard for some to follow.


Even if the uber-wealthy only spend 20% of their money, that's probably 50 times more than you're putting into the economy. 
So, who's doing more to keep the economy going?

Or, to put it another way, you only have enough money to maintain one home. The wealthy can afford to maintain five homes. Where you can only afford to buy one TV, the wealthy can afford to buy five TVs. 

Who's doing more to help the economy?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Roadking said:


> Dang, these threads are getting old and predictably boring. So few laughs anymore.
> 
> Matt
> 
> ...


 
Anyone think of not opening a thread that's so predicable as these on the rich? Is it b/c we think there will be some great relevation that the rich are truly evil? That all their $$ was ill-gained'? That we really do need them to pay "...their fair share..."? What IS their fair share? They pay what-95% of all taxes? Who is NOT paying their fair share? Is it just the capital gains tax the left is mad about? What?
I'm sick of this.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> But Steve jobs was sure there would be demand. He also risked all the R and D costs during slow economic times because costs atelier lower then. Demand, or the anticipation of demand, drives production. Simply put, I ain't gonna build it if I don't think I could sell it.


Did you just contradict yourself?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Bearfootfarm- read your own post. *Without demand there is no incentive* to create the job to fill it.


Read the post about TV's, and THINK about it.

You already tried the "demand" theory. when the truth it demand "creates" nothing at all. Most demands are not *self fulfilling*

It's not about WHY jobs are created
It's about WHO *makes them happen*


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> But Steve jobs was sure there would be demand. He also risked all the R and D costs during slow economic times because costs atelier lower then. Demand, or the anticipation of demand, drives production. Simply put, I ain't gonna build it if I don't think I could sell it.


Demand does not drive production. Your last line shows what does, money! There could be a great demand for something but if you can't sell it at a profit you are not going to produce it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

steff bugielski said:


> Wow you people really don't know how the real world works.
> The very wealthy do not create jobs. What this guy was saying was, I have 20 million times more money than you, but I do not spend 20 more money. I do not buy 20 x as many houses or cars. I have my money in the bank.
> 
> The middle class tends to spend close to 100% of their income. Think about it, how much of your income do you spend?
> ...


You are the one who doesn't get it. The poor and middle class have nothing to invest in producing new products. What middle class person can afford to build a plant to make widgets? If you have an idea for the world's best widget its useless if you can't afford to build it. How long do you think it would take you to raise even one million dollars if you had to go to your friends and borrow $10 to $100 from each? Now how long do you think it would take if you could go to an investment firm who has dozens of members who have millions each they are looking to invest to make even more millions?


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

steff bugielski said:


> http://www.geekwire.com/2012/controversial-ted-post-nick-hanauers-talk-taxing-rich/


You evidently know something about goats. You really need to stick to that because you clearly don't know a ---- thing about anything else.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

steff bugielski said:


> Wow you people really don't know how the real world works.
> The very wealthy do not create jobs. What this guy was saying was, I have 20 million times more money than you, but I do not spend 20 more money. I do not buy 20 x as many houses or cars. I have my money in the bank.
> 
> The wealthy do not spend any where near 100% so where is the rest of their money going? Not back into the economy.
> This is not my opinion these are facts. Look it up.


And what do you think the bank does with this rich man's money? They don't use it for insulation for bank buildings- they loan it out or invest in someone else's business. It's out there allowing people without the rich man's money to use it to develop businesses. Without the access to borrowed money, mostly people would not build homes or start shop or establish a hospital, etc. 

The trouble is less with facts here than in knowing which facts are material and what are irrelevant.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

steff bugielski said:


> Wow you people really don't know how the real world works.
> The very wealthy do not create jobs. What this guy was saying was, I have 20 million times more money than you, but I do not spend 20 more money. I do not buy 20 x as many houses or cars. I have my money in the bank.
> 
> The middle class tends to spend close to 100% of their income. Think about it, how much of your income do you spend?
> ...


Sound to me like this guy is smart. He's gets it.

Okay Steff, think about this. Work with me here. The wealthy get that way by investing their money instead of spending every dime. The idea is to get your money to work for you instead of the other way around. You do that by living below your means, sacrificing the goodies that all your friends are indulging in, and avoiding debt, like credit cards. As your investments grow, you get to make more investments. It's called "growing your wealth".It's being smart with your money. You also assume risk, the amount of that risk depends on how adventurous you are willing to be.
If you are hit with unexpected expenses or your taxes rise, you spend less, not save less.

Without investing from private individuals, we wouldn't have a Starbucks, a Barnes and Noble, a JC Penney, etc. and all the jobs that go with it.

We are decidedly middle class and we do not spend 100% of our income. We live below our means so that we have money to put into retirement and save for emergencies. I wish we had caught on to this earlier in our marriage. We would be doing much better now. We would have a lot more set aside and dh could retire earlier.

We have taught this to our sons and they are all working on saving vs spending, even the 18 yo.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

What industrialists do is look for market voids, where high demand for a certain product has driven prices up. They setup manufacturing for the product to take advantage of both the demand and the high price. That fills the market void, creating a business outlet for the industrialist.

But during recession market voids are few and far between. The problem is not that there is no money available to fill market voids, but that the lack of demand for consumer goods has dried up most of the market void opportunities.


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

Wanderer0101 said:


> You evidently know something about goats. You really need to stick to that because you clearly don't know a ---- thing about anything else.


Hate to break it to you but I have had several sucsessful businesses. Retail, manufacturing and food production. Goats are simply my latest venture
What's your background that you think I am so wrong.
PS these were the rich guys words not mine

This country does not need any more people "Growing their Wealth" We need them to grow the economy.
That is the issue and problem. That is exactly what this guy was pionting out.
I just realized the transcript of his speech was taken down by Ted.

I do not know what percent they are spending but "He said" I do not buy 20x the cars or houses."


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...nd-slideshow-that-was-too-hot-for-ted/257323/
This is the speech.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> But Steve jobs was sure there would be demand. He also risked all the R and D costs during slow economic times because costs atelier lower then. Demand, or the anticipation of demand, drives production. Simply put, I ain't gonna build it if I don't think I could sell it.


Yes, he took the risk that he would be able to CREATE THE DEMAND. 

There was NO demand for computers in 1976. 

He CREATED that demand, and he CREATED those jobs. 

:hair


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Steve L. said:


> Yes, he took the risk that he would be able to CREATE THE DEMAND.
> 
> There was NO demand for computers in 1976.
> 
> ...


Actually, there was a demand. The personal computer product didn't exist, but the computer industry was maturing to the point where there was widespread interest. There were computer enthusiasts out there just waiting for the product.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Stef, I have to ask. You have your favorite economic system, and I have mine. Neither of these economic systems are unique. Can you name a country where the economic system you espouse is working or has worked in the past?


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Actually, there was a demand. The personal computer product didn't exist, but the computer industry was maturing to the point where there was widespread interest. There were computer enthusiasts out there just waiting for the product.


Demand for computing power, which could have been supplied in other ways.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Steve L. said:


> Demand for computing power, which could have been supplied in other ways.


The early Apples created a stir, but were expensive & limited because they still booted from a ROM chip. That was how all computers ran until IBM came up with the disk operating system concept. Apples of that generation booted into a BASIC editing & interpreting environment, so the system was pretty much useless to someone who couldn't program in BASIC.

The IBM disk operating system provided a comprehensive operating system at a low cost, so computers were opened up to running powerful compiled programs from commercial sources. That's when things started to happen, and Jobs was quick to jump on the disk operating system bandwagon.


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Actually, there was a demand. The personal computer product didn't exist, but the computer industry was maturing to the point where there was widespread interest. There were computer enthusiasts out there just waiting for the product.


There was interest in computers but that does not guarantee demand. Jobs still took the chance that he could make the final product affordable for average consumer as well as user friendly enough that an "average" person like myself could run it. So I guess what I am saying is it still was a HUGE risk on there part because if one or the other components mentioned above didnt happen they would have failed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

treasureacres said:


> There was interest in computers but that does not guarantee demand. Jobs still took the chance that he could make the final product affordable for average consumer as well as user friendly enough that an "average" person like myself could run it. So I guess what I am saying is it still was a HUGE risk on there part because if one or the other components mentioned above didnt happen they would have failed.


He had competition too. Radio Shack competed with Apple head-to-head with the Tandy product line.

But neither got my business. The product wasn't mature enough for me to consider investing in those machines. As soon as I saw what they did I walked away. Fortunately I had access to a mainframe at the time to satisfy my computer curiosity. I didn't actually get a computer for home until the mid-1980s when I bought an IBM XT. I had already migrated away from the mainframe at work by that time.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Another rich bashing thread? Really?


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

Nevada said:


> He had competition too. Radio Shack competed with Apple head-to-head with the Tandy product line.
> 
> But neither got my business. The product wasn't mature enough for me to consider investing in those machines. As soon as I saw what they did I walked away. Fortunately I had access to a mainframe at the time to satisfy my computer curiosity. I didn't actually get a computer for home until the mid-1980s when I bought an IBM XT. I had already migrated away from the mainframe at work by that time.


You are an "old school" computer geek!! haha If they hadn't simplified computers to the point a chimp could run them....we would never be having this conversation. (at least not from my end)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wannabechef said:


> Another rich bashing thread? Really?


Not bashing, just discussing the role of the wealthy in our economy.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> He had competition too. Radio Shack competed with Apple head-to-head with the Tandy product line.
> 
> But neither got my business. The product wasn't mature enough for me to consider investing in those machines. As soon as I saw what they did I walked away. Fortunately I had access to a mainframe at the time to satisfy my computer curiosity. I didn't actually get a computer for home until the mid-1980s when I bought an IBM XT. I had already migrated away from the mainframe at work by that time.


I built my own computer from scratch. Made the pc board, wrote the operating system and programs for it. Zilog Z80 chipset. Hand wired a keyboard for it. Still have it, maxed out at 16kb! I also have a Tandy 1000 no hard drive! It runs a digital O scope I built from scratch. Still have it, still works! I have variants in my "collection" from all manufactures.


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> I built my own computer from scratch. Made the pc board, wrote the operating system and programs for it. Zilog Z80 chipset. Hand wired a keyboard for it. Still have it, maxed out at 16kb! I also have a Tandy 1000 no hard drive! It runs a digital O scope I built from scratch. Still have it, still works! I have variants in my "collection" from all manufactures.


 
This type of stuff is just amazing to me! I am being sincere when I say how impressed I am when people can do stuff like this. My brain just does not function in a way I can figure this kind of stuff out.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nobody is denying the risk involved to bring a product to market. Remember, Jobs failed with the Lisa and early Macs were a very niche market. Even cost Jobs his position at the company he helped found. Ford no longer sell Edsels and every town doesnt have a blacksmith. Why? There is no demand for a new Edsel and most people don't demand a smiths services. Demand drives the market. Marketing can drive demand. But if production drove the system no factory would ever shut down due to lack of demand for their product.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I first learned to program in the mid 70s using punch tape and cards, Basic and FortranIV. Fun times.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Just as an aside to this conversation, I used to know the man credited with inventing the personal computer. He died about 2 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Roberts_(computer_engineer)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I built my own computer from scratch. Made the pc board, wrote the operating system and programs for it. Zilog Z80 chipset. Hand wired a keyboard for it. Still have it, maxed out at 16kb! I also have a Tandy 1000 no hard drive! It runs a digital O scope I built from scratch. Still have it, still works! I have variants in my "collection" from all manufactures.


Outside of making calculations with BASIC programs, about the only other thing you could do was to save & print text. The problem with that was the quality of printing, which was so bad with early dot-matrix printers that it was useless.

Printing became marginally acceptable when Epson developed the "offset double-strike" dot-matrix printers, but business didn't really use personal computers for word processing until daisywheel printers became popular. Laser printers were crazy expensive for the longest time.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Outside of making calculations with BASIC programs, about the only other thing you could do was to save & print text. The problem with that was the quality of printing, which was so bad with early dot-matrix printers that it was useless.
> 
> Printing became marginally acceptable when Epson developed the "offset double-strike" dot-matrix printers, but business didn't really use personal computers for word processing until daisywheel printers became popular. Laser printers were crazy expensive for the longest time.


I wrote inventory programs, spreadsheet programs for my Z80. Still have them! Another company made software for purchase on casset tapes, still have those too. I think they were from Sinclair! And yes, dot matrix, state of the art at the time! Thank god those mostly went away! You could get them to print rudimantry graphics through programing, but it wasn't any fun, and they still didn't look good at all!


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Marketing can drive (in other words, *create*) demand...


 I'm glad you're starting to see the light. :angel:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

wannabechef said:


> Another rich bashing thread? Really?


Why not?

It's better than taking responsibility, for our own financial situation. 

Besides, they were born with a _silver spoon _in their mouth and we weren't.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Steve - the operative word is "can". Marketing can drive demand as evidenced by the myriad of IMO useless goods and services available. In your world products only fail because of bad marketing? Some things are just bad products that no one wants and production of these quickly cease. I've sold enough things in my life in a variety of situations not to believe in "Field of Dream" economics. Build it and they will come.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Why not?
> 
> It's better than taking responsibility, for our own financial situation.
> 
> Besides, they were born with a _silver spoon _in their mouth and we weren't.


That's neither true or fair. Many left-leaning people come from wealthy families. While my family wasn't as wealthy as the Romneys, I grew up in privileged surroundings.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

I have no idea why commies keep pushing their agenda. I do not know of anywhere in the world where it works well or even at all. Maybe it is just hatred or envy of the RICH producers and risk takers.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Steve L. said:


> [B said:
> 
> 
> > mmoetc[/B] ]Marketing can drive (in other words, *create*) demand...
> ...


In specialized circumstances, where revolutionary and fad products are introduced, advertising can make a difference. For example, we needed to be told that we had to have Hula Hoops. We weren't going to go looking for Hula Hoops without advertising. But you aren't going to get the same results for established products.

People already know what frying pans are, and they're trying to get a many years out of the pans they already have. Advertising isn't going to change that in a recession.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Possum Belly said:


> I have no idea why commies keep pushing their agenda. I do not know of anywhere in the world where it works well or even at all.


Commie agendas like universal healthcare coverage? It's working extremely well in a lot of countries. They're getting better results than we are.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Commie agendas like universal healthcare coverage? It's working extremely well in a lot of countries. They're getting better results than we are.


Doesn't mean it's not! It is! Personal responsability! Not mooches.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Doesn't mean it's not! It is! Personal responsability! Not mooches.


It seems to me that the question should be what's good for the country, not what it might look like. There are worse thing in this world that an undeserving person getting a free meal, like people who really need help starving.

Regardless of where the regulatory blame for the recession might lie, the business community undoubtedly caused it. There's a price to pay for causing a recession, and that's providing social programs to help people live through it.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> In specialized circumstances, where revolutionary and fad products are introduced, advertising can make a difference. For example, we needed to be told that we had to have Hula Hoops. We weren't going to go looking for Hula Hoops without advertising. But you aren't going to get the same results for established products.
> 
> People already know what frying pans are, and they're trying to get a many years out of the pans they already have. Advertising isn't going to change that in a recession.


the fact that I often see TV ads for several brands of "state of the art" frying pans with green coat, blue coats and whatever else proves you wrong.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> It seems to me that the question should be what's good for the country, not what it might look like. There are worse thing in this world that an undeserving person getting a free meal, like people who really need help starving.
> 
> Regardless of where the regulatory blame for the recession might lie, the business community undoubtedly caused it. There's a price to pay for causing a recession, and that's providing social programs to help people live through it.


Really? And gov't didn't have anything to do with it? And people who took out mortgages they had no hope of being able to afford didn't contribute?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> Really? And gov't didn't have anything to do with it? And people who took out mortgages they had no hope of being able to afford didn't contribute?


I never bought the "you didn't restrain me, so it's all your fault" excuse. They knew the risks, and they knew they were over-extended. Only an idiot didn't see that housing prices were artificially inflated. They didn't care and did it anyway.

At the end of the day it was the banks' responsibility to make reasonable business decisions. They didn't do that.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Commie agendas like universal healthcare coverage? It's working extremely well in a lot of countries. They're getting better results than we are.


And its failing or has failed in a lot. I really don't think you would have liked to been treated in a hospital in the USSR in the mid 80s or in Russia today.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It seems to me that the question should be what's good for the country, not what it might look like. There are worse thing in this world that an undeserving person getting a free meal, like people who really need help starving.


So if I see a starving person it would be good for the country it I put a knife to your throat and forced you to give him $10 to buy a meal?




Nevada said:


> Regardless of where the regulatory blame for the recession might lie, the business community undoubtedly caused it. There's a price to pay for causing a recession, and that's providing social programs to help people live through it.


The problem is the government is doing things which aren't its job. Its not its job to say Watcher doesn't have "enough" money therefore we must take some from Nevada to give to him. What that does is make me 1) dependent on the government and 2) vote for the guy who says he will take more from you and it give to me. 

And in your heart of hearts you know that's true.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I never bought the "you didn't restrain me, so it's all your fault" excuse. They knew the risks, and they knew they were over-extended. Only an idiot didn't see that housing prices were artificially inflated. They didn't care and did it anyway.
> 
> At the end of the day it was the banks' responsibility to make reasonable business decisions. They didn't do that.


Its the bank's responsibility to stay in business. When the feds come in and tell you 'We would _like_ you to make more loans to people who everyone knows can't afford to pay them back. . .or else you will find a federal agent on your doorstep.' what's a bank to do? 

You know as well as I do a lot of the people who got these loans would have been "red lined" years ago BECAUSE they couldn't meet the basic requirements for a home loan. But because the red lines went through so many minority areas (because they were the poorer areas) the feds forbid it.

They made the loans then, with the government's blessing because all of them were 'covered' by the government, bundled all these loser loans and sold them as "government backed" investments.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Sure that all started in the ;ate 90's and people just didn't care, never asked, or just said so what, when the arm matures, we can make it. Well they didn't and it just mushroomed fro,m there as more and more ARM's rolled into a much higher monthly payments.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I never bought the "you didn't restrain me, so it's all your fault" excuse. They knew the risks, and they knew they were over-extended. Only an idiot didn't see that housing prices were artificially inflated. They didn't care and did it anyway.
> 
> At the end of the day it was the banks' responsibility to make reasonable business decisions. They didn't do that.


The banks were pushed by the feds to make those loans, but even still, i would have let them go under. They were willing to go along to get along because they knew the gov't would save them.


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

It would seem logical that when people don't spend all of their income and put it in a bank, that it doesn't sit in said bank and gather dust. Those pocket-rockets are loaned out--to folks starting and running business, and to folks buying things, because banks have absolutely no desire to warehouse a bunch of dollars. Its not like it is theirs, and they can only make money by loaning it out which puts it back in play. The assertion that unspent income goes idle doesn't add up, IMO.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

wannabechef said:


> Another rich bashing thread? Really?


OR

Another, the rich all made their money by working hard. 

I've known rich people and they all worked hard.

A rich man never gave me a job - Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> Stef, I have to ask. You have your favorite economic system, and I have mine. Neither of these economic systems are unique. Can you name a country where the economic system you espouse is working or has worked in the past?


Yes Ours before Ronald Reagan gutted it.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

steff bugielski said:


> Yes Ours before Ronald Reagan gutted it.


What parts did you want to put back in?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

my3boys said:


> Sound to me like this guy is smart. He's gets it.
> 
> Okay Steff, think about this. Work with me here. The wealthy get that way by investing their money instead of spending every dime. The idea is to get your money to work for you instead of the other way around. You do that by living below your means, sacrificing the goodies that all your friends are indulging in, and avoiding debt, like credit cards. As your investments grow, you get to make more investments. It's called "growing your wealth".It's being smart with your money. You also assume risk, the amount of that risk depends on how adventurous you are willing to be.
> If you are hit with unexpected expenses or your taxes rise, you spend less, not save less.
> ...


Really. Surely you are wrong. The rich are evil & got that way illegally/immorally. Like that bad guy Rommey.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wannabechef said:


> Another rich bashing thread? Really?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

zant said:


> Hey,I'm going to ask the homeless bum on the corner begging....can I have a job-Stef said you were hiring...I'll get back to you on when I start


 I see a franchise in your future!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's neither true or fair. Many left-leaning people come from wealthy families. While my family wasn't as wealthy as the Romneys, I grew up in privileged surroundings.


Look it up, more wealthy "Ds" than "Rs".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

So obviously d's work harder and are smarter than r's.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> So obviously d's work harder and are smarter than r's.


At using off shore tax accounts! I think most d's inherted their money.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And only the r's are smart and hard working? Stings when your own logic bites , doesn't it?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And only the r's are smart and hard working? Stings when your own logic bites , doesn't it?


Yup, your right. I don't see many hard working liberals who have money or who are intelligent. They prove it every time they speak. No stinging at all!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Warren Buffett , Bill Gates, Paul Allen. What a bunch of liberal slackers.


----------



## belladulcinea (Jun 21, 2006)

Since the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, then couldn't you say that the other root of all evil is the LOVE of other peoples money????

That seems to be the root of all of these types of posts.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

One of the things I love about this country is the number of ways it allows one to achieve success. At the same time I don't necessarily equate success only with the accumulation of wealth. Would I love to have some of the things that great wealth would provide? Yes I would. But the choices I've made have brought me other things no amount of wealth could possibly provide.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Warren Buffett , Bill Gates, Paul Allen. What a bunch of liberal slackers.


Yup, have to agree with you there! Not one of the above is a hard worker.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> One of the things I love about this country is the number of ways it allows one to achieve success. At the same time I don't necessarily equate success only with the accumulation of wealth. Would I love to have some of the things that great wealth would provide? Yes I would. But the choices I've made have brought me other things no amount of wealth could possibly provide.


As you say success is getting what you want. If I have two old items that I want to sell for $10 each and I sell them for $10s I have what I want. If you see the and realize one you have on at home just like them and would love to have a pair and you buy one you have what you want. If someone else sees the second one and realizes it is a rare old thing and he could sell it for $1,000 and buys it he's got what he wanted.

Most people would look at that and say the third guy was the only one to succeed but in my mind all three did.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And the third guy still has to find someone to sell it to. The worth of anything is only that which someone will give you at a specific time.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And the third guy still has to find someone to sell it to. The worth of anything is only that which someone will give you at a specific time.


True but in his mind he is successful.


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> What parts did you want to put back in?


I would start with the saddest thing I have seen a president do. He publicly removed the solar panels that Carter placed on the White House roof. They were paid for and working fine, never again would taxpayers pay for the hot water they provided. But in a true stand with big oil he had them taken down.

Sherman Anti Trust Act. 
Once we started to allow large companies get larger we saw the competition dry up and the largest corporations take hold, too big to fail.

The Fairness Doctrine. 
The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987. Eliminating the law that provided that a broadcast station weather radio or TV provide a public service, both sides of contrasting views. Giving "news" like Fox the ability to lie to it's viewers.

Reagonomics
Reaganomics Key Points: 


The national debt when Ronald Reagan took office was about $1 trillion. That included in it all the debt run up for the Revolutionary war, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war and all the Social wars of the 1930's and subsequent years. In other words it took the United States from 1776 until 1980 or more than 200 years to accumulate a national debt of $1 trillion.

Ronald Reagan left us a national debt of about $3.5 trillion or $3,500 billion.

Given the spending habits established by the legacy of Ronald Reagan the national debt is now a little over $7 trillion!

The interest cost on the national debt now runs about $318 billion a year! When Ronald Reagan took office they were about $53 billion a year.
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/ronald-reagan-the-bad-and-the/


He closed all federally funded mental hospitals returning many of those patients to live on the streets.

WTO
It was the Reagan administration that launched the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in 1986 that lowered global tariffs and created the World Trade Organization. It was his administration that won approval of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1988. That agreement soon expanded to include Mexico in what became the North American Free Trade Agreement, realizing a vision that Reagan first articulated in the 1980 campaign. It was Reagan who vetoed protectionist textile quota bills in 1985 and 1988.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reagan-embraced-free-trade-immigration

Throughout his presidency, Ronald Reagan and his administration have taken free-trade positions. Reagan's July 1981 "Statement on U.S. Trade Policy" pledged to "reduc[e] government barriers to the flow of trade and investment among nations."(3) In 1986 Reagan said, "Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets. I recognize . . . the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.html


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

steff bugielski said:


> The Fairness Doctrine.
> The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987. Eliminating the law that provided that a broadcast station weather radio or TV provide a public service, both sides of contrasting views. Giving "news" like Fox the ability to lie to it's viewers.


It is interesting, and quite telling, that along with your suggested economic policy changes you want to again restrict free speech and silence the voices of those who oppose your way of thinking.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya for sure, we never, ever Want that Fairness Doctrine to ever raise its ugly head again. Never., And I sure would love to see a reincarnated Reagan back in the WH, we NEED someone like that to get this country back on its feet once more.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

steff bugielski said:


> The Fairness Doctrine.
> The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987. Eliminating the law that provided that a broadcast station weather radio or TV provide a public service, both sides of contrasting views. Giving "news" like Fox the ability to lie to it's viewers.


MSNBC tells the truth?? CNN? CBS?

ound:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

steff bugielski said:


> Throughout his presidency, Ronald Reagan and his administration have taken free-trade positions. Reagan's July 1981 "Statement on U.S. Trade Policy" pledged to "reduc[e] government barriers to the flow of trade and investment among nations."(3) In 1986 Reagan said, "Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets. I recognize . . . the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations."
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.html


As much as people whine about trade agreements and although we currently run a trade deficit, the U.S. exports, nearly $1.5 _trillion_ in goods and services, annually.

Should our U.S. Farmers and businesses, be barred from engaging in global trade?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> MSNBC tells the truth?? CNN? CBS?
> 
> ound:


And the thing of it is that would have NO affect on those stations ONLY TALK RADIO would be affected, the left still could spit out all the hatred they wanted without having to have to respond to anything that could be construed as showing the other side of things. 
This is basically just the shut up Rush, shut down Beck, stop Hannity, and all the others that are getting the other side out to the public.
Cause we ALL know it is a FACT that liberal talk radio FAILS, so if the fairness doctrine ever came back all the conservative talk radio stations would go bye bye, cause the left can't keep one on a the air. WHY you ask, cause nobody can stand the hatred and the lies they puke out.
And the MSM left TV Stations could still spew out their nontruths as they would be exempt.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> As much as people whine about trade agreements and although we currently run a trade deficit, the U.S. exports, nearly $1.5 _trillion_ in goods and services, annually.
> 
> Should our U.S. Farmers and businesses, be barred from engaging in global trade?


Yes and that is a Good Thing, as this is forever now a Global Market Place.


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> It is interesting, and quite telling, that along with your suggested economic policy changes you want to again restrict free speech and silence the voices of those who oppose your way of thinking.


Do you even know what the Fairness Doctrine was?

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints.

Free speech had nothing to do with it. Both sides of the story is what it was about.


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> As much as people whine about trade agreements and although we currently run a trade deficit, the U.S. exports, nearly $1.5 _trillion_ in goods and services, annually.
> 
> Should our U.S. Farmers and businesses, be barred from engaging in global trade?



No but we should care more about our companies than theirs. We are the only country involved in the WTO that imposes zero tariffs or VAT taxes.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

steff bugielski said:


> Do you even know what the Fairness Doctrine was?
> 
> The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]
> The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints.
> ...


You really want the GOVERNMENT deciding what's fair when it comes to "controversial matters"? You want the government to have the power to FORCE a station to air something it doesn't agree with?


Say you have a radio station and you run Rush's 3 hr show. Love him or hate him you have to admit the man draws LOTS of listeners. Advertisers know that he draws a lot of listeners which means you can sell the ad time during his show for big bucks. After him you run Hannity's 3 hr, again love him or hate him you have to admit he also has a large audience which means you can sell ad time during his show for lots of money as well.

Suddenly along comes the government comes along and tells you "Because Rush's show deals with "controversial matters" for 3 hrs you have to air 3 hrs worth of the other side right after his show." Now you have to do is find SOMEONE who has a 3 hr show that would be considered 'the other side'. Because history has shown no one wants to listen to any one on 'the other side' your station will have next to no listeners for that 3 hrs. Advertisers know that no one listens to such shows and aren't going to pay much for any ad time during this show. Now because of government interference based on some wacky view of 'free speech' has slashed your income by almost half. How is that fair in any way?

I look at it this way. Fair is you allow stations to play whatever they want and let the market determine what it want's to hear.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And what is being missed this isn't for the TV Networks. as they come under a completely different class. Most news now is opinion based, and that is NOT covered under this Unfairness Doctrine. So the left media will have their own little world to distort the facts KNOWING only one other stations Fox can ever have a chance at a rebuttal to present the "other side of things".


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

steff bugielski said:


> Do you even know what the Fairness Doctrine was?
> 
> The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]
> The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints.
> ...


Yes I know exactly what the fairness doctrine was, it was a violation of the 1st Amendment and really bad policy.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I don't think I support the Fairness Doctrine. 

The trade issues - a bad thing. I don't know about all of our exports - since I don't know what they are. The only one I know anything about is the exportation of grain to Mexico and our paying Mexican farms to not grow grain - so we can sell them our grain.
I just wonder how much of our other exports get that much 'aiding and abetting' from our government. What does that trillion dollars in export cost the taxpayers in subsidies, pay offs to not farm, palm greasing (foreign aid)?

The trade agreements have been great for corporations - and the people in the top branches of them. It has not been good for the American people. 

I also fault him for the amnesty for illegals. That just opened the floodgate and stopped any pretense of enforcement. He and every president since , all responsible, for the numbers. 

When we are arguing about who is responsible for our debt and all the awful SS retirees and welfare - no one is looking or thinking at the tremendous cost of the illegals and the impact they have had on our debt. When you consider their healthcare, housing, food, education - the lack of taxes from their labor - and the amount they siphon off our economy each year to send out of the country - it is staggering. It's easier, though, to blame other Americans. The media and our politicians have sanctioned that.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> So obviously d's work harder and are smarter than r's.


They didn't build that...


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

watcher said:


> You really want the GOVERNMENT deciding what's fair when it comes to "controversial matters"? You want the government to have the power to FORCE a station to air something it doesn't agree with?
> 
> 
> Say you have a radio station and you run Rush's 3 hr show. Love him or hate him you have to admit the man draws LOTS of listeners. Advertisers know that he draws a lot of listeners which means you can sell the ad time during his show for big bucks. After him you run Hannity's 3 hr, again love him or hate him you have to admit he also has a large audience which means you can sell ad time during his show for lots of money as well.
> ...


No I am sorry FAIR is giving the public both sides and letting them decide for themselves.
When 5 corporations own 90% of all media how can a person possibly ever get to hear both sides of the story.

The law never said equal time it only said they needed to offer both sides.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

steff bugielski said:


> No I am sorry FAIR is giving the public both sides and letting them decide for themselves.
> When 5 corporations own 90% of all media how can a person possibly ever get to hear both sides of the story.
> 
> The law never said equal time it only said they needed to offer both sides.


So you would like the government to tell you what to broadcast if you owned your own radio station, even if it meant there were almost zero listeners?


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

Steve L. said:


> > Originally Posted by *steff bugielski* http://www.geekwire.com/2012/controv...k-taxing-rich/
> 
> 
> Read some of it. Looks like a 'chicken or egg' argument, to me.





mmoetc said:


> Steve - the operative word is "can". Marketing can drive demand as evidenced by the myriad of IMO useless goods and services available. In your world products only fail because of bad marketing? Some things are just bad products that no one wants and production of these quickly cease. I've sold enough things in my life in a variety of situations not to believe in "Field of Dream" economics. Build it and they will come.


Above is my first post in this thread. Did you read what I wrote?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

SteveL- yes I did. The problem I have with most chicken or egg arguments is that they leave out that vast grey area between the chicken and the egg. Most things are not entirely black or entirely white, but some gradient in between. This is part of the problem with our society and politics today. People are so locked into one side or the other they refuse to acknowledge the other side might actually have a valid argument or, heaven forbid, a good idea. That brings me back to my emphasis is on the word "may" instead of "does". I have few beliefs in absolutes.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> SteveL- yes I did. The problem I have with most chicken or egg arguments is that they leave out that vast grey area between the chicken and the egg. * Most things are not entirely black or entirely white, but some gradient in between. This is part of the problem with our society and politics today. People are so locked into one side or the other they refuse to acknowledge the other side might actually have a valid argument or, heaven forbid, a good idea.* That brings me back to my emphasis is on the word "may" instead of "does". I have few beliefs in absolutes.


Well, it sounds like we agree more than we disagree. 

Peace.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> SteveL- yes I did. The problem I have with most chicken or egg arguments is that they leave out that vast grey area between the chicken and the egg. Most things are not entirely black or entirely white, but some gradient in between. This is part of the problem with our society and politics today. People are so locked into one side or the other they refuse to acknowledge the other side might actually have a valid argument or, heaven forbid, a good idea. That brings me back to my emphasis is on the word "may" instead of "does". I have few beliefs in absolutes.


Valid point. The side that has been out of power for the last 20 years or so has been the side on the right side of deficit spending, raising the debt ceiling, staying out of foreign wars, and several other issues. 

Mid 90s and the republicans blast Clinton about Bosnia saying the USA doesn't do and shouldn't do nation building. Just a few years later and the Repubs want to do nation building on steroids. 

BO says Bush is unpatriotic for raising the debt ceiling, and then spends, spends, spends once BO has the chance.


----------



## DavisHillFarm (Sep 12, 2008)

wannabechef said:


> So you would like the government to tell you what to broadcast if you owned your own radio station, even if it meant there were almost zero listeners?


There's no doubt in my mind that if Steff owned a radio station, it'd be an NPR affiliate, spewing the great economic wonders of Hugo, Fidel, and Vladimir. As well as the latest developments of women's rights in the democracy movement in Egypt.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I guess being here in Wisconsin I'm spoiled by our state wide public radio network. While I sometimes get frustrated by some hosts biases they, for the most part, do a great job of showing multiple sides of issues. This included allowing all candidates on state wide ballots in the last election an opportunity to come on the air and express their views. Some were intriguing while some proved why they would be unfit for office. Some chose not to participate. More info is always better.(Steve L - there's an absolute for ya).


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> ...More info is always better.(Steve L - there's an absolute for ya).


Too true.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Some rich people just sit on their money, though. If they automate everything, and/or do everything themselves, they aren't creating any jobs. Which, that's fine for them, but it doesn't help the economy out.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> Some rich people just sit on their money, though. If they automate everything, and/or do everything themselves, they aren't creating any jobs. Which, that's fine for them, but it doesn't help the economy out.


Can you find a single wealthy American who sits or sleeps on their money? Or buries it in their back yard in a coffee can? 

No, they invest it in the markets to help the next round of entrepreneurs build businesses.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

deaconjim said:


> It is interesting, and quite telling, that along with your suggested economic policy changes you want to again restrict free speech and silence the voices of those who oppose your way of thinking.


How is MORE speech a restriction and silencing? :shrug:



watcher said:


> You really want the GOVERNMENT deciding what's fair when it comes to "controversial matters"? You want the government to have the power to FORCE a station to air something it doesn't agree with?


LOL they didn't require fairness, just a presentation of the opposing view.
Yes id say thats a fair requirement for letting them use the property of others.




watcher said:


> Say you have a radio station and you run Rush's 3 hr show. Love him or hate him you have to admit the man draws LOTS of listeners. Advertisers know that he draws a lot of listeners which means you can sell the ad time during his show for big bucks. After him you run Hannity's 3 hr, again love him or hate him you have to admit he also has a large audience which means you can sell ad time during his show for lots of money as well.
> 
> Suddenly along comes the government comes along and tells you "Because Rush's show deals with "controversial matters" for 3 hrs you have to air 3 hrs worth of the other side right after his show." Now you have to do is find SOMEONE who has a 3 hr show that would be considered 'the other side'. Because history has shown no one wants to listen to any one on 'the other side' your station will have next to no listeners for that 3 hrs. Advertisers know that no one listens to such shows and aren't going to pay much for any ad time during this show. Now because of government interference based on some wacky view of 'free speech' has slashed your income by almost half. How is that fair in any way?


:umno:
It didnt work that way. First off do you LISTEN to Rush? usually HE PRESENTS THE OTHER SIDE . Sure he does that so he can knock it down but that counts somewhat as airing the other side.
Second and very important there is no requirement for minute by minute equality.[/QUOTE]



watcher said:


> I look at it this way. Fair is you allow stations to play whatever they want and let the market determine what it want's to hear.


LOL now thats silly how will they know what they want to hear till AFTER they have heard it? If nothing is presented theres no demand. 
Of course there is also the problem that if you own the station you are not inclined to serve your market in a way thats against your perceived interests until there is a OVERWHELMING demand that makes it seem profitable enough to be IN your interests! 



wannabechef said:


> So you would like the government to tell you what to broadcast if you owned your own radio station, even if it meant there were almost zero listeners?


Nope but irrelevant. How about this, why is some broadcaster allowed to put what ever they want on MY airwaves?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Some rich people just sit on their money, though. If they automate everything, and/or do everything themselves, they aren't creating any jobs. Which, that's fine for them, but it doesn't help the economy out.


So the question is, do people have a right to do with their money as they see fit, be it donating to charity or hoarding it in a vault?

SOME rich people sit on their money or spend it on themselves, SOME rich people put their money to work, SOME rich people donate their excess money to charity. Isn't that the essence of freedom.....the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

CesumPec said:


> Can you find a single wealthy American who sits or sleeps on their money? Or buries it in their back yard in a coffee can?
> 
> No, they invest it in the markets to help the next round of entrepreneurs build businesses.


So true. They don't just "sit on their money" no way, they find ways to make that money "work". invest, invest, invest, to make even more money. And those investments do lead to more people working as buildings get built, factors get expanded and so forth.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> Can you find a single wealthy American who sits or sleeps on their money? Or buries it in their back yard in a coffee can?


Or stash it overseas.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Or stash it overseas.


Nothing worn g with that make it work harder then it could here. Why because of the rules and regs. that have this country so intrenched in a recession that interest rates are so low, it is just good money management to have money in other places like most EVERYONE does that has a 401.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Well lets all be reasonable here...the rich cannot create anything without a customer base, and for 90% of business out there, that means working class/middle class people. Very few business rely 100% on rich people customers to maintain themselves, and even those rich are dependent upon a customer base that probably consists of middle income folks.

Demand creates opportunity, rich get rich by filling the demand, filling the demand creates employment, which creates more demand... its a mutually beneficial relationship. Neither factor can exist without the other.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Or stash it overseas.


you mean that wealthy people might have an interest in INVESTING their money elsewhere? I wonder why that is?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

CesumPec said:


> Can you find a single wealthy American who sits or sleeps on their money? Or buries it in their back yard in a coffee can?
> 
> No, they invest it in the markets to help the next round of entrepreneurs build businesses.


This is true, and that is helpful. If our economy continues to tax everything to death, soon business will become illegal. As far as I am concerned, this country is crumbling at the foundation.



Txsteader said:


> So the question is, do people have a right to do with their money as they see fit, be it donating to charity or hoarding it in a vault?
> 
> SOME rich people sit on their money or spend it on themselves, SOME rich people put their money to work, SOME rich people donate their excess money to charity. Isn't that the essence of freedom.....the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?


The question was not whether or not I approved of what they do with their money. Your piont is valid. However, I really don't care what they do, just so long as it doesn't involve pushing bad business, killing people, making people sick, lobbying, etc., which is something corporations do quite frequently.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

steff bugielski said:


> No I am sorry FAIR is giving the public both sides and letting them decide for themselves.
> When 5 corporations own 90% of all media how can a person possibly ever get to hear both sides of the story.


You have the RIGHT of free speech. You don't have the right to be listened to. 

Another way to look at it. You pay money to rent a hall to give a speech on how good organic tomatoes are. Should the government be able to force you to allow someone to come up on the stage YOU PAID for and tell the people organic are actually worse than non-organic? How about a third person who says non-organic grown are just as good, not better nor worse, than organic? Why not? Is it not FAIR that the public hear all sides?




steff bugielski said:


> The law never said equal time it only said they needed to offer both sides.


Maybe but would the station not have to allow someone to offer another side fore each and every issue Rush brought up in his broadcast? If he mentioned lighting a cigar wouldn't the station have to allow an anti- tobacco rep have time? If he said he didn't like the fact BC was included in Obama care. Wouldn't the station have to allow a pro BC time? And which rep does the station pic for each. Does the anti have to be government certified?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> Valid point. The side that has been out of power for the last 20 years or so has been the side on the right side of deficit spending, raising the debt ceiling, staying out of foreign wars, and several other issues.
> 
> Mid 90s and the republicans blast Clinton about Bosnia saying the USA doesn't do and shouldn't do nation building. Just a few years later and the Repubs want to do nation building on steroids.
> 
> BO says Bush is unpatriotic for raising the debt ceiling, and then spends, spends, spends once BO has the chance.


Major difference. We had no national interest in Bosnia.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> How is MORE speech a restriction and silencing? :shrug:


Its not more speech. You have to limit the speech of one side because you are forcing them to shut up to allow someone else to speak. Think of the difference in a speech and a debate. In a speech you have all the time you wish to talk and say whatever you wish. In a debate there is a moderator who limits how long you may speak and demand you speak on what he wants.




fantasymaker said:


> LOL they didn't require fairness, just a presentation of the opposing view.
> Yes id say thats a fair requirement for letting them use the property of others.


Defined by who? If you are on the radio and you say its a beautiful day out there should the station be required to let someone come in and say that it isn't? Why not is that not an opposing view? Or are you suggesting the government have a list of things which it will ALLOW opposing views to?




fantasymaker said:


> It didnt work that way. First off do you LISTEN to Rush? usually HE PRESENTS THE OTHER SIDE . Sure he does that so he can knock it down but that counts somewhat as airing the other side.
> Second and very important there is no requirement for minute by minute equality.


So it would be "fair" if at the end of Rush's program the station had someone come on and say "Rush is wrong about the following issues. . ." and give a list the way car ads do at the end (i.e. 300 words in 8 seconds)? 




fantasymaker said:


> LOL now thats silly how will they know what they want to hear till AFTER they have heard it? If nothing is presented theres no demand.


Ever heard of the Air America radio company? Alan Colmes and others have their own shows and it has been proven that there are not enough people who want to hear them to make them profitable therefore they are played in poor time slots. 

Also care to tell me where the demand was BEFORE Rush went on the air?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Or stash it overseas.


In coffee cans? Or is it in banks in other countries allowing them to use it to make their economies better? 

Want people to stop 'stashing' it? Make it more worthwhile to keep it in the US.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Darntootin said:


> Well lets all be reasonable here...the rich cannot create anything without a customer base, and for 90% of business out there, that means working class/middle class people. Very few business rely 100% on rich people customers to maintain themselves, and even those rich are dependent upon a customer base that probably consists of middle income folks.
> 
> Demand creates opportunity, rich get rich by filling the demand, filling the demand creates employment, which creates more demand... its a mutually beneficial relationship. Neither factor can exist without the other.


I agree mostly but there are times when one pushes the other. Example, where was the demand for a pet rock before the supply?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> I agree mostly but there are times when one pushes the other. Example, where was the demand for a pet rock before the supply?


Lik the ad on TV says America invents and sells products that you want, and many you Didn't Even Know You Wanted. 
But they SELL, and some into the millions.
So even if some believe there is Not a Need or a gap to fill some products sell well even If there was no market to start with~
I just through watching a marathon showing of the Show "Pitchman" on Discover America. Anthony Sullivan You KNOW that guy.
And the inventors that make their pitch to sell their products on TV.
And many of them I have seen ads not even knowing they were brought to TV by Sullivan Productions and presented by the company "As Seen On TV Products" owner.
Yuppers they sell Products you didn't even know you wanted.
Til you see the ads on TV. LOL
It DOES Work.
And because it works many others are working MAKING those products to sell on TV. And money trickles down to every aspect of the process that money travels from one person to another one to another one and so on.
That is called Capitalism which is working well in America.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

DavisHillFarm said:


> There's no doubt in my mind that if Steff owned a radio station, it'd be an NPR affiliate, spewing the great economic wonders of Hugo, Fidel, and Vladimir. As well as the latest developments of women's rights in the democracy movement in Egypt.


Abortion and gun grabbing would be on the menu...green energy.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

CesumPec said:


> you mean that wealthy people might have an interest in INVESTING their money elsewhere? I wonder why that is?


Because taxes are just too low here...smart people love paying taxes.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

watcher said:


> You have the RIGHT of free speech. You don't have the right to be listened to.
> 
> Another way to look at it. You pay money to rent a hall to give a speech on how good organic tomatoes are. Should the government be able to force you to allow someone to come up on the stage YOU PAID for and tell the people organic are actually worse than non-organic? How about a third person who says non-organic grown are just as good, not better nor worse, than organic? Why not? Is it not FAIR that the public hear all sides?
> 
> ...


Perfect examples...I'm sure you will hear silence.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

watcher said:


> Maybe but would the station not have to allow someone to offer another side fore each and every issue Rush brought up in his broadcast? If he mentioned lighting a cigar wouldn't the station have to allow an anti- tobacco rep have time? If he said he didn't like the fact BC was included in Obama care. Wouldn't the station have to allow a pro BC time? And which rep does the station pic for each. Does the anti have to be government certified?


The answer to all your questions is,
:umno:


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

watcher said:


> Another way to look at it. You pay money to rent a hall to give a speech on how good organic tomatoes are. Should the government be able to force you to allow someone to come up on the stage YOU PAID for and tell the people organic are actually worse than non-organic? How about a third person who says non-organic grown are just as good, not better nor worse, than organic? Why not? Is it not FAIR that the public hear all sides?


Of course not BUT the owner of the hall would certainly be within their rights to put those conditions in the rental agreement.



watcher said:


> Its not more speech. You have to limit the speech of one side because you are forcing them to shut up to allow someone else to speak. Think of the difference in a speech and a debate. In a speech you have all the time you wish to talk and say whatever you wish. In a debate there is a moderator who limits how long you may speak and demand you speak on what he wants.


Not relevant. In either case you are working with a finite time period, in broadcasting time just goes on.






watcher said:


> Defined by who? If you are on the radio and you say its a beautiful day out there should the station be required to let someone come in and say that it isn't? Why not is that not an opposing view? Or are you suggesting the government have a list of things which it will ALLOW opposing views to?


LOL believe it or not I don't remember a lot of shows about the alternative view of the weather.
Its not a problem the regulators and behind them the courts were pretty realistic.



watcher said:


> So it would be "fair" if at the end of Rush's program the station had someone come on and say "Rush is wrong about the following issues. . ." and give a list the way car ads do at the end (i.e. 300 words in 8 seconds)?


See above.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> The answer to all your questions is,
> :umno:


You might want to check. IIRC, the FD required stations to provide an opportunity for both sides of a controversial issue to be aired. That means if Rush goes on a 5 minute rant about the stupidity of not allowing a restaurant owner to decide if he wants to allowing smoking in his building and someone contacted the station with an opposing view of smoking in restaurants the station would either have to GIVE them air time or risk having the FCC come down on it.

Then after his smoking rant say he went into an abortion rant. Same thing. Then he goes into a WIC rant. Ditto.

At the end of one three hour show the station could have dozens of request for air time via the FD which it would have to go through, decide which to give air time or risk the wraith of the FCC. At the end of an average week there would be hundreds.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> Not relevant. In either case you are working with a finite time period, in broadcasting time just goes on.


Not quite. There are only 1,440 minutes in a day. 

How long do you think any station would be able to stay on the air if it had to allow every one on every side of every issue time to give his opposing view? 





fantasymaker said:


> LOL believe it or not I don't remember a lot of shows about the alternative view of the weather.
> Its not a problem the regulators and behind them the courts were pretty realistic.


Its not supposed to be about shows, its supposed to be about issues. Which is the point. Every issue raised in a show would open the station up to a FD challenge. Say someone is being interviewed. They express a view on abortion, gun control, global warming, hem lines above mid-thigh, dogs as pets, and fishing. That's 6 different issues which someone out there would surely have an opposing view to and could contact the station demanding time via the FD. At which point the station would have to go through the demands, determine if the FCC would fine them if they didn't allow the air time, which of the petitioners would be allowed to speak and for how long. 

How many times do you think the station would deal with this until it stopped doing interviews?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

watcher said:


> Major difference. We had no national interest in Bosnia.


we had/have a national interest in Afghan and Iraq, but that doesn't mean we have to create democracy from whole cloth for them. And I realize had we just bombed and killed all the Taliban we could find in Afghan, we would have had to return periodically to redo the job. Sure beats the heck out of a decade of good troops in a bad place.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> When* 5 corporations own 90% of all media* how can a person possibly ever get to hear both sides of the story.


That can't be true, because that would mean *"rich people*" *provide all those jobs.* and you already told us *they don't do that* at all


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

watcher said:


> Major difference. We had no national interest in Bosnia.


Does that mean they didn't have any oil they didn't want to sell us?

But, I thought we went to war to save people -


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

And it is the fact that many Americans are only listening to one side of every story that we are in the terrible shape we are in.
I am so glad that we have a Democratic President and Senate.
Many of you have no idea as to what is really going one.
Hannity simply will never tell you the truth.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> You have the RIGHT of free speech. You don't have the right to be listened to.
> 
> Another way to look at it. You pay money to rent a hall to give a speech on how good organic tomatoes are. Should the government be able to force you to allow someone to come up on the stage YOU PAID for and tell the people organic are actually worse than non-organic? How about a third person who says non-organic grown are just as good, not better nor worse, than organic? Why not? Is it not FAIR that the public hear all sides?
> 
> ...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

steff bugielski said:


> And it is the fact that many Americans are only listening to one side of every story that we are in the terrible shape we are in.
> I am so glad that we have a Democratic President and Senate.
> Many of you have no idea as to what is really going one.
> Hannity simply will never tell you the truth.


 And I am so glad that we have FOX NEWS to let us know how the left is getting things done most via working around the constitution and in the late night hours behind LOCKED DOORS. So much for a transparent administration.
And shoving things through before anybody has the time to READ a BILL. 
Boy what a way to operate a government that is SUPPOSE to be,
"Government Of The People, By The People, For The People"


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

watcher said:


> You might want to check. IIRC, the FD required stations to provide an opportunity for both sides of a controversial issue to be aired. That means if Rush goes on a 5 minute rant about the stupidity of not allowing a restaurant owner to decide if he wants to allowing smoking in his building and someone contacted the station with an opposing view of smoking in restaurants the station would either have to GIVE them air time or risk having the FCC come down on it.
> 
> Then after his smoking rant say he went into an abortion rant. Same thing. Then he goes into a WIC rant. Ditto.
> 
> At the end of one three hour show the station could have dozens of request for air time via the FD which it would have to go through, decide which to give air time or risk the wraith of the FCC. At the end of an average week there would be hundreds.





watcher said:


> Not quite. There are only 1,440 minutes in a day.
> 
> How long do you think any station would be able to stay on the air if it had to allow every one on every side of every issue time to give his opposing view?
> 
> ...


:umno:
Come on now I think you are old enough to remember how it ACTUALLY worked. 
But for those here that unlike you and me haven't seen the top of the hill yet I will explain how it worked.
There was no requirement to air opposing views in a minute for minute format. NEITHER was there a requirement to let EVERYONE with a opposing view have their time.
What happened was that there would be the occasional opposing view in the same time slot or during the news but often the channel would run a public service opposing view show.......at about 3 am Sunday morning.

Id say thats pretty cheep for the amount of money they make off the public.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

CesumPec said:


> Can you find a single wealthy American who sits or sleeps on their money? Or buries it in their back yard in a coffee can?
> 
> No, they invest it in the markets to help the next round of entrepreneurs build businesses.


 PROVE IT!
LOL just exactly how do you know that there isnt a single wealthy person that does that ?
Id be willing to bet that anyone who does that keeps it pretty quiet!:shrug:


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

watcher said:


> I agree mostly but there are times when one pushes the other. Example, where was the demand for a pet rock before the supply?



There was a demand for a novel gag product, if there wasn't, then nobody would have bought the pet rock. Supply follows demand, supply cannot create a demand. If it did, then I could stay home and make houses out of popsickle sticks, building them would create a demand and I could sell them. There has to be a demand first. Even if the product didn't exist before there has to be a need or a desire for the role that the product could fill. Like home computers..they created them which some people would say created a demand, but there already was a demand for what the computer could do...keep records, play games, process letters, etc

Supply cannot create a demand, otherwise we could simply create anything...mud pies, popsickle stick houses, etc And people would buy them.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

fantasymaker said:


> PROVE IT!
> LOL just exactly how do you know that there isnt a single wealthy person that does that ?
> Id be willing to bet that anyone who does that keeps it pretty quiet!:shrug:


I certainly can't prove there isn't a single wealthy rich person sleeping on a mattress filled with a few hundred million dollars. I'm wondering why you think that was worthy of mentioning. 

The investment industry, with it's trillions of dollars of assets proves that the vast majority of money is invested in the markets. You really don't think before you post, do you?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

steff bugielski said:


> And it is the fact that many Americans are only listening to one side of every story that we are in the terrible shape we are in.


How do you know many Americans are listening to only one side and in enough numbers to cause the problems of America. I watch Fox, FoxBiz, MSNBC, CNN, and occasionally one of the big three broadcasters. I like to see what all sides are saying. 

How does it cause our problems? Our gov't is out of control in both spending and regulating beyond constitutional powers. Isn't it nice to have adversarial news outlets no matter who sits in the White House?


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> How do you know many Americans are listening to only one side and in enough numbers to cause the problems of America. I watch Fox, FoxBiz, MSNBC, CNN, and occasionally one of the big three broadcasters. I like to see what all sides are saying.
> 
> How does it cause our problems? Our gov't is out of control in both spending and regulating beyond constitutional powers. Isn't it nice to have adversarial news outlets no matter who sits in the White House?


Same here add to that Reuters, BBC, Al Jazera and Univision.. :whistlin:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> we had/have a national interest in Afghan and Iraq, but that doesn't mean we have to create democracy from whole cloth for them. And I realize had we just bombed and killed all the Taliban we could find in Afghan, we would have had to return periodically to redo the job. Sure beats the heck out of a decade of good troops in a bad place.


We have a legal requirement, based on international law, to provide a stable government before we leave. We could have set up a monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship or a puppet government but that's not our style. We, at used to, believe in individual freedom and a government which provides that.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Trixie said:


> Does that mean they didn't have any oil they didn't want to sell us?


No oil, no lithium, no gold, no strategic location, no threat to us or anything else.




Trixie said:


> But, I thought we went to war to save people -


If you think that you are a fool. There are way too many places where one group of people are killing another for us to save them all and you can't save people who don't want to be saved.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

steff bugielski said:


> And it is the fact that many Americans are only listening to one side of every story that we are in the terrible shape we are in.
> I am so glad that we have a Democratic President and Senate.
> Many of you have no idea as to what is really going one.
> Hannity simply will never tell you the truth.


I read news from many sources both US and international. I can tell you if you are only getting your news from US sources you are NOT getting the real story.

I can tell you this bit of truth. Do you realize the United States has not had a budget in three (3) years? Do you realize Obama has REPEADELY broken the law? He is required, BY LAW, to submit a budget by the first Monday in February. He had one it one time in the 4 years he's been in office and is going to break that law again.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> :umno:
> Come on now I think you are old enough to remember how it ACTUALLY worked.
> But for those here that unlike you and me haven't seen the top of the hill yet I will explain how it worked.
> There was no requirement to air opposing views in a minute for minute format. NEITHER was there a requirement to let EVERYONE with a opposing view have their time.
> ...


Yes I do. The station was required to respond to EACH complaint. There were no guidelines on what issues the station was required to provide an opposing view to and there were huge fines, up to loss of licenses, if the station didn't provide an opposing view. 

If a listener sent in a written complaint stating he opposed the stated view that not allowing smoking in restaurants is stupid. The station would have to decide if they might face FCC sanctions if the station did not provide an opposing view. If they received several letters then the odds are the station would be scared enough of the FCC to give time to the other side.

In today's "social network" society how difficult do you think it would be for a group to send dozens of letters a day to any station in the US?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Darntootin said:


> There was a demand for a novel gag product, if there wasn't, then nobody would have bought the pet rock. Supply follows demand, supply cannot create a demand. If it did, then I could stay home and make houses out of popsickle sticks, building them would create a demand and I could sell them. There has to be a demand first. Even if the product didn't exist before there has to be a need or a desire for the role that the product could fill. Like home computers..they created them which some people would say created a demand, but there already was a demand for what the computer could do...keep records, play games, process letters, etc
> 
> Supply cannot create a demand, otherwise we could simply create anything...mud pies, popsickle stick houses, etc And people would buy them.


Wrong. Ever heard the term "impulse buy"? Sometimes people buy something only because its there. They didn't come into the store thinking "I need a candy bar." but because there was supply at the check out they bought one.

People didn't demand that someone provide a rock in a "cage" so they could keep it as a "pet". Someone thought it was funny so he supplied them hoping he would sell them. Once people saw them they thought they were cute/funny and bought them. As more people saw them more people wanted them. At that point demand started driving supply. 

No one did a study and discovered there was a demand for pet rocks.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

watcher said:


> We have a legal requirement, based on international law, to provide a stable government before we leave. We could have set up a monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship or a puppet government but that's not our style. We, at used to, believe in individual freedom and a government which provides that.


I normally agree with you but not this time. We have no legal requirement we didn't decide to agree to. And while I'm pro-democracy, it can't be forced on people because that would be undemocratic.


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

CesumPec said:


> How do you know many Americans are listening to only one side and in enough numbers to cause the problems of America. I watch Fox, FoxBiz, MSNBC, CNN, and occasionally one of the big three broadcasters. I like to see what all sides are saying.
> 
> How does it cause our problems? Our gov't is out of control in both spending and regulating beyond constitutional powers. Isn't it nice to have adversarial news outlets no matter who sits in the White House?


If you noticed I said *MANY* not all.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

steff bugielski said:


> If you noticed I said *MANY* not all.


if you noticed I said *MANY* as well and you didn't answer any of my questions?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> And I am so glad that we have FOX NEWS to let us know how the left is getting things done most via working around the constitution and in the late night hours behind LOCKED DOORS. So much for a transparent administration.
> And shoving things through before anybody has the time to READ a BILL.
> Boy what a way to operate a government that is SUPPOSE to be,
> "Government Of The People, By The People, For The People"


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> I read news from many sources both US and international. I can tell you if you are only getting your news from US sources you are NOT getting the real story.
> 
> I can tell you this bit of truth. Do you realize the United States has not had a budget in three (3) years? Do you realize Obama has REPEADELY broken the law? He is required, BY LAW, to submit a budget by the first Monday in February. He had one it one time in the 4 years he's been in office and is going to break that law again.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

steff bugielski said:


> If you noticed I said *MANY* not all.


And you're still wrong. B/c I think you mean MOST. If just 'many' listen ONLY to FOX, there'd be no discussion.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

CesumPec said:


> I certainly can't prove there isn't a single wealthy rich person sleeping on a mattress filled with a few hundred million dollars. I'm wondering why you think that was worthy of mentioning.


LOL you brought it up!



CesumPec said:


> The investment industry, with it's trillions of dollars of assets proves that the vast majority of money is invested in the markets. You really don't think before you post, do you?


 So now your changing your point? And I dont think before I post?


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

watcher said:


> Yes I do. The station was required to respond to EACH complaint. There were no guidelines on what issues the station was required to provide an opposing view to and there were huge fines, up to loss of licenses, if the station didn't provide an opposing view.
> 
> If a listener sent in a written complaint stating he opposed the stated view that not allowing smoking in restaurants is stupid. The station would have to decide if they might face FCC sanctions if the station did not provide an opposing view. If they received several letters then the odds are the station would be scared enough of the FCC to give time to the other side.
> 
> In today's "social network" society how difficult do you think it would be for a group to send dozens of letters a day to any station in the US?


See it worked pretty well , left things pretty much at the stations discretion and is a VERY cheap requirement o use my property.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> I normally agree with you but not this time. We have no legal requirement we didn't decide to agree to. And while I'm pro-democracy, it can't be forced on people because that would be undemocratic.


According to international law the victor in a war is legally required to provide a stable government for the nation before the victor leaves.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> See it worked pretty well , left things pretty much at the stations discretion and is a VERY cheap requirement o use my property.


When dealing with the federal government do you err on the side of caution or not? If you had a tax deduction which is questionable and knew there was a good chance the IRS was going to audit you would you take the risk of facing the wrath of the IRS or play it safe and not take the deduction?


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

watcher said:


> When dealing with the federal government do you err on the side of caution or not? If you had a tax deduction which is questionable and knew there was a good chance the IRS was going to audit you would you take the risk of facing the wrath of the IRS or play it safe and not take the deduction?


Id take the deduction.........LOL did you really have to ask?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

watcher said:


> According to international law the victor in a war is legally required to provide a stable government for the nation before the victor leaves.


Who passed this law?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

fantasymaker said:


> LOL you brought it up!
> 
> 
> So now your changing your point? And I dont think before I post?



Your first statement is factually incorrect, all you have to do is back up in this thread to see that. 

As to your first question, no, I'm proving my point. 

Really, Fantasy, i don't know if you are incapable of following a thread or just decide it isn't worth your time to post something relevant and simply prefer to troll, but I can't recall a time your posts were worthy of discussion.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> Who passed this law?


Among other places, it's part of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

_Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Does it have teeth? Yes, we hanged violators retroactively. Germans violated international law before the law existed, and were executed for doing so.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> Who passed this law?


Its in several treaties the congress of the US has ratified over the years.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Among other places, it's part of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
> 
> _Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers._
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
> ...


Thanks, I _really_ didn't want to dig up the relevant treaties.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

watcher said:


> Its in several treaties the congress of the US has ratified over the years.


fair enough. But who certifies Afghan is sufficiently rehabbed for us to leave? The same org that said the Soviets had done enough? 

And since Afghan is in pretty much the same shape it was within a year or two of us going in, there is little chance of it getting much better, time to go. And I say that in spite of my best bud who did 3 tours as Green Beret in Afghan, who thinks we can make it a beacon of democracy if we just stay there another 20 years. He says we've won the kids, we just have to wait for them to grow up and take power. He lost so many friends over there he can't bear to see their sacrifice go for naught. 

I don't want to spend the lives or dollars it will take.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

CesumPec said:


> Really, Fantasy, i don't know if you are incapable of following a thread or just decide it isn't worth your time to post something relevant and simply prefer to troll, but I can't recall a time your posts were worthy of discussion.


Odd that you seem to be the only one with that view.:angel:


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> *BEE ESS*.
> 
> Venture Capitalists and other "rich people", certainly do "create jobs", when they take the risk and put up the money, to form new businesses, usually rather large in scope.
> 
> ...


................The JOBS they're creating are being filled by lots of different nationalities , other than American citizens ! , fordy


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> fair enough. But who certifies Afghan is sufficiently rehabbed for us to leave?


The people building & operating the TAP pipeline.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

fantasymaker said:


> Odd that you seem to be the only one with that view.:angel:


LOL - thanks for that


----------



## zito (Dec 21, 2006)

steff bugielski said:


> No but we should care more about our companies than theirs. We are the only country involved in the WTO that imposes zero tariffs or VAT taxes.


Hello softwood lumber imports from Canada. And that's only the first thing that came to mind, because it's been such a huge point of contention between our countries for so many years. Seeing as how you like to make a point of how knowledgeable and well informed you are, can't believe you missed that (and the umpteen other tariffs in place)


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

zito said:


> Hello softwood lumber imports from Canada. And that's only the first thing that came to mind, because it's been such a huge point of contention between our countries for so many years. Seeing as how you like to make a point of how knowledgeable and well informed you are, can't believe you missed that (and the umpteen other tariffs in place)


Wow lumber, not even really a manufacturing job now is it.

EPI International Economist Robert Scott calculates that 2.4 million American jobs were lost between 2001 and 2008 as a result of increased trade with China.
http://www.epi.org/publication/counting_the_jobs_lost_to_china/

Three weeks ago, Dawn Zimmer became a statistic. Laid off from her job assembling trucks at Freightliner's plant in Portland, Ore., she and 800 of her colleagues joined a long line of U.S. manufacturing workers who have lost jobs in recent years. A total of 3.2 million -- one in six factory jobs -- have disappeared since the start of 2000. Many people believe those jobs will never come back.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-04-20-4155011268_x.htm


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

steff bugielski said:


> Wow lumber, not even really a manufacturing job now is it.


I've seen lots of tree farms, but I don't think I've ever seen 2x4s growing in a field, nor have I ever seen a plywood farm.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> fair enough. But who certifies Afghan is sufficiently rehabbed for us to leave? The same org that said the Soviets had done enough?


The same people who decide if a nation has committed war crimes, which leaving before a stable government is established would be.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

How off topic do we have to get? 
Have we decided who DOES create jobs? Not the rich? So the POOR create the jobs? Some are gonna say the gob't. 
Hah. WE PAY those salaries. Whether we like it or not.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

steff bugielski said:


> Wow lumber, not even really a manufacturing job now is it.


From the guy with the chain saw on lumber is a HUGE manufacturing job. THOUSANDS of jobs.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

fantasymaker said:


> From the guy with the chain saw on lumber is a HUGE manufacturing job. THOUSANDS of jobs.


I had a 2x4 farm .Not many know the cost of growing 2x4's just the saw blade was over a thousand dollars each tooth in it was $4.00 hit just one nail and watch your money go fast . :shrug:

Most think 2x4's grow at Home Depo maybe i should looked there before i bought a skidder two loaders a few chainsaws ,trucks and a sawmill :shrug:


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

LOL Jim I didnt think of it at first but I just might have a 2x4 farm....perhaps with a bit of luck I might get a few 4x4 out of this timber!


----------

