|
QuarkJets posted:"Hey guys, I'm just going to ignore all of these absolutely crushing rebuttals to my half-baked arguments, hope that's cool" There wasn't an intelligent rebuttal in there. Seriously. And even I have limits for repeating inane economic realities. Feel free to re-ask anything so we can waste our time reading it a second time. quote:Yes, of course there is demand for things that no one has created yet. No one disagrees with that. That's kind of obvious, really, but at no point did any of your arguments even come close to suggesting this. I agree. Part of what's made the recent posting inane is that my notion of infinite demand is the exact thing that you're stating "no one disagrees with". Which is obviously true. quote:You're using the "government budgets should be run like household budgets" fallacy except applied to businesses. Furthermore, when my income rises I tend to throw the extra bit into a mutual fund like a loving adult, what is wrong with you? Well lets be clear. First that's one year of revenue for what it's worth. Second, Apple is an outlier in saving that much. But that said, it's absolutely true that excessive savings in general could unbalance the financial system. We both know economic history - crisis do happen, but so does overall long term growth. That means that generally businesses use money to expand. If they didn't, we'd still be at pre-industrial economic levels. Janitors are somewhat separate. With janitors there is still a cost/benefit equation which the cash savings doesn't necessarily change. But wages do. VitalSigns posted:Then whether it is true that you would consume more if you had more money/things were cheaper does not mean that someone who is already insanely wealthy will do the same. You can't just generalize from your self to "the rich" or "business" Actually, data clearly indicates they do spend additional earnings. Just at a lower rate than poor people. Apple hoarding money is the opposite of them giving it to rich people.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
To be fair, he doesnt' really follow along. He more copy pastes applicable arguments that sometimes match up. At least ASDF's brand crazy is 100% original. Though they both share the opinion that saying they are right counts as a rebuttal, so there is that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Apple hoarding money is the opposite of them giving it to rich people. Okay so now what you are saying is that if shareholders are able to cut wages by 50%, they will pocket the difference instead of investing it in hiring more labor and building more factories. Yes, this is how it works. You realize Apple is owned by the shareholders right? That's what a stock share is: a share of ownership. The difference between money sitting in Apple's bank account and money sitting in the majority shareholders' bank accounts is not meaningful. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
I seriously long for the return of jrod. zxcv54, where did you get your economics education? It was a minor you didn't pay much attention to, yes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Sounds like Peter Schiff's radio show at this point.asdf32 posted:There wasn't an intelligent rebuttal in there. Seriously. And even I have limits for repeating inane economic realities. Feel free to re-ask anything so we can waste our time reading it a second time. I agree that repeating anything would be a waste of time, since anytime you have no answer to a rebuttal you just say "Oh I don't want to talk about that" or "No you can't use that it's not fair" or "I've already asserted the opposite" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Good description of what would happen if employers got what they wanted in terms of wages. So it's a good thing we have a market to drive wages up instead! We don't. That's the point. We have had for at least the last century and for the foreseeable future an over abundance of unskilled labour. Outside of specific situations like resource boomtowns, there is no upward pressure on labour markets, only down. The minimum wage policies in place helped address this, but lack of legislation to mandate increases to match inflation have seen effective base wages decrease. This, combined with the recession of 2008 and various unsavory practices like unpaid internships, has erode the consumer purchasing power of the US and many Western Nations to the point where it is cutting into business sales. This pattern was observed several times during industrial Britain. It is bad. For everyone. I mean, gently caress, guys, I was pretty clear wasn't I?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:I mean, gently caress, guys, I was pretty clear wasn't I? Doesn't matter; if I agreed with you that might lead to a poor person not starving to death and we can't have that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Because of repatriation taxes. Once again Series DD Funding makes stellar contributions to a thread. Do you agree with asdf32's premise, that companies expand their spending to use up all available capital? Or are you just talking out of your rear end as usual.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The difference between money sitting in Apple's bank account and money sitting in the majority shareholders' bank accounts is not meaningful. Yes it is. A dollar in Apple's bank account is being loaned out by a bank, which has to invest conservatively to preserve bank balances. When Apple (indirectly) gives it back to the shareholders, they can spend it or invest it in whatever fits their profile. Apple doesn't leave money sitting around, because that lowers their earnings ratios and makes their stock a poorer investment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
You're begging the question. The assumption that directing money to shareholders instead of workers will increase spending and investment is the issue being debated. "But maybe THOSE rich people will buy capital assets and expand production" is not an answer to the observation that owners are lining their pockets instead of hiring as asdf32 claims businesses always want to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
I don't understand why you people are getting enraged over some pretty basic mechanisms of high finance. Y'alls seem to be trying to treat the "cash reserves" (one hell of a euphemism really) of a multinational corporation as if it works the same as My First Piggybank; which doesn't work for the same reason that running a country's budget like a household budget doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I don't understand why you people are getting enraged over some pretty basic mechanisms of high finance. Y'alls seem to be trying to treat the "cash reserves" (one hell of a euphemism really) of a multinational corporation as if it works the same as My First Piggybank; which doesn't work for the same reason that running a country's budget like a household budget doesn't work. no, we are addressing the fact that corporate cash reserves do nothing but accumulate most of the time, when if a larger portion of revenues were paid out to workers instead of siphoned off as profits, there would be greater consumer purchasing power instead of slackening demand as is being seen. While it's true that cash reserves in banks are utilized for loans, consumer spending cannot be based on loans alone, hinges on banks being willing to lend (which is situations where increased consumer spending would be most needed, they are usually not), and has huge issues related to accumulated household debt of average consumers, which cannot be sustained and can precipitate lending crunches when interest rates kick up and people invariably default. Simply put, a great deal of the money that gets earmarked for dividends, stock buybacks or just plain old hoarding in bank accounts would be a hell of a lot more useful to society in the hands of workers, as better compensation. Too much of our productive output goes to the top, more of it needs to go to the bottom right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
I was just contesting the premise that companies hire people based purely on available capital. Because that's ridiculous. Any more pedants want to quibble on side issues?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Yes it is. A dollar in Apple's bank account is being loaned out by a bank Not all investment is created equal. Typical business cash reserves are often held in money market or similar b2b lending accounts to ensure liquidity. While this is a form of investment and helps a healthy economy due to providing day to day finance liquidity, it is not a massive economic growth driver as it creates offsetting debt obligation and returns are used to pad ridiculous bank bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Not all investment is created equal. Typical business cash reserves are often held in money market or similar b2b lending accounts to ensure liquidity. While this is a form of investment and helps a healthy economy due to providing day to day finance liquidity, it is not a massive economic growth driver as it creates offsetting debt obligation and returns are used to pad ridiculous bank bonuses. i was just going to ask the question you just answered so I'm going to just quote you instead, kthx
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There wasn't an intelligent rebuttal in there. it's hard to have an intelligent rebuttal to a completely idiotic question. when a child insists that the sun and a campfire work the same way because they're both bright and hot, it doesn't take a genius to point out realities that a slightly older child would already know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Not all investment is created equal. Typical business cash reserves are often held in money market or similar b2b lending accounts to ensure liquidity. While this is a form of investment and helps a healthy economy due to providing day to day finance liquidity, it is not a massive economic growth driver as it creates offsetting debt obligation and returns are used to pad ridiculous bank bonuses. It doesn't matter. Inequality and aggregate demand are distinct things. Inequality has been a decades long trend that's proven durable across a range of financial conditions. Finite piles of "cash" are not a solution to decades long trends. To the extent they're related, they're symptoms of deeper structural problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Haha wow. Some inequality is durable, yes, but the level of it is quite clearly malleable and correlates strongly with a number of things. Wage stagnation, caused in part by things like slackened minimum wages and globalisation; de-regulation of the financial markets; de-industrialisation; the rolling back of welfare programs and of progressive taxation, etc.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Inequality is due to poor time preference (ie: laziness and irresponsibility) That's what causes inequality. Sudden, inexplicable, national attacks of laziness. American workers haven't been this lazy and irresponsible since the Gilded Age  This has nothing to do with policy. The only policy that works is to tell people not to be so loving lazy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Haha wow. Some inequality is durable, yes, but the level of it is quite clearly malleable and correlates strongly with a number of things. Wage stagnation, caused in part by things like slackened minimum wages and globalisation; de-regulation of the financial markets; de-industrialisation; the rolling back of welfare programs and of progressive taxation, etc. Globization and deindustrialization being clearly structural and exactly what I'm talking about. If you actually think minimum wage factors at a global level you're kidding yourself. The others in the list I'd place in between, but significantly below the first one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Globization and deindustrialization being clearly structural and exactly what I'm talking about. yeah i can't think how the buying power of tens of millions of people in the richest country in the world could affect the global economy, either. it's not like americans buy food or manufactured goods from other countries, haha
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:00
|
|
asdf32 posted:Globization and deindustrialization being clearly structural and exactly what I'm talking about. Who says we're talking about the global level? That Globalisation is making a lot (but not all) poor countries richer while it deadens low-wage earners in western countries is a favourite conservative talking point, but it's also to some extent full of poo poo. Even high-wage, high-skill workers have done badly out of rising inequality in the economy in rich economies, and it's almost entirely to do with domestic economic policy. Decreased inequality in major western economies would not result in suddenly Africans starving harder and is desirable. On a domestic level these things obviously have an effect, but they're part of a broader complex. Policy manifestly has a major impact.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Who says we're talking about the global level? Because the subject will be changed anytime an anti-minimum-wage talking point is proven false.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Who says we're talking about the global level? That Globalisation is making a lot (but not all) poor countries richer while it deadens low-wage earners in western countries is a favourite conservative talking point, but it's also to some extent full of poo poo. Even high-wage, high-skill workers have done badly out of rising inequality in the economy in rich economies, and it's almost entirely to do with domestic economic policy. Decreased inequality in major western economies would not result in suddenly Africans starving harder and is desirable. To be clear increasing inequality is a trend across the west. So that's a great clue for its global structural nature. Policy has an impact, we can see different countries being affected in different ways. But first it's important to grasp the underlying problem. People who are ranting about corporate savings and other financial policy are failing that test. It's feel good politics at best, economic illiteracy at worst.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It doesn't matter. Inequality and aggregate demand are distinct things. Inequality has been a decades long trend that's proven durable across a range of financial conditions. Finite piles of "cash" are not a solution to decades long trends. To the extent they're related, they're symptoms of deeper structural problems. What the gently caress does this even have to do with what I said? Did you just see "big bonuses" and melt down or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:To be clear increasing inequality is a trend across the west. So that's a great clue for its global structural nature. Policy has an impact, we can see different countries being affected in different ways. But first it's important to grasp the underlying problem. Oh no we failed a test you made up that has no bearing on how things work. Oh no. Also the guy who said "demand is basically infinite" calling others economic illiterate, lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:20
|
|
asdf32 posted:To be clear increasing inequality is a trend across the west. So that's a great clue for its global structural nature. Policy has an impact, we can see different countries being affected in different ways. But first it's important to grasp the underlying problem. You're a moron. You only see the half of the equation you want to see because it's the only half that yields to your worldview. I'm sorry, but globalisation does not have to result in wage stagnation for 80% of western workers - that could definitely be mitigated through policy.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You're a moron. You only see the half of the equation you want to see because it's the only half that yields to your worldview. I'm sorry, but globalisation does not have to result in wage stagnation for 80% of western workers - that could definitely be mitigated through policy. Correct. By policy which recognizes that as the problem. You never disagree with me anywhere near as much as you seem to want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:31
|
|
asdf32 posted:Correct. By policy which recognizes that as the problem. Lol. Not just by policy that recognises it as the problem, because it's not the only problem. With the policy in place we have had for the last 30 years in the UK and the US, wages would have tended in that direction either way, just not as violently. Have you considered this may be because you are inept?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
And given your clear ideological preferences, it's hard not to suspect that what you have in mind as a solution is very different from me. So what would you do about stagnant wages?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:And given your clear ideological preferences, it's hard not to suspect that what you have in mind as a solution is very different from me. Higher taxes for the rich and increased direct spending by government on things like research, education and infrastructure has always been my preferred starting point. It also needs to be recognized that healthcare spending (in the US anyways) ranks almost as high as anything else in terms of robbing the middle and lower class of a higher standard of living.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Yeah so you're just inept then.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
it's important to remember that asdf isn't actually a libertarian or really a subscriber to any sort of coherent political notion, it's just an idiot who can't stop posting extremely wrong things
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Would still enjoy an elaboration on this:asdf32 posted:All aspects of production are costly including capital. The relationship between capital costs and labor costs alone changes the employment equation without even factoring in demand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Would still enjoy an elaboration on this: Don't know what to elaborate on. Labor and capital both present continuous costs which get re-evaluated on an ongoing basis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Don't know what to elaborate on. Labor and capital both present continuous costs which get re-evaluated on an ongoing basis. "don't know enough to elaborate. i thought it sounded nice, but the underlying mechanisms of economics are beyond my exceptionally limited ken"
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:no, we are addressing the fact that corporate cash reserves do nothing but accumulate most of the time, when if a larger portion of revenues were paid out to workers instead of siphoned off as profits, there would be greater consumer purchasing power instead of slackening demand as is being seen. While it's true that cash reserves in banks are utilized for loans, consumer spending cannot be based on loans alone, hinges on banks being willing to lend (which is situations where increased consumer spending would be most needed, they are usually not), and has huge issues related to accumulated household debt of average consumers, which cannot be sustained and can precipitate lending crunches when interest rates kick up and people invariably default. Apple's "workers" are primarily high paid tech guys in the states and extremely low paid Chinese factory workers. There would be minimal benefit in the US from higher salaries to the already quite well off general workers, and the workers in China are under contract to another company and as such Apple would never pay them more directly. Then there's about 60,000 workers in the Apple stores around the world, but increasing their pay to say a minimum of $15 an hour would barely make a dent into their cash reserves that you seem so upset about, on average in the US at least they get $9 or $10 an hour starting pay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:it's important to remember that asdf isn't actually a libertarian or really a subscriber to any sort of coherent political notion, it's just an idiot who can't stop posting extremely wrong things Which is, to be honest, not a huge distinction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Apple's "workers" are primarily high paid tech guys in the states and extremely low paid Chinese factory workers. There would be minimal benefit in the US from higher salaries to the already quite well off general workers, and the workers in China are under contract to another company and as such Apple would never pay them more directly. What argument do you think you're having? fishmech I'm worried about you I think you're regressing. You were doing so well in the bitcoin thread too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Apple's "workers" are primarily high paid tech guys in the states and extremely low paid Chinese factory workers. There would be minimal benefit in the US from higher salaries to the already quite well off general workers, and the workers in China are under contract to another company and as such Apple would never pay them more directly. I don't think the point is to drain the cash reserves just to drain them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 19:18
|
|