Florida ain't broke, but you can break public education in order to give rich people tax breaks, while still breaking the budget.

No demand = no jobs. That's why we need to raise wages to create jobs.

All raising wages without raising productivity does is raise inflation, which leads to higher interest rates, which stagnates growth along with reducing demand, which leads to workers demanding even higher wages because their money is worth less, which leads back to even higher inflation........

It's a vicious fucking circle, if you had lived through the Carter years you might have an inkling as to what I am talking about.

Employers do not hire people out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it to make a profit. They have NO ABILITY to make a profit, unless somebody BUYS something. It's the basic premise of the Labor Theory of Value.

What's more amusing is GaG confusing a recession caused by overproduction with stagflation. What he may not realize is that interest rates were increased intentionally in order to dry up the credit markets. This was necessary because there had been too much debt creation (government borrowing) that had resulted from the Vietnam War.  

What's more amusing is that he doesn't seem to understand that new debt creation is the primary cause of inflation. And surprise, surprise, new debt creation goes DOWN when wages go up. Why? Because you don't need to borrow money when you have money in your pocket.

Consumers account for some 70% of all demand in this economy. Right now, consumers don't have any money. They can't spend because they're broke. Therefore no jobs.

because I believe you are absolutely correct, and to go one step further, not only the rich are risk takers.

Rich people obviously have better access capital which makes it easier for them to create jobs if they so choose, but millions of jobs are created by ordinary people willing to take a chance on themselves. I am the living proof.

Wage pressure creates inflation, no one with an ounce of brains can dispute that. What needs to come with any increases in wages is proportionate increases in productivity or the wage gains are simply illusionary, not to mention transitory as prices quickly rise and ultmately outpace any raises in wages.

RICH PEOPLE DO!!!

And right now the country needs JOBS!!!!

Something the Dems seem unable to figure out.

When you're recovering from a recession caused by overproduction, you need not worry about increasing supply when wages are raised. There's plenty of unsold goods sitting on shelves collecting dust right now. That last thing we need is more of it.

When you have a backlog of supply, raising wages is going to increase profits. Furthermore, raising wages would increase our GDP, which would also increase profits. Take your own advice about thinking these things through. Jobs have gone overseas because of our trade policy.

When you start off with false premises, it's no wonder that you end up with ridiculous conclusions.

VC's create jobs. People willing to put up or shut up create jobs. People willing to create markets for their products create jobs. Waiting for the financial markets or the govt to create jobs is a loosing and unsustainable proposition.

In your first post you said we needed to increase wages, and now in this post you say that Employers hire people to make profits.

Wages that are too high kills profits, and therfore jobs...

You really need to think these things through to their logical conclusion...

Why do you think so many jobs have gone overseas??

real estate meltdown. Speculators used  overvalued real estate paper laundered through complicated  financial transactions that obscured the weakness of the original loans to place bets with and lost. The financial markets became contaminated with this weak paper and lost value rapidly. Segments of the capitalist class attempted to liquidate their assets and came up short. They then blackmailed the feds into bailing them out. That brings us up to today. As I type this message VCs are buying the original paper at between 20 and 70 cents on the dollar. It was a neat trick. Perceived value was traded for real money and then the perception was devalued. It was classic bait and switch.

Commies have to earn their money too and in my experience the best way to do it is to take your own risks. That way you cut out the middle men.

that creates consumers. Teachers are the key to it's success. Poor uneducated people have little value as consumers.

-- Modified on 3/8/2011 9:14:06 AM

Fire their ass.

Having been in retail for 30 years, my observations are mostly anecdotal.

1) Being poor doesn't necessarily mean they're uneducated; nor does being uneducated mean they're automatically poor.

2) The poor uneducated, and the poor, and (sometimes) the uneducated don't buy most of the big ticket items.

3) Consumers means those that "acquire goods or services for direct use or ownership rather than for resale or use in production and manufacturing." (dictionary meaning)

Okay, this is where I had to look up things. Apparently the GDP is made up of 4 groups (private consumption, investments, net exports, and government expenditures). Private consumption is the largest of these groups. According to more articles than I could adequately understand, personal spending accounts for between 60% and 76% of consumer spending (rather disparate figures).

I know, I know, you already know this (as does most of those reading these boards). But, I'm getting to my point. Back to anecdotal and personal observation:

While the people in point 2 don't buy many big-ticket items, they DO buy a lot of little items (including groceries, toys, fishing gear, beads, alcohol, magazines, clothing and shoes, etc.) which build up into a huge quantity of STUFF. (A bit like stalagmites; built from the drops coming from above and building up toward the ceiling.)

So, I don't agree that the people in point 2 have little value as consumers. As consumers, they're terrific spenders.

Now, if you want to say they have little value in the overall scheme of the Golden Rule (whoever has the gold makes the rules) then I agree with you there.

As for teachers, IF they're doing their jobs CORRECTLY, then yes they add future value to their students and therefore value to their own future. However, unfortunately, most teachers and teaching curriculum only teach toward several tests. They don't teach critical thinking or how money actually works or most of the dozen or more things we all use to make our way through life. Heck, most of that had gone by the wayside by the time I was in elementary school.

What I've learned has been the bits and pieces I've picked up along the way of just living.

-- Modified on 3/8/2011 12:26:55 PM

Here is a link that might help you grasp that statement. Even if you home schooled a kid it is still education. Someone has to educate children. Those people are generally known as teachers.

In the end, neither education or money will make you happy.

Geez Willy!! You're really losing it now...

There is no oversupply!! People are losing their jobs and cannot get new ones because companies are not hiring. Its not because of all the inventory on the shelves. Its because the cost of employees is too damn high!!

...Or Keynes take on it.

And I guess, Snow, it's just a media fastasy that there are millions of vacant homes in the USA.

http://www.therealestatebloggers.com/housing-general/18-4-million-vacant-homes-in-the-u-s-a/

The housing crisis has it's origins in "affirmitive action for housing". The system worked quite well for generations, people saved their money, put up a 20% dowmn payment, and bought a house. For most people this became their biggest and most cherished asset. It was also part of the "American Dream"

What happened in the nineties under Clinton was that it was deemed "unfair" that poor people couldn't own homes too, thus began a Ponzi scheme that made Bernie Madoff look like small postatos. It continued under Bush, and perhaps was made even worse through the actions of that administration, but it started under Clinton and had/has nothing to do with oversupply.

as usual you are just reaching for something to support an argument that you just pulled out of your ass, and you wonder why I call you a liar?

on the banks and Wall Street.

     The banks did not have to make loans with 10% or worse down; they did not have to provide stated income loans - i.e., loans to borrowers who could not prove they had any income - and they certainly did not have to assign the loans to investors like me who were clueless about the quality of the underlying loan.

    The loosening of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae guarantees certainly provided an incentive for banks to depart from the time honored 20% down but they acted for their own profit motives. And the government didn't make BOA buy Countrywide.
     
    If Ken Lewis had not bought Country Wide which was involved with more residential mortgages than anyone, I would not have spent the last three years in Bank of America prison.

Any bank executives that questioned the wisdom of giving loans to obviously unqualified borrowers were quickly shouted down by board members that would lose their jobs is their insitution didn't keep pace with all the others. American businesses are very short sighted, quarterly profits are paramount to keeping share prices up.  Passing on "easy money" is the easiest way for an exec to get fired, and any exec who didn't make these type of loans was sure to be shit canned.

Obviously the banks share in the culpability here, but the root cause came from government. Banks are supposed to be greedy, the government is not supposed to encourage corporations from acting recklessly, which they most assuredly did.

As to your situation, you have been in a prison of your own making. You were free to take your loss and invest your remaining capital in another issue, you chose to ride out BofA, much like many daytraders ended up being investors because they were to stubborn to unwind their losing positions.

I am NOT going to take a loss on this stock.

    At least St. Croix is my cellmate now. It was kind of lonely till he bought in.

Of course with your luck, the best thing you could do  for me is to short oil. It might put you in the poor house, but I'd be more than happy to spend some of my "ill gotten wealth" on a few more bottles of Krug to dull your pain.

Speaking of making money, I finally hit a lottery ticket. I bet against Nova yesterday and eschewed the 89 1/2 points and took the +425 money line instead. Parlayed it with the over and after being down by 16 at half cashed in for almost ten to one on a two team parlay, cha ching. Truth be told, I've been getting killed in sports betting the last week or so, I needed a break.

that I don't get.

     Having spent about $30,000 to bring my cost per share from 46 to 17, I would be cray to bail out now. I just need about a $2.50 rise and I can start my escape plan.

       I am shocked you would bet against Villanova. C'mon, you must know NOTHING about basketball if you picked USF, except that somehow you were right LOL . Thank goodness I'm not in Vegas or I would piled the money on Nova.

and this was their fifth straight loss.

I don't claim to be any kind of NCAA hoops guru, but betting against a team that comes into the tournament losing four in a row isn't that big a reach, especially when you are getting +425.

As for B of A you are really making a rookie mistake by marrying this issue. Sometimes you just need to take your loss and move on. The worst losses most investors will ever incure are those when they feel they just "can't" sell. Even if you get back to even, the lost opportunities of what you "could have" done with that money, still make you a net loser.

It's the hardest thing for most investors to learn, and some never do, but you need to learn how to dump your losers before you become married to them or have the resolve to "go all in" when you think they have bottomed.

Based on your math, you only appear to have around three or four thousand shares. What you need to ask yourself is "can you put that 60 grand or so to better use?" If the answer is no, then hang on to your B of A stock, but if the answer is yes, dump your loser, take the loss and put your money back to work or else you could be sitting on "dead money" for an eternity.

Perhaps if you knew someyhign about economics instead of just trying to parrot others, you would realize that a single commodity like a hosue does not make a market. especially one that is bought on average only once in seven years....

HEY!! I'VE GOT AN IDEA, IF YOU WANT TO GRAB STUFF FROM THE INTERNET, WHY DON;T  YOU TELL US AGAIN ABOUT THAT RESTAUARNT OWNER WHO REFUSED TO SERVE THE GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN!!!

I know that raising wages doesn't increase PROFITS.

Profit, in case you forgot, is what's "left over" after you consider all the costs that went into making and distributing and selling the product, idea or service.

If it costs $0.50 to make something (including distribution and fees and so on) and you buy it for $1 for your store and you sell it for $1.50, your GROSS profit is $0.50. BUT, then you must subtract workers' wages, cost of the brick-n-mortar place, shipping fees and on and on; your NET profit is whatever is left over. That NET profit might be a mere $0.02.

Raising workers' wages might bring down that NET to MINUS $0.02, thereby putting the company in the red. After awhile, that red ink, even at -$0.02, will kill a company. If a company is in the red too long, it dies - even with product on the shelves.

It's a terribly simplified, sophomoric version of all that goes into business, but WW, you don't seem to grasp even THIS much: A business that doesn't consistently make a PROFIT (not just sales, but PROFIT) doesn't survive.  

-- Modified on 3/9/2011 1:37:25 PM

As the risk then remains with the banks (dissolve Mac/Mae) what regulations will change to allow the GOV to continue to insure savings and more poor loans (to the banks themselves) and not once again transfer the risk of failure to the tax payer?

Liquidity  ...geeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzz

I do not understand how a person (called a bank) is permitted to leverage their(actually my) capital to the tune of 30 to one.

Dam they must be awfully good risk takers/job creationists, ..................with someone else's money.