Veta: "People don't create jobs - demand creates jobs."

I disagree completely. And I believe Steve Jobs would completely agree as well. Did demand create Apple? Did demand create Microsoft. Did demand create WalMart? The answer is no. If you were to ask any of the owners of these businesses why they created their businesses they would not say demand.

Any starving person would clearly understand that demand doesn't create food. Well demand doesn't create jobs either. Demand doesn't create anything.

Veta: "This has been made quite evident by the lack of any evidence suggesting that the tax cuts of the last 30 years have invigorated the economy."

Really? I want to see this data. You are claiming that tax cuts did zip for the economy; that makes zero sense. Show me this data asap.

Veta: "So for the last time - consumption (demand) creates jobs - not the other way around. A business can't just expand and expect clients to appear out of nowhere."

Once again; this is false. Was there demand for iPad's before there was an iPad? No. Demand doesn't always come before supply; in fact; some of the greatest companies and products known to man had supply before demand.

Btw; you should read Steve Jobs' autobiography. I think he actually has a fairly bad name for this way of thinking.

Veta: "I would say that a difference of 30 percent is pretty significant - but what do I know. That being said a payroll tax holiday is also temporary. It's not suggesting that simply cutting taxes would produce a 1.29 multiplier. It actually says that the Bush tax cuts produce a .29 multiplier. So your point about the food stamps being temporary and the payroll holiday not being temporary doesn't really make sense - but I'm sure it was just a misunderstanding."

Yes a payroll tax holiday is temporary. You are missing the point though. Money earned by a producer is not temporary. Money earned by an investor is not temporary. It is used to create more wealth and more products. These products then create wealth and jobs. Giving money to a food stamp recipient doesn't produce jobs or new products; it maybe at best produces a bunch of chicken nuggets and some diapers.

Veta: "You must be familiar with the notion that tax cuts after a certain point actually damage the economy right?"

No I am not familiar with this. Please send me the source of this information. If it is Economics 101 it should be simple. This simply doesn't pass the sniff test. Government doesn't create economic growth; government can only stifle economic growth or leave it alone and let it grow. There is nothing else they can do.

Veta: "Not really, I think you have it a bit twisted. The idea is basically this: at a certain point as you accrue more and more wealth you will stop needing to spend a large portion of your wealth on basic necessities - in fact after a certain point you will be unable to spend your wealth as quickly as you accrue it (See: Warren Buffet and the other 400 highest income earners of the USA). Remember that the top 400 richest Americans have more wealth than half of America combined. And it's not because they're 100 million times smarter, athletic, talented or good looking."

Sure; rich people spend less of their income then poor people. Duh. This isn't news to me. However your conclusions are all based on an antiquated view of the world. Wealth is not a zero some game. It isn't a pie; where if someone has 3/4s of it then only 1/4 is left. Wealth is something that can be created and destroyed. If I start a company and produce a new product; I have created wealth where it did not exist before. You view of the world is one where rich people must be opposed because they have too much of the pie. This is simply incorrect.

Why does it bother you that the 400 richest Americans have so much? Why don't you name those people. I bet you consume their products every single day of your life. Ride in their cars; use their computers; drink their soda; eat their food. Envy is not a virtue. Try ambition.

Veta: "So once again, the claim in this Congressional Testimony is that yes, when you take money away from people that aren't spending a large portion of their marginal income and give it to people that spending a much larger portion of their marginal income you in essence create more spending."

Ding ding ding. That's exactly what I thought you were saying; except you added the word "spending" instead of GDP. Don't hide behind the word spending. You clearly imply that taking money from one person and giving it to another INCREASES GDP. This is ridiculous.

Veta: "And spending in turn creates more demand which creates more jobs."

Nope; read above.

Veta: "Keep in mind it's not the other way around, jobs don't create demand and that's why you don't see millionaires hiring as many people as they can - it's simply not a sound business practice. However if the public at large has more disposable income then the demand for your business' goods or services may increase and that in turn may lead to you hiring more people and expanding to make your business even more lucrative."

You analogy is just flat out misleading. No one is saying millionaires just hire random people. No they invest in companies; such as my own. I produce products; create demand; hire employees.

But; wait; clearly it would be better off if we just knocked the millionaire on the head stole the money and bought some food stamps. Clearly.

Veta: "So yes tax cuts to business owners during a boom may effectively boost the economy but this will have little effect during a recession, the former is probably why we are experiencing the latter now though."

Or maybe we are experiencing this recession because they have no idea what they are doing and they spent all our money on food stamps.... just saying...

ME: {{Are you trying to tell me that some how the economy would be on fire if only we all gave our money to food stamps. }}
Veta: I think if we employed an aggregated 50 percent of the types of spending that FDR's administration employed the economy would be on fire right now, yes.

Just answer my question; because I'm interested if you actually believe it. Are you trying to tell me that some how the economy would be on fire if only we all gave our money to food stamps? That is clearly what your numbers say; so do you stand by them or not?

Veta: "Jack up taxes on the highest income earners, spend that money on creating jobs (instead of cutting government jobs) and that will in turn create more demand which will create private sector jobs. It's like a positive feedback cycle."

Wait I'm confused now... create government jobs; so that we create demand? So tax the millionaire; sorry no investment for my business. Create government jobs; which then creates demand. Didn't you just say demand creates jobs? Not the other way around? Oh but wait it get's better. Tax millionaire; create government jobs; which in turn creates demand; which in turn creates jobs! Brilliant! Obviously I'm being sarcastic here.

Veta: "As far as your comment about Moody and the housing bubble I don't think that's a fair criticism to make unless you saw the housing bubble yourself and published an article about it suggesting its crash. Hindsight is 20/20, most people didn't see the stock market crash of 1929 but it was pretty obvious it was going to happen looking at the signs now isn't it."

Austrian economists predicted the housing market. It is clearly documented. Ron Paul predicted it; Marc Faber predicted it; Peter Schiff predicted it; Mises institute predicted it. But yes; in Keynesian circles; no one saw it coming.

Veta: "Lastly, I hope I don't need to reiterate that if Moody for some reason lied about these statistics they would be committing perjury and would be punishable to the fullest extent of the law (not because they lied about a blow job) but because they mislead the US government on matters of economic security.

Also I don't see a real reason for moody to lie here - it's not like they gain anything from the government investing heavily in foodstamps - if anything they would gain more from tax cuts (which had the worst multipliers here)."

I'm not saying Moody's is lying; I'm saying they are wrong... again.

Btw; search "demand creates jobs" and look at the top search results. Not economic articles.

www.thomhartmann.com

www.democraticunderground.com

Obviously not a scientific study; but funny nonetheless.

Btw; here is Ron Paul predicting the housing market in 2002.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/

Totally give him props; because you clearly state that it is very difficult to predict such things; well holy shit; he predicted it 6 years early! I'm sure you'll vote for him now.

Thanks dead for the numbers.

These are one-year multipliers only. Obviously the spending figures will have a head start since a multiplier is measured from the beginning of spending. In theory a balanced budget multiplier (an increase in spending and an equal increase in taxes) will have a magnitude of 1, but only if the spending increase causes unemployed resources to be put to work. If those resources have been hired from some other use, the multiplier is zero. Also, for either the private investment multiplier or the government investment multiplier, depreciation will eventually increase and eat up the gains and the long run values will be zero.

I'm just gonna tag along with what deadcode says in all his posts here. He's right and veta has proved once again that the only thing is really good for is to be an inflamed, uninformed, uneducated, immature, and easily influenced youngster that the left preys on.

Newt's a fool, but FDR didn't get us out of the recession. In fact his meddling extended the depression for longer than it should have gone on for. Obama isn't even as good as FDR so we are in for it and have been suffering mightily under his heavy handed, authoritarian rule.

in my opinion newt is the most flawed of all the candidates, and would be the best possible nominee for dems.

{{I disagree completely. And I believe Steve Jobs would completely agree as well. Did demand create Apple? Did demand create Microsoft. Did demand create WalMart? The answer is no. If you were to ask any of the owners of these businesses why they created their businesses they would not say demand. }}

Demand did create Mac, obviously. Further more you can differentiate between potential demand and kinetic demand. Potential demand would be demand that is untapped - for instance the demand for affordable hovercrafts or cybernetic limbs. Kinetic demand would be apparent demand - like the demand for fuel, food, clothes, etc. Steve Jobs was also a progressive - so that's a terrible example. Anyway, the same is true of Microsoft and the potential demand for powerful operating systems.

Walmart was ENTIRELY founded on kinetic demand. Walmart didn't invent any new products - it simply provided them at a lower cost. If the demand didn't exist for Walmart to be profitable nobody would invest in Walmart - or if they did, it would fail.

{{Any starving person would clearly understand that demand doesn't create food. Well demand doesn't create jobs either. Demand doesn't create anything. }}

That doesn't even make sense. Yes if you have disposable income and you're starving (i.e. have a great demand for food) then the free market will provide you food for a premium. If the market is unable to provide you food for logistical reasons then demand is not great enough for firms to profitably provide you with food. It's really that simple - demand creates the incentive for business and that is what creates jobs.


{{Veta: "This has been made quite evident by the lack of any evidence suggesting that the tax cuts of the last 30 years have invigorated the economy."

Really? I want to see this data. You are claiming that tax cuts did zip for the economy; that makes zero sense. Show me this data asap. }}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

Trust me, it gets even more stark in contrast when you add in the 100th percentile. But I'm sure you've seen these graphs plenty. As you can seen, the middle percentiles' household incomes have hardly risen while the generally accepted workforce for a household has grown (fathers and mothers having jobs now). The only people that profitted from the economic growth of the last 30 years have been the rich. And that's not by accident, that was intended.

{{Veta: "So for the last time - consumption (demand) creates jobs - not the other way around. A business can't just expand and expect clients to appear out of nowhere."

Once again; this is false. Was there demand for iPad's before there was an iPad? No. Demand doesn't always come before supply; in fact; some of the greatest companies and products known to man had supply before demand. }}

Once again, there is a demand for products that have yet to be invented, like the demand for telecommunications technology and its subsequent invention and success. The same is true of things like the HIV vaccine - currently there is a ton of capital being invested into such a vaccine - nobody would invest in something like that unless they thought there would be a profit.

You have this poor understanding of what supply and demand actually are - I highly suggest you take microeconomics at a local university.

{{Yes a payroll tax holiday is temporary. You are missing the point though. Money earned by a producer is not temporary. Money earned by an investor is not temporary. It is used to create more wealth and more products. These products then create wealth and jobs. Giving money to a food stamp recipient doesn't produce jobs or new products; it maybe at best produces a bunch of chicken nuggets and some diapers. }}

Except when they don't... like now. The economy isn't doing poorly because the supply money dried up - it's doing poorly because nobody is spending the disposable income they have - or those that would spend money don't have any to spend.

This is the crux of what keynes argued - he noted that markets sensed their own momentum. When a market was on the up and up this would fuel it to boom... until it bust. Likewise, when a market was collapsing its own collapse would further deteriorate it. That is what is happening right now, people with money aren't spending money. Tax cuts do not work as incentives and are not working as incentives if they did, why are we in a recession with taxes at historical lows? The reason is because there is no demand. If there was demand, that is to say if people had more disposable income, then you would be likely to see economic growth as a result of the potential profits to be made in various markets.

{{Veta: "You must be familiar with the notion that tax cuts after a certain point actually damage the economy right?"

No I am not familiar with this. Please send me the source of this information. If it is Economics 101 it should be simple. This simply doesn't pass the sniff test. Government doesn't create economic growth; government can only stifle economic growth or leave it alone and let it grow. There is nothing else they can do. }}

Read this then: it's put much more succinctly than I could put it.

Referring to your next point though, what the fuck do you think got us out of the great recession? It wasn't spontaneous growth. It was an injection of government capital into the hands of those who would spend it - and spend it they did. They spent it on food, clothes, cars, homes, appliances, etc. What you don't understand is that tax cuts simply turn money from a tradeable good (this is assuming money by the government will be spent) to a liquid good that does not need to be traded, like bonds. Bonds and sitting mounds of money don't produce anything. Spending money however does produce measurable demand which in turn creates incentive for businesses to grow which in turn feeds the cycle positively.

{{Sure; rich people spend less of their income then poor people. Duh. This isn't news to me. However your conclusions are all based on an antiquated view of the world. Wealth is not a zero some game. It isn't a pie; where if someone has 3/4s of it then only 1/4 is left. Wealth is something that can be created and destroyed. If I start a company and produce a new product; I have created wealth where it did not exist before. You view of the world is one where rich people must be opposed because they have too much of the pie. This is simply incorrect. }}

The point is that if the rich, say 1/100 of the population, have 3/4ths of the pie and only spend about 5/100 of the pie a year then the rest of the pie is just sitting there not being put into the economy. How big can the economy get if only 30/100 of the pie is being spent a year. Not very big, especially when that top 1/100th of the population controls the means of production and funnels wealth back to itself. Ultimately you have a negative feedback cycle - the result of which is a richer and richer elite and a poorer and poorer everyone else. It's about protecting citizens from wealth condensation. Citizens have a right to not be economically suffocated by other citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_concentration

{{Why does it bother you that the 400 richest Americans have so much? Why don't you name those people. I bet you consume their products every single day of your life. Ride in their cars; use their computers; drink their soda; eat their food. Envy is not a virtue. Try ambition. }}

The same reason it bothered FDR and Teddy Roosevelt. The Forbes 400 is listed publicly I don't need to name them - if you like you can look them up. By in large their super wealth has either accrued from wealth condensation (because of our modern tax policies) or by ill gotten gain. That's what I have a problem with. I don't have a problem with Rockefeller and his success in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But I do have a problem with his abuse of regional monopolies, undercutting competition only to price gouge, and the wealth condensation (and corresponding economic suffocation of others) that had to occur for him to become as wealthy as he did.

If Rockefeller worked 1 billion times harder than the average person then I would think it just that he made 1 billion times more - this was not the case. I, unlike you, believe in a just society - a society that protects you from economic threats, national threats, and financial threats.

{{Veta: "So once again, the claim in this Congressional Testimony is that yes, when you take money away from people that aren't spending a large portion of their marginal income and give it to people that spending a much larger portion of their marginal income you in essence create more spending."

Ding ding ding. That's exactly what I thought you were saying; except you added the word "spending" instead of GDP. Don't hide behind the word spending. You clearly imply that taking money from one person and giving it to another INCREASES GDP. This is ridiculous. }}

No, I mean it creates more spending. That spending in turn becomes measurable demand and that in turn creates an incentive for firms to get involved in different markets - or for innovative products to become profitable. The latter in turn creates jobs and growth in GDP.

Don't get so elated when you misinterpret and strawman someone's position. Anyone can do that. But I hope you better understand how this works now.

{{Veta: "And spending in turn creates more demand which creates more jobs."

Nope; read above. }}

Yes, read above. It's hilarious that you don't understand potential and kinetic demand though.

{{Veta: "Keep in mind it's not the other way around, jobs don't create demand and that's why you don't see millionaires hiring as many people as they can - it's simply not a sound business practice. However if the public at large has more disposable income then the demand for your business' goods or services may increase and that in turn may lead to you hiring more people and expanding to make your business even more lucrative."

You analogy is just flat out misleading. No one is saying millionaires just hire random people. No they invest in companies; such as my own. I produce products; create demand; hire employees. }}

Okay, millionaires don't just invest in companies randomly. The point is there has to be a profit motive for investment in anything. If there is no profit motive, then why invest - why expand a business if there is no more market to saturate? That's the point. The only option is to either expand the market or saturate new markets. We are living in times of a global economy and we have already saturated the available markets so our only option is to try to put more money back in the hands of consumers in order for the domestic market to grow and ultimately create incentives for business expansion and job creation.

{{But; wait; clearly it would be better off if we just knocked the millionaire on the head stole the money and bought some food stamps. Clearly.}}

If you took all of a millionaire who only spends 1 percent of his or her wealth a year, took half of it and gave it to the destitute this would in fact increase the spending in a given year -> which would cause an increase in measurable demand -> which could create incentive for businesses to expand or be created -> which would create jobs -> which would increase disposable income among the population and likely spending -> and thus the cycle would repeat. And guess what, that millionaire would still be a millionaire living very comfortably.

I don't advocate the above but it's pretty indisputable economic reasoning.

{{Veta: "So yes tax cuts to business owners during a boom may effectively boost the economy but this will have little effect during a recession, the former is probably why we are experiencing the latter now though."

Or maybe we are experiencing this recession because they have no idea what they are doing and they spent all our money on food stamps.... just saying... }}

If that were the case then the multiplier for marginal dollars spent on food stamps wouldn't be the fucking highest among all government spending. I know you're kidding but this needs to be set straight.

{{Veta: I think if we employed an aggregated 50 percent of the types of spending that FDR's administration employed the economy would be on fire right now, yes.

Just answer my question; because I'm interested if you actually believe it. Are you trying to tell me that some how the economy would be on fire if only we all gave our money to food stamps? That is clearly what your numbers say; so do you stand by them or not? }}

I think that the evidence clearly indicates that if we invested more in food stamps it would help us more than hurt us - by creating .73 cents of additional wealth per dollar spent. Remember these are marginal figures - logically they should decrease the more you invest in them, which is why tax cuts for instance are at .29. I'm sure 50 years ago tax cuts had a multiplier over 1.00. Today that is not the case and in fact the entire justification for tax cuts is that their collective multiplier would be over 1.00. If it's below 1.00 then we need to hike up taxes to protect the economically vulnerable (i.e. those that do not control the modes of production).

{{Veta: "Jack up taxes on the highest income earners, spend that money on creating jobs (instead of cutting government jobs) and that will in turn create more demand which will create private sector jobs. It's like a positive feedback cycle."

Wait I'm confused now... create government jobs; so that we create demand? So tax the millionaire; sorry no investment for my business. Create government jobs; which then creates demand. Didn't you just say demand creates jobs? Not the other way around? Oh but wait it get's better. Tax millionaire; create government jobs; which in turn creates demand; which in turn creates jobs! Brilliant! Obviously I'm being sarcastic here. }}

It doesn't matter who creates the jobs, the government or the private sector. Keynes correctly argued that the market does not distinguish between money earned from a government paycheck and money earned from a private paycheck. However, when the private sector isn't creating jobs and maintaining the economy it is the job of the government to fill this role until the private sector is back on its feet. Your business will not receive investment regardless of whether the ultrawealthy are taxed more or not - this is because when the economy is in a downswing there is no potential profit to be made. Your fledgling business is not profitable in this economic environment - unless it is. Then you will receive investment. But if the vast majority of business expansion or creation isn't profitable then it is the duty of the government to act as an economic flywheel on the market and increase disposable income -> which increases measurable demand -> which in turn creates incentives for businesses to expand -> which creates jobs -> which allows the private sector to take over a large portion of the economy during its recovery until ultimately the temporary spending increases of the government are no longer necessary.

I'll note, you can lower taxes to boost an economy only when taxes are high enough that they impede investment - at our historically low rates decreasing the tax rate further would only make the economically weak even more vulnerable and would only serve to siphon even more wealth up to the wealthiest 1 percent.

Ergo, we need to increase the top marginal tax brackets to more reasonable rates. Then we need to put that revenue in the hands of those who will spend it. That's how you fix the economy. What the fuck is your plan - do nothing? End the fed? Really? So you have no plan that will effectively help spur economic growth. We just went through explaining how we are at historic lows for the top tax rates and we are seeing zero growth for it - I also explained to you how there is zero benefit for millionaires to expand businesses or invest into new businesses if there is no potential demand. You can't create a car factory, pay those workers in the factory and expect to make a profit off of the workers you paid to produce your vehicles. That's a closed system and would ultimately shrink your net wealth. That's why it's the government's job in times of economic crisis to halt this shrinking of national wealth and to inject it with disposable income and measurable demand.

{{Austrian economists predicted the housing market. It is clearly documented. Ron Paul predicted it; Marc Faber predicted it; Peter Schiff predicted it; Mises institute predicted it. But yes; in Keynesian circles; no one saw it coming.}}

Except Krugman, and all those other keynesians that did? It wasn't hard to see coming as you said yourself - a lot of people didn't want to see it coming. And the administration in charge, who probably did see it coming, didn't want to deal with. Remember GWB went through a record amount of economic advisers, over a dozen.

{{I'm not saying Moody's is lying; I'm saying they are wrong... again. }}

So if evidence contradicts your view you simply dismiss it as wrong. This is laughable - I think we're done here.

{{Btw; here is Ron Paul predicting the housing market in 2002.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/ }}

Here's Krugman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo4ExWEAl_ He predicted the bubble 7 years ago. And noted in 2002 that Greenspan would incentivize the creation of a housing bubble after the Nasdaq bubble to make up for moribund business spending.

{{Totally give him props; because you clearly state that it is very difficult to predict such things; }}

Where exactly do I state that?

{{well holy shit; he predicted it 6 years early! I'm sure you'll vote for him now.}}

I'm sure you'll write-in Krugman now (who, unlike Paul, isn't a racist).

REVISION to this part of my post:


{{Veta: "This has been made quite evident by the lack of any evidence suggesting that the tax cuts of the last 30 years have invigorated the economy."

Really? I want to see this data. You are claiming that tax cuts did zip for the economy; that makes zero sense. Show me this data asap. }}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

Revision: This answers your question more directly, it dissects the statement that trickle down economics does not work while the wikipedia graph just demonstrates that wages stagnated despite taxes falling since the 80s.

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

This link has an in depth explanation of tax cuts and their correlating GDP growth, job growth, average income changes, etc. It explains by the numbers why trickle down economics does not work.

Veta: "Demand did create Mac, obviously. Further more you can differentiate between potential demand and kinetic demand. Potential demand would be demand that is untapped - for instance the demand for affordable hovercrafts or cybernetic limbs."

You actually just proved my point for me without even noticing. You say there is demand for affordable hovercrafts and cybernetic limbs. Well if there is demand for these things; and your theory is that demand creates jobs. Where are the affordable hovercraft jobs; and the cybernetic limb jobs? Obviously demand is not enough to create jobs is it? What is missing? Supply!

Veta: "Steve Jobs was also a progressive - so that's a terrible example."

Why would Steve Jobs be a terrible example? He disagrees with your claim that "demand creates jobs". His political leanings mean nothing. Plus Steve Jobs was pretty apolitical. This is very well documented.

"Steve Jobs was a world improver.

Unlike many folks who strive to improve the world, however, he doesn't seem to have believed that government was the path to improvement.:
Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/44801531/Steve_Jobs_Heroically_Resisted_Politics

Steve didn't believe that government was the path to improvement. Sounds more like Reagan then Barack Obama. Steve may have been a traditional democrat; but clearly a progressive he was not. Anyway it is irrelevant; but seeing as you didn't do the research; I figured I would.

"He (Steve Jobs) told Obama that the United States needed to become more business-friendly if it did not want to lose its edge. He talked about how much easier it was to build a factory in China than in the U.S., where there were too many regulations and needless costs. And he complained about the U.S. education system, saying unions protected bad teachers and kept principals from hiring good ones."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/steve-jobs-biography-jobs-warned-obama-hed-term/story?id=14786074#.TvqkmkqJPgo

Doesn't sound like a progressive to me. Like I said before; try reading his biography. You "demand" for Steve Jobs to be progressive... created nothing. Sorry couldn't resist. :p

Veta: "Walmart didn't invent any new products - it simply provided them at a lower cost."

SIMPLY!?!? Wow what hubris. Please add Sam Walton's biography to your reading list.

ME: {{ Really? I want to see this data. You are claiming that tax cuts did zip for the economy; that makes zero sense. Show me this data asap. }}

Veta: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg";

Why are you showing me a chart of Income Distribution? You made the claim that tax cuts did zip for the ECONOMY. And as proof you show me Income Distribution? I'm confused... are you saying that Income Distribution is the metric used to determine the strength of the economy? I'm pretty sure; you are looking for GDP.

Btw; as a student of economics; I'm sure you would agree that inflation also causes income to flow from the poor to the rich. Now please go find that GDP chart; so we can judge your initial claim; which is dubious at best; IMO.

Veta: "Once again, there is a demand for products that have yet to be invented, like the demand for telecommunications technology and its subsequent invention and success."

Wow with all this demand for all these products that don't exist. We must have tons of jobs... Why doesn't all this demand create jobs like you spoke of earlier? Perhaps there is something to say about this "supply" thing.

Veta: "The same is true of things like the HIV vaccine ... nobody would invest in something like that unless they thought there would be a profit."

Well except maybe someone who has AIDS. Or knows someone with AIDS. Or watches TV. Or has a conscience. Or really likes microbiology. Or wants to be famous. Or has a great idea that no one has tried. Or maybe just plain has a passion for solving problems and changing the world.

Here is a paradox for you. You know the old question of; if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there; does the tree make a sound?

Well... If a man starts a company hires people to create a product and ABSOLUTELY no one buys it. Did those jobs exist? By your definition they clearly could not because demand creates jobs; and clearly there wasn't any.

Veta: "You have this poor understanding of what supply and demand actually are - I highly suggest you take microeconomics at a local university."

Once again; I own a company; I employ people; I create products; People buy them.

You wake up in the morning with a hangover. Walk to class; and listen to some old fart tell you about how the world is. Go get a job; then we'll talk.

I know you hate me pointing out the extreme differences in our actual lives; but you insist on claiming superior knowledge of the world; without actually having started living in it. Show some respect for your elders.

Veta: "The economy isn't doing poorly because the supply money dried up - it's doing poorly because nobody is spending the disposable income they have - or those that would spend money don't have any to spend."

And like all good progressives; when they find that people aren't doing that their "supposed to". Of course the answer is to force them to do what you want using legislation.

Veta: "This is the crux of what keynes argued - he noted that markets sensed their own momentum."

Listen; Keynes is dead. Keynes thought that unemployment and inflation were mutually exclusive. This was proven incorrect. Maybe we shouldn't be taking the dead guys advise for gospel anymore. Just saying...

Veta: "When a market was on the up and up this would fuel it to boom... until it bust. Likewise, when a market was collapsing its own collapse would further deteriorate it. That is what is happening right now, people with money aren't spending money. Tax cuts do not work as incentives and are not working as incentives if they did, why are we in a recession with taxes at historical lows?"

Dude; we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. You are smoking something crazy if you think it's the lowest it has ever been. You constantly talk of taxes being the lowest that they were ever. You being purposely misleading when saying this. Income tax is the only tax you are referring to when you make this statement. Excise taxes are the highest in recent history. Corporate taxes are the highest in recent history. Inflation is a tax and it is the highest it has been in recent history (post-volker). FactCheck.org would have a field day with you.

Veta: "Read this then: it's put much more succinctly than I could put it."

Link?

Veta: "Referring to your next point though, what the fuck do you think got us out of the great recession? It wasn't spontaneous growth. It was an injection of government capital into the hands of those who would spend it - and spend it they did. They spent it on food, clothes, cars, homes, appliances, etc. What you don't understand is that tax cuts simply turn money from a tradeable good (this is assuming money by the government will be spent) to a liquid good that does not need to be traded, like bonds. Bonds and sitting mounds of money don't produce anything. Spending money however does produce measurable demand which in turn creates incentive for businesses to grow which in turn feeds the cycle positively."

Sorry I lost you at "what the fuck do you think got us out of the great recession". You think we are out of the recession? Doesn't feel that way to me; nor anyone else. Jobs still suck; economy still sucks; banks aren't lending; money is printing; debt is getting larger; dollar is weak. I know what you are gonna say; well the GDP didn't have two consecutive negative quarters blah blah blah. Basically all the government did was do some accounting tricks and some stimulus to temporarily boost GDP; so that we didn't fit the government definition of recession. Hate to break it to ya; but the recession is still here. I bet we won't even be fully out of it before the currency crisis starts. That's when the real fun will start...

Veta: "The point is that if the rich, say 1/100 of the population, have 3/4ths of the pie and only spend about 5/100 of the pie a year then the rest of the pie is just sitting there not being put into the economy. How big can the economy get if only 30/100 of the pie is being spent a year. Not very big, especially when that top 1/100th of the population controls the means of production and funnels wealth back to itself. Ultimately you have a negative feedback cycle - the result of which is a richer and richer elite and a poorer and poorer everyone else. It's about protecting citizens from wealth condensation. Citizens have a right to not be economically suffocated by other citizens."

Printing money is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. Maybe you should stop that... just saying... If you care so much about wealth condensation maybe you shouldn't be printing dollars and giving it to wealthy people. Kind of a no brainier; but what do I know.

Veta: "The same reason it bothered FDR and Teddy Roosevelt."

Who cares about them fools. Clearly I'm not a progressive.

My question was why does it bother you that the top 400 people have so much. You once again answered in a way that makes the reader have to do research on your behalf. Just answer the question without using riddles. I don't care about FDR or TR's opinion; I care about yours which is why I was asking you. If I cared about there's I would just research it and save the trouble of asking you. So why does it bother you?

Veta: "The Forbes 400 is listed publicly I don't need to name them - if you like you can look them up."

Yeah; why not; I'm getting used to doing your research for you.... Okay; researched it; I still don't understand which people on this list you claim have gotten their wealth using illegal means. You made the claim; so name the name's.

Veta: "If Rockefeller worked 1 billion times harder than the average person then I would think it just that he made 1 billion times more - this was not the case. I, unlike you, believe in a just society - a society that protects you from economic threats, national threats, and financial threats."

Rockefeller is not a threat to me. Your paranoid...

I love your math problem. Basically money should be paid out based on effort alone. So is leverage allowed in your just society? Or do we have to only get paid a multiple of the effort put in? No doubling down on yourself or anything like that? What if I work 1 billion times harder; then put it all on BLACK at Las Vegas. Is that still just? What if I make a billion dollars and invest in Steve Jobs. He makes me 10 billion dollars while I sleep on the couch. Certainly; making that much money is a terrible injustice. Perhaps stories would be told about me to children to scare them to sleep.

This is just laughable from a financial stand point. How do you intend to record "effort"? Clearly you thought WalMart was SIMPLE; so geez sorry Sam Walton; but you clearly owe all that money back.

Veta: "No, I mean it creates more spending. That spending in turn becomes measurable demand and that in turn creates an incentive for firms to get involved in different markets - or for innovative products to become profitable. The latter in turn creates jobs and growth in GDP."

So basically the answer is yes. You do believe that forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to another can and will increase GDP.

Clearly this is why Keynes is on his way out.

Veta: "Don't get so elated when you misinterpret and strawman someone's position. Anyone can do that. But I hope you better understand how this works now."

Do you even source anything? You even make claims about me without sourcing. Where have I straw-maned and misinterpreted? Show me.

Veta: "Yes, read above. It's hilarious that you don't understand potential and kinetic demand though."

Yeah hilarious! I should have a comedy tour...

Veta: "Okay, millionaires don't just invest in companies randomly. The point is there has to be a profit motive for investment in anything. If there is no profit motive, then why invest - why expand a business if there is no more market to saturate? That's the point."

Yeah so basically what your saying is there has to be some value that they wish to obtain from the business. Sure; but how does this pertain to your argument about demand creating jobs. As I've stated above; clearly demand alone does not create jobs.

Veta: "The only option is to either expand the market or saturate new markets. We are living in times of a global economy and we have already saturated the available markets so our only option is to try to put more money back in the hands of consumers in order for the domestic market to grow and ultimately create incentives for business expansion and job creation."

You are wrong. You claim that all the available markets are saturated; first off this is false. Not everyone has broadband internet for example. I could literally list unsaturated markets for hours. But beyond the false claim of all the markets being saturated; you are missing a huge point about the economy. Innovation. The creation of new markets that don't currently exist. This is very important. If take all the money from the innovators and hand it to food stamps recipients; you are robbing the economy of future markets that do not yet exist. And what do we get for it? More sneaker sales; more food sales; more beer sales; more diaper sales. Most of these products probably aren't even made in the country. So even if a job is created by the temporary spending spree; it's probably in China or some shit.

Veta: "If you took all of a millionaire who only spends 1 percent of his or her wealth a year, took half of it and gave it to the destitute this would in fact increase the spending in a given year -> which would cause an increase in measurable demand -> which could create incentive for businesses to expand or be created -> which would create jobs -> which would increase disposable income among the population and likely spending -> and thus the cycle would repeat. And guess what, that millionaire would still be a millionaire living very comfortably."

Apparently you believe people are pawns in your elaborate effort to make your Excel Spreadsheet add up. I think you will find that these pawns do not like to be manipulated. You policies would lead to the deterioration of the country and probably a revolution or civil war. I imagine history would have a nice spot for you between Mao; and Lenin.

Veta: "I don't advocate the above but it's pretty indisputable economic reasoning."

Whew; that was close. Btw; does using the adjective "indisputable" make your arguments stronger? Because I always find myself disputing them. :p

Veta: "If that were the case then the multiplier for marginal dollars spent on food stamps wouldn't be the fucking highest among all government spending. I know you're kidding but this needs to be set straight."

I was kidding. It wasn't all spent on food stamps. Wars; entitlements; corruption; government aid; etc.

Veta: "I think that the evidence clearly indicates that if we invested more in food stamps it would help us more than hurt us - by creating .73 cents of additional wealth per dollar spent. Remember these are marginal figures - logically they should decrease the more you invest in them, which is why tax cuts for instance are at .29. I'm sure 50 years ago tax cuts had a multiplier over 1.00. Today that is not the case and in fact the entire justification for tax cuts is that their collective multiplier would be over 1.00. If it's below 1.00 then we need to hike up taxes to protect the economically vulnerable (i.e. those that do not control the modes of production)."

That seems really complicated. And you believe all this even though Moody's doesn't release any information regarding how they come about these numbers?

Are you willing to base your whole political/financial worldview on a statistic with no supporting data? Certainly you have something to back up these numbers right?

Veta: "It doesn't matter who creates the jobs, the government or the private sector. Keynes correctly argued that the market does not distinguish between money earned from a government paycheck and money earned from a private paycheck."

Keynes is wrong on this.

Veta: "However, when the private sector isn't creating jobs and maintaining the economy it is the job of the government to fill this role until the private sector is back on its feet."

Says who? Keynes? If so; he is wrong again. Keynes is an economist; not a political science major. He is not qualify to make that statement.

Veta: "Your business will not receive investment regardless of whether the ultrawealthy are taxed more or not - this is because when the economy is in a downswing there is no potential profit to be made. Your fledgling business is not profitable in this economic environment - unless it is. Then you will receive investment."

This is just demonstrably wrong. Unprofitable companies get investments all the time. I should know. I started my company during the recession and received investment before being profitable. Btw; I know many millionaires. Many of which I had to pitch my business to. The market has not effected their angel investing at all. In fact; investing in companies during recessions is sometimes a good move. Start-ups that survive recessions are more successful then companies founded during boom times; on average. Newly formed companies have many advantages over larger companies during times of recession (certainly there are disadvantages too).

Veta: "But if the vast majority of business expansion or creation isn't profitable then it is the duty of the government to act as an economic flywheel on the market and increase disposable income -> which increases measurable demand -> which in turn creates incentives for businesses to expand -> which creates jobs -> which allows the private sector to take over a large portion of the economy during its recovery until ultimately the temporary spending increases of the government are no longer necessary."

All this talk about the governments duty. Says who? Clearly the constitution doesn't declare this duty. Was there a dictator put in place over night? Please show me the source of this so called duty. And please don't tell me Keynes said so. Keynes is not a political science major; he is just an economist. Last time I checked; economists didn't have the power to re-write the constitution every time their Excel Spreadsheet doesn't add up.

Veta: "I'll note, you can lower taxes to boost an economy only when taxes are high enough that they impede investment - at our historically low rates decreasing the tax rate further would only make the economically weak even more vulnerable and would only serve to siphon even more wealth up to the wealthiest 1 percent."

I've already addressed this. Taxes are high. You are misleading.

Inflation is siphoning the wealth; so stop pretending you care so much about it. Your theories are causing it.

Veta: "Ergo, we need to increase the top marginal tax brackets to more reasonable rates. Then we need to put that revenue in the hands of those who will spend it. That's how you fix the economy."

Yeah I know. The whole jump the millionaire and buy some food stamps plan. Got it.

Veta: "What the fuck is your plan - do nothing? End the fed? Really? So you have no plan that will effectively help spur economic growth."

This is what I would do if I was made dictator tomorrow:

- Well I would start by cutting military spending overseas. Get rid of all/most of our bases around the world. End all the wars. Use some of the money saved on infrastructure (bridges/roads/ports/etc).

- Lower the corporate tax rate so that we are one of the best places in the world to start a business.

- Remove the taxes on repatriated funds. This will cause multinational corporations to bring capital back to the USA from overseas.

- Liquidate the debt.

- Cut all foreign aid.

- Immediately remove all restrictions on the drilling of oil and the production of refineries.

- Immediately remove all restrictions on the production of nuclear power plants.

- Term limits for congress

- All news bills must be submitted with a detailed explanation of where the constitution permits it.

- Begin the gradual shift towards less government regulation.

- Cut domestic spending drastically.

- Make social security solvent by banning the spending of funds taken in.

- Repeal ObamaCare

- Repeal Indefinite Detention

- Legalize competing currencies

- End the Fed. Interest rates will be determined by market.

That is just off the top of my head...

Veta: "We just went through explaining how we are at historic lows for the top tax rates and we are seeing zero growth for it"

Funny because I just got done refuting it.

Veta: "I also explained to you how there is zero benefit for millionaires to expand businesses or invest into new businesses if there is no potential demand. You can't create a car factory, pay those workers in the factory and expect to make a profit off of the workers you paid to produce your vehicles. That's a closed system and would ultimately shrink your net wealth. "

Sure; but this isn't the same as saying "demand creates jobs". Clearly demand alone cannot create jobs.

Veta: "That's why it's the government's job in times of economic crisis to halt this shrinking of national wealth and to inject it with disposable income and measurable demand."

Says who...?

Veta: "Except Krugman, and all those other keynesians that did? It wasn't hard to see coming as you said yourself - a lot of people didn't want to see it coming. And the administration in charge, who probably did see it coming, didn't want to deal with. Remember GWB went through a record amount of economic advisers, over a dozen."

Krugman only mentioned the housing market bubble in 2006 when it was clearly visible. Ron Paul and many others predicted it in 2002 when it first started. Not because the effects were visible; but because they knew the policies would inevitably lead to it.

Krugman predicting the housing collapse in 2006; is like predicting a baby for a 6 month pregnant woman. Austrian economics predicted it at conception.

Veta: "So if evidence contradicts your view you simply dismiss it as wrong. This is laughable - I think we're done here."

Comedy tour FTW