[Gibble]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Again you prove you don't know square 1 about economics!

I don't know square one about economics?

Really...well let me explain how a conversation works...then you can rethink your last comment about my knowledge.

Originally Posted by rmay635703

I have little quibble with tarriffs and taxes on larger companies. If I were making 100million a year and you cut that by half, I still wouldn't know what to do with the other 49million.

Cheers

rmay said instead of a corporation making 100 million in profits, 50 million of that should be taxed...because nobody needs that much money.

Originally Posted by gbrumb

How about investing it back into your company and making more jobs, becoming more competitive, building a reserve to smooth out the low spots, investing in improving customer relations etc etc.

gbrumb then replied that if you re-invest those profits back into the company, you can create jobs, become more competitive save for poor years, and have more sales by improving customer relations.

Originally Posted by f1_champ

How about letting everyone live, not only the rich.

Then f1, in his youthful ignorance figured this only benefits the rich...I'm not quite sure how providing jobs only allows the rich to live...but hey, I know nothing about economics

Garbriel was then nice enough to point out this fact and pointing out that actions speak louder than words.

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Making more jobs does help people to live ....lipservice doesn't

Originally Posted by bassetman

No one makes more jobs, without a demand for the goods or services.

Then, in an attempt to overthrow f1 from the throne of ignorance, you then proceeded to ignore the fact this entire stream of discussion was based upon a company with 100 million in profits, changing the parameters completely. You somehow, jump to the conclusion, that this company with 100 million in profits, that hired more employees, re-invested in itself and increased customer relations all of a sudden has no demand for it's goods...which makes absolutely no sense given the parameters this conversation was based upon.

Originally Posted by gibble

Well...if there was no demand...how did they make that 100 million

I then tried to point this out to you in a concise and terse manner that even you could understand.

Originally Posted by bassetman

Again you prove you don't know square 1 about economics!

But then, in a shockingly successful maneuver you managed to usurp the crown of ignorance from f1 with this gem of a comment.

...and that, my droopy eared friend, is why I do know square 1 about economics...and why you need a refresher course.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by bassetman

It's called suppy and demand!

And can you explain to us, why our company that just made 100 million in profits, and hired more people...suddenly lost demand for it's product?

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Gibble

And can you explain to us, why our company that just made 100 million in profits, and hired more people...suddenly lost demand for it's product?

roe v wade was overturned?

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Gibble

And can you explain to us, why our company that just made 100 million in profits, and hired more people...suddenly lost demand for it's product?

I thought you worked at a College?

Anyway maybe it was a bad product, maybe the market was saturated?

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by bassetman

I thought you worked at a College?

Anyway maybe it was a bad product, maybe the market was saturated?

Thanks for proving my point, that you had not rational, that you just made up theories to support your assertion that the company went belly up.

Yes, those things are plausible, but first, a bad product should be improved by reinvesting in the company, and while market saturation can be a concern, good companies diversify their product line to overcome that. Again, a problem solvable by reinvesting in the company.

Thus, once again, your "arguments" are hollow, and without merit.

ps...what does my working at a college have anything to do with your irrational posts?

pps...I love how you completely ignore my long point by point breakdown of the conversation, and how the events unfolded for our scenario, and instead, resorted to responding with a quick jab followed by conjecture.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Thanks for proving my point, that you had not rational, that you just made up theories to support your assertion that the company went belly up.

Yes, those things are plausible, but first, a bad product should be improved by reinvesting in the company, and while market saturation can be a concern, good companies diversify their product line to overcome that. Again, a problem solvable by reinvesting in the company.

Thus, once again, your "arguments" are hollow, and without merit.

ps...what does my working at a college have anything to do with your irrational posts?

pps I love you completely ignore my long point by point breakdown of the conversation, and how the events unfolded for our scenario, and instead, resorted to responding with a quick jab followed by conjecture.

And can you explain to us, why our company that just made 100 million in profits, and hired more people...suddenly lost demand for it's product?

[Gibble]

/bangs head on desk repeatedly.

Do you not understand the nuances of the english language? Can you not comprehend that for a sentence to be understood, you must read it in the context it was placed?

I wasn't asking a literal question, it goes back to the convestaion that has been going on for the past couple dozen posts in relation to why it's better to allow business to reinvest it's 100million in profits after current taxes, than to take another 50million.

It's like talking with a child who can't comprehend why two dimes are worth less than a single quarter.

[bassetman]

Sorry, didn't realize you were using the Royal "our".

[cristobal03]

I don't think any reasonable person will deny that (responsible) capital expenditure is economically beneficial. I think the current discussion may be a bit muddled because of the lack of clarity regarding the issue at hand: who has the onus for social welfare--people who can afford it (using any available resource; time, money, experience, etc.), or everyone?

In my opinion this has always been the root of this thread. Anyway.

chris.

[bassetman]

Gibble seems to imply that a company would hire more workers if it had more money. My point is that they won't do it without a demand for their product.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Gibble seems to imply that a company would hire more workers if it had more money. My point is that they won't do it without a demand for their product.

Some workers created demand such as promotions and marketing positions. Others can do reasearch for new products.

You seem to only see workers as those directly involved with the creation of the product...

Not only that, but these positions in R&D or Promotions and Marketing, aren't merely labour, they are better paying jobs ussually requiring post secondary education.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Some workers created demand such as promotions and marketing positions. Others can do reasearch for new products.

You seem to only see workers as those directly involved with the creation of the product...

Not only that, but these positions in R&D or Promotions and Marketing, aren't merely labour, they are better paying jobs ussually requiring post secondary education.

True, I wonder how many are doing that.

[xico]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

People that are elderly and needy should not be judged by chest beating youth...I don't care how justified you think you are. You simply don't have all the facts about each and every needy old person to say their stupidity put them where they are

Nice post, Gabriel!

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Gabriel
People that are elderly and needy should not be judged by chest beating youth...I don't care how justified you think you are. You simply don't have all the facts about each and every needy old person to say their stupidity put them where they are

Originally Posted by xico

Nice post, Gabriel!

Yup!

[Gibble]

speaking of chest thumpers...xico and basset are back at it.