Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth

[maladroit]

"In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country."

- that absolute declaration overstates the case...obama isn't everything wrong with america, nor is he the answer to everything wrong with america...obama is proposting to cut taxes the same way republican ronald reagan did, and proposing progressive taxation the same way republican teddy roosevelt did...would the author of that letter claim that reagan and roosevelt represent everything that is wrong with america?

[JakeMartinez]

People like Cory are shining examples of capitalism.

But, maybe if he'd stuck with one of these already very lucrative businesses instead of constantly expanding, his company wouldn't be at the mercy of an extra 3-6%. Or, maybe he could have tried issuing stocks or bonds. He should know, as such a successful businessman, that overextending yourself like that is extremely dangerous with or without taxes.

Eh.

I think Cory's a great, hard-working man but I also think times are changing. There are too many people living too close together to think "If we all act out of self-interest, we'll all be better off."

Well, no matter how you cut it, self-interest means you have to step over the back of someone weaker, and I think that's sick. I think the man who knocks down 30 people to get his loaf of bread, and then refuses to share once he gets it, is an asshole who's more of a detriment of society than a help.

Is it really so much to ask for every human being born to be guaranteed food, shelter, heat, water, and good health (if medical knowledge allows for it)? What's so bad about that idea?

And don't tell me free market trade is the way to give everyone those things. Poverty, under/unemployment, and the wealth gap haven't gone away, and in many parts of the world, they're getting a lot worse.

Maybe the answer is socialism, maybe it's a resource-based economy, who knows? I just know for damn sure it isn't capitalism.

[daihashi]

"Yes it does.. Currently there is an overwhelming supply of oil with very few buyers since just about everyone in the world has cut back on their oil consumption. This is why Oil has plummeted to in the $60 range."

- the price of oil is less than half it was five months ago, but the world is not consuming 50% less oil...prior to that, the price of oil increased by 600% since the invasion of iraq but the world wasn't consuming six times as much oil...supply and demand are not driving the price of oil as much as speculation

Really? Because I could've sworn that the trending was directly inline with china and india both consuming less oil in combination with the US. The price of oil has come down because of less demand. Speculation raises prices; not lower it.

"Demand doesn't just make itself.. and demand doesn't come out of people who are unemployed or if companies are not hiring new employees/giving out pay raises....If hiring comes to a halt.. there is not going to be demand, making the borrowing moot all together because without demand then there is no need to hire."

- demand is usually stable if employment levels are stable...if hiring comes to a halt, demand will be relatively constant

This makes no sense.. If hiring comes to a halt demand will drop off. People begin spending less during times of economic slow down or a poor job market.

"Raising taxes is just like asking for a way to further slow the economy."

- raising the national debt is just like asking for a way to further slow the economy too...that has to be dealt with SOON

I've already explained how lowering taxes would achieve the same if not better results.

"Supply dictates the cost of a product while demand drives the need for supply. "

- you got the theory half right:
Economics Basics: Demand and Supply

From the same link you provided:

Supply and demand is perhaps one of the most fundamental concepts of economics and it is the backbone of a market economy. Demand refers to how much (quantity) of a product or service is desired by buyers. The quantity demanded is the amount of a product people are willing to buy at a certain price; the relationship between price and quantity demanded is known as the demand relationship. Supply represents how much the market can offer. The quantity supplied refers to the amount of a certain good producers are willing to supply when receiving a certain price. The correlation between price and how much of a good or service is supplied to the market is known as the supply relationship. Price, therefore, is a reflection of supply and demand.

What this means is that if a producer has a demand for 200 sodas at 99 cents a pop but wants to sell it at 1.25 then he would reduce supply to reflect the price at which he wants to sell it. The higher demand is over supply then the higher the price.

"you do realize that several times through our discussion you've indirectly agreed with me."

- sure i agree with you sometimes...i'm not a total asshole! there's lots of smart folks here and i've been set straight a few times...it's all good

uhh, well first off The times you agreed with me you were trying to prove me wrong and were arguing your point with me. During your argument you mentioned several things that were basically exactly what i was saying. P4B pointed out two of them. So you were not agreeing with me because you agreed with me; you agreed with me in the process of presenting your argument without even realizing it. That was the point I was trying to make.. Even when you tried to tell me I was half right above.. I was able to take the same link provided.. post the first paragraph and use your own information to affirm my beliefs and make my case stronger.

I don't understand what point it is you're trying to make when you just keep overlapping what I've been saying.

[McDanger]

"Is it really so much to ask for every human being born to be guaranteed food, shelter, heat, water, and good health (if medical knowledge allows for it)? What's so bad about that idea?"

The bad thing about it is, it takes freedom away from the individual.And it does not work. The Declaration of Independence says Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, there are no guarantees of anything. The letter was a response to "O"boy wanting to redistribute income.
I am curious how you would "guarantee good health", since this is simply impossible.

"Why is Barack to blame? I missed it "
He was not blaming "O" for his situation, he was saying if he gets his way at least 3 of his businesses, and the jobs that go with them, would not exist.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

okay seriously i do not wish ill on anyone or anything, but im too fed up with people who EXPECT to be given better benefits for having a higher responsibility job. im not going to reword it, i would greatly appreciate if the greedy folk just disappeared one day.

bosses that make more than their collective employees should be shot, and survivors shot again, end of story.

authority positions are obligatory based on the need for such positions to be filled, not the arbitrary individual needs to do it. these positions are more difficult and as an incentive to attract someone to fill the position, more luxuries are offered to the person.

that's wrong right from the get-go. we shouldnt be paying luxurious wages to anyone who cannot prove themselves worth those wages! let the CEOs work just like the employees: from the bottom rung of the ladder up.


new ceo? new pay. rather than payoing the new CEO the same as (or more than) the LAST CEO, pay them the minimum until they EARN those big bucks.

you dont earn respect in the work place with a fancy degree, or a track record, you earn it here and now with what you do or dont do.

you dont offer prizes to ensure a job well done, you offer prizes FOR a job well done!


and OFFER. you OFFER THEM OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL. the prizes are a CHOICE made by the WORKERS. not that it works like that, but that's how it ought to work, considering if we pay them to do a good job BEFORE the job is done, what ensures that they will even make the effort? you cannot gaurentee that they will be honorable and keep their word. sure, you could have faith in them, and then when they take away all your benefits, dip into the 401k, and lay off 50% of the employees, just shrug it off and say "oh well", OR you can just not have faith in them at all until they have proven themselves competent and beneficial to the company's best interests, and not their own.

Who are you to say what's rewarding? Personally for me.. I like making plenty of money. I can pay my bills.. and enjoy luxuries that I wouldn't be able to afford on a lesser salary.

ah yes, that's the clincher though, isnt it?

the bigwig who gets to sit behind a desk and go through all the stress of protecting investors is more deserving of luxuries and medical care than the workers who are risking their saftey in the shop, producing parts, running big machines, and physically meeting the company's needs. it doesnt add up. the company is a single thing, all parts of the company are of equal importance.

honestly, when i said they deserve less, iwas just ranting. to be honest, no one deserves any more or less than anyone else. we are all human, we are all doing what we need to do to survive, and yet somehow we are not all equally afforded comforts. somehow we place more and less value on people based on what? what their job is in society??
what is it that determines how a gas pump attendant just barely affords food, while the texaco CEO has more food than can be eaten by an entire starving family?!


the whole point of my argument is that priorities are misplaced and the balance of society is too far tipped to one side.


i got into it in a rage, and said things out of hate toward the general mentality of greed, but my point remains unchanged. can you look past the anger and see that i only mean to say that we are human, we are all human, we all got pulled out of some woman's vagina, so how is it that we are not all equal?


and of course, i am also protesting the reliance on currency. without currency, everyone is a worker, and everything we do to survive is work. survival is the paycheck.

we should do things for the sake of getting them done. not for the sake of a paycheck or extra toys for getting them done. that's inflation.

if we are to expect to get more than the job affords us in exchange for completing a job, then we're on the fast road to exhausting our resources.


in other words, if you are expecting to get paid anything more than you farm, you're a fool.


i do not see any benefits of currency that outweigh the ills it causes, no more than i see any benefits from corporations that outweigh their monopoly on economics.

the shame, however, still lies on those who are trying to "get ahead".

[maladroit]

"Speculation raises prices; not lower it."

- speculation does both...speculators can profit from lower stocks and prices by selling short or betting on the futures markets


"I could've sworn that the trending was directly inline with china and india both consuming less oil in combination with the US. The price of oil has come down because of less demand."

- there wasn't 600% more demand between 2003 when oil was under $25 a barrel and 2008 when oil was $150 a barrel, and there hasn't been a 50% reduction in demand since july...supply and demand are factors but speculation is a greater factor


"If hiring comes to a halt demand will drop off."

- if job creation comes to a halt, and the population remains constant, demand should be relatively stable because employment levels will be the same (barring other economic factors)


"I've already explained how lowering taxes would achieve the same if not better results."

- it didn't work for ronald reagan or george bush...that theory is based on the laffer curve...at some point, the reduction in taxes will have a negative effect...in george bush's case, the expansion of the economy had more to do with low interest rates and the real estate bubble...tax cuts and stimulus checks failed to save america from that disaster so i don't expect more tax cuts will work either...both obama and mccain are going to add trillions to the national debt while leaving the unfunded liabilities in medicaid and social security for another president's crisis management team...the longer that debt is put aside, the worse the correction is going to be

Laffer Curve


"if a producer has a demand for 200 sodas at 99 cents a pop but wants to sell it at 1.25 then he would reduce supply to reflect the price at which he wants to sell it."

- in the real world, that isn't how soda or oil is priced:
Oil speculators 'riding roughshod' over OPEC, say analysts

[Psycho4Bud]

If you can't debate without insults don't bother posting at all! This thread is now clean.....

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[daihashi]

"Speculation raises prices; not lower it."

- speculation does both...speculators can profit from lower stocks and prices by selling short or betting on the futures markets

I think you misunderstand what speculation is. Here is an excerpt from the book by Benjamin Graham "The Intelligent Investor"

Chapter 1, page 20:

" The distinction between investment and speculation in common stock has always been a useful one and it's disappearance is cause for concern. We have often said that Wall Street as an institution would be well advised to reinstate this distinction and to emphasize it in all it's dealings with the public. Otherwise stock exchanges may some day be blamed for heavy speculative losses, which those who suffered them had not been properl warned against. Ironically, once more, much of the recent financial embarassment of some stock-exchange firms seem to have come from the incusion of speculative common stocks in their own capial funds. We trust that the reader of this book will gain a reasonably clear idea of the risks that are inherent in common-stock commitments=risks which are inseparable from the opportunities of profit that they offer, and both of which must be allowed in for the investor's calculations.

What we have just said indicates that there may no longer be such a thing as a simon-pure investment policy comprising representative cmmon stocks- in the sense that one can always wait to buy them at a price that involves no risk of a market or "quotational" loss large enough to be disuieting. In most periods the investor must recognize the existence of a speculative factor i his common-stock holdings. It is his task to keep this component within minor limits and to be prepared financially and psychologically for adverse results that may be of short or long duration.

Two paragraphs should be added about stock speculation per se, as distinguised from the speculative component now inherent in the most representative common stocks. Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook. More than that, some speculation is necessary and unavoidable, for in many common stock situations there are substantial possibilities of both profit and loss, and the risks therein must be assumed by someone.* There is intelligent speculation s speculation may be unintelligent. Of these foremost are: (1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) specuating seriously instead as a pastime, whe you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.







*Speculation is beneficial on two levels: First without speculation, untested new companies (like Amazon.com or in earlier times, the edison electric light co.) would never be able to raise thenecessary capital for expansion. The auring, long-shot change of a huge gain is the grease that lubricates the machinery of innovation. Secondly, risk is exchanged (but never eliminated) every time a stock is bought or sold. The buyer purchases the primary risk that this stock may go down. Meanwhile, the seller still retains a residual risk-the chance that the stock he sold may go up!"

Now then with all that said and typed up we have an understanding what speculators and speculative trading is. A place such as oil futures doesn't need MUCH speculative trading because it is a proven market. It is the life blood of the world economy. However when you get people speculating what they THINK oil will cost and people buying at that rate then you seriously inhibit future buying power.

So again, speculative trading drove the price up... with talks of other countries increasing production from 50k upwards of 200k more barrels a day.. the increase of future supply went up.. and therefore stocks traded at a more reasonable value. Perhaps you don't recall the drop in the price of oil when saudi arabia announced it would be increasing production. It further dropped when other nations also announced they would be increasing production.

Then in light of the economic downturn globally india and china reduced their number and the barrell of oil went down even further due to the increase global surplus of oil.

Really it's not that difficult to understand.

"I could've sworn that the trending was directly inline with china and india both consuming less oil in combination with the US. The price of oil has come down because of less demand."

- there wasn't 600% more demand between 2003 when oil was under $25 a barrel and 2008 when oil was $150 a barrel, and there hasn't been a 50% reduction in demand since july...supply and demand are factors but speculation is a greater factor

Really? So what were India and China doing when there was a spike in the amount of oil they were importing? Oil usage is effected on a global scale and is not local to just the United States. And there has been a significant reduction in oil since July.

I am not sure where you're getting your information from but it's just flat out wrong.

"

If hiring comes to a halt demand will drop off."

- if job creation comes to a halt, and the population remains constant, demand should be relatively stable because employment levels will be the same (barring other economic factors)


"I've already explained how lowering taxes would achieve the same if not better results."

- it didn't work for ronald reagan or george bush...that theory is based on the laffer curve...at some point, the reduction in taxes will have a negative effect...in george bush's case, the expansion of the economy had more to do with low interest rates and the real estate bubble...tax cuts and stimulus checks failed to save america from that disaster so i don't expect more tax cuts will work either...both obama and mccain are going to add trillions to the national debt while leaving the unfunded liabilities in medicaid and social security for another president's crisis management team...the longer that debt is put aside, the worse the correction is going to be

Really? During Ronald Reagan's era he created approximately 20 million new jobs and pulled the economy from the dead hole it was in from the Carter administration.

In George Bush's case, and Bill Clinton has even admitted this, he was entering an economic downturn partly to blame for the dot com bubble bursting. The housing market was still hot and going; however it was only going on strong due to sub par lending practices that were leveraged against financial institutions from the Clinton Administration. Something also that Clinton admits to.

You are confused on what our current down turn resulted from.

Laffer Curve

uhh.. did you really read what is said on there? It is not much different from what I've been saying in regards to taxes.

Invented by Arthur Laffer, this curve shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue collected by governments. The chart below shows the Laffer Curve:

Laffer Curve

The curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue. Eventually, if tax rates reached 100% (the far right of the curve), then all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government.

"if a producer has a demand for 200 sodas at 99 cents a pop but wants to sell it at 1.25 then he would reduce supply to reflect the price at which he wants to sell it."

- in the real world, that isn't how soda or oil is priced:
Oil speculators 'riding roughshod' over OPEC, say analysts

Did you even read this article? It touches briefly on pricing but doesn't actually explain how oil is priced.

here are a few excerpts placed in bold from that link:

OPEC's move to keep oil output unchanged was a message to the market that crude supplies are sufficient, a view not shared by speculators who pushed the price of crude to fresh record highs on Thursday, analysts said.

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which produces 40 percent of the world's oil, decided at an output policy meeting on Wednesday in Vienna to maintain its daily crude production target of 29.67 million barrels.

Following the decision, the price of New York crude rose to new all-time highs, reaching more than 105 dollars per barrel on Thursday.

"Prices surged in the fallout from what was an absolute hysterical reaction to OPEC's decision" and news that US crude inventories had fallen last week, said the Schork Report, which provides analysis of energy markets.

"Thus, when OPEC tells us the (oil supply and demand) fundamentals have decoupled from prices and the speculators are running roughshod over the futures market, they have a point," it added.

OPEC on Wednesday blamed the high cost of crude on speculative buying as investors sought a haven amid a weak dollar and high inflation.

"You get the feeling that even if OPEC had announced a production increase the market was still going to move higher," said the Schork Report.

"So let this be a lesson (to OPEC). When you tell the market you lost control of the pricing mechanism, then the market is going to assume that mechanism in your place," it added.

OPEC, which comprises 13 member countries including Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest producer of crude, said in a statement Wednesday that the market was "well-supplied, with current commercial oil stocks standing above their five-year average".

But US President George W. Bush was said to be "disappointed" that the cartel chose not to increase output.

"He is disappointed that they decided not to increase production," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Bush "does not think it's a good idea for their biggest customers, such as the United States, to have an economic slowdown, in part because of high gas (gasoline or petrol) prices.

"We know that there is high global demand and there is tighter supply. So what we would like is to see an increase in supply from OPEC," Perino added.

The price of oil has doubled since the start of 2007, driven in large part by soaring demand for crude from emerging economic powers China and India.

Speculators have latched onto this, as well as diplomatic friction or unrest affecting oil producing countries such as Iran and Nigeria.

"The fundamentals are still miles away from providing a clear justification for the current price level," Petromatrix analyst Olivier Jakob said following OPEC's latest output decision.

The International Energy Agency, an official energy watchdog for oil-consuming countries, criticised the cartel's move to leave its production unchanged and urged OPEC to take note of high crude prices.

"The decision by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to leave output unchanged may allow crude stocks to rebuild ... but high prices are sending a strong signal that the market thinks it is not enough," IEA said in a statement.

The Paris-based organisation added: "We may need more oil before the summer and therefore urge OPEC countries to listen to market signals."

So this article seems to be in line with the definition of supply and demand.. which you provided to me in hopes of proving me wrong... only for it to further prove me right.. then you post this article on OPEC to prove me wrong only for it to fall back to the basics of supply and demand.. which is what I originally stated.. again further solidifying my point.

What is it again that you're trying to prove? Are you arguing against me for the sake of arguing? At this point it seems like you don't understand what you're talking about. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say; although I doubt it.

[JaySin]

It won't in the end because he'll just lay off a couple of employees in order to stay within the lifestyle he/she is accustom to. The work won't decrease but the expectations of the workers left will increase for sure.



Why own company "x" and have all the headaches of dealing with employees, codes, general issues when you can be just as comfortable being an employee? If I'm pulling refrigerant for a company and fail to keep up the records, the company is the one accountable to the EPA with possible fines of $27,000/day of violation. Just one example of what risks the small business owner takes.

If he/she wants to ride in a Lincoln then good for them, they can have it. I'm just as happy of a person on my bike and I don't have the headaches to take home with me. I go in and bust my ass I get rewarded; if not, I take my tail down the road to one of his competitors.



I'm with ya on that but I want to decide where the hell it goes. Cheap Joe Biden made $250,000 and gave roughly $350 in charity; I made less than a fifth of that and gave 3 times the amount. IF he was so hip on this idea that people making over $250,000/yr. should be giving more don't ya think he should be showing it by his actions?



I hear ya! Joe kind of pisses me off too from time to time!

Have a good one!:s4:

okay seriously i do not wish ill on anyone or anything, but im too fed up with people who EXPECT to be given better benefits for having a higher responsibility job. im not going to reword it, i would greatly appreciate if the greedy folk just disappeared one day.

bosses that make more than their collective employees should be shot, and survivors shot again, end of story.

authority positions are obligatory based on the need for such positions to be filled, not the arbitrary individual needs to do it. these positions are more difficult and as an incentive to attract someone to fill the position, more luxuries are offered to the person.

that's wrong right from the get-go. we shouldnt be paying luxurious wages to anyone who cannot prove themselves worth those wages! let the CEOs work just like the employees: from the bottom rung of the ladder up.


new ceo? new pay. rather than payoing the new CEO the same as (or more than) the LAST CEO, pay them the minimum until they EARN those big bucks.

you dont earn respect in the work place with a fancy degree, or a track record, you earn it here and now with what you do or dont do.

you dont offer prizes to ensure a job well done, you offer prizes FOR a job well done!


and OFFER. you OFFER THEM OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL. the prizes are a CHOICE made by the WORKERS. not that it works like that, but that's how it ought to work, considering if we pay them to do a good job BEFORE the job is done, what ensures that they will even make the effort? you cannot gaurentee that they will be honorable and keep their word. sure, you could have faith in them, and then when they take away all your benefits, dip into the 401k, and lay off 50% of the employees, just shrug it off and say "oh well", OR you can just not have faith in them at all until they have proven themselves competent and beneficial to the company's best interests, and not their own.




ah yes, that's the clincher though, isnt it?

the bigwig who gets to sit behind a desk and go through all the stress of protecting investors is more deserving of luxuries and medical care than the workers who are risking their saftey in the shop, producing parts, running big machines, and physically meeting the company's needs. it doesnt add up. the company is a single thing, all parts of the company are of equal importance.

honestly, when i said they deserve less, iwas just ranting. to be honest, no one deserves any more or less than anyone else. we are all human, we are all doing what we need to do to survive, and yet somehow we are not all equally afforded comforts. somehow we place more and less value on people based on what? what their job is in society??
what is it that determines how a gas pump attendant just barely affords food, while the texaco CEO has more food than can be eaten by an entire starving family?!


the whole point of my argument is that priorities are misplaced and the balance of society is too far tipped to one side.


i got into it in a rage, and said things out of hate toward the general mentality of greed, but my point remains unchanged. can you look past the anger and see that i only mean to say that we are human, we are all human, we all got pulled out of some woman's vagina, so how is it that we are not all equal?


and of course, i am also protesting the reliance on currency. without currency, everyone is a worker, and everything we do to survive is work. survival is the paycheck.

we should do things for the sake of getting them done. not for the sake of a paycheck or extra toys for getting them done. that's inflation.

if we are to expect to get more than the job affords us in exchange for completing a job, then we're on the fast road to exhausting our resources.


in other words, if you are expecting to get paid anything more than you farm, you're a fool.


i do not see any benefits of currency that outweigh the ills it causes, no more than i see any benefits from corporations that outweigh their monopoly on economics.

the shame, however, still lies on those who are trying to "get ahead".

Now if only there was a way to get everyone to realize this. Too many people are driven by greed and their ego.

[JaySin]

This is one of those so called "greedy" business owners.

Mr. Obama,

....
....
....


God help usâ?¦

Cory Miller

just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real Americanâ?¦

I was thinking, and just realized this is the exact reason why we need lower taxes for the middle class and raise taxes for the wealthy businesses.

Did he start that business with any of his own money? Hardly! He borrowed money every way that he could. Sure he risked losing everything he "owned", but he really didn't own any of it until he was successful. It doesn't matter that the government didn't give him any "handouts" as he is calling them, he still got handouts.

What if he had failed, then what? He would have lost "his" business and oh well right? I guess he is back to where he started. Not like it hurts him any, now all that money that he lost is passed on to someone else to have to take care of. Where was the actual risk that was cast solely upon him?

This is why people need to make more money instead of being able to borrow money that they can barely afford to pay back and almost fail on several occasions. Not everyone is willing to gamble with credit in order to be "successful". The prudent person tries to save up there money to start a business without a major amount of borrowing. Yet with the way the economy has been running and how a lot of things work, that is almost impossible. So the only way to be "successful" is to borrow money and gamble on other peoples behalf.