Wrong, if you are the business owner, you are going to build a company with it ( not lock it up) providing jobs that will KEEP people buying food, not just one time.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
As someone who is in the process of starting up in business, I say it's total and utter bollox.lowing wrote:
Why? Even if it was not written to a group of employees, its contents make sense and does apply to small business owners and company buildersVaregg wrote:
I adressed the OP on the previous page but here is a resume: The letter is fake aka hardly worth discussing.
Can you not argue on the fact that it CAN be true?
If the government wants to give me (the business) money, fine, but what am I going to do with it?
Buy company assets - forever locking that money up.
But, as some who is poor, I can also say it's total and utter bollox.
If the government wants to give me (the poor person) money, fine, but what am I going to do with it?
Buy food - realising that money into the economy.
Money needs to move for it to have power. Static money (assets) becomes increasingly worthless.
No your not.lowing wrote:
Wrong, if you are the business owner, you are going to build a company with it ( not lock it up) providing jobs that will KEEP people buying food, not just one time.
Your going to add another story to your luxury house, buy another Mercedes, move your kids out of the racially diverse neighbourhood and then throw more money into your beach side retirement plan.
No they won't.dayarath wrote:
I even think that most people will end up trying to save that money instead of spending it.
Savings are only slightly better than assets.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
as some who is poor, I can also say it's total and utter bollox.
If the government wants to give me (the poor person) money, fine, but what am I going to do with it?
Buy food - realising that money into the economy.
Money needs to move for it to have power. Static money (assets) becomes increasingly worthless.
you don't see a difference between folding and collapsing walking away busted and seeling out to a larger competion for a huge pay out? If not, I understand now why you argue that the poor support the economy. You don't know any better.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Such a huge change of terms.lowing wrote:
No I didn't say close the doors and retire on the beach. I said SELL OUT and retire on the beach.
If they were earning money that was more consistant with their productivity then they would be able to pay their bills.lowing wrote:
Can't find where I said this --------------> "blame unemployed people for somehow causing great harm to the US"
Don't make the mistake of thinking unemployment and financial irresponsibility are one in the same. Simply at the basic level, I blame people for not paying their bills.
See my mistake was that the OP story was all about the boss firing everybody and fucking off into the sunset.lowing wrote:
you don't see a difference between folding and collapsing walking away busted and seeling out to a larger competion for a huge pay out? If not, I understand now why you argue that the poor support the economy. You don't know any better.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Such a huge change of terms.lowing wrote:
No I didn't say close the doors and retire on the beach. I said SELL OUT and retire on the beach.
Now you think he was just selling out to a larger competition, which I'm sure took good care of the old employees. LOL
I've got news for you: we're already out of money. As I suggested with the lake analogy, what we're doing is cyclical and not really doing anything to stop the downward spiral. What is happening now is much bigger than the plight of small businesses. We've been trying to sustain an unsustainable system for years and we've finally reached the breaking point. The way we look at money, use credit, and live our lives is going to have to change drastically. The best thing the government can do is let the system crash (because it is inevitable) and see what's left when the dust settles.dayarath wrote:
and for how long? when does the government money run out- and on top of that, will it be enough buying power to make small businesses expand?Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Your taxes are higher, but your 2.2 million customers have more buying power.
Because of the media scare, I even think that most people will end up trying to save that money instead of spending it.
\\Even if you did those things, you are employing a construction crew, and their suppliers, a car company, its dealers and their employees as well as the mechanics who maintain your vehicle. Apparently you will also employ the construction workers to build your beach house.TheAussieReaper wrote:
No your not.lowing wrote:
Wrong, if you are the business owner, you are going to build a company with it ( not lock it up) providing jobs that will KEEP people buying food, not just one time.
Your going to add another story to your luxury house, buy another Mercedes, move your kids out of the racially diverse neighbourhood and then throw more money into your beach side retirement plan.
Thank you for proving how the rich are the ones that drive the economy you pose an argument that is tough to argue against..
No I'm not.lowing wrote:
Wrong, if you are the business owner, you are going to build a company with it ( not lock it up) providing jobs that will KEEP people buying food, not just one time.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
As someone who is in the process of starting up in business, I say it's total and utter bollox.lowing wrote:
Why? Even if it was not written to a group of employees, its contents make sense and does apply to small business owners and company builders
Can you not argue on the fact that it CAN be true?
If the government wants to give me (the business) money, fine, but what am I going to do with it?
Buy company assets - forever locking that money up.
But, as some who is poor, I can also say it's total and utter bollox.
If the government wants to give me (the poor person) money, fine, but what am I going to do with it?
Buy food - realising that money into the economy.
Money needs to move for it to have power. Static money (assets) becomes increasingly worthless.
There are only two ways to grow a business - one is to get more customers. And advertising is cheap.
But, if my 'potential customers' don't have any spare money, advertising gets me nowhere.
The second is to invest in improving the business efficiency - that means, more often than not, buying assets - a new, faster, widget-cutter, for example.
But, if my current customers don't have any spare money, all I've done is locked money up in an asset that will produce more of the stuff I already can't sell.
But, give money to my customers and they will buy more of what I sell.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-01-20 06:45:45)
You are ignoring thepart where he admits that no one would continue to work for him if he cut their pay 50%. He is pointing out that if his profits are cut 50% by taxation, why should he stay, if no one else would stay if it happened to them. YOu sure know how to cherry pick a post. How about addressing the entire letter and what it is saying over allTheAussieReaper wrote:
See my mistake was that the OP story was all about the boss firing everybody and fucking off into the sunset.lowing wrote:
you don't see a difference between folding and collapsing walking away busted and seeling out to a larger competion for a huge pay out? If not, I understand now why you argue that the poor support the economy. You don't know any better.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Such a huge change of terms.
Now you think he was just selling out to a larger competition, which I'm sure took good care of the old employees. LOL
Wait, I thought your argument was that the rich create jobs by expanding businesses? Now they are creating jobs by, spending money?lowing wrote:
Thank you for proving how the rich are the ones that drive the economy you pose an argument that is tough to argue against..
Guess what lowing, the poor spend money too. There are more poor than rich people. Hence greater buying power. And therefore worth much more to the economy.
The trickle down economy simply does not work.
I did in my original reply. "Moral of the story?"lowing wrote:
You are ignoring thepart where he admits that no one would continue to work for him if he cut their pay 50%. He is pointing out that if his profits are cut 50% by taxation, why should he stay, if no one else would stay if it happened to them. YOu sure know how to cherry pick a post. How about addressing the entire letter and what it is saying over all
and how do these potential customers get money? They need a source of income, i.e. a job. If you're poor without a job and get government money, why would you suddenly spend it all?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No I'm not.
There are only two ways to grow a business - one is to get more customers. And advertising is cheap.
But, if my 'potential customers' don't have any spare money, advertising gets me nowhere.
The second is to invest in improving the business efficiency - that means, more often than not, buying assets - a new, faster, widget-cutter, for example.
But, if my current customers don't have any spare money, all I've done is locked money up in an asset that will produce more of the stuff I already can't sell.
if your potential customers have no jobs, or if their jobs are very unstable why would they bother buying your products or advice, whatever your company does, when they get government money?
Businesses not only sustain themselves, they also sustain eachother by giving their employees money, which they can use to buy eachother's services.
All I see now is unemployment numbers going up, there should be enough people looking for a job, who at the same time then will become potential customers.
inane little opines
People didn't start loosing their jobs until the finaciallly irresponsible decided not to pay their bills because they over extended.PureFodder wrote:
If they were earning money that was more consistant with their productivity then they would be able to pay their bills.lowing wrote:
Can't find where I said this --------------> "blame unemployed people for somehow causing great harm to the US"
Don't make the mistake of thinking unemployment and financial irresponsibility are one in the same. Simply at the basic level, I blame people for not paying their bills.
BECAUSE I'm POOR!dayarath wrote:
and how do these potential customers get money? They need a source of income, i.e. a job. If you're poor without a job and get government money, why would you suddenly spend it all?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No I'm not.
There are only two ways to grow a business - one is to get more customers. And advertising is cheap.
But, if my 'potential customers' don't have any spare money, advertising gets me nowhere.
The second is to invest in improving the business efficiency - that means, more often than not, buying assets - a new, faster, widget-cutter, for example.
But, if my current customers don't have any spare money, all I've done is locked money up in an asset that will produce more of the stuff I already can't sell.
:facepalm:
Saving is for the rich.
So your big solution is to give away your money so someone else can buy shit you build by giving your money back to you? Ummmmmmm how about just keeping your money and not build a damn thing in the first place?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No I'm not.lowing wrote:
Wrong, if you are the business owner, you are going to build a company with it ( not lock it up) providing jobs that will KEEP people buying food, not just one time.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
As someone who is in the process of starting up in business, I say it's total and utter bollox.
If the government wants to give me (the business) money, fine, but what am I going to do with it?
Buy company assets - forever locking that money up.
But, as some who is poor, I can also say it's total and utter bollox.
If the government wants to give me (the poor person) money, fine, but what am I going to do with it?
Buy food - realising that money into the economy.
Money needs to move for it to have power. Static money (assets) becomes increasingly worthless.
There are only two ways to grow a business - one is to get more customers. And advertising is cheap.
But, if my 'potential customers' don't have any spare money, advertising gets me nowhere.
The second is to invest in improving the business efficiency - that means, more often than not, buying assets - a new, faster, widget-cutter, for example.
But, if my current customers don't have any spare money, all I've done is locked money up in an asset that will produce more of the stuff I already can't sell.
But, give money to my customers and they will buy more of what I sell.
-____________________________________________________________________-Scorpion0x17 wrote:
BECAUSE I'm POOR!dayarath wrote:
and how do these potential customers get money? They need a source of income, i.e. a job. If you're poor without a job and get government money, why would you suddenly spend it all?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No I'm not.
There are only two ways to grow a business - one is to get more customers. And advertising is cheap.
But, if my 'potential customers' don't have any spare money, advertising gets me nowhere.
The second is to invest in improving the business efficiency - that means, more often than not, buying assets - a new, faster, widget-cutter, for example.
But, if my current customers don't have any spare money, all I've done is locked money up in an asset that will produce more of the stuff I already can't sell.
:facepalm:
Saving is for the rich.
inane little opines
You mean, like the rich people do who stimulate the economy so much by keeping their money tied in assets and bank accounts?lowing wrote:
Ummmmmmm how about just keeping your money and not build a damn thing in the first place?
Yeah, that'll work.
we have been thorugh this, the poor, by definition, don't have money to spend. Unless of course you are talking about the beer, cigarettes, and lottery ticket companies that they employ.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Wait, I thought your argument was that the rich create jobs by expanding businesses? Now they are creating jobs by, spending money?lowing wrote:
Thank you for proving how the rich are the ones that drive the economy you pose an argument that is tough to argue against..
Guess what lowing, the poor spend money too. There are more poor than rich people. Hence greater buying power. And therefore worth much more to the economy.
The trickle down economy simply does not work.
nope, taken outta context. try again responding to the context of the conversation you quotedTheAussieReaper wrote:
You mean, like the rich people do who stimulate the economy so much by keeping their money tied in assets and bank accounts?lowing wrote:
Ummmmmmm how about just keeping your money and not build a damn thing in the first place?
Yeah, that'll work.
Then the irresponsible leders realized that they'd made a huge mistake and collapsed along with a load of businesses that were only being kept in business by relying upon wealth that was created by a housing bubble.lowing wrote:
People didn't start loosing their jobs until the finaciallly irresponsible decided not to pay their bills because they over extended.PureFodder wrote:
If they were earning money that was more consistant with their productivity then they would be able to pay their bills.lowing wrote:
Can't find where I said this --------------> "blame unemployed people for somehow causing great harm to the US"
Don't make the mistake of thinking unemployment and financial irresponsibility are one in the same. Simply at the basic level, I blame people for not paying their bills.
Yup, this was a spam email letter going around during the run up to the election.sergeriver wrote:
First off I bet you that if you google some part of this letter you will get several entries, and then you can't generalize about all the employers working their ass off to build a company. Some did and some just didn't. I have my own business with employees but I can't say I drove a shitty Corolla or used my home as office to build a company or ate ramen coz every cent went to it. That's a generalization. You can build a company and you don't deserve a Nobel prize for that.lowing wrote:
Well if it wasn't written to any employees, it is written now, so what is there about it that is untrue?sergeriver wrote:
It sure is a real letter. /sarcasm
Let's assume taxes aren't raised for small businesses. How are they going to survive without a consistent credit line (the one the poorly handled bailout was supposed to free up)? You guys are just nit-picking minute details but failing to see the bigger picture. The entire system needs to be changed.
*Guess what lowing, the poor spend money too*lowing wrote:
we have been thorugh this, the poor, by definition, don't have money to spend. Unless of course you are talking about the beer, cigarettes, and lottery ticket companies that they employ.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Wait, I thought your argument was that the rich create jobs by expanding businesses? Now they are creating jobs by, spending money?lowing wrote:
Thank you for proving how the rich are the ones that drive the economy you pose an argument that is tough to argue against..
Guess what lowing, the poor spend money too. There are more poor than rich people. Hence greater buying power. And therefore worth much more to the economy.
The trickle down economy simply does not work.
Maybe our definitions are where this is failing. By poor, assume I don't mean mega wealthy CEO's.
I am not a mega rich CEO, and I am not poor. I also am not a leech, I pay my bills.TheAussieReaper wrote:
*Guess what lowing, the poor spend money too*lowing wrote:
we have been thorugh this, the poor, by definition, don't have money to spend. Unless of course you are talking about the beer, cigarettes, and lottery ticket companies that they employ.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Wait, I thought your argument was that the rich create jobs by expanding businesses? Now they are creating jobs by, spending money?
Guess what lowing, the poor spend money too. There are more poor than rich people. Hence greater buying power. And therefore worth much more to the economy.
The trickle down economy simply does not work.
Maybe our definitions are where this is failing. By poor, assume I don't mean mega wealthy CEO's.