Even more pitiful economic numbers released. Obama built that

Yes, because the average government spending that amount is an Uganda, and not a former British city-state island that happens to have a literal inside connection with one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Tell me how "less debt" i.e the fiscal cliff NOW will create a more stable environment for private business?

Before you answer that, research stagflation in the UK quickly.

 

Help me connect your dots here. How does less public sector debt equate to a more stable private sector?

We run a trade deficit, so our private sector is already sending more money overseas to the foreign sector than what comes back. Yet, your solution for economic stability is for the public sector to also take even more of the private sector's money by taxing more than it spends into it.

Why would anyone want do that in the current economic climate?

 

First off, let me say how amazed I am that I have to explain that less debt equates to a more stable economic environment. Unreal.

Do you see the people on this board demanding higher taxes on businesses and the rich? Do you see Obama and Democrats doing the same? How do you think businesses/businessmen react to this? If businesses don't know how the massive amounts of debt will be paid, they don't know how to react. So they sit on their hands.

 

First off, let me say how not amazed I am that I have to explain macroeconomics to you.

Second, read some economics before you pretend to be "amazed".

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/06/08/the-main-problem-with-jobs-growth-is-lack-of-de/185857

 

lol, trying to have a rational conversation with tallanvor.

 

No, what's really amazing is that armchair economists like you have absolutely no understanding of sectoral balances, but consider yourselves economic experts.

Government spending injects money into the private sector. Taxation removes money from the private sector. It's a very simple mathematical identity and the basis of ALL schools of economics. Yet, you seem to think that removing net financial assets from the private sector will somehow encourage businesses to invest, take risks, and spend? Really?

And your reason? Debt debates are causing business owners to wring their hands in uncertainty over whether their taxes are going up or not. Talk about a straw-man argument.

I run a business. Do I sit around wondering how the national debt will be paid? Do I sit around wondering what my corporate tax rate will be in the future? No, because I have zero control over it. Instead, I choose to hire or invest if it will foreseeably increase my profits. I won't be happy if higher taxes eat into my profits, but I never base my business decisions on it, nor would I ever willingly choose NOT to make more money just because I might get taxed more.

 

They do know. They write the legislation. They build in just enough compromise so they don't kill the golden goose.

 

If you don't factor in taxation when making a business decision then you suck at running a business.

It's not just whether you will get taxed; it's how you will get taxed. This discourages business owners from making decisions since they aren't sure how the taxation will come. A business owner can't maximize profit unless they know these things.

http://www.uschambersmallbusinessnation.com/community/quarterly-survey-2

it's easy to find polls

 

The NPV on this statement is pretty low.

Sorry, did you just insult a job-creator?

 

Maybe I wasn't clear. Running a business requires me to make decisions regardless of what my future taxes will be. The last thing I do is sit around doing nothing because I'm worried about what my taxes may or may not be in the future.

Texxx, don't tell me you allow your business to languish and stop making decisions just because you're not 100% certain what your future taxes might be. You still perform DCF analysis based on data available, and you take steps to mitigate the risk if you're wrong.

At the end of the day, I see you guys decided to jump on a perceived misstatement, instead addressing the math behind sectoral balances. Trying to reduce public sector debt in a time of where the private sector is deleveraging is a bad idea, plain and simple.

 

What kind of business do you run?

 

My business is a middle-man...buy goods in vast quantities from manufacturers and then wholesale to retailers.

From all your talks about Mexican industrialists, I assume you're a business owner? What would be your foremost concern...consumer demand or the national debt?

 

Importer-exporter?



The_Conquistador is a man of many businesses. I can tell you no more, mainly for your own security.

 

You're very confused. In what capacity do you think the President has control of the economy? Not Obama specifically, but the position.

Obama is in over his head with the economy? Of course he is! Presidential nominee's are not economists. Whether one has a slightly better grasp on things that the other is more arbitrary than you realize. You don't drown faster the deeper you get, and they are all in over their head with todays economy.

Greenspan, Bernake, McDonough, Paulson, Geithner. These are examples of people who deserve to be blamed. They are tasked with regulating our county's central banking, and treasury. They fought for the deregulation that put our economy in the state it is now.

Clinton, Bush, and Obama are all guilty of "hiring" the people who helped the investment bankers devalue almost everything we own. However, blaming President is only diverting attention away from the people who are actually guilty.

I'm interested to see if you will ignore everything I've said, and continue wasting energy trying to make Obama look guilty of something else he has little control over.

 

Not really, more like domestic wholesale distribution...although the lines do get blurred sometimes. Most of my suppliers are import/export companies though.

 

8.3%

 

The broader unemployment rate (U-6) rose to 15.0% -- unreal. And the unemployment rate that everyone typically quotes would actually be 11.0% if you used the same labor force participation rate as when Obama took office. The "improvement" in unemployment rate over the last couple of years has been driven by people giving up their job searches and dropping out of the labor force. That's sad and a national tragedy.

How could it be any clearer that Obama's policies are failing?

 

You should post the headline

"US economy added 163,000 jobs in July, most in 5 months"

Not the catastrophe you were hoping for huh?

 

Mitt: Blaming President for jobs numbers = "Poppycock"

http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=333...6be9b8ef&xcreo=0&sref=http://blog.gawker.com/