Skip to main content

View Diary: Can someone explain to me why no one is asking this question? (29 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Serious question deserves serious answer (4+ / 0-)

    In the first debate, Romney addressed this and indicated that the rearrangement within the top 1% would focus available funds in places that would lead to job creation.

    There's no reason to believe this is true or even possible, but conceptually it's not ipso facto absurd.

    BTW: Colbert presented your question last night a bit more entertainingly than you've done in his 'Worthy Opponent' segment.

    Am I right, or am I right? - The Singing Detective

    by Clem Yeobright on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 08:20:39 AM PDT

    •  Well, I find it absurd. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      luckydog, phonegery, gfv6800, greengemini

      Why? Because as we've seen in this recent financial crisis--and the banks are a great example of this--when the top 1 percent sees a windfall, they aren't spending it, they're keeping it invested. That might create a job or two on Wall Street but it's not going to do anything for Main Street and both Romney and Ryan know this is true, because they are both enormously wealthy.

      Who's kidding whom?

      •  Ummmm, investment generates employment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        commonmass

        It's called 'capital', and it's a pretty fundamental concept in economics - even socialist economies utilize it.

        Am I right, or am I right? - The Singing Detective

        by Clem Yeobright on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 08:33:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right now, corporations are sitting on trillions (4+ / 0-)

          of profits, and not spending them to build new factories or update. I don't see how giving them more money to sit on will create more jobs. It just goes to the Caymen Island.
          Just ask Mitt.

          My experience, as a former business person, was I created more jobs because I had more demand for my services.

          As long as wages stay flat and healthcare costs continue to go up, there won't be any extra money to create that demand. Cutting social security will take even more money out of the economy.

          That's why I think we do need govt investment in infrastructure, energy, research, education. Things that are an investment in America and will create jobs, which will stimulate personal spending and create that demand, that creates more jobs.

          Today's problems are yesterday's solutions. Don Beck

          by Sherri in TX on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 09:09:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Great comment. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greengemini

            Thanks.  

            There seems to be a 'which came first, the chicken or the egg' question between 'investments' vs 'demand' creates jobs.

            Another way to look at it is what use of  money creates the most demand, and therefore the most jobs.  The money spent by lower and middle income people is the most effective, I think.  It gains by how fast and how often the dollar is  spent locally.  If I pay a bill I owe you, you can use that money to pay a bill you owe someone else, and that way the money is spent and re-spent.  It has a velocity, a speed, so that each dollar of initial spending is generally worth two and a half dollars of earning/spending activity.  The 'lock up in the vaults, sidelined dollar does not generate that increase in demand.

            Time is a long river.

            by phonegery on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 10:05:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site