TED talk: It's the middle class consumers, not the rich who create jobs

[Ziploc Surprise]

Ok, the business and finance world is not something I know much about but here's overly simplistic take on the situation. If it helps, imagine that I am writing this in crayon. This year when we did our tax return many of the deductions that had been available to us in the past were not available to us this time because they nixed these deductions. Had we had that money we would have spent it, thus creating more demand. I am one person with a very small home business. There are many many more people like me. Most of us would have spent the money that the government took from us this year. Collectively that's a lot. and it's just a tiny example in a sea of many such examples. Perhaps the speaker has it right. I don't know though.

You never think of hoarding your money? Like putting it in a bank for future use? You have immidiate need to spend it?

I have a regular savings. The money I would have gotten back would not have been much but would have gone towards a home repair that we will have to wait on until there's money. Other people, especially a lot of people I know, would have not had a single thought of putting it in savings or putting it into a need (or future need). This is the way of the world.

---

You never think of hoarding your money? Like putting it in a bank for future use? You have immidiate need to spend it?

I have a regular savings. The money I would have gotten back would not have been much but would have gone towards a home repair that we will have to wait on until there's money. Other people, especially a lot of people I know, would have not had a single thought of putting it in savings or putting it into a need (or future need). This is the way of the world.

BTW the point of the TED talk was the tax savings going toward the middle class vs going toward the very rich.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I have a regular savings. The money I would have gotten back would not have been much but would have gone towards a home repair that we will have to wait on until there's money. Other people, especially a lot of people I know, would have not had a single thought of putting it in savings or putting it into a need (or future need). This is the way of the world.

Well, I guess this just shows that the US gov is now low on money, and cannot afford to give money for the most tax related refunds.

[Creed of Heresy]

I have a regular savings. The money I would have gotten back would not have been much but would have gone towards a home repair that we will have to wait on until there's money. Other people, especially a lot of people I know, would have not had a single thought of putting it in savings or putting it into a need (or future need). This is the way of the world.

Well, I guess this just shows that the US gov is now low on money, and cannot afford to give money for the most tax related refunds.

..."running low on money?" Kilic, you have NO idea how governments and their treasuries work in the modern age, do you.

Probably too much time jerking off thinking about the hunnic empire.

The US government can print as much money as it wants. That's the benefit of a free-floating currency, it can print endless amounts of dollar bills, and as long as the speculation on it is good, it is valued. And the US economy is, despite what S&P [the same people who said that AIG and Goldmann-Sachs were good investment choices right up to their collapse] says, a constant investment-worthy good-speculation choice. Namely that it is a free-market enterprising nation and that it has shown that even in its worst of economic depressions it still can muster up the manpower and resolve to become an industrial superpower [which the turks have never managed to do...funny...when they collapsed, they simply collapsed and in the last several centuries they've never recovered...yet we did so in only three decades...huh] which later becomes a military and commercial superpower. The benefit of having a free-trade economic system is that even when the top collapses, there's a lot at the bottom eager to take their place, and right now, we're hungering for the top to collapse so that those at the bottom can usurp them. No empire lasts forever, and ones based on money? Even less so.

Now! Yes, the middle class is basically why this country became a superpower. Anyone who believes otherwise is a tool. There's enough historical and economical evidence to prove it. The reason so many jobs exist is because the middle class in this country has had spending money, and they were the largest group by far in this nation. The rich do not spend money. They "invest" it, which does NOT mean they are buying commodities or services; they're putting their money into speculation on businesses that SELL those commodities or services. If there is no middle class, or a shrunken middle class, there are no/less consumers of services/commodities, and the rich need to get their overpriced heads out of their bleached assholes and get with the fucking program and realize that if they keep fucking over the middle class they're going to end up on the streets begging for change themselves, because without the middle class, there is no circulation of money. If they want to play their little stock market game, that's cute, they can go right ahead and pretend that what they do means something, but in truth, it doesn't. Companies cannot exist without a demand, and the middle class, people who have money but not too much money, create that demand. And the more they try to screw the middle class over for their own selfish gain, the more they dig their own graves.

Me, I'm lower class. I don't have money beyond what I can manage to scrape up just to exist. I'm not a part of the game one way or another. So I have a unique perspective; a view from the outside. And I see the middle class getting fucked over by the rich, who think they're being "savvy," but all they're being is suicidal. And really? I hope they fucking collapse under their own weight. I hope one day soon they end up beggars on the streets just like in the Great Depression, begging ME for my change, so I can laugh at them and go "welcome to my life, you selfish fucks!" And then I'll buy them a fucking hamburger just to show that I'm the bigger man.

I really hope I get to see that day. I really do.

[kılıç_mehmet]

..."running low on money?" Kilic, you have NO idea how governments and their treasuries work in the modern age, do you.

Then it must be that it cannot afford to inject more liquidity into the system.
I'm just stating whatever that comes to my mind. Obviously, I'm not an economist, but I really can only think of two reasons at most.

If they want to play their little stock market game, that's cute, they can go right ahead and pretend that what they do means something, but in truth, it doesn't. Companies cannot exist without a demand, and the middle class, people who have money but not too much money, create that demand. And the more they try to screw the middle class over for their own selfish gain, the more they dig their own graves.

Obviously. I've stated this before in another thread.

[Creed of Heresy]

..."running low on money?" Kilic, you have NO idea how governments and their treasuries work in the modern age, do you.

Then it must be that it cannot afford to inject more liquidity into the system.
I'm just stating whatever that comes to my mind. Obviously, I'm not an economist, but I really can only think of two reasons at most.

It could, but the way the world market works these days means that injecting any substantial amount of money into the total financial market would fuck over everything. I thought of this when the bailout happened [$700 billion to the banks], wondering "well why didn't they just divvy that money up instead to every single citizen of the US?" Supply vs. Demand. If suddenly every individual in the US was a millionaire, it would drastically increase inflation because everyone would have tons of money and could buy everything they wanted; demand for everything would go up but supply would not have gone up significantly, and when demand goes up against supply, prices increase exponentially. Basically, within a few months, a chicken sandwich at Wendy's, normally costing $5, would instead cost around $5,000.

There has to be a basis for sudden infusions of cash, and the government simply saying "we want more spending" doesn't usually cut it. Keep it in the hands of a few, it stays valued, put it in the hands of many, it loses value. It may seem like a bad thing at first, but only to a utopian idealist. In truth, it shouldn't be given to ANYONE, that quantity; not the rich, not the poor. The poor, a bit, to alleviate their problems, or to bring them up to a more acceptable level with the higher classes above them, and technically, the US government DOES do that in the form of social security, food stamps, tax refunds, and so on and so forth.

Economics is the biggest factor in the world these days, higher even than military might [if you need evidence of this, just look at the F-35 JSF program in-depth]. As the old street saying goes: "don't shoot your dealer."

[Tiberius]

@Synackaon: Not sure whose side you are on from your post. You realise it was Mr Hanauer who went and hired the PR firm right?

I honestly don't see the problem with what TED did. Chris explained it in his blog; they post one video per day, out of literally thousands that they record. This talk didn't go down well with the crowd at TED, so they decided not to post it. The speaker did not want to "work with them". He hired a PR firm and charged TED with "censorship", and then sent private correspondance with Chris to a journalist. Mr Hanauer started this conspiracy himself, and I'm sure he loved the amount of attention he got from it.

[Darth]

The US government can print as much money as it wants. That's the benefit of a free-floating currency, it can print endless amounts of dollar bills, and as long as the speculation on it is good, it is valued. ...

How is that a benefit? It's an invisible tax, every dollar they print lowers the value of dollars in wallets. Worse still, it's a regressive tax. Who is the first recipient of the freshly printed dollars? Banks, who are obviously mighty thankful, second in line is their rich buddies, lobbyists and their politician servants (to keep the tap running). Because the banks are the first recipients they get to spend their dollars before the markets have adjusted to the new amount of cash, they get good bang for their buck. The last recipients don't.

It could, but the way the world market works these days means that injecting any substantial amount of money into the total financial market would fuck over everything. I thought of this when the bailout happened [$700 billion to the banks], wondering "well why didn't they just divvy that money up instead to every single citizen of the US?" Supply vs. Demand. If suddenly every individual in the US was a millionaire, it would drastically increase inflation because everyone would have tons of money and could buy everything they wanted; demand for everything would go up but supply would not have gone up significantly, and when demand goes up against supply, prices increase exponentially. Basically, within a few months, a chicken sandwich at Wendy's, normally costing $5, would instead cost around $5,000.

Right, if they gave $45,000 (14trillion/300million = roughly 45k [bailout was a lot more than 700billion]) to everyone there is inflation (though the policy is progressive rather than regressive) and everyone's money loses it's value. The same exact thing happens if you give the same amount of money to just 5 people, only the inflation hits only after the first few recipients in the chain spend/invest. Either way there is inflation, the difference is when and who loses. The way the bailout went down was the absolute worst way it could have gone, of all the terrible choices they could have made, in typical fashion, they made the very worst.

And the US economy is, despite what S&P [the same people who said that AIG and Goldmann-Sachs were good investment choices right up to their collapse] says, a constant investment-worthy good-speculation choice. Namely that it is a free-market enterprising nation and that it has shown that even in its worst of economic depressions it still can muster up the manpower and resolve to become an industrial superpower [which the turks have never managed to do...funny...when they collapsed, they simply collapsed and in the last several centuries they've never recovered...yet we did so in only three decades...huh] which later becomes a military and commercial superpower.

Can't mention AIG and government-sachs and then claim its a free-market enterprising nation, it's a corporatocracy (also, you meant lehman brothers yeah?)

cast disagree with much of the 2nd or 3rd paragraphs of your 1st post =P

[Creed of Heresy]

Oh trust me, Stue, when I say "benefit," don't let it be thought that I am saying it's a benefit for the American people as a whole. I'm saying that the government itself benefits from it because technically it can never really run out of money. However, the way in which our government spends its money and where it gives it first is what's fucking everything over.

Truth be told, it was a move of sheer, unimaginably disgusting shrewd brilliance on the part of the republicans, what they did. Run a money-grubbing scam with the housing market for eight years by tearing down regulations on it while they have a congressional, senatorial, and executive grip on DC politics. Continue to milk it to its last until the elections for the new president, and immediately force a decision upon said new president that makes him decide between making all in the banking "industry" even richer by "bailing them out," or run the risk of political suicide by basically sitting back and watching as the banks collapse a la Great Depression 2.0 as his first act as President.

Shit like that is why every time someone starts crying about how totally unfair increasing the taxes on the rich are or why regulations are sooooo bad, I laugh in their faces until my sides hurt. And then I keep laughing because it is THAT FUCKING HILARIOUS.

[downbeatplumb]

I think its the poor who keep the economy rolling.

My reasoning is thus.

Middle class and rich people have savings, this is money that is tied down and does not benefit the economy.

100% of poor peoples money goes back into the economy. It is the cirulation that keeps economies healthy not the hoarding.

[Tiberius]

I think its the poor who keep the economy rolling.

My reasoning is thus.

Middle class and rich people have savings, this is money that is tied down and does not benefit the economy.

100% of poor peoples money goes back into the economy. It is the cirulation that keeps economies healthy not the hoarding.

That would be a valid argument if the middle class and rich didn't ever buy anything. They do.

Heck, I'm technically middle class and most of my money (probably over 90%) goes back into the economy rather than being saved.

Also, "savings" themselves go back into the economy as banks use that money to do investments, which is how a lot of their profit is made.