The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: CSeeman on July 28, 2012, 09:26:00 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021032402
That was my first reaction to reading this...then my next thought was how do you explain to someone like this how wrong they are.... how do you fight this....I am A CPA going for a PhD in Accounting candidate with a Masters in Accounting and Economics i have taught accounting for years been a CFO for numerous public companies and i would not know where to start....(before you say anything really do not care if you believe me or not and i am not bragging just expressing my thoughts) The reason i told you this background is because one would think i would be able to explain to this person how they are wrong after all i explain basic economics to non financial managers and board members almost every day.
kentuck (62,545 posts)
The way the economy works at its most basic level...Suppose a thousand new people move into a town. These are all potential customers for the businesses that are in this town. But, in order for these new people to buy the products that are made by the businesses in this town, there has to be more production.
Who is responsible for more production so these customers can buy the products that they want to buy? The owners of the business would need to hire more people to make the products for the new customers.
Did you ever hear of inventory. you need to sell off inventory before producing new product. I am not going to produce more goods/ services until my existing inventory is sold off.
Unless one believes that the "small business man" does all of this production by himself, then nothing could be created without the worker. Likewise, the customer is of no use to the local economy if there are no products to buy.
Granted, the "small business man" can hire more people to make more products to sell to the new customers so long as the new customers have the means to purchase the products. Each of these is dependent on the other. The small business owner is dependent on labor to make the product. The laborer is dependent upon the business owner for the job. They are all dependent on the customer buying the product, otherwise, the business fails, the worker loses his job, the customer goes without, and they all suffer. One is not superior to the other, contrary to what we have been led to believe our entire lives.
I love this.. why is it that liberals can never understand that we do not live in a demand only economy. there are countries with demand only economies but by definition they only produce what their people demand. if the demand side does not know about new products how can they demand them. for example the IPAD was not demanded by the public until it was innovated. If people had a choice i would much rather live in a innovation driven economy then a demand side economy.
right now i am just shaking my head wondering why this is so hard for people to understand
If one cannot survive without the other, then neither of them is superior to the other. Historically, the person that "invested" the capital for the business gets the larger cut. However, his capital would be worthless if it was not put to use. Then the question should be, what would be the fair cut for the business man over the worker? If the worker, also the customer, does not make enough to buy the products that are made in his town, then the business goes under and workers are laid off, and everyone loses. That is the challenge of modern capitalism.
Then there is this point the liberals always make.... but they either do not realize or do not want to realize that capital and labor is a supply demand issue. there is a whole lot more supply for labor then their is capital (that ultimately creates demand for labor) just thing about how many people you know work for companies and how many people you know that are willing to start a business. its pretty one sided with the overwhelming majority of people wanting to be workers then business owners
There i tried.........
-
I'm not going to accuse you of bragging, but I am going to chastise you for not giving the DUmmie's name. The first reason for this is that the DUmmies like seeing their names. It makes them feel famous. The second reason is that it helps other CC readers know what to expect in the post. This post, for instance, was made by kentuck, and it was a post about economics. Because it is kentuck discussing economics most everyone automatically knows that it will be the equivalent of a brain dead alligator discussing neurosurgery.
-
Point Taken....
my only explanation is i am not well versed in the practice of CC and i am sorry for this mistake.
-
just thing about how many people you know work for companies and how many people you know that are willing to start a business. its pretty one sided with the overwhelming majority of people wanting to be workers then business owners
Workers want none of the risk, hard work and headacres but all of the profit. Company goes broke from their stupidity, they lose nothing and move on to another job. Only one out of a hundred people are will to put in the time required and risk everything to startand run a business.
-
Before going over there to grab the primitive screen-name, I knew it had to be kentuck.
-
kentuck (62,545 posts)
The way the economy works at its most basic level...Suppose a thousand new people move into a town. These are all potential customers for the businesses that are in this town. But, in order for these new people to buy the products that are made by the businesses in this town, there has to be more production.
Who is responsible for more production so these customers can buy the products that they want to buy? The owners of the business would need to hire more people to make the products for the new customers.
That is idiocy at its highest level although par for the course with kentuck.
Flooding a market for speculated demand is the fast track to bankruptcy.
How any person could think otherwise is beyond sane imagination.
-
Kenstuck(on stupid) is cute when he tries to be "cerebral".
The little piker had a hard time in high-school economics.
For him, he always came up with 1+1=tomato.
Suffice it to say, he didn't graduate for a few more years. :-)
-
CSeeman, kentuck actually looks like an economic whiz-kid compared to DUmmie Unblock's thread that Chris_ posted ("Nobody gets seconds until everyone's had firsts"). As far as Flippy's description of kentuck's mental processes goes, it probably is too kind to kentuck, omitting as it does the effect of his life-long voluntary drug abuse on his lizard-like brain.
-
It is pretty much known here that Kentuck is a brain dead retard. So it nothing new that he would try to educate other brain dead retards. I think out of all them, him and Nads are tops in the not one functioning brain cell group.
As for your accounting knowledge: I am taking accounting this semester and I can't make heads or tails of it. I am glad that you are doing so well in it, as after taking it I just want to shoot myself.
-
Dingbat poster over there. I think liberals look at bosses and owners as just rich folk all the time. That is so far from the truth in many instances. Just look at all the businesses that fail in the first three year. The percentage is enormous. Many owners pay some of their employees more than they make, and I bet the percentage of that is high. I am one of those. I had two employees who made more than I made in salary and profit last year. It's the risk I take with my capital to be in business and sometimes it isn't pie in the sky profit like they think it is. The specialized employee pool in my sector is an interesting one. I pay for the best and reward the best in my field. I could pay a lot less and meander with less qualified but I like being confident in my product and services. I am sure most of the posters over there are either on some government assistance, government job, or minimum basic labor job like cashier anyway. The understanding of economics and of being in business is quite foreign to them.
-
I am currently going through an economics exercise to see if the level of capital (people wanting to start their own business) was exactly equal to the supply of workers ( people that want to work for some business) would this situation make his (Kentuck's) theories correct.
My first thought is that because the infusion of capital has to happen before business can take place and in order for business to hire a new employee business activity needs to occur. This leads me to the conclusion that the infusion of capital would be more important then the hiring of workers to make product get paid and buy the company's product.
I know i lead a boring life.... but this is what I do
-
I know i lead a boring life.... but this is what I do.
Actually, sir, I'll bet you don't have a boring life.
I always found accounting fascinating, utterly fascinating.
And then there's always the excitement of catching someone trying to pull a fast one.
<<fast ones don't get by.
-
Point Taken....
my only explanation is i am not well versed in the practice of CC and i am sorry for this mistake.
Bitchslap for apologizing. It is a sign of weakness.
-
kentuck (62,545 posts)
The way the economy works at its most basic level...Suppose a thousand new people move into a town. These are all potential customers for the businesses that are in this town. But, in order for these new people to buy the products that are made by the businesses in this town, there has to be more production.
Or, instead of doing that, drive to the next town over to buy what they need.
-
Another lib failure, not understanding elasticity, and inelasticity as it applies to supply and demand.
-
Frank and cseeman. I rise to your level of geekness as well. I'm one of those female anomalies that get this stuff too. Makes it hard to have female friends though lol. Cseeman. There's a reason liberals think the way they do. Many have a very very very thin threaded grasp of anything involving economies.
-
That's why it's so frightening when they're in charge. All of the libs economic "theories" assume that money grows on trees, and it appears magically.
Kenstuck on stupid. I like that, skul.
-
That's why it's so frightening when they're in charge. All of the libs economic "theories" assume that money grows on trees, and it appears magically.
Kenstuck on stupid. I like that, skul.
Their economic theory is that when you run out of money, tax people more and print more. And they wonder the value of the dollar is dropping like a stone.
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021032402
That was my first reaction to reading this...then my next thought was how do you explain to someone like this how wrong they are.... how do you fight this....I am A CPA going for a PhD in Accounting candidate with a Masters in Accounting and Economics i have taught accounting for years been a CFO for numerous public companies and i would not know where to start....(before you say anything really do not care if you believe me or not and i am not bragging just expressing my thoughts) The reason i told you this background is because one would think i would be able to explain to this person how they are wrong after all i explain basic economics to non financial managers and board members almost every day.
Did you ever hear of inventory. you need to sell off inventory before producing new product. I am not going to produce more goods/ services until my existing inventory is sold off.
I love this.. why is it that liberals can never understand that we do not live in a demand only economy. there are countries with demand only economies but by definition they only produce what their people demand. if the demand side does not know about new products how can they demand them. for example the IPAD was not demanded by the public until it was innovated. If people had a choice i would much rather live in a innovation driven economy then a demand side economy.
right now i am just shaking my head wondering why this is so hard for people to understand
Then there is this point the liberals always make.... but they either do not realize or do not want to realize that capital and labor is a supply demand issue. there is a whole lot more supply for labor then their is capital (that ultimately creates demand for labor) just thing about how many people you know work for companies and how many people you know that are willing to start a business. its pretty one sided with the overwhelming majority of people wanting to be workers then business owners
There i tried.........
Welcome to CU. You don't have to defend yourself as far as I am concerned. I have no reason to think that you are lying to me about your education or anything else. Since you say are an expert in the field of economics and I have no evidence to the contrary I am going accept what you tell me as fact. If I were to find out at a later date that you have not been telling the truth, then I will deal with that when the times comes. I can't speak for everyone here but it has been my experience that most people on this forum are trusting of people until they are given a reason not to be. In comparison the LIBS over at DU are suspicious of everyone and everything. They will call you a liar in a split second and proof means nothing to them. You could post copies of your diplomas and certifications and transcripts and whatever and they would still call you a liar. They are impossible to deal with and many of them are delusional.
I liked your post and you did a great of debunking kentucks theories on economics. It is always fun to watch a DUmmie get taken to the woodshed. The fact is that having someone like you debate a DUmmie like kentuck on the subject of economics is like shooting fish in a barrel. Although you have no doubt what the outcome is going to be, it's still entertaining. Thanks for joining up and enjoy your stay. :cheersmate:
-
Ummm . . . what are you drinking, Bondai?
Welcome to CU.
:tongue: :fuelfire: :whistling:
-
I don't drink,it's the pain medication...Oh God, Oh God, Oh God. What have I done. I'm sorry and should be repeatedly bitch slapped for this. What I meant to post was welcome to CC.. The Conservative Cave and to add insult to injury for reasons unknown to me we are members of a forum where the 'EDIT" function is locked down like Fort Knox. Even if I had discovered my error I have no way to correct it. Thankfully it was pointed out to me. Does this qualify as a Freudian slip? I think it does. I have no choice but to laugh at myself. I mean what else are you going to do.
I am asking an Admin or a MOD type person or anyone else that has the power to please go in and change my post so it reads CC instead of CU. I don't want to sit around the forum with a "kick me" sign on my back while people wander by and bitch slap me. I am not saying I don't deserve it, but I don't have to like it.
I would also like the leadership of this board to reconsider releasing the EDIT function from bondage. I have a compelling reason for asking and if you want to know why please PM me and I will explain. Thanks
-
Bitchslap for apologizing. It is a sign of weakness.
Bitch slap for bitch slapping
-
I don't drink,it's the pain medication...Oh God, Oh God, Oh God. What have I done. I'm sorry and should be repeatedly bitch slapped for this. What I meant to post was welcome to CC.. The Conservative Cave and to add insult to injury for reasons unknown to me we are members of a forum where the 'EDIT" function is locked down like Fort Knox. Even if I had discovered my error I have no way to correct it. Thankfully it was pointed out to me. Does this qualify as a Freudian slip? I think it does. I have no choice but to laugh at myself. I mean what else are you going to do.
I am asking an Admin or a MOD type person or anyone else that has the power to please go in and change my post so it reads CC instead of CU. I don't want to sit around the forum with a "kick me" sign on my back while people wander by and bitch slap me. I am not saying I don't deserve it, but I don't have to like it.
I would also like the leadership of this board to reconsider releasing the EDIT function from bondage. I have a compelling reason for asking and if you want to know why please PM me and I will explain. Thanks
Bondai, it's all good. :tongue: I H5ed you for being a good sport about it.
-
Where does the town come from? Did it emerge fully formed from the head of Zeus?