Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 81

Thread: Eminent Domain, Corporate Welfare, and JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!

  1. Top | #41
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,530
    Rep Power
    21

    When will we finally flush the "JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!" delusion down the toilet?

    Why does everyone keep giving excuses to keep this delusion going?


    Quote Originally Posted by Deepak View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    You're ignoring the important question, which is why the city should offer this subsidy and dislocate so many residents? Why should such a huge cost be paid in order to lure a company and get it to "create jobs"? How are these "jobs" worth such a cost? Obviously you are embarrassed to try to answer this question.
    Um, no - what I'm not understanding is how the logic of changing the message to 'CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS!' changes anything.
    I said:
    The purpose of the economy is not "jobs! jobs! jobs!" but production to serve "CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS!"
    Meaning decisions about the economy must recognize that the ultimate aim of "the economy" is to serve consumers, or make sure that producers are serving consumers. Their function is NOT to provide "jobs! jobs! jobs!" as Trump and other demagogues pretend, and so if the creation of more "jobs" ends up hurting consumers, then those "jobs" are a net loss to the country, not a gain. The only "jobs! jobs! jobs!" having any value are those which end up making the consumers better off, or improving the production or the service to consumers. This is not so if the "job creation" makes the production more costly and results in higher prices which consumers have to pay, or higher taxes.

    So "changing the message to 'CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS!'" only means recognizing that the economy is really about serving consumers, i.e., producing the stuff people want, instead of pretending that it's about creating jobs.


    The company still wants to build the factory cheaply, so they'll try to convince politicians that it's a good idea -- and they'll in turn try to convince their constituents that what they're doing is a good idea.
    Of course all companies want subsidies and welfare and so on. The unanswered question is: Why should the state do this when it makes society worse off rather than better off?

    And here's the answer (if no one offers a better one): Many of us are deluded into believing there is a mass of scum in the country who need to be neutralized somehow, so they don't do us harm by going on a rampage, i.e., committing crimes, plunder, etc. And since we worship factories and factory jobs, as preached by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, we imagine that massive creation of factory "jobs" will solve this problem of excess humans, scum, rabble, who need to be put somewhere to keep them out of mischief.

    RVonse confirmed this when he said in effect
    The real purpose of my job is to:
    get me off the streets so I don't "steal":

    Quote Originally Posted by RVonse View Post
    They want more jobs because they actually want more money. And they correctly assume that it is actually easier and safer to work for a living than to steal for it.
    I.e., Americans who don't have these artificial "jobs" provided for them will resort to CRIME, i.e., the "unemployed" is a mass of pillagers who are ready to go on a rampage of plunder if we don't put them into factory "jobs" to keep them out of mischief.

    RVonse proves my point that the whole purpose of Trump's "jobs" is to provide babysitting slots to put the rabble into in order to get them off the streets so they don't turn to plundering (stealing etc.).

    He's saying in effect that the whole purpose of saving his job as a steelworker was to get him off the streets and prevent him from pillaging and plundering, i.e., stealing. Because without his steel job, paying him 10 times as much as a Chinese worker would be paid, he'd resort to crime and plunder and pillage, and so to save our society from his crimes we had to provide him with a job at the steel mill, even though it means we have to pay higher prices for steel as a result.


    Are you saying that the idea of building factories based on consumer demand is so unpopular as to never be voted for?
    subsidized by the state? Yes, that's unpopular. The demand is not for that, but for factories to provide babysitting slots for excess job-seekers, which is not "consumer demand."

    Because building unnecessary factories would not in fact serve consumer demand. It's unnecessary factories we're talking about, paid for by corporate welfare like in Michigan. Whatever factories are actually necessary to serve consumer demand don't require any government subsidy or corporate welfare, because the market alone, by itself, provides the incentive to build those factories, which will be profitable and reward the company, without any state subsidy.

    There's no reason for the state to subsidize something which would be profitable for the company to do anyway, without the subsidy. But, to provide "jobs" for crybabies, i.e., babysitting slots to keep the rabble off the streets -- for that we need state subsidy, because the companies don't make any profit doing this, because it's a service to society rather than something needed to improve the production and increase profit.


    If not, then conditions will exist where factories need to be built based on consumer demand, buildings will get razed to serve consumer demand, then as demand ebbs the factory goes away.
    You're ignoring the question of the state subsidizing it. Obviously factories are sometimes built without any corporate welfare because the market supports it. I.e., to satisfy consumer demand, and thus make profit. And such development might even result in earlier buildings getting razed. If it's supported by the private market and profit motive and supply-demand, then it's the right thing to do -- bring on the bulldozers!

    But that's not special corporate welfare deals to select companies, like the Michigan case. That wasn't based on consumer demand, but on the need for the babysitting slots ("jobs").

    Whereas meeting market demand requires letting all buyers, all companies, all property owners compete equally, regardless of any need to provide "jobs! jobs! jobs!" -- i.e., the goal is not to provide babysitting-slot "jobs" for crybabies, but to raise tax revenue to the state, and to let companies make profit in the competitive market. And those which perform better reap more profit and win out in the competition.

    As long as it's the market and profit which pays for the change or the bulldozing or relocations, then it's worth it.


    In what sense would the outcome actually change for this town with a different rationalization?
    The difference would be that if it's done to serve consumer demand, then there's no government subsidy, so there's no cost born by taxpayers. If there's a cost, it's paid by the companies, who buy or lease property like any other player in the market, with no special deal to them to get them to "create jobs" for society.

    The intended outcome of "jobs! jobs! jobs!" is the wrong rationalization. No special deals should be cut with any company, giving them some special tax-break or other subsidy, in order to get them to create "jobs! jobs! jobs" -- Rather, let all the companies compete in the market, serving consumers, and those which perform better will prevail, and all costs will be paid by those who benefit, from the profits.


    What exactly is the question we're supposed to answer?
    The question is: What was gained for society by paying subsidies to GM to build that factory? Why should a company get a special deal at taxpayers' expense because they promise "jobs! jobs! jobs!"? How are those "jobs! jobs! jobs!" worth it to the taxpayers who have to pay the cost?

    The question to be answered by Trump and Bernie Sanders and the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" fanatics is: Why do we need the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" instead of just letting the competitive market take care of meeting the market demand? Or, why are you deluded into thinking we need all these "jobs! jobs! jobs!" in order to keep RVonse and others off the streets to prevent them from stealing, plundering, pillaging? Why are you hallucinating that we need to "bring back the factories" etc. in order to provide "jobs" for the rabble?

  2. Top | #42
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,351
    Archived
    3,672
    Total Posts
    5,023
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    [Pan=3
    The question to be answered by Trump and Bernie Sanders and the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" fanatics is: Why do we need the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" instead of just letting the competitive market take care of meeting the market demand? Or, why are you deluded into thinking we need all these "jobs! jobs! jobs!" in order to keep RVonse and others off the streets to prevent them from stealing, plundering, pillaging? Why are you hallucinating that we need to "bring back the factories" etc. in order to provide "jobs" for the rabble?
    Yes, I get it you think we are all delusional. But the logic of the situation can only take you to these 2 options:

    1. More jobs causing more consumption derived from higher wages, and higher living standards for everyone. (the German economy)
    or
    2. Less jobs causing more unemployment, more crime and corruption, and lower living standards. But higher profits for CEO's and financial holders of equity. (the Mexico or Bangladesh economy)

    If you are in the middle class you desire #1 but if you are an equity holder you will desire #2.

    This is what it all boils down to. It is simple enough there is no need to try to fool yourself and/or others with the bullshit wall of text.

    The jobs really are important and everyone except for you knows this.

  3. Top | #43
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bronx, NY
    Posts
    3,966
    Archived
    945
    Total Posts
    4,911
    Rep Power
    35
    You're mistaken about export economies like Germany; they keep their living standards lower in order to keep their prices competitive. Allowing a higher standard of living causes their currency to rise in value.

  4. Top | #44
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,351
    Archived
    3,672
    Total Posts
    5,023
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
    You're mistaken about export economies like Germany; they keep their living standards lower in order to keep their prices competitive. Allowing a higher standard of living causes their currency to rise in value.
    If that is the case, then how do they manage labor unions with higher wages than the UAW?

  5. Top | #45
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bronx, NY
    Posts
    3,966
    Archived
    945
    Total Posts
    4,911
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by RVonse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
    You're mistaken about export economies like Germany; they keep their living standards lower in order to keep their prices competitive. Allowing a higher standard of living causes their currency to rise in value.
    If that is the case, then how do they manage labor unions with higher wages than the UAW?
    Because we're even harder on our workers, even if we're not an exporter. Also, they have a stronger welfare state. I'm sure that figures into the compensation figures.

    https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-publi...20913-en_0.pdf

    I'd quote portions but my iPad won't select from this PDF. Anyway, the notion that exporters, Germany among them, practice austerity to keep their competitive advantages is not controversial.

  6. Top | #46
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    24,455
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,207
    Rep Power
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    I was referring to simple labels that are sometimes applied arbitrarily. Maybe the labels "socialist' or 'oommunist' are applied to systems that are probably better described as a kind of autocracy, a ruling body dominated by powerful leader.
    They went crazy with collectivization--and tens of millions starved as a result.
    But not those in the upper layers of government hierarchy.
    True. Also, in general they saved the city dwellers, it was the rural people that died.

  7. Top | #47
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,787
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,693
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    But not those in the upper layers of government hierarchy.
    True. Also, in general they saved the city dwellers, it was the rural people that died.
    Yes, so much for 'Socialism' or 'Communism' or collective wellbeing.

  8. Top | #48
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,530
    Rep Power
    21

    The "babysitting slots" are those of the "job creation" programs, or the "JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!" clamor, and

    and the BRING BACK THE FACTORIES babble. Etc. -- not ALL employment, or ALL jobs.


    Quote Originally Posted by RVonse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleDon View Post

    Why do you believe that GM or Steel Dynamics would hire people just to babysit them?
    They would because they're paid to do it, by the state, wanting to subsidize "jobs" for someone who otherwise would steal.

    It's RVonse who demands that the state do this subsidizing, saying the purpose of his job is to prevent him from stealing. He said in the quote above that the point of the "job creation" is that the job is needed as an alternative to stealing:

    "And they correctly assume that it is actually easier and safer to work for a living than to steal for it."

    And this is the reason we have to provide "jobs" for people. It's not the company who wants to babysit them, but it's RVonse who's saying we have to get them into the jobs in order that they don't STEAL as the alternative to having the job.

    So it's not in order to produce a better product, or serve the consumers, that we need these "jobs" -- No, that production was already taking place in China, where the steel and other products were produced just as well and at lower cost. So, what was gained by "bringing back the factories" from China? or the steel production? It wasn't to get something produced that wasn't already being produced before. Nothing new is produced by relocating the production to the U.S. All that's new is the new job slots for Americans, to do the same work at higher labor cost than before, so that now consumers have to pay higher prices than before, for the same production.

    RVonse's explanation why we need Trump to "create jobs" for someone is that "it is actually easier and safer to work for a living than to steal for it." Meaning that if they had not been put in this new job brought back from China, they'd be stealing instead.

    How is it not BABYSITTING them, if we put them in that factory job in order to deter them from stealing as their alternative? And we're paying GM or U.S. Steel etc. to provide this babysitting slot. The company does it in order to get the subsidy, or the protectionism, the extra business, but society's motive for paying the company is to get that job slot for the U.S. job-seeker, who would otherwise resort to stealing. According to RVonse.
    This is very true. Babysitting is actually recognized as a HUGE value to our society. And as such is a big reason why Warren Buffet pays lower taxes than his secretary.
    I've explained what "babysitting" means. It refers to jobs which are "created" at a cost to society (such as higher taxes or higher prices), without a benefit other than just the "job" itself, as a place to put some job-seekers because we feel sorry for them. E.g., the jobs brought back from China, which were done at lower cost in China (assuming there is some number of such jobs in steel or auto which Trump has "created" with his trade-war tariffs). These new U.S. jobs don't make us any better off, because the production has not improved or increased as a result, but has only increased in cost. So we have paid a cost and in return gained only the jobs for the needy U.S. job-seekers, so it's only for their benefit, or only to get them off the streets, or to appease them, not to make consumers or Americans generally better off.

    And similarly the auto jobs in Michigan, due to the subsidy to GM, in return for the factory jobs.

    It's reasonable to call these "babysitting slots," but it's not clear how Warren Buffet is a babysitter in this sense.


    Ordinary labor is not that much of a benefit to society so the IRS taxes it heavily. But the management of people into productive employment is a HUGE benefit . . .
    Instead of "productive employment," this should read "the management of people into the babysitting slots (factory "jobs") is a HUGE benefit" . . . etc. These babysitting slots, or "jobs" created for job-seekers out of pity for them, subsidized by the state (like the Michigan case), are seen by job-creator fanatics as needed to get the rabble off the streets, and thus as beneficial to society, to protect us from the threat, e.g., from the laid-off steel workers or auto workers as plunderers who would "steal" if they aren't provided with these jobs as an alternative to plunder.

    So it's not the "productive employment" role which they play, but the role as a deterrent to the plunder. The production had already been taking place in China, at lower cost, so nothing is made more "productive" by this relocation of factory jobs away from China to the U.S. All that's "productive" about this job-creation, such as in Michigan, is the benefit of getting the rabble off the streets and into the babysitting slots. I.e., not any benefit of better production of steel or autos.

    . . . is a HUGE benefit to society which is why the IRS does not tax capitalists much at all. In the United States, the taxes will prevent you from becoming very wealthy unless you can successfully babysit a significant number of the adult population.
    You don't prove a point by just throwing the word "babysit" around everywhere and calling every capitalist a "babysitter" because they hire some workers.

    If they gain a subsidy, or protection, etc., a benefit in return for creating "jobs" which are needed for needy job-seekers, which society has to pay them for, then it can be called "babysitting" -- but this is not the case for all capitalists or all employers.

  9. Top | #49
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,787
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,693
    Rep Power
    70
    Without purpose, employment or adequate income, society disintegrates and everyone loses....except, maybe, not so much the super rich living in their island hideaways or fortified communities as the rest.

  10. Top | #50
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,351
    Archived
    3,672
    Total Posts
    5,023
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Without purpose, employment or adequate income, society disintegrates and everyone loses....except, maybe, not so much the super rich living in their island hideaways or fortified communities as the rest.
    Exactly. And IMO the perfect ideal economy to strive for:
    1. No poverty. Extremely high standard of living for everyone with no needs unmet (Star Trek utopia)
    2. Everyone encouraged to do meaningful and/or challenging work even if it is only for charity
    3. Low impact to the environment with no carbon footprint

    Also IMO of all the countries in the world, Germany appears to be getting to these high advancements faster than any other country. But Germany is definitely NOT an ultra free trade economy the Lumpens would want for the US!

    Lumpens wants us to be another huge Bangladesh, everyone except the filthy rich living in squalor. No thank you Lumpens!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •