I Wear Pants;1233836 wrote:Oh wow, please, please tell me you're insinuating that our problems are caused by too much banking regulations. That's just beyond hilarious if you are.

Not exclusively, but there HAVE been banking regulations which have contributed.

To suggest that a single culprit is to blame for the whole mess isn't logical, so I certainly wouldn't say regulations on banks are THE culprit. Merely a contributor.

I Wear Pants;1233836 wrote:Oh wow, please, please tell me you're insinuating that our problems are caused by too much banking regulations. That's just beyond hilarious if you are.

Please refer back to post # 75. Thanks

O-Trap;1233841 wrote:To suggest that a single culprit is to blame for the whole mess isn't logical, so I certainly wouldn't say regulations on banks are THE culprit. Merely a contributor.

Thank you. 'Pants is making the claim that banks have all this free money to throw at borrowers. My point was - who cares, with all the regulatory strings attached and vastly tightened loan qualifications and related requirements, banks are finding it difficult to loan funds because of the aforementioned issues, PLUS the fact that few businesses managers want to take on debt because of the economic mess created by the obama regime. So yes, cheap money is available; its just that is comes with a high regulatory requirement, and no one wants it anyway because they see no growth on the horizon with the current WH occupier.

Sometimes I think people forget that jobs are created when the demand for a particular product or service becomes so great that it requires more employees to produce more product or service. I don't think that banks or their regulations help create demand one iota. Let's face it, if no one is buying the goods there's no room to expand the employee base. Lower business taxes or regulations aren't going to make demand go up.

stlouiedipalma;1233868 wrote:Sometimes I think people forget that jobs are created when the demand for a particular product or service becomes so great that it requires more employees to produce more product or service.

Indirectly, but sure.

Technically, job creation stems from the profitability of a business model, but that is then connected to the demand of a product or service ... it's just not exclusively demand. If demand is there, but there exists no way to provide the good or service at a satisfactory profit level, then the demand doesn't really matter.

stlouiedipalma;1233868 wrote:I don't think that banks or their regulations help create demand one iota. Let's face it, if no one is buying the goods there's no room to expand the employee base. Lower business taxes or regulations aren't going to make demand go up.

It actually can, because it increases the resources remaining that can be invested into a business model, which contribute to the profitability of the model. If, on average, I'm only retaining 75% of my profits per unit after taxes, but I need 77% of my profits per unit to cover my operating costs, then I currently cannot provide the good or service, because I can't do so at a profitable level.

IF, however, I retain 85% of my profits after taxes, now I have a profitable model, AND I can front something to expand the model, which CAN be job creation.

I agree. Still, without demand it doesn't matterhow much you do/don't reinvest.

Unfortunately, there are those who believe that it is government's role to create jobs. That's only blather for election campaigns. Government's role is to work with business so that they can be more successful. Conservatives may not care to admit it, but it comes in may forms. Government assistance isn't a dirty word in the business world.

stlouiedipalma;1233890 wrote:I agree. Still, without demand it doesn't matterhow much you do/don't reinvest.

Categorically true.

stlouiedipalma;1233890 wrote:Unfortunately, there are those who believe that it is government's role to create jobs.

Correct. Not only can government not manipulate demand, but they also negate any flat-playing-field competition with the best balance of competitive cost and profitability the ultimate goal.

Heavy taxation or increased operating costs as a result of regulation are things the federal government can do to HINDER job creation, but they certainly can't magically increase it, since they can't force demand.

stlouiedipalma;1233890 wrote:That's only blather for election campaigns. Government's role is to work with business so that they can be more successful.

I'd think of it more like staying out of business's way. I'd rather not have the government "helping" actively. More just making the market conditions conducive to profitable business by as few restrictions as possible.

stlouiedipalma;1233890 wrote:Conservatives may not care to admit it, but it comes in may forms. Government assistance isn't a dirty word in the business world.

Eh, the problem is that it's too easy to corrupt, and it can provide an UNFAIR playing field based on who lobbies most effectively.

stlouiedipalma;1233890 wrote:I agree. Still, without demand it doesn't matterhow much you do/don't reinvest.

Except that companies make investment decision based on FORWARD LOOKING demand - you're either ready for a pick-up or you lose market share/sales when things turn. The lack of investment means they don't see recovery/growth in the Obamaconomy.

stlouiedipalma;1233868 wrote:Sometimes I think people forget that jobs are created when the demand for a particular product or service becomes so great that it requires more employees to produce more product or service. I don't think that banks or their regulations help create demand one iota.

We agree, and I certainly did not say or imply that banks create demand. I did say that bank regulations and requirements and loan qualifications are a hindrance to loan making, despite low interest rates etc.....

Demand is stymied when there is no confidence, and there isn't any confidence right now, and there isn't any growth, so obviously demand is waning. Which once again brings us back to why, and most of us know why.

QuakerOats;1233825 wrote:Talk to your local community banker about how great things are in the regulatory arena. Talk to them about loan qualifications. Talk to them about the mood of potential customers.

Then come talk to us.

This. Cheap and available credit =/= easy credit.

gut;1233945 wrote:Except that companies make investment decision based on FORWARD LOOKING demand - you're either ready for a pick-up or you lose market share/sales when things turn. The lack of investment means they don't see recovery/growth in the Obamaconomy.

Projected demand is really the only one that matters, but I honestly think it's semantic trying to distinguish between "demand" and "projected demand," since most companies will not ever make decisions based on current demand unless they think it will continue for an acceptable period of time.

I do agree with the latter part.

QuakerOats;1233946 wrote:We agree, and I certainly did not say or imply that banks create demand. I did say that bank regulations and requirements and loan qualifications are a hindrance to loan making, despite low interest rates etc.....

Demand is stymied when there is no confidence, and there isn't any confidence right now, and there isn't any growth, so obviously demand is waning. Which once again brings us back to why, and most of us know why.

I have thought this since Obama won the election in late 2007, and probably even leading up to that when businesses thought he might win the election. People or Businesses with "REAL" money do not like uncertainty, they can be quite flexible in their investments/business decisions, but like like to know a direction, either way.

I think you will see an immediate pickup in the economy if Romney is elected. I also believe there will be a large pickup if Obama wins, but not until 2014ish, unless the GOP takes both the Senate and the House, then it will be immediate. Smart money stays close to the vest.

QuakerOats;1233684 wrote:HE DID NOT; all the economy-lifitng marginal tax cuts remained. Please stick to the facts.

Of course those marginal rate cuts remained. I made mention of the scaling back of depreciation and investment breaks because you praised those in particular but failed to acknowledge the subsequent backtracking...actions that would bring out unyielding scorn from you if they were performed by a president with a D next to his name.

Worth pointing out again that Ronald Reagan easily could have fought for lower marginal rates but was perfectly satisfied that people at the margin were handing over 50% of their ordinary income to the federal government for almost his entire presidency. Jack Kemp wanted the marginal rate reductions to be larger. For George W. Bush it was morally wrong for a person to pay a higher marginal rate than 35%...why not for Ronald Reagan?

QuakerOats;1233698 wrote:They are hardly cowards; they are, however, very smart. And smart people don't squander their money when there is considerable doubt they will earn an appropriate return. They attribute their doubt directly to the White House occupier.

Here's the deal --- I get phone calls every week from financiers looking to fund capex; I tell them we are doing nothing until The White House occupier is gone. They all reply: "I can't tell you how many times I hear that every day".


You need to get in the real world.

Plenty of business people financing capital expenditures.

Obama:

[LEFT]“Of course Americans build their own businesses. Every day, hardworking people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs and make our economy run,” he said. “And what I said was that we need to stand behind them, as America always has, by investing in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology.”[/LEFT]

This clears this smear campaign up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-romney-obama-spar-over-you-didnt-build-that-small-businesses-add-context/2012/07/25/gJQA6IN79W_story.html?hpid=z2

Bigdogg;1234390 wrote:Obama:



This clears this smear campaign up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-romney-obama-spar-over-you-didnt-build-that-small-businesses-add-context/2012/07/25/gJQA6IN79W_story.html?hpid=z2

Man up bro…. Obama without a teleprompter. Talks likes a man with a paper asshole:laugh:

Bam would be better served to just ignore this and hope it goes away on its own. The more he tries to explain himself, the sillier he looks.

Bigdogg;1234390 wrote:Obama:



This clears this smear campaign up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-romney-obama-spar-over-you-didnt-build-that-small-businesses-add-context/2012/07/25/gJQA6IN79W_story.html?hpid=z2

Ick ... not the problem, though.

My problem with the statement was that he was using it as a way to affirm government spending, saying that it "helps." This statement only clarifies that that seems to have been his intended sentiment.

Again, it's like the son helping his mom make Shake N Bake. Yeah, his contribution helped, but it would have gotten done without him.

Bigdogg;1234390 wrote:Obama:



This clears this smear campaign up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-romney-obama-spar-over-you-didnt-build-that-small-businesses-add-context/2012/07/25/gJQA6IN79W_story.html?hpid=z2

Sorry ---- the tiger cannot change his stripes.

Actually, over the course of the whole speech (which I've read, and can be found here), that's pretty obviously what his point was:

"'X', 'Y', and 'Z' have helped people. Therefore we should spend money on them."

Some of the things he says in there are SO misleading (ex. any tax breaks "costing" the government anything, when the "cost" is actually what they DO with the tax dollars ... not in the lack of requiring them). I cringed in reading it a couple times.

QuakerOats;1234456 wrote:Sorry ---- the tiger cannot change his stripes.

This. It appears the "You didn't build that" comment has traction and may just rival Bush 41's, "Read my lips" slogan by November.

What we've seen is a window into his soul. He's desperately trying now to cover the window with drapes, vegetation and plywood because the majority of Americans do not believe in big government solutions. He's provided this window in the past when he goes off his beloved teleprompter (Joe the Plumber, Bitter Clingers, Skyrocketing Energy, etc.), so it's not new. People just need to pay attention. During the debates, it should be included in Romney's tactics to get him to open Barry's window in front of millions and then lock it in place.

Guys, he said in the exact same speech the following:

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

I think it's pretty clear what he meant, given the overall context of the speech. He wasn't saying that success is not earned by the successful.

O-Trap;1234550 wrote:Guys, he said in the exact same speech the following:

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

I think it's pretty clear what he meant, given the overall context of the speech. He wasn't saying that success is not earned by the successful.

".....becasue we do things together" = marxist collectivism >> where his heart is.

QuakerOats;1234567 wrote:".....becasue we do things together" = marxist collectivism >> where his heart is.

Doing things together isn't inherently Marxist. FORCING collective action is, but simply having a teacher that helps you beyond what is necessary or having a parent or parents who are particularly nurturing ... that can be seen as aiding in your success collectively. Ever hear a "thank you" speech by someone after having won an award? They thank people who helped them achieve something. That's not a Marxist principle.

It was other elements of his speech about furthering the funding of a single source of "helpers" without competition on the grounds that they've helped people that I took issue with.

O-Trap;1234435 wrote: Again, it's like the son helping his mom make Shake N Bake. Yeah, his contribution helped, but it would have gotten done without him.

There's that, and also the implication that successful people somehow didn't contribute their fair share. No, they didn't build those roads and bridges but they pay taxes like [half] everyone else. And, ohhh, how nice of you Mr. Businessman to hire people that we educated. Obama implies it's some sort of unilateral favor, when in reality it's a symbiotic relationship. Business and rich people pay a progressively higher tax amount, so they aren't getting any sort of free ride - they paid, too, for those people to be educated.

And the more Obama talks the more it's obvious that he feels the govt is entitled to as much of your marginal income above the average as it deems necessary, because it's not skill but luck that resulted in your good fortune. In other words, no matter how hard the govt squeezes you should never feel any pain because your good fortune is solely attributable to the govt and luck. The underlying tone is that the govt is simply taking back what it allows you to have, which is very much a Marxist philosophy.