"A poor person never gave me a job!"

[jacee]

Exactly. When working families earn money, they spend money. When the multi-millionaires make their money they sit on it. Study after study is showing that these corporate tax cuts are not making it back into the economy or creating jobs. Put money into the hands of people that are going to demand goods and services. That's what creates jobs.

Agreed.

Corporate tax cuts and subsidies are corporate welfare handouts for the wealthy, currently stashed away collecting interest instead of creating jobs.

Carney stands by 'dead money' criticism aimed at Canadian companies

"I stand by every single word that I said," Carney said.

"Look, the facts are the facts —there's a lot of cash and there's a lot of work to be done."

Last month, the country's central banker said while companies might be holding on to cash because of global economic instability, those funds amount to "dead money" for the economy.

"A poor person never gave me a job" ...?

But apparently it's okay for wealthy corporations to take tax money and subsidies from the poor and hoard them ... or worse - give them away to wealthy stockholders who pay bargain basement tax rates.

[blueblood]

I would suggest to you that, without the public sector, there would be no millionaires. Or rather there'd be a few, but they would be perched on piles of skulls.

That's true, but how big does the public sector actually need to be? That's the eternal debate

[blueblood]

Agreed.

Corporate tax cuts and subsidies are corporate welfare handouts for the wealthy, currently stashed away collecting interest instead of creating jobs.

Carney stands by 'dead money' criticism aimed at Canadian companies

"I stand by every single word that I said," Carney said.

"Look, the facts are the facts —there's a lot of cash and there's a lot of work to be done."

Last month, the country's central banker said while companies might be holding on to cash because of global economic instability, those funds amount to "dead money" for the economy.

"A poor person never gave me a job" ...?

But apparently it's okay for wealthy corporations to take tax money and subsidies from the poor and hoard them ... or worse - give them away to wealthy stockholders who pay bargain basement tax rates.

And how did Canada's economy do when PMPM cut taxes on corporations?

How are we still doing with tax cuts to corporations?

Lower corporate taxes than the USA and our economy is in excellent shape.

Hmmmm

[Black Dog]

That's true, but how big does the public sector actually need to be? That's the eternal debate

Well, I don't have that answer, but I don't there's many who think that the government or public sector is "too big" have one either. As my sig says, the size of government to me is less important than how well it works.

[cybercoma]

The standard of living a millionaire and taxes they pay is not sitting on their money.

Not according to all of the research done on the "stimulus" that stimulated next to nothing.

The salaries they pay is not sitting on their money. Do you pay anyone a salary?

They don't all pay salaries. You're making a big assumption there.

My business is none of your business, but for the purposes of this discussion I do pay salaries. I pay the salaries of public sector employees through my taxes. Those salaries do the exact same thing that private sector salaries do. Give people the ability to demand goods and services.

Business inputs are not sitting on their money. The rapid development of asia and latin america out of poverty is not sitting on their money,

All of those things happen when consumers give businesses their money for the businesses' products and services. Why should the government be giving businesses that money for no reason? Consumers should decide which businesses get that money, not the government.

You can't have an economy based on consumption, it's a house of cards and doesn't work. That's what the public sector does, it does not produce any wealth only redistributes it for consumption.

I doubt this is news to you, but our economy IS based on consumption. Unless you want to get rid of capitalism.

This post is why academics shouldn't be running things, lots of education, but little smarts.

You might not want to say so many contradictory things in your own post, if you're going to pass a judgement like this in it.

[CPCFTW]

My business is none of your business, but for the purposes of this discussion I do pay salaries. I pay the salaries of public sector employees through my taxes. Those salaries do the exact same thing that private sector salaries do. Give people the ability to demand goods and services.

Unless you're an evil 1%er, the taxes you paid aren't doing much employing.

Let's say you made a healthy $70,000. You would pay just around $15,000 in taxes in Ontario. Who are you employing for $15,000? That barely covers installing a pencil sharpener these days!

Nope, most people in the public sector are also employed by the evil 1%ers and corporations. Millionaires... the job creators. Say it with me now!

All of those things happen when consumers give businesses their money for the businesses' products and services. Why should the government be giving businesses that money for no reason? Consumers should decide which businesses get that money, not the government.

Government doesn't give businesses money... unless they are green companies. For the hundredth time, tax breaks aren't a subsidy.

Here's a short article that you and jacee could perhaps read to finally grasp this simple concept:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/perspective/perspective-tax-breaks-arent-subsidies/

I doubt this is news to you, but our economy IS based on consumption. Unless you want to get rid of capitalism.

He was clearly talking about domestic consumption and the fact that the economy cannot indefinitely sustain itself by borrowing/printing money to raise domestic consumption.

[Shady]

I just wish more lefties were as honest as Bill Maher.

Bill Maher: Liberals Don’t Envy Rich, ‘They Just Wish Rich Would Admit They Were Just Lucky’

Link

Deep down, we all know that's what lefties really think. That anyone can start and run a successful business. It's just all luck. However, if they were at least all open and honest about it, we could have a more honest discussion.

[cybercoma]

You think the Paris Hiltons and Kim Kardashians of the world weren't just a tad lucky?

[eyeball]

Deep down, we all know that's what lefties really think. That anyone can start and run a successful business. It's just all luck. However, if they were at least all open and honest about it, we could have a more honest discussion.

Yep.

Us trollers got one day to fish this summer. Meanwhile I see Jimmy Pattison's seiners coming in with 100 tons of fish or so each, sometimes twice a day, day after day after day.

19 truck loads were shipped from one plant alone the other day.

I should roll up my sleeves and put in an honest days lobbying sometime myself.

[gunrutz]

You think the Paris Hiltons and Kim Kardashians of the world weren't just a tad lucky?

You don't think that some of the welfare bums of the world aren't just a tad lazy? Or the single mothers with multiple children out of marriage aren't just a tad irresponsible? As if anyone here would put those two in the category of real hardworking business people. Complete nonsense.

[jacee]

You think the Paris Hiltons and Kim Kardashians of the world weren't just a tad lucky?

:lol:

[jacee]

You don't think that some of the welfare bums of the world aren't just a tad lazy? Or the single mothers with multiple children out of marriage aren't just a tad irresponsible? As if anyone here would put those two in the category of real hardworking business people. Complete nonsense.

Eat your heart out. They're making millions.

As for the children of absent fathers ...

[blueblood]

You think the Paris Hiltons and Kim Kardashians of the world weren't just a tad lucky?

Yet they were smart enough to get the right people to manage their affairs for them and know how to ,market themselves. Them being gong shows has made them millions. That's just good marketing.

[blueblood]

Not according to all of the research done on the "stimulus" that stimulated next to nothing.

They don't all pay salaries. You're making a big assumption there.

My business is none of your business, but for the purposes of this discussion I do pay salaries. I pay the salaries of public sector employees through my taxes. Those salaries do the exact same thing that private sector salaries do. Give people the ability to demand goods and services.

All of those things happen when consumers give businesses their money for the businesses' products and services. Why should the government be giving businesses that money for no reason? Consumers should decide which businesses get that money, not the government.

I doubt this is news to you, but our economy IS based on consumption. Unless you want to get rid of capitalism.

You might not want to say so many contradictory things in your own post, if you're going to pass a judgement like this in it.

That's why there shouldn't have been stimulus in the first place if it did nothing.

So you don't employ anybody, outstanding. You pay a pittance in tax and they pay 20k to millions in salaries to employees. They are already giving people the ability to demand goods and services, far more than your tax and spend nonsense, heck foreign investment has lifted more people out of poverty than govt foreign aid and those UNICEF boxes!

An economy is not based entirely of consumption, a trip to some of the shit holes of northern Canada is proof of that.

Lower tax rates are not giving money away, it's taking less. There is a difference.

[cybercoma]

Yet they were smart enough to get the right people to manage their affairs for them and know how to ,market themselves. Them being gong shows has made them millions. That's just good marketing.

Ah yes... they were smart enough to surround themselves with the right people. They weren't at all born with the right people around them.

[bleeding heart]

Yet they were smart enough to get the right people to manage their affairs for them and know how to ,market themselves. Them being gong shows has made them millions. That's just good marketing.

And marketing is an incredibly easy business, in which success depends profoundly on luck (the only people who dispute this are, unsurprisingly, folks who are in the business itself). Once some success is achieved, it gets even easier, as contacts are made and solidified, and forward momentum comes into play.

(How do people interested in the world of Business not know this, one might ask? That is, why does something as workaday, as catch-as-catch-can, as based on simple premises and well-worn methods of emotional persuasion that everyone understands....how does it achieve such a stellar reputation among those not in the business?)

Hell, I used to work in advertising/Public Relations (it's precisely the same industry, another oddly little-understood fact); and I made pretty decent money. It was easy. Very easy, aside from the soul-crushing, which you can avoid by drinking the Kool-Aid and internalizing it as "smart."

So yes, virtually anyone can do it, provided he or she pays attention to the world of marketing and sees how it's done.

That's it.

(Taking "Marketing" at university is a waste of time of which I can scarcely imagine a corrollary eslewhere.)

Peope like Kardashian and Hilton aren't even "experts" in marketing; the "smarts" that you point out are constituted precisely of someone slightly smarter than themselves--again, say, someone of average intelligence--pointing them towards advisors and marketers with a proven track record of success, who then tell them what to do.

For example, I guarantee you--I promise you--that Paris Hilton's "leaked" sex tape was an intentional volley in raising public awareness of her presence, and further, that it was not her idea. And for some reason, people say, "Wow, that's smart!" No it isn't; it's banal, it's average--if I want to be generous about it--and it worked through sheer luck.)

If that's your measure of "smart"--doing what slightly smarter people suggest to you--then there's not much else to say on the subject. We disagree; our standards differ.

Whenever advertising and marketing is deemed "smart," you know people don't know what they're talking about...or, if they're industry insiders, they're essentially stroking themselves.

Edited September 16, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

If that's your measure of "smart"--doing what slightly smarter people suggest to you--then there's not much else to say on the subject. We disagree; our standards differ.

Whenever advertising and marketing is deemed "smart," you know people don't know what they're talking about...or, if they're industry insiders, they're essentially stroking themselves.

It sounds, then, like making money has become far too easy if you have a lot of money to start with. The government needs to ensure that our businesses are healthy, but not too healthy. It's a lot harder to make a living as a working class person these days by many accounts, maybe they should be righting the balance here.

[dre]

It sounds, then, like making money has become far too easy if you have a lot of money to start with. The government needs to ensure that our businesses are healthy, but not too healthy. It's a lot harder to make a living as a working class person these days by many accounts, maybe they should be righting the balance here.

Gonna be real tough to fix that now. The ownership class and the political class arent even distinguishable from one another. Theyre essentially the same bunch of folks. Kinda like hoping that the flies get to together and fix the hole in your screen door

[blueblood]

And marketing is an incredibly easy business, in which success depends profoundly on luck (the only people who dispute this are, unsurprisingly, folks who are in the business itself). Once some success is achieved, it gets even easier, as contacts are made and solidified, and forward momentum comes into play.

(How do people interested in the world of Business not know this, one might ask? That is, why does something as workaday, as catch-as-catch-can, as based on simple premises and well-worn methods of emotional persuasion that everyone understands....how does it achieve such a stellar reputation among those not in the business?)

Hell, I used to work in advertising/Public Relations (it's precisely the same industry, another oddly little-understood fact); and I made pretty decent money. It was easy. Very easy, aside from the soul-crushing, which you can avoid by drinking the Kool-Aid and internalizing it as "smart."

So yes, virtually anyone can do it, provided he or she pays attention to the world of marketing and sees how it's done.

That's it.

(Taking "Marketing" at university is a waste of time of which I can scarcely imagine a corrollary eslewhere.)

Peope like Kardashian and Hilton aren't even "experts" in marketing; the "smarts" that you point out are constituted precisely of someone slightly smarter than themselves--again, say, someone of average intelligence--pointing them towards advisors and marketers with a proven track record of success, who then tell them what to do.

For example, I guarantee you--I promise you--that Paris Hilton's "leaked" sex tape was an intentional volley in raising public awareness of her presence, and further, that it was not her idea. And for some reason, people say, "Wow, that's smart!" No it isn't; it's banal, it's average--if I want to be generous about it--and it worked through sheer luck.)

If that's your measure of "smart"--doing what slightly smarter people suggest to you--then there's not much else to say on the subject. We disagree; our standards differ.

Whenever advertising and marketing is deemed "smart," you know people don't know what they're talking about...or, if they're industry insiders,

they're essentially stroking themselves.

Marketing is not easy, not by a long shot. There is a reason a great deal of start ups fail and products don't last too long in stores, and it's not luck, it's finding out what your audience likes and exploiting it. A lot of it may be hokey and common sense, but if it were so easy, why isn't everyone doing it making some money?

And it is smart to listen to what slightly smarter people say, a lot of people are too stubborn and it ends up hurting them in the end.

Paris hiltons sex tape is one example of marketing and she went after a specific audience to raise her profile. It was smart, she can go to any night club and charge the owners a kings ransom just for appearing there. That was what happened after she and her minions did the groundwork to market her to the public.

[bleeding heart]

Marketing is not easy, not by a long shot.

Then the implied thesis that I, bleeding heart, am personally some sort of ad genius is appreciated in spirit; but I hasten to add that I don't consider that work to be anything especially to be proud of, so the compliment is misapplied, whatever its good intent.

Heck, I once received a $5000 bonus for, literally, thirty seconds' worth of work. This, I'm educated repeatedly on this board, constitutes "merit"...and, now, being "smart."

There is a reason a great deal of start ups fail and products don't last too long in stores, and it's not luck, it's finding out what your audience likes and exploiting it. A lot of it may be hokey and common sense, but if it were so easy, why isn't everyone doing it making some money?

Ad agencies never fail because of a lack of creative smarts (which is precisely the component of it that we're discussing here). They fail for other reasons: other bad business decisions, presumably, sometimes, bad luck.

I know this because advertising is not, generally, very smart. As you know full well from many years' personal experience, most of it is garbage.

Do you pay attention to the ads and marketing messages around you?

They're aggressive; certainly. They're ubiquitous (usually the primary point); obviously. And, very rarely, very occasionally, a really good, creative, insightful idea crops up. Here and there.

But those rarities don't symbolize the whole. They're exceptions.

Most of it is crude, uninspired garbage.

Which, to be fair to advertisers, is what most clients want.

But that doesn't alter the fact of their repellent inferiority as creative and cultural artifacts.

And it is smart to listen to what slightly smarter people say

We're obviously differing on what constitutes "smart."

It isn't "smart" not to run into traffic; it takes far less than average intelligence, insight and wisdom to avoid it.

I get what you're saying; but since you're advocating that we respect the marketing "smarts" of people for whom we have no evidence have any actual "smarts," then the word is becoming misused.

And to clarify: I don't begrudge these women their success. There's clearly an appetite for useless, uninspiring entertainment, three steps down from "Full House" or The New Kids on the Block.

But why defend their savvy, when their success is all about the families they've come from, and the inherent advantages that come with that, including the very sources that allow them to "market themselves" [sic]?

I'm not saying they shouldn't do it; I'm wondering why we lower our standards of human capacity and creative insight by throwing accolades over the perfectly banal.

Paris hiltons sex tape is one example of marketing and she went after a specific audience to raise her profile. It was smart, she can go to any night club and charge the owners a kings ransom just for appearing there. That was what happened after she and her minions did the groundwork to market her to the public.

No, the minions, as you call them, did it all.

And they're not demonstrably "smart" either. Certainly less intelligent than you are, for one example out of perhaps four or five billion.

Edited September 16, 2012 by bleeding heart

[blueblood]

Then the implied thesis that I, bleeding heart, am personally some sort of ad genius is appreciated in spirit; but I hasten to add that I don't consider that work to be anything especially to be proud of, so the compliment is misapplied, whatever its good intent.

Heck, I once received a $5000 bonus for, literally, thirty seconds' worth of work. This, I'm educated repeatedly on this board, constitutes "merit"...and, now, being "smart."

Ad agencies never fail because of a lack of creative smarts (which is precisely the component of it that we're discussing here). They fail for other reasons: other bad business decisions, presumably, sometimes, bad luck.

I know this because advertising is not, generally, very smart. As you know full well from many years' personal experience, most of it is garbage.

Do you pay attention to the ads and marketing messages around you?

They're aggressive; certainly. They're ubiquitous (usually the primary point); obviously. And, very rarely, very occasionally, a really good, creative,

insightful idea crops up. Here and there.

But those rarities don't symbolize the whole. They're exceptions.

Most of it is crude, uninspired garbage.

Which, to be fair to advertisers, is what most clients want.

But that doesn't alter the fact of their repellent inferiority as creative and cultural artifacts

We're obviously differing on what constitutes "smart."

It isn't "smart" not to run into traffic; it takes far less than average intelligence, insight and wisdom to avoid it.

I get what you're saying; but since you're advocating that we respect the marketing "smarts" of people for whom we have no evidence have any actual "smarts," then the word is becoming misused.

And to clarify: I don't begrudge these women their success. There's clearly an appetite for useless, uninspiring entertainment, three steps down from "Full House" or The New Kids on the Block.

But why defend their savvy, when their success is all about the families they've come from, and the inherent advantages that come with that, including the very sources that allow them to "market themselves" [sic]?

I'm not saying they shouldn't do it; I'm wondering why we lower our standards of human capacity and creative insight by throwing accolades over the perfectly banal.

No, the minions, as you call them, did it all.

And they're not demonstrably "smart" either. Certainly less intelligent than you are, for one example out of perhaps four or five billion.

I'm saying these women's have some degree of accumen in that they don't squander their wealth which can happen to some well off young people. They have essentially identified their strengths and weaknesses and came up with a business plan that has netted them millions of their own dollars.

It would appear that they are squandering their wealth when cleverly they are building more. They were smart enough to hire managers which says enough. Those cupcakes aren't MC Hammer in how they do business. And then there are some professional athletes who squander their huge salaries. I think these women deserve some credit for being able to create million dollar brands and essentially strike out on their own without bankrupting themselves. It's one thing to become rich, it's another to stay rich.

[bleeding heart]

I'm saying these women's have some degree of accumen in that they don't squander their wealth which can happen to some well off young people. They have essentially identified their strengths and weaknesses and came up with a business plan that has netted them millions of their own dollars.

It would appear that they are squandering their wealth when cleverly they are building more. They were smart enough to hire managers which says enough. Those cupcakes aren't MC Hammer in how they do business. And then there are some professional athletes who squander their huge salaries. I think these women deserve some credit for being able to create million dollar brands and essentially strike out on their own without bankrupting themselves. It's one thing to become rich, it's another to stay rich.

Meh. Elementary finances. If they went broke, they would be silly. Not going broke doesn't then determine that they're smart.

And I don't think Hilton and Kardashian children are going to go broke, a al MC Hammer, no matter what they do. There's lots of money to back them up.

[blueblood]

Meh. Elementary finances. If they went broke, they would be silly. Not going broke doesn't then determine that they're smart.

And I don't think Hilton and Kardashian children are going to go broke, a al MC Hammer, no matter what they do. There's lots of money to back them up.

That's what mc hammer and many professional athletes think until they get into hot water. For how stupid these women portray themselves on tv, they seem to be outdoing a lot of their peers...

[bleeding heart]

That's what mc hammer and many professional athletes think until they get into hot water. For how stupid these women portray themselves on tv, they seem to be outdoing a lot of their peers...

Anyone who gets as rich as these folks are wantonly foolish if they blow all their money.

They're sanely average if they don't. Nothing more.

Jeez...I can manage to avoid financial devastation, on far less....and you have yet to inform me of how smart I am.....

Edited September 16, 2012 by bleeding heart

[blueblood]

Anyone who gets as rich as these folks are wantonly foolish if they blow all their money.

They're sanely average if they don't. Nothing more.

Jeez...I can manage to avoid financial devastation, on far less....and you have yet to inform me of how smart I am.....

Yet the women on question not only avoid financial devastation, they built their wealth and diversified their revenue stream.