Reply
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

391 Views
Message 21 of 280

@sp362 wrote:

Your unwillingness to acknowledge basic Economics is surprising.

 


I am aware of basic economics but apparently you are attempting to play a shell game.

 

There is a group here for Money, etc.  Perhaps you'd find someone to discuss with?  They might even  have more knowledge than yours? 

The mistake a lot of politicians make is forgetting
they've been appointed but thinking they've been anointed.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

390 Views
Message 22 of 280

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:



This is who YOU were referring to as a "builder".  "Further of course if he was wiring commercial facilities, the welfare recipients weren't his customers, the builders he contracted out were.  The others would be users in some way."  My comment stands.  I find it amazing that you keep trying to comment on a topic you already admitted you know nothing about.  Earlier I made a comment about doing electrical work in Section 8 housing and who was the customer that you totally ignored.  Again, look at the 2nd paragraph of Olderscout66's post for a basic economics lesson.


There are some posts that I ignore because of the terms used to describe the opposite party.

And of course the post was about customers which would be the ones who buy the housing.  And obtaining financing is the layman's understanding of economics, not fancy theories.  Now who is the one talking down to the other? 

 

Regarding wiring in section 8 housing, the customer is the developer who is in charge of the development, not the welfare recepient who will rent the housing using government help. 

 

A person doesn't have to have a knowledge of economics to figure that out.  Just let someone without money or good credit attempt to purchase a home, and they are turned down.  Let someone with money or credit that meets the income guidelines purchase a 100K  home, and they can.


Your unwillingness to acknowledge basic Economics is surprising.  If nobody was renting a house, there would no reason for it to be bought and / or repaired.  Keep denying it as much as you want, but money does move through the economy from the bottom up.  The is the definition of end-user (who ultimately is the one involved in paying the bills).  "DEFINITION of 'End-User' The true consumer of a product or service. The term "end-user" is used to distinguish the person who will actually work with the good or service from individuals who are involved in other stages of its development, production and distribution."

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

391 Views
Message 23 of 280

@sp362 wrote:



This is who YOU were referring to as a "builder".  "Further of course if he was wiring commercial facilities, the welfare recipients weren't his customers, the builders he contracted out were.  The others would be users in some way."  My comment stands.  I find it amazing that you keep trying to comment on a topic you already admitted you know nothing about.  Earlier I made a comment about doing electrical work in Section 8 housing and who was the customer that you totally ignored.  Again, look at the 2nd paragraph of Olderscout66's post for a basic economics lesson.


There are some posts that I ignore because of the terms used to describe the opposite party.

And of course the post was about customers which would be the ones who buy the housing.  And obtaining financing is the layman's understanding of economics, not fancy theories.  Now who is the one talking down to the other? 

 

Regarding wiring in section 8 housing, the customer is the developer who is in charge of the development, not the welfare recepient who will rent the housing using government help. 

 

A person doesn't have to have a knowledge of economics to figure that out.  Just let someone without money or good credit attempt to purchase a home, and they are turned down.  Let someone with money or credit that meets the income guidelines purchase a 100K  home, and they can.

The mistake a lot of politicians make is forgetting
they've been appointed but thinking they've been anointed.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

391 Views
Message 24 of 280

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:



And who were the builder's customers?  If they were unable to sell their goods, they would not be hiring him to do anything.  See Olderscout66's previous post for a basic Economics lesson.  You seem to be the one who is intent on insisting they are right despite your saying you had little knowledge of Economics and did not want to be involved in a discussion of Economics.


Stands to reason if a person doesn't have the money or financing they're not going to buy a 100 - 200K home.  Doesn't take an economist to figure that out. 


This is who YOU were referring to as a "builder".  "Further of course if he was wiring commercial facilities, the welfare recipients weren't his customers, the builders he contracted out were.  The others would be users in some way."  My comment stands.  I find it amazing that you keep trying to comment on a topic you already admitted you know nothing about.  Earlier I made a comment about doing electrical work in Section 8 housing and who was the customer that you totally ignored.  Again, look at the 2nd paragraph of Olderscout66's post for a basic economics lesson.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

389 Views
Message 25 of 280

@sp362 wrote:



And who were the builder's customers?  If they were unable to sell their goods, they would not be hiring him to do anything.  See Olderscout66's previous post for a basic Economics lesson.  You seem to be the one who is intent on insisting they are right despite your saying you had little knowledge of Economics and did not want to be involved in a discussion of Economics.


Stands to reason if a person doesn't have the money or financing they're not going to buy a 100 - 200K home.  Doesn't take an economist to figure that out. 

The mistake a lot of politicians make is forgetting
they've been appointed but thinking they've been anointed.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

388 Views
Message 26 of 280

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

 

 It also should not take an Economist to understand the basic principles of who your end user is and thus who is actually paying you to perform your services.  As I pointed out yesterday, and you were insulted by it, unless you are familiar with the area involved, you have no way of knowing what economic class of society was using these homes.  You are saying I am nitpicking, read his post again and tell me I am wrong.  You even defended him when he said that he never had any customers on assistance when he was working as a commercial electrician in Florida.



--

Ok, show me an instance where a family on welfare can purchase an 100K - 200K home.  I'm sure they weren't built for those on welfare to live in.  That was the point.  As far as being a commercial electrician, again that could cover anything in the field.  And of course it is apparent that you are stretching it when you say welfare recepients also use public buildings, etc.

 

Further of course if he was wiring commercial facilities, the welfare recepients weren't his customers, the builders he contracted out were.  The others would be users in some way.

 

Sounding more like someone just wants to make his point correct. 


And who were the builder's customers?  If they were unable to sell their goods, they would not be hiring him to do anything.  See Olderscout66's previous post for a basic Economics lesson.  You seem to be the one who is intent on insisting they are right despite your saying you had little knowledge of Economics and did not want to be involved in a discussion of Economics.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

389 Views
Message 27 of 280

@sp362 wrote:

 

 It also should not take an Economist to understand the basic principles of who your end user is and thus who is actually paying you to perform your services.  As I pointed out yesterday, and you were insulted by it, unless you are familiar with the area involved, you have no way of knowing what economic class of society was using these homes.  You are saying I am nitpicking, read his post again and tell me I am wrong.  You even defended him when he said that he never had any customers on assistance when he was working as a commercial electrician in Florida.



--

Ok, show me an instance where a family on welfare can purchase an 100K - 200K home.  I'm sure they weren't built for those on welfare to live in.  That was the point.  As far as being a commercial electrician, again that could cover anything in the field.  And of course it is apparent that you are stretching it when you say welfare recepients also use public buildings, etc.

 

Further of course if he was wiring commercial facilities, the welfare recepients weren't his customers, the builders he contracted out were.  The others would be users in some way.

 

Sounding more like someone just wants to make his point correct. 

The mistake a lot of politicians make is forgetting
they've been appointed but thinking they've been anointed.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

391 Views
Message 28 of 280

@e458811y wrote:

Because our main business was building custom homes in the $100,000 to 2,000,000 dollar range in the north shore area of Chicago. And then in commercial projects such as Monona terrace in Madison Wi.& airports and music arenas with carpenters union local 839 & 250. With the last 15 years as a commercial electrician in the Orlando area. No there has been no welfare recipients writing my paychecks I can assure you. Why does this come as a surprise to you libs? Hate to be the bearer of bad news but not everyone works for a charity. Get over yourselves. Like I said, money doesn't trickle up worth a **bleep**.


That might make a bumper sticker appealing to GOPers, but the fact is for the last 30 years workers have increased their productivity - output per manhour - by 176% but their wages only went up 9%. Profits and executive pay on the other hand have skyrocketed - thanks to the redistribution of money from the ones who earned it UP to the ones who get to divide it.

 

As for your very narrow view of the economy, the money given to the welfare recepient is spent, creating demand that otherwise would not be there. That leads to economic expansion to meet the additional demand and that makes things better for just about everyone. You may not have had a welfare recepient signing your checks, but if it wasn't for Government stepping up to boost demand by treating citizens with compassion instead of Republican contempt, those checks would've been smaller because everyone would be worse off due to the lack of growth in the economy. Had the economy not expanded since, say 1965, how many $200,000-$1,000,000 homes would be on the market? Virtually none because at those prices in the Chicago area you'd be talking about office buildings, not homes.

 

The 10% who kept all the profits for the last 30 years cannot "grow" the economy - they simply won't buy enough "stuff". If nobody is buying, pretty soon nobody is making, and the system shuts down. Getting the profits distributed fairly is not going to happen if you let the ones doing the dividing keep whatever they give themselves - it's exactly the same reason if you have two kids and want them to split the last piece of cake for desert, you have one do the slicing and the other gets first pick.

 

The Reagan taxscam let the slicer become the picker as well, and the result is the first generation of Americans who will NOT do better than their parents. Are a couple hundred additional billionaires really worth that paradyme shift in the American dream?

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

385 Views
Message 29 of 280

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

 HE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING IF THE END USERS WERE ON ASSISTANCE OR NOT. 

Of course that is being sort of nitpicking.  I would think that it was meant as far as housing.  If he had done work on housing for low income families, he would be aware of the end use.  But of course extending the statement to include public buildings and facilities used by the general public is stretching his post a lot.  I doubt it would take an economist to understand that.

 

 It also should not take an Economist to understand the basic principles of who your end user is and thus who is actually paying you to perform your services.  As I pointed out yesterday, and you were insulted by it, unless you are familiar with the area involved, you have no way of knowing what economic class of society was using these homes.  You are saying I am nitpicking, read his post again and tell me I am wrong.  You even defended him when he said that he never had any customers on assistance when he was working as a commercial electrician in Florida.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

387 Views
Message 30 of 280

@sp362 wrote:

 HE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING IF THE END USERS WERE ON ASSISTANCE OR NOT. 

Of course that is being sort of nitpicking.  I would think that it was meant as far as housing.  If he had done work on housing for low income families, he would be aware of the end use.  But of course extending the statement to include public buildings and facilities used by the general public is stretching his post a lot.  I doubt it would take an economist to understand that.

 

 

The mistake a lot of politicians make is forgetting
they've been appointed but thinking they've been anointed.
Report Inappropriate Content
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Thursday, August 6 – Coronavirus Tele-Town Hall Event

1 p.m. ET - Coronavirus: Answering Your Most Frequent Questions

Call: 1-855-274-9507

Top Authors