Obama has spent 700b above and beyond what would have been spent.... Bush spent almost 4 trillion above and beyond what would have been spent & we lost 1/3 of our citizens wealth under Bush. And today, our GDP and spending today are almost equal.

You can't really compare the two, it just isn't possible.

Corps are sitting on trillions of dollars. Jobs create money flow, which creates more demand for products and services, which means you're not hiring more than you need, when the demand is being created by people having jobs.



The term evil corp refers to greed. Corps today have the same rights as people without any of the legal ramifications. As well, they were originally only allowed IF they helped the people, they were limited on allowed profits, they could not buy property, each owner was directly responsible for everything - personally, and all were limited to the exact business the corp was created for - often with a time limit put in place. All of which, and much more, is why they are refereed to as evil corps today - that's before the fact that they know control our Gov.

So what you are saying is corporations are not being greedy? If they were greedy they would be creating as many jobs as they can to make more money right? So what is stopping them from creating jobs? When asked, they will say the government and uncertainty.

If demand is being met now, why would they hire? To start the process you are talking about you have to HIRE MORE than you need. What would that do to their profits and their stock?

Have you hired more people than you needed to do your part to help the economy?

Your logic is very twisted.....

They were making trillions and laying people off... to make more money. Now that the eco has stalled on them, they have the cash, but nobody to buy.

Nothing is stopping them from creating jobs, the gov doesn't stop them... and uncertainty? Less staff equals more profits, which overall has created less buying power, thus increased costs of good, increasing the overall gross profits, thus stock values go up, and they make more money, without selling a damn thing more. That's how greed works.

If I had a few trillion dollars, yeah I might open a few extra companies, try my hand in a few new markets, expand my current business, improve my production, hire better staff, train them more, etc, etc, etc... oh wait, that is what I do now, I don't really need a few trillion to do that.

My peak is 26 staff, my average is about 10, and between my two companies I have roughly that many on staff today, and I'm sure I could get rid of one or two, but we're actually looking to expand into more cities, so not hiring, isn't going to make my business grow - at all.

It's rather simple how it works.

Everyone should be required to watch this. Very well done.

End the Fed = solve the problem.. End of story.

But your staff is creating you money, they are productive, how does walmart hiring more greaters, stock people, cashiers ect make them more money? Which is what you are saying would happen.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and trying to have it all ways. You said if they hired they would make more money, but claim they are doing the opposite to make money. Why would corps fire people when they could make more money hiring people? Because hiring non productive people does not make you money, your stock holders (401k people, you know the middle class) money and does not bring a profit.

And government regulations, new laws, new restrictions and threats of new laws and restrictions sure as hell does slow job growth and create uncertainty.

Ignoring all the other bullshit in the thread, this is the thread winner :thumbsup

This actually ties in well with the excellent Federal Reserve video previously posted in this thread...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=k_6kimMf7h8

Are you asking how Walmart opening more stores in more areas and hiring more staff makes them more money? You're not looking at the big picture here, at all....

My company's goals aren't to make my stock values look pretty for investors I don't have. Clearly your understanding of business is limited to the very small business structure or you wouldn't ever ask those questions.

We have regulations because of problems, because of greed. The sad part is, greed knows no boundaries and simply modifies itself based on the regulations. But no regs, for damn sure, is not a good thing and damn sure, does not mean the free market will work itself out, we have plenty of history to prove that. Another words, it's not a one way door.

There is no demand! I dont know what you don't get about that. Companies are not going to be expanding until the demand is there. You can not put the cart before the horse and hope for the best. This is not the Field of Dreams. If there is no demand, explain to me how walmart building these new buildings with nonproductive workers filling them will make them more money?

By the sounds of it, is your business model. You are acting like you know more than these ceos :1orglaugh

Did you really ask that question? :helpme No demand eh? Hehehe.... trillions in profits, growing corps all over, walmart still expanding, and you think we have no demand? Hehehe.... oh something is in demand, but clearly you're not getting what it is.

I only know as much as the people I put around me.... exactly like those ceo's. They do have one thing I don't have, they have a LEGAL obligation to make stock holders and investors more profits, actually that's the ONLY obligation they have.

Is that a regulation? Is that hurting job growth? :food-smil02

No not really, in todays standards, yes... but when it happened they took out regulations, which allowed them to setup in the structure we have today, thus over time more regs did happen, because of that deregulation.

You could say it hurt job growth, but we don't have something in modern times to compare it to, other than maybe a 3rd world country, which isn't really fair. When it happened though, we saw massive job growth, it's the reason why millions have jobs today... without getting into a totally different debate, one could say it's good or bad, depending on what you think society should look like today.

Buffet swings to the left. He once said there is a problem when his admin assistant pays a higher percentage in taxes then him.

Buffet wings to the left.

http://cdn.wn.com/pd/ba/f6/9965e961d...13b_grande.jpg