PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 06, 2017, 05:34:30 PM
-
Jobs report came out, 211,000 jobs added and the President tweeted out about it being good. Sorry, 211,000 is not good. We need to start seeing 300,000 a month, see the labor participation percentage go up and see some GDP growth on the 3-4% range. Personally, I voted to get to those kind of numbers. I have no expectation that Hillary could have gotten us anywhere near there as the Democrats have been working to make us believe the number Obama was getting was the new normal and Hillary would have continued that trend. We can't spike the ball for 211,000 though. The tweet should have been more like, "while this is better we look forward to seeing much better numbers." I am realistic enough to know we're only a few months in and he has not Congress entirely on board yet, if at all.
What say you?
-
I don't disagree with anything you say. I am particularly looking for that GDP growth.
-
It's been just over 100 days, have some patience.
-
Gee... and all those negative job growth numbers under.... under... under.... oh yeah, the traitor.
-
Yes, Trump should not be celebrating these numbers, but indicate that it is a good trend that needs to continue, and become larger. We need economic expansion ASAP, as we've had very flat numbers for the last ten years.
Yes, we would have gotten the same Obama economic malaise under Hillary with her "free everything" Bernie like policies that would only drain from the productive, and further damage our private sector.
-
What say you?
I say that under Obama we consistently saw the jobs numbers come out and then quietly get adjusted downward. I suspect today we are seeing them come out and in a month or two they will quietly get adjusted upwards.
-
Other than investors and job creators reacting positively to the election of Trump, his administration has not yet had any legislative items signed into law to further help this. I'm interested to see this tax reform, especially on the corporate tax rate, and how it materializes.
-
I doubt you'll see the kind of Economic growth you're looking for a absent technological innovation. That's what fostered the last big boom.
-
I doubt you'll see the kind of Economic growth you're looking for a absent technological innovation. That's what fostered the last big boom.
You might have it backwards. Technological innovation is a result, not a cause, of capital investment and economic growth.
-
You might have it backwards. Technological innovation is a result, not a cause, of capital investment and economic growth.
Exactly. Even the far left, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, etc don't do anything if they don't see a potential profit in it, and that is why businesses are formed. Any technological innovation comes from the prospect of being first to market, or building a better mousetrap, and earning a profit for stock holders. Government can only incentivize private companies to innovate if they off them the use of OUR MONEY to do something that generates a profit through government contracts, or grants.
How'd Solyndra work out?
-
Exactly. Even the far left, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, etc don't do anything if the don't see a potential profit in it, and that is why businesses are formed. Any technological innovation comes from the prospect of being first to market, or building a better mousetrap, and earning a profit for stock holders. Government can only incentivize private companies to innovate if they off them the use of OUR MONEY to do something that generates a profit through government contracts, or grants.
How'd Solyndra work out?
But the liberal/progressive/socialist/academic viewpoint is that business is created to provide people with jobs and that these employers should provide well paying jobs and an extensive list of benefits. It's all about the employees in their world.
Profit? Shareholders? That's just for those greedy conservative capitalist to take advantage.
-
Profit? Shareholders? That's just for those greedy conservative capitalist to take advantage.
If you look at the leadership of many if not most larger corporations in technology, finance/banking, communications, entertainment, service industries, etc they are run my far leftists and have a major PC culture promoting all the liberal/progressive policies, and agenda.
-
But the liberal/progressive/socialist/academic viewpoint is that business is created to provide people with jobs and that these employers should provide well paying jobs and an extensive list of benefits. It's all about the employees in their world.
Profit? Shareholders? That's just for those greedy conservative capitalist to take advantage.
You just made me realize that leftism is its own contronym. Lets say leftism began when peasants demanded ownership shares in the land they worked as tenants, when there was strict class division and the land or the factories were owned outright by an elite class. You can understand their point.
In a free capitalist society like the United States, without enforced castes, public company stock can be bought by anyone, and the means of production is already owned by a huge middle class, getting richer from their investment portfolios (at least when the economy is doing well). Here is where the understandable complaint of a leftist is twisted into something evil. Today's progressive is in complete denial about the shares grandma has in Coca-Cola or Microsoft or an electric utility.
The progressive wants to "nationalize" industries, thereby putting ownership and control into the hands of the government which has become the new powerful elite. Leftism has come full circle. Leftists are the new bourgeoisie.
The shining example is North Korea. Leftism is never about creating equality. It is about bringing its own into power and wealth.
-
The shining example is North Korea. Leftism is never about creating equality. It is about bringing its own into power and wealth.
You mean like that socialist utopia of Cuba? When Castro died he was worth north of $900 million.
As his people starved, they did have free education and healthcare.....
-
You mean like that socialist utopia of Cuba? When Castro died he was worth north of $900 million.
As his people starved, they did have free education and healthcare.....
Venezuela is probably the better example. I don't disagree with Cuba but people are hijacking food trucks and killing dogs on the streets in Venezuela just to be able to eat.
-
Venezuela is probably the better example. I don't disagree with Cuba but people are hijacking food trucks and killing dogs on the streets in Venezuela just to be able to eat.
What the left in the U.S. never get is that "Communism" is just another form of Totalitarianism where a few elite get rich, and rule the masses to their detriment. Venezuela, Cuba, Most African nations, N. Korea, etc. Just more dictatorships where the few rule, and steal from the people while creating a police state, or worse in the strictest sense.
-
They don't get that communism aka: socialism, leftism - all falling under the umbrella of ECONOMIC COLLECTIVISM - always results in totalitarianism or at best simply economic failure (ie Greece) because it is fundamentally against the laws of nature. It is based on theft and coercion therefore not sustainable. It is based on a false understanding of human nature, motivation and behavior. It is based on the extremely stupid and unnatural idea that an elitist minority can best make decisions how all the rest of us should live. That elitist minority, being human, lapses to greed with the result being it becomes richer while the system in general fails.
Economic collectivism in all its forms is an unnatural utopian fantasy and every leftist is either stupid and/or delusional for not recognizing how the human race really works, or evil for understanding these truths but are the self-anointed elite benefiting from it.
-
They don't get that communism aka: socialism, leftism - all falling under the umbrella of ECONOMIC COLLECTIVISM - always results in totalitarianism or at best simply economic failure (ie Greece) because it is fundamentally against the laws of nature. It is based on theft and coercion therefore not sustainable. It is based on a false understanding of human nature, motivation and behavior. It is based on the extremely stupid and unnatural idea that an elitist minority can best make decisions how all the rest of us should live. That elitist minority, being human, lapses to greed with the result being it becomes richer while the system in general fails.
Economic collectivism in all its forms is an unnatural utopian fantasy and every leftist is either stupid and/or delusional for not recognizing how the human race really works, or evil for understanding these truths but are the self-anointed elite benefiting from it.
You'll note that those preaching about the benefits of socialism never live by it. I've used this quote here before and it's true:
Socialism is for the people, not the socialists.
-
You'll note that those preaching about the benefits of socialism never live by it. I've used this quote here before and it's true:
A point worth repeating.
-
What we need is the type of economic expansion in the private sector driven by innovation, decent tax, and regulatory policy, and good, justifiable wages (not mandated wage levels) to attract American workers that want to be productive. The last ten years or so have been like banging our collective heads against the wall, and not making progress.
I do "feel" optimism out there in the marketplace for growth. I know liberal/progressives feel, we think. :)
-
The dumbest peopl in America are apparently in education.
Our children have been indoctrinated to believe the stupidest things for decades and now we have a generation of idiots who can't tell the difference between naziism and the Democratic Party.
The idiocy coming from democrats these days is so removed from reality that I shudder to think how these nincompoops handle their daily responsibilities, and would fight them tooth and nail before i would give any of them a second thought.