It's All Obama's Fault - DOW Jones reaches 16,000 for first time ever

[Depreciating Asset]

Yes you should, be cause you made a direct relationship that these people are not even making. Not even the supposed relationship between corp profits and R&D spending is a link between innovation and corporate profits, that's something induced by you. This is akin to saying tax cuts lead to innovation because they precipitate a direct increase in corporate profits. The reality was shown earlier by my graphs and evidence; we are in a corporate profit record threshold and there is no perceived boom in innovation such s the one in the 90's, and I'm using that 90's example because you brought it up as a barometer, when corporate profits were not even at any kind of high, in fact they were below average yet there was the boom that you believe to exist.

Ok breh. If you are going to argue R&D spending doesn't lead to innovation I'm done here. Have a nice evening.

 

[newworldafro]

I would say that I'm a pretty common man. My stock and mutual fund portfolio is up 25% this year.

Long live Barack Hussein!!

EDIT: Before I get neg repped for trolling I believe you have a point but it is certainly an improvement over the Bush years where the Dow at the end of 2008 was lower than it was when he took office. Corporate profits lead to innovation which eventually does benefit the common man in the form of better technology and medical improvements. There is certainly no comparison between the benefit that the top 10% of Americans will experience versus the bottom 20%. The rich will certainly benefit in much greater proportion but some of those corporate profits do eventually end up benefitting the common man.

I'm certainly not arguing for trickle down economics as a policy. Just stating the facts that eventually the common man does benefit in some ways from this growth but of course they lose in other ways. It's not an all or nothing proposition.

you do realize that during the Bush (not a stan) years the financial markets weren't recieving $85 billion a month aka quantitative easing right ....

 

[Broke Wave]

Ok breh. If you are going to argue R&D spending doesn't lead to innovation I'm done here. Have a nice evening.

anyone who reads this is going to know i didnt say that

 

[Depreciating Asset]

you do realize that during the Bush (not a stan) years the financial markets weren't recieving $85 billion a month aka quantitative easing right ....

Yes I do. I simple said the Dow looks better today than it did during the Bush years. I understand that QE is fraudulent growth but it may prop up the market long enough for real growth to sustain it.

 

[Kritic]

Ok breh. If you are going to argue R&D spending doesn't lead to innovation I'm done here. Have a nice evening.

i was gonna say you sound like corporate lawyer trying to defend corporatism. cause the way you defend wall street makes me wanna play on my iphone like john mccain. then i looked at your what you're reppin under your avi and i . so you're really not one of us. just like wall street and politicians, you're just running game on us.

there are a lot of people who will fall for the wall street lies but not everyone will. and so long as wall street is fooling the majority of the people they're winning.

 

[Morph]

This is more the Fed's doing than the President. The market isn't really tied to everyday living conditions at all anymore. These corporations have figured out how to make enormous profits without needing a thriving middle class.

Well said, I'll go a step further and say they've figured out how to make enormous profits while bleeding the middle class. This is the super rich's version of looting.

Let's give them another 700 billion dollars to play with. More corporate welfare for the ultra rich!

Big Ben kept unemployment steady while fighting off both inflation and deflationary threats. That was Obama's leadership decision.

Steadily high, you mean.

Obama promised 5% unemployment by now, back in 2009.

Unemployment is at 7.3%. What exactly are you praising here? Bernanke sucks.

 

[Depreciating Asset]

Let's give them another 700 billion dollars to play with. More corporate welfare for the ultra rich!





Steadily high, you mean.

Obama promised 5% unemployment by now, back in 2009.

Unemployment is at 7.3%. What exactly are you praising here? Bernanke sucks.

As I stated in my post, I was praising steady and no significant inflation and no deflation.

Why does Bernanke suck? What would you have liked for him to do that he hasn't done?

------

And just an aside. Why does every opinion of statement have to be superb or awful?

Benanke's awful! Obama's amazing! Corporations are the devil! Government is a disaster! Government is the solution!

Where is the discernment? Where are the shades of grey in opinions?

I said corporate profits lead to innovation. People go nuts. Well sometimes they do. I praise Bernanke for certain qualities. NO he completely SUCKS. Come on brehs.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

As I stated in my post, I was praising steady and no significant inflation and no deflation.

Why does Bernanke suck? What would you have liked for him to do that he hasn't done?

------

And just an aside. Why does every opinion of statement have to be superb or awful?

Benanke's awful! Obama's amazing! Corporations are the devil! Government is a disaster! Government is the solution!

Where is the discernment? Where are the shades of grey in opinions?

I said corporate profits lead to innovation. People go nuts. Well sometimes they do. I praise Bernanke for certain qualities. NO he completely SUCKS. Come on brehs.

I think your claim that corporate profits -----> innovation is extremely reductive, and probably not even really applicable in the modern context of today. We've seen the highest corporate profits ever over the last decade or so, so we should see innovation proportional to that if it is as one-to-one as you're claiming. But I'll let you discuss that with Broke Wave.

But let's say you're right. How exactly are you defining and quantifying "innovation," and are you assuming that innovation is always good for peoples' lives? I ask that because there's plenty of innovation going on, particularly in the financial sector...we saw how that panned out. Innovation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap

"Innovation" often can take the form of methods that allow corporations to maximize profits while doing less and requiring less labor. Innovation in many industries means using technological, manufacturing, and servicing practices to cut labor costs.

People need JOBS right now. They need livable wages and lowered living costs. What is "innovation" going to do about that? Because right now, we're increasing moving toward a society of a few technocrats and many serfs.

 

[gangreen]

Once this healthcare thing works out somehow, they will still talk shyt...

 

[Depreciating Asset]

I think your claim that corporate profits -----> is extremely reductive, and probably not even really applicable in the modern context of today. We've seen the highest corporate profits ever over the last decade or so, so we should see innovation proportional to that if it is as one-to-one as you're claiming. But I'll let you discuss that with Broke Wave.

But let's say you're right. How exactly are you defining and quantifying "innovation," and are you assuming that innovation is always good for the economy as a whole? I ask that because there's plenty of innovation going on, particularly in the financial sector...we saw how that panned out.

"Innovation" often can take the form of methods that allow corporations to maximize profits while doing less and requiring less labor. Innovation in many industries means using technological, manufacturing, and servicing practices to cut labor costs.

People need JOBS right now. They need livable wages and lowered living costs. What is "innovation" going to do about that? Because right now, we're increasing moving toward a society of a few technocrats and many serfs.

I've discussed the profits --> innovation long enough. I'll just say that I never claimed it was a one-to-one relationship. That would make little sense. Clearly $1 dollar in profit doesn't translate into $1 in spending on growth and innovation. Also I cited not one but two academic journals supporting the same claim as I did. Anyone who thinks the relationship doesn't exist, the burden of proof is now on you to find me two academic journals which says there is absolutely no causal relationship. If you find them, I will concede. I am open to saying I'm wrong when proven so. I've done it before in other threads. But seriously, I found economic journals agreeing with my basic point.

As far as how to define innovation, I don't have a technical definition for innovation. Whatever I say will probably be picked apart because I guess that is fun for some people. But roughly speaking it's an improved way of doing something that gains widespread acceptance.

You asked "Is innovation always good for the economy as whole?" I would say definitely no. The financial innovations you mentioned are a classic example. Wall Street firms maliciously inventing products to defraud consumers. Yes, that kind of innovation is bad. New innovative 'precision' military weapons that kill civilians with no fukks given are bad in my opinion. New innovative illegal drugs which rip the skin off of off people is bad in my opinion.

But yes, I do think most innovation is positive. Medical innovation, vaccines, computer procession speeds, machines for manufacturing, airplanes, cars, light speed rail, and on and on. Good stuff I think.

For your last point about people needing JOBS. I agree. What will innovation do for that? Innovation won't do much for that in the short term but recently I heard someone make the point that during the Industrial Revolution, 70% of the economy was farming. All these farming machines came around and started taking jobs away from farmers and people living through that time said, "This is terrible! These machines are taking our jobs. We must stop this. How will we go on?" Looking back I don't think most of us would say they should have stopped the Industrial Revolution so that farmers could keep their jobs. The world changed and eventually we were better off for it. Now we only need 1% of the population employed as farmers to create enough food for the country. So innovation leads to difficult transitions. People have to find new jobs. It's ugly. I think the government has a responsibility to do what it can to find people jobs in the midst of technological growth.

But innovation will make today's technology cheaper and it will lead to greater health and longer life expectancy . These are good things. Once again, I am not making an all or nothing argument. I wish you all could see that. Are there drawbacks to certain types of innovation? Sure. But in the long run, I think we are better off.

 

[Broke Wave]

@knowmadd you are conflating your world view with reality. You personally believe that increased corporate profits have a net positive effect on society and I can't change that view, because whatever that positive goal may be is subjective. When you try and make the relationship between corporate profits and innovation, you are stepping out of the realm of economics and going closer into the realm of political theory and philosophy because what you are saying cannot be quantified. I can make the claim that Wars cause the most innovation through necessity, but that is an unjustifiable claim that just sounds correct on the surface.

We shouldn't be making policy based on opinions, we should be making policy based on statistical evidence and research. A candidate who advocates for increased corporate profits in the name of innovation is simply selling snake oil.

 

[Depreciating Asset]

@knowmadd you are conflating your world view with reality. You personally believe that increased corporate profits have a net positive effect on society and I can't change that view, because whatever that positive goal may be is subjective. When you try and make the relationship between corporate profits and innovation, you are stepping out of the realm of economics and going closer into the realm of political theory and philosophy because what you are saying cannot be quantified. I can make the claim that Wars cause the most innovation through necessity, but that is an unjustifiable claim that just sounds correct on the surface.

We shouldn't be making policy based on opinions, we should be making policy based on statistical evidence and research. A candidate who advocates for increased corporate profits in the name of innovation is simply selling snake oil.

Breh, I gave you statistical economic research. Twice. Two academic papers showing the relationship. Not my world view. It wasn't good enough for you. I don't know what else to say about that.

But let's flip this around and stop attacking my arguments for a second. I'm assuming you disagree with the statement that, "increased corporate profits have a net positive effect on society". If so, I am curious to hear why. Why do you think increased corporate profits are a net negative (if that's what you believe)?

 

[Broke Wave]

Breh, I gave you statistical economic research. Twice. Two academic papers showing the relationship. Not my world view. It wasn't good enough for you. I don't know what else to say about that.

But let's flip this around and stop attacking my arguments for a second. I'm assuming you disagree with the statement that, "increased corporate profits have a net positive effect on society". If so, I am curious to hear why. Why do you think increased corporate profits are a net negative (if that's what you believe)?

Lol you seem very confident in them, and the papers you linked didn't even come close to where you were at but anyway.

I don't believe corporate profits have a net positive or net negative effect on society insofar as they are largely being hoarded by corporations and represent private capital, which is not necessarily going to be used in any net positive or negative way in terms of economic indicators, such as poverty education etc.

YOU made a relationship between corporate profits and some kind of end when all I was saying is that the relationship between corporate profits and any goal is shaky at best. I can't even make a direct link between income inequality and corporate profits, but that relationship is more clear than the one you tried to make earlier. Corporations are groups of people engaged in business for profit. They are people who at their base, work and use money to make more money. Whether or not those individuals, be it JP Morgan or Google, makes money, has no bearing on society if they do not pay taxes. There is no vested interest in the success of a corporation outside of the tax receipts. You badly want to use silicon valley and Tesla as a shield for the rest of these predatory and lethargic corporations but unfortunately it will not work for me. If anything the government should dismantle most of these corporations and make it inhospitable for some of them to operate, such as Wal-Mart and McDonalds, but that is another discussion altogether.

 

[Depreciating Asset]

Lol you seem very confident in them, and the papers you linked didn't even come close to where you were at but anyway.

I don't believe corporate profits have a net positive or net negative effect on society insofar as they are largely being hoarded by corporations and represent private capital, which is not necessarily going to be used in any net positive or negative way in terms of economic indicators, such as poverty education etc.

YOU made a relationship between corporate profits and some kind of end when all I was saying is that the relationship between corporate profits and any goal is shaky at best. I can't even make a direct link between income inequality and corporate profits, but that relationship is more clear than the one you tried to make earlier. Corporations are groups of people engaged in business for profit. They are people who at their base, work and use money to make more money. Whether or not those individuals, be it JP Morgan or Google, makes money, has no bearing on society if they do not pay taxes. There is no vested interest in the success of a corporation outside of the tax receipts. You badly want to use silicon valley and Tesla as a shield for the rest of these predatory and lethargic corporations but unfortunately it will not work for me. If anything the government should dismantle most of these corporations and make it inhospitable for some of them to operate, such as Wal-Mart and McDonalds, but that is another discussion altogether.

How would you suggest that our society creates better products then? Do you think the notion of a profit motive to drive improvement, which capitalism is built on, is bullshyt?
If you want to get rid of most corporations, do you either think there is a better way for us to improve as a society which doesn't involve corporations?
Or do you think that it's not all that important for us to keep improving our medicines, computers, banking systems, communication methods etc meaning we are good with the technology we have?

 

[Suicide King]

This is more the Fed's doing than the President. The market isn't really tied to everyday living conditions at all anymore. These corporations have figured out how to make enormous profits without needing a thriving middle class.

I love it, far too long people ignored the problems of the common man as long as they can buy a Xbox One.

I make 117k a year, so I'm not hurting, but this wealth inequality will come will a whole set of problems if the 80% lets it continue.

You gotta worry about the future, and for a long time people did not care much. And from I see, nothing has changed.