Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (719086)	6/2/2013 8:22:13 PM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580053

Economies don't operate by a Field of Dreams mechanism. Sure they do jelly... An excellent example for you is Hooters... If you build it they will come. They being customers ... You pay the cooks, waitresses, janitors, suppliers and the landlord. They go out and buy stuff. There's your field of dreams economy.

To: combjelly who wrote (719086)	6/2/2013 8:22:27 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580053

>> Only if the customers have money to spend. Customers have the money when they're employed. They aren't employed because of stupid government policy. There is a certain amount of the "chicken or the egg" involved here -- consumers have to have money to buy products but products have to exist. That is a given. The question is how to get money in the hands of consumers in the most effective manner. You don't do it by redistribution of wealth. You do it by using the wealth to create jobs. It should be intuitively obvious, even to an economic ignoramus like you, that this is true. I'm not sure how one even argues with this fact. >> This is why Henry Ford paid his employees more. His reasoning was that if they had enough money, they would buy cars, almost certainly Fords because that is how humans work. By buying Fords, they would create a larger market, driving down the production costs. So, by deferring some short term profit, he made sure that Ford grew faster than it would have otherwise. To think that was Ford's rationale presumes he was an idiot, which he wasn't. His comment on this subject has been totally removed from reality - sales talk. He fully comprehended that paying employees would not generate sufficient sales to offset the increased expense. Ford's rationale was that if he paid people more they would show up for work. He was having major issues with keeping production lines moving when people were not be paid enough to make them want to show up for work every day. His comment was sales talk, no different than you will get from a Ford dealer today if you visit a dealership. >> Without Apple, the US economy would still have expanded. Of course. But without the wealth that drove that expansion and others, they would never have occurred. Whether you're talking about Apple, Microsoft, or the companies of Bershire Hathaway really doesn't matter. They all require investment to continue innovating and growing the economy. If they stop, someone else will fill that spot, but ONLY if the competitor's wealth hasn't been confiscated for redistribution. This is still an exceptionally weak response from you on this issue.