Where will we level off after the economy has been vandalized

[Stone]

Sure it is by your very source

If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
And I said
as people {can pay more{demand} businesses will start charging more {higher price}as a result.

TM....you just presented a really good argument demonstrating you do not understand supply/demand economics.

can pay more{demand}

The context of 'demand' relates to consumption versus price stability, not wages versus your claimed increased pricing structure.
Of course lower wages can and do often force lower pricing.......but it's because of supply/demand pressures.

You've got capitalism and free market concepts confused with something else.
What I'm not certain of.
You ought to read these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

 

[The Man]

As I posted before.....your posts are obviously created out of convenience of the moment because you keep contradicting your own arguments.


Take this for instance:

The inequality between middle class and the wealthy 1%ers is not because of excessive aid and tax relief on the middle class....it's because the current Bush tax cuts favored continued wealth generation of those that already had wealth.
You have argued to further increase taxes on the middle class and decrease taxes on those that are already successful.

Your argument that it helps the middle class is bogus


What has this to do with your argument for increasing taxation on the middle class and lowering it on the wealthy?


That is not a supply/demand scenario.



Who the hell does?



So why have you argued a regressive tax plan that only kicks the middle class in the teeth?
Why do you continue to argue to reduce taxation on a segment of the economy that has been exceeding successful?



Really....why do you use such stupid analogies so far removed from reality?
The minimum wage is not going to rise that quickly unless there is a collapse of the economy through hyper inflation.


You are only debating out of convenience for the immediate conversation :cool

The inequality between middle class and the wealthy 1%ers is not because of excessive aid and tax relief on the middle class

Where did I say it was?

it's because the current Bush tax cuts favored continued wealth generation of those that already had wealth

Wow income inequality was began before bush ever hit office.
And to further his tax breaks were not for the rich only...I suggest you figure out a way to see that image..as it is making you look foolish.

You have argued to further increase taxes on the middle class and decrease taxes on those that are already successful.

Where?

That is not a supply/demand scenario

Sure it is...the more money you have the more you can buy...the more you are willing to pay.
The more you buy the less product available so the price goes up.

So why have you argued a regressive tax plan that only kicks the middle class in the teeth?

Where?

Why do you continue to argue to reduce taxation on a segment of the economy that has been exceeding successful?

Other than temporarily where?

Really....why do you use such stupid analogies so far removed from reality?

Impact of truth.

The minimum wage is not going to rise that quickly unless there is a collapse of the economy through hyper inflation

Where did I say it would?

 

[The Man]

TM....you just presented a really good argument demonstrating you do not understand supply/demand economics.


The context of 'demand' relates to consumption versus price stability, not wages versus your claimed increased pricing structure.
Of course lower wages can and do often force lower pricing.......but it's because of supply/demand pressures.

You've got capitalism and free market concepts confused with something else.
What I'm not certain of.
You ought to read these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

TM....you just presented a really good argument demonstrating you do not understand supply/demand economics.

Dude the more money one has/ he has more to spend this creates the demand.

Of course lower wages can and do often force lower pricing

So what are you arguing about when you have just said that lower wages creates lowers pricing.

 

[Stone]

Where did I say it was?

Wow income inequality was began before bush ever hit office.
And to further his tax breaks were not for the rich only...I suggest you figure out a way to see that image..as it is making you look foolish.


Where?


Sure it is...the more money you have the more you can buy...the more you are willing to pay.
The more you buy the less product available so the price goes up.

Where?
Other than temporarily where?
Impact of truth.


Where did I say it would?

All I see is is your denial of reality and the comments you've made, TM
And you repeat them endlessly. The same denials, over and over as if you think repetition makes your denials fact.
I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself......it's up to you to form a rebuttal of your comments.

 

[The Man]

LOL this is first time I have asked you to back those claims.
Why do you insist on debating about me rather than the topic?

 

[Stone]

Dude the more money one has/ he has more to spend this creates the demand.

So what are you arguing about when you have just said that lower wages creates lowers pricing.

Dude the more money one has/ he has more to spend this creates the demand.

.
Demand in a supply/demand scenario, relates to actual consumption.
You are arguing consumption drives up prices.
The issue in a supply/demand scenario includes the variable ......supply.
You argue to create jobs where there is no current or short term demand to increase that supply.
It is a socialist argument.
Something for nothing to labor while punishing business.
Unneeded labor costs drive up production and services costs, not down.

So what are you arguing about when you have just said that lower wages creates lowers pricing

Nothing....just stating the obvious......wage reduction does affect consumerism and so do wage increases, but you tried to link the value of products toincreased wages......and that is not a supply/demand consideration as I have repeatedly demonstrated with that link to Wikipedia. It is, however, an issue of inflation.

You simply do not understand what you are claiming.

 

[Stone]

LOL this is first time I have asked you to back those claims.
Why do you insist on debating about me rather than the topic?

Slick......nothing has changed.

I can't respond to statements I haven't made and those comments of yours I have addressed have been repeated over and over.

Why do you insist on debating about me rather than the topic?

You are the one to introduce off topic concerns about taxation......post #3.
I'm responding to your outrageous off topic claims that you keep repeating

 

[The Man]

.
Demand in a supply/demand scenario, relates to actual consumption.
You are arguing consumption drives up prices.
The issue in a supply/demand scenario includes the variable ......supply.
You argue to create jobs where there is no current or short term demand to increase that supply.
It is a socialist argument.
Something for nothing to labor while punishing business.
Unneeded labor costs drive up production and services costs, not down.



Nothing....just stating the obvious......wage reduction does affect consumerism and so do wage increases, but you tried to link the value of products toincreased wages......and that is not a supply/demand consideration as I have repeatedly demonstrated with that link to Wikipedia. It is, however, an issue of inflation.

You simply do not understand what you are claiming.

You are arguing consumption drives up prices

It does....you really cant see that.
The issue in a supply/demand scenario includes the variable ......supply
True..the more supply the less the cost...but the same rule still applies the more you are willing to spend the more they will charge.
Whats your point?

You argue to create jobs where there is no current or short term demand to increase that supply.
It is a socialist argumen

Again you do not understand a recession.

Something for nothing to labor while punishing business.
Unneeded labor costs drive up production and services costs, not down.

Where have I stated forced hirees?

Again you keep stating bull crap but never back it up..I insist you back this

 

[The Man]

Slick......nothing has changed.

I can't respond to statements I haven't made and those comments of yours I have addressed have been repeated over and over.

The inequality between middle class and the wealthy 1%ers is not because of excessive aid and tax relief on the middle clas

s
Where did I say it was?

You have argued to further increase taxes on the middle class and decrease taxes on those that are already successful.

Where?
.

So why have you argued a regressive tax plan that only kicks the middle class in the teeth?

Where?

Why do you continue to argue to reduce taxation on a segment of the economy that has been exceeding successful?

Other than temporarily where?

The minimum wage is not going to rise that quickly unless there is a collapse of the economy through hyper inflation

Where did I say it would?

Where did I claim any of the above?

 

[The Man]

You are the one to introduce off topic concerns about taxation......post #3.

Post number three was a rebuttal to your post..How did I introduce off topic?

I made the opening post...you responded in post number 2
I rebutted in post 3
Doesnt get much simpler than that.
Would you mind getting back to topic?

Which is

Where will we level off after the economy has been vandalized

If you dont want to discuss this topic then why are you in this thread?

 

[The Man]

Be sure to address post 49 as well....then lets get back to topic

 

[Stone]

It does....you really cant see that.
The issue in a supply/demand scenario includes the variable ......supply
True..the more supply the less the cost...but the same rule still applies the more you are willing to spend the more they will charge.
Whats your point?

Again you do not understand a recession.

Where have I stated forced hirees?

Again you keep stating bull crap but never back it up..I insist you back this

It does....you really cant see that.

You have argued contrary to supply/demand factors while claiming demand fixes the pricing structure. It doesn't unless you are also arguing for monopolies.
Are you arguing for monopolies?
And if you are, that goes counter to benefiting a consumer base.
Things cost more but consumption does not necessarily rise, monopolies usually limit consumption.
You now appear to be designing an argument for a monopolistic economy.
And it conflicts with your socialistic argument to create more unneeded jobs by way of government funding ( and I do not mean your argument for tax relief on the wealthy )

Good grief, you are confused

Where have I stated forced hirees?

Again with the sophistry......you have argued for unneeded government funded job creation.
Everyone reading your posts is aware of it.
Your argument for free money to start a business was classic.

Again you keep stating bull crap but never back it up..I insist you back this

Over and over and over and over.......you keep making the same BULLSHIT challenges.
Denying you made them when I have responded to them in the past is not honest debate.....it's simply being disingenuous.....( a polite way of calling a person a liar )

 

[The Man]

You have argued contrary to supply/demand factors while claiming demand fixes the pricing structure. It doesn't unless you are also arguing for monopolies.
Are you arguing for monopolies?
And if you are, that goes counter to benefiting a consumer base.
Things cost more but consumption does not necessarily rise, monopolies usually limit consumption.
You now appear to be designing an argument for a monopolistic economy.
And it conflicts with your socialistic argument to create more unneeded jobs by way of government funding ( and I do not mean your argument for tax relief on the wealthy )

Good grief, you are confused



Again with the sophistry......you have argued for unneeded government funded job creation.
Everyone reading your posts is aware of it.
Your argument for free money to start a business was classic.



Over and over and over and over.......you keep making the same BULLSHIT challenges.
Denying you made them when I have responded to them in the past is not honest debate.....it's simply being disingenuous.....( a polite way of calling a person a liar )

Hardly a response to my post below.

Slick......nothing has changed.

I can't respond to statements I haven't made and those comments of yours I have addressed have been repeated over and over.

The inequality between middle class and the wealthy 1%ers is not because of excessive aid and tax relief on the middle clas

s
Where did I say it was?

You have argued to further increase taxes on the middle class and decrease taxes on those that are already successful.

Where?
.

So why have you argued a regressive tax plan that only kicks the middle class in the teeth?

Where?

Why do you continue to argue to reduce taxation on a segment of the economy that has been exceeding successful?

Other than temporarily where?

The minimum wage is not going to rise that quickly unless there is a collapse of the economy through hyper inflation

Where did I say it would?

 

[Stone]

Post number three was a rebuttal to your post..How did I introduce off topic?

I made the opening post...you responded in post number 2
I rebutted in post 3
Doesnt get much simpler than that.
Would you mind getting back to topic?

Which is

Where will we level off after the economy has been vandalized

If you dont want to discuss this topic then why are you in this thread?

Post number three was a rebuttal to your post..How did I introduce off topic?

BULLSHIT over and over......that's your style.


I addressed you earlier.
Are you denying I didn't respond?

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...n-vandalized&p=2275366&viewfull=1#post2275366

Here are your words,initiating an off topic discussion.

Which can often be achieved through tax cuts

And suddenly the thread is way off topic........and you started it.


And now whining about it.........:cool

 

[The Man]

You have argued contrary to supply/demand factors while claiming demand fixes the pricing structure. It doesn't unless you are also arguing for monopolies.
Are you arguing for monopolies?
And if you are, that goes counter to benefiting a consumer base.
Things cost more but consumption does not necessarily rise, monopolies usually limit consumption.
You now appear to be designing an argument for a monopolistic economy.
And it conflicts with your socialistic argument to create more unneeded jobs by way of government funding ( and I do not mean your argument for tax relief on the wealthy )

Good grief, you are confused



Again with the sophistry......you have argued for unneeded government funded job creation.
Everyone reading your posts is aware of it.
Your argument for free money to start a business was classic.



Over and over and over and over.......you keep making the same BULLSHIT challenges.
Denying you made them when I have responded to them in the past is not honest debate.....it's simply being disingenuous.....( a polite way of calling a person a liar )

You have argued contrary to supply/demand factors while claiming demand fixes the pricing structure.

Where?

Things cost more but consumption does not necessarily rise

When things go up consumption goes down.

Are you arguing for monopolies?

No

You now appear to be designing an argument for a monopolistic economy.

Where?.....You say I appear to be....then why did you ask?

Again with the sophistry......you have argued for unneeded government funded job creation

Such as?

Everyone reading your posts is aware of it.

We are the only ones in this thread stone.

it's simply being disingenuous.....( a polite way of calling a person a liar

Are you trying to politely call me a liar?

 

[Stone]

Hardly a response to my post below.


s
Where did I say it was?


Where?
.
Where?


Other than temporarily where?

Where did I say it would?

The inequality between middle class and the wealthy 1%ers is not because of excessive aid and tax relief on the middle clas

That's my statement. I said it and I'm sticking to it.

You have argued to further increase taxes on the middle class and decrease taxes on those that are already successful.

Your regressive sales tax plan argument.

So why have you argued a regressive tax plan that only kicks the middle class in the teeth?

Your regressive sales tax plan argument.

Why do you continue to argue to reduce taxation on a segment of the economy that has been exceeding successful?

Why are you arguing it at all, at this time?

The minimum wage is not going to rise that quickly unless there is a collapse of the economy through hyper inflation

I posted that. Do you disagree?
If do, how and why do you think it could occur otherwise?




ALL BULLSHIT I've addressed in the past or statements I've made in rebuttal .

So.....why are you lying with your accusations rather than debating?

 

[Stone]

............

Are you trying to politely call me a liar?

Yes

I've even proven it .

 

[The Man]

BULLSHIT over and over......that's your style.


I addressed you earlier.
Are you denying I didn't respond?

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...n-vandalized&p=2275366&viewfull=1#post2275366

Here are your words,initiating an off topic discussion.


And suddenly the thread is way off topic........and you started it.


And now whining about it.........:cool

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread....=1#post2275366

Here are your words,initiating an off topic discussion.

Does not lead me to my post ...but rather your own post.

Which post are you wanting me to go to and why?
Cant you just go to topic?

Here it is again for your convenience

Where will we level off after the economy has been vandalized



Where will we level off at and when?

 

[The Man]

Yes

I've even proven it .

Then just call me a liar.
Then prove I am a liar.

Actually you should prove me a liar then call me a liar.
How long will this take?

 

[The Man]

That's my statement. I said it and I'm sticking to it.



Your regressive sales tax plan argument.



Your regressive sales tax plan argument.



Why are you arguing it at all, at this time?



I posted that. Do you disagree?
If do, how and why do you think it could occur otherwise?




ALL BULLSHIT I've addressed in the past or statements I've made in rebuttal .

So.....why are you lying with your accusations rather than debating?

Give me linkage to my posts stone to support those claims...all you are doing is creating a muddled mess.