New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Want to create jobs?

Regardless of who was in the Governor's mansion, the politics of Michigan have been anything but "conservative." It was a labor dominated economy, with the leftist political agenda that goes hand in hand with that. Most of the "Republicans" who held the office were liberals. The fact remains that it wasn't free market capitalism that ruined the auto industry and Michigan's economy - it was the unions and a progressive political agenda.
Hard Hats Beat Up the Hard Left

Union workers despise the New Age agenda of the Preppy Progressives. They instinctively know that what you think of as Liberals are spoiled snobs spawned by the university, which is an obsolete aristocratic institution designed specifically for those living off an allowance.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
Regardless of who was in the Governor's mansion, the politics of Michigan have been anything but "conservative." It was a labor dominated economy, with the leftist political agenda that goes hand in hand with that. Most of the "Republicans" who held the office were liberals. The fact remains that it wasn't free market capitalism that ruined the auto industry and Michigan's economy - it was the unions and a progressive political agenda.
Hahahahaha, you are really getting desperate. And you are so unbelievably wrong.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
Regardless of who was in the Governor's mansion, the politics of Michigan have been anything but "conservative." It was a labor dominated economy, with the leftist political agenda that goes hand in hand with that. Most of the "Republicans" who held the office were liberals. The fact remains that it wasn't free market capitalism that ruined the auto industry and Michigan's economy - it was the unions and a progressive political agenda.
You see, here's the problem, Luke. You've overdosed on the koolaid, and so when a Republican, and his agendas, do not succeed in doing what he and you say will happen, he instantly turns into a 'progressive'. I don't have that problem. I'm not tied to either a Republican or a Democrat. I look at the candidate, his objectives, his successes, his failures, and make my decisions that way. This bull about conservative and liberal is just that, bull. Virg Bernero, even though he ran as a Democrat, did more 'conservatively', to me, to resolve Lansings issues than Snyder has for the state. It's not a matter of whether Snyder is a 'conservative' or a'liberal', it's a matter of whether he has any business sense at all; and the way he ran Gateway shows he didn't. So go play your 'conservative' and 'liberal' game to your hearts content.
 

MaryAnne

Governor
You need to be able to read and comprehend to get the point (I guess). Big government social welfare policies and the fiat money they have used to make it all appear "affordable" is the root of this problem. A lack of demand is impossible - demand is infinite. The problem is the limitations to funding demand, and in order to increase that, you must first produce something and sell it to obtain the wherewithall to consume. It's Say's Law:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/says-law.asp

Left wingers ignore this most basic economic law in their zeal to demonize production and glorify labor (consumption). It's back door Marxism (wealth redistribution), and it simply has no merit.

Ah, the Ford fallacy raises its ugly progressive head again. Henry Ford didn't pay his workers more so they could buy his automobiles, he paid them more to keep them from leaving. Even Paul Krugman gets it:

As Paul Krugman points out, the effects are obvious:

But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage “compared with other companies” — and that is precisely what mandating an increase in the minimum wage for all companies cannot accomplish.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#53e30e4c1c96

Look, if progressive economic policies worked, we'd be in a new golden age of American labor prosperity after seven years of Obamunism. You people simply need to be relegated to the dust bin of economic history - there is simply no "there, there" with respect to your economic ideology. It fails every where and time it is tried. Yet you keep yammering that we need more of it. It's mind numbing how economically obtuse the progressives have become...
You need to be able to read and comprehend to get the point (I guess). Big government social welfare policies and the fiat money they have used to make it all appear "affordable" is the root of this problem. A lack of demand is impossible - demand is infinite. The problem is the limitations to funding demand, and in order to increase that, you must first produce something and sell it to obtain the wherewithall to consume. It's Say's Law:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/says-law.asp

Left wingers ignore this most basic economic law in their zeal to demonize production and glorify labor (consumption). It's back door Marxism (wealth redistribution), and it simply has no merit.

Ah, the Ford fallacy raises its ugly progressive head again. Henry Ford didn't pay his workers more so they could buy his automobiles, he paid them more to keep them from leaving. Even Paul Krugman gets it:

As Paul Krugman points out, the effects are obvious:

But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage “compared with other companies” — and that is precisely what mandating an increase in the minimum wage for all companies cannot accomplish.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#53e30e4c1c96

Look, if progressive economic policies worked, we'd be in a new golden age of American labor prosperity after seven years of Obamunism. You people simply need to be relegated to the dust bin of economic history - there is simply no "there, there" with respect to your economic ideology. It fails every where and time it is tried. Yet you keep yammering that we need more of it. It's mind numbing how economically obtuse the progressives have become...
Granted, Henry Ford paid his workers well to keep them. But he also knew those workers would be able to afford the product they built.

Note here, Henry Ford promised my Grandfather that he would have a life time job if he would come back to the DT&I railroad he bought to transport his cars. Henry was a man of his word. He retired after 50 years with the company.

I love how all these experts that never even knew Henry Ford know what he was thinking. Henry Ford was a product of the times when Unions were being created. Like other smart men he shared with his Employees. Much like John Patterson, founder of NCR. The Ford family has been smart enough to follow the Founder. Other large companies did not.
 

MaryAnne

Governor
No, that was NOT your point.

And once again you make an asinine comment about Michigan, and now I will re-school you one more time. Michigan has NOT been under progressive control for the past six decades. Luke, you just spout off, and have no knowledge about shit. Here is your progressive rule for 6 decades in Michigan. One more time for someone who has the memory of a gnat. 6 decades takes us back to 1956. And by the way, I went back further than 6 decades, and the majority was under Republicans. The governors prior to Williams were Republicans as well.

G. Mennen Williams 1949 to 1961 Democrat
John Swainson 1961 to 1963 Democrat
George W Romney 1963 to 1969 Republican
William Milliken 1969 to 1983 Republican
James Blanchard 1983 to 1991 Democrat
John Engler 1991 to 2003 Republican
Jenifer Granholm 2003 to 2011 Democrat
Rick Snyder 2011 to present Republican

In fact the majority of Michigan governors have been Republican or their founders, the Whigs. 6 decades, eh? Can't wait to see how you parse that. "That's exactly what I said, Michigan was.................(add in bull........). the past 50 years, Michigan has seen a majority of Republicans. And with the exception of Romney and Milliken, the rest have led the state into economic problems. Why do I waste my time.
Even I knew Romney was in that group. And Granholm.
 

MaryAnne

Governor
1) So we're clear here that you agree now that Ford did NOT pay his workers more simply so they could buy more, right?

2) Go back and reread my post - Bushbama is my way of saying they both sucked, from an economic perspective. As for the stock market:

View attachment 31288
On a real basis, the returns since 2000 are negligible, under both Bush and Obama. Not sure who you think you are fooling here, but it sure appears that it's really only you.
There is not the slightest comparison of Bush and Obama.
 

MaryAnne

Governor
There is a shit load of demand in the third world and still they don't create jobs. As a matter of fact they often destroy jobs. I'm thinking Venezuela or any number of countries in Africa. Hmmmm....

I think you have to rethink your premise. I think you have to better appreciate business people who create businesses and in the process create jobs.
That is because they do not have the income to buy products.
 

Lukey

Senator
Granted, Henry Ford paid his workers well to keep them. But he also knew those workers would be able to afford the product they built.

Note here, Henry Ford promised my Grandfather that he would have a life time job if he would come back to the DT&I railroad he bought to transport his cars. Henry was a man of his word. He retired after 50 years with the company.

I love how all these experts that never even knew Henry Ford know what he was thinking. Henry Ford was a product of the times when Unions were being created. Like other smart men he shared with his Employees. Much like John Patterson, founder of NCR. The Ford family has been smart enough to follow the Founder. Other large companies did not.
And I support all that whole heartedly. Note that it was done voluntarily!

What I do NOT support is government requiring it and overseeing it. That's when you get economic stagnation - like now.
 

Lukey

Senator
There is not the slightest comparison of Bush and Obama.
Keynesian economic policies - check!

Over regulation - check!

Bloated government spending - check!

Warmongering - check!

Oligarchs getting ever richer - check!

Middle class losing ground - Check

They look pretty much the same to me...
 

MaryAnne

Governor
Keynesian economic policies - check!

Over regulation - check!

Bloated government spending - check!

Warmongering - check!

Oligarchs getting ever richer - check!

Middle class losing ground - Check

They look pretty much the same to me...
My question to you, Lukey is where are the Unions that created the middle class,along with smart men like Henry Ford and John Patterson?

Do you think that just might be a good share of the reason for the shrinking middle class? Hmm?
 

Wahbooz

Governor
Granted, Henry Ford paid his workers well to keep them. But he also knew those workers would be able to afford the product they built.

Note here, Henry Ford promised my Grandfather that he would have a life time job if he would come back to the DT&I railroad he bought to transport his cars. Henry was a man of his word. He retired after 50 years with the company.

I love how all these experts that never even knew Henry Ford know what he was thinking. Henry Ford was a product of the times when Unions were being created. Like other smart men he shared with his Employees. Much like John Patterson, founder of NCR. The Ford family has been smart enough to follow the Founder. Other large companies did not.
He even provided profit sharing, which was unheard of back then.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
This is a chicken and egg debate and clearly the argument that the egg came first won and your saying it was the chicken is simply just late bird no worm stuff.
Huh? So you want product to be produced, and then wait for a buyers market to be created? Is this what you're saying?
 
Huh? So you want product to be produced, and then wait for a buyers market to be created? Is this what you're saying?
The reality is that you produce something that someone somewhere can afford. To do that you hire people and pay them once something has been sold. They then have money to buy your products or somebody else's. Just giving everybody a million dollars doesn't make them "millionaires" in the end.
 

Lukey

Senator
My question to you, Lukey is where are the Unions that created the middle class,along with smart men like Henry Ford and John Patterson?

Do you think that just might be a good share of the reason for the shrinking middle class? Hmm?
Unions didn't "create the middle class." The entrepreneurs who created the products and services and their businesses that employed the union members and provided the payroll "created the middle class." You guys are anti-capitalist so you have a labor/consumer focus and you hate the producers. But, as we have seen with the past seven years of the Obama anti-capitalist agenda, that doesn't help the middle class. In fact it hurts it:

Screen Shot 2016-05-20 at 6.19.47 AM.png

So instead of telling business people how to invest in what and how to run their companies, the working and middle classes do better when the economy is growing, which it hasn't done under these kinds of Obamunist edicts, so we should deregulate and shrink government to get the economy moving. And again, I have no problems with the concepts of participatory management, profit sharing, even ESOPs, etc. What I have a problem with is government trying to force them on everyone and the economy stagnating as a result.
 

MaryAnne

Governor
Unions didn't "create the middle class." The entrepreneurs who created the products and services and their businesses that employed the union members and provided the payroll "created the middle class." You guys are anti-capitalist so you have a labor/consumer focus and you hate the producers. But, as we have seen with the past seven years of the Obama anti-capitalist agenda, that doesn't help the middle class. In fact it hurts it:

View attachment 31331

So instead of telling business people how to invest in what and how to run their companies, the working and middle classes do better when the economy is growing, which it hasn't done under these kinds of Obamunist edicts, so we should deregulate and shrink government to get the economy moving. And again, I have no problems with the concepts of participatory management, profit sharing, even ESOPs, etc. What I have a problem with is government trying to force them on everyone and the economy stagnating as a result.
Bull, Lukey! You n Ed to read your history and you will find that Unions forced other companies to give decent wages so they would not lose Employees.

I can remember Unions fopighting the companies to get decent benefits for Employees.

The founders of other companies hated Ford with a passion. They were forced into it. Company owners did not give it from the goodness of their hearts.

Now you can see with the demise of those Unions just how far the middle has fallen while idiots complain about Unions and vote for the very people that are destroying them!
 

Lukey

Senator
Bull, Lukey! You n Ed to read your history and you will find that Unions forced other companies to give decent wages so they would not lose Employees.

I can remember Unions fopighting the companies to get decent benefits for Employees.

The founders of other companies hated Ford with a passion. They were forced into it. Company owners did not give it from the goodness of their hearts.

Now you can see with the demise of those Unions just how far the middle has fallen while idiots complain about Unions and vote for the very people that are destroying them!
Exactly! Ford increased wages and benefits and working conditions in order to get a leg up on his competitors! And then they were forced to follow suit because of the robust market for workers in a high growth environment. And unions took advantage of that to extract even better wages and benefits and working conditions.

LOL! Even when you lefties have the right answer staring you in the face (and you can clearly see it), you still have to default to your anti-capitalist stance and pretend it is different that what you so obviously see. Look around you now - the economy isn't doing so hot under Obamunism. This isn't rocket science...
 

Wahbooz

Governor
The reality is that you produce something that someone somewhere can afford. To do that you hire people and pay them once something has been sold. They then have money to buy your products or somebody else's. Just giving everybody a million dollars doesn't make them "millionaires" in the end.
What are you talking about, who the hell said anything about giving out a million dollars? And your reasoning so flawed it stinks. Produce goods, and then wait for people to be given a million dollars to buy products? The essence, which seems to have flown right over your head, is that for people to be contributors to an economy, they have to have a decent wage. Now where the hell did you get anything you said out of that????? Are you that desperate, or are you really that dumb?
 

Lukey

Senator
What are you talking about, who the hell said anything about giving out a million dollars? And your reasoning so flawed it stinks. Produce goods, and then wait for people to be given a million dollars to buy products? The essence, which seems to have flown right over your head, is that for people to be contributors to an economy, they have to have a decent wage. Now where the hell did you get anything you said out of that????? Are you that desperate, or are you really that dumb?
Moronic logic alert! How do you "produce goods" without creating wealth that can be used to purchase goods? The idea that someone must be "given" the money to buy the products being produced is not only communistic, it turns 10,000 years of history of economic commerce on its head.
 
Top