Bush's address

This is a discussion on Bush's address within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by citizen The text agrees with Mario. Read closer. The only thing that seems that it does is ...

  1. #46
    pronounced 'fib' FillYourBrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,297
    Quote Originally Posted by citizen View Post
    The text agrees with Mario.
    Read closer. The only thing that seems that it does is the following: "Small businesses create over 75 percent of the new jobs in the United States." It says 75% of the new jobs. This is the important piece. Jobs in small business are volatile because of the relatively low success rate of the businesses. The goal is to have more jobs at a given point in time, not just create and destroy frequently. Therefore what may seem to contradict the census bureau, does not. But even if it did contradict, probably a safe bet to go with the census bureau on this one
    Quote Originally Posted by citizen View Post
    I've learned that small businesses and sole-proprietors alike don't necessarily need huge piles of money to start operation. For example, I could start a word processing service right now with zero investment.
    This is important! You can in fact create some business with low to zero investment. But how can they grow? The answer is reinvested profit. Internal or external investment are the same principle. If you want to slow the economy, take that profit away from them or take away external investment dollars. Either one has similar effect.
    Last edited by FillYourBrain; 09-26-2008 at 03:03 PM.
    "You are stupid! You are stupid! Oh, and don't forget, you are STUPID!" - Dexter

  2. #47
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,527
    Quote Originally Posted by FillYourBrain View Post
    Read closer. The only thing that seems that it does is the following: "Small businesses create over 75 percent of the new jobs in the United States." It says 75% of the new jobs. This is the important piece. Jobs in small business are volatile because of the relatively low success rate of the businesses.
    All right, but just to let you know, "the relatively low success rate of the businesses" may itself be a faulty statistic. The text also mentions that one of the reasons the rates reported were much higher in the past because the Small Businesses Administration counted changes in forms of ownership (taking on partners or incorporating for example) as a loss. I could look it up if you want, but about 18 percent of small businesses fail, according to modern statistics collection. Hardly "volatile".

    This is important! You can in fact create some business with low to zero investment. But how can they grow? The answer is reinvested profit. Internal or external investment are the same principle. If you want to slow the economy, take that profit away from them or take away external investment dollars. Either one has similar effect.
    True enough.

    Anyway, if that changes your opinion about the importance of small business as an employer, then great. I think a telling statistic is that so many of them are considered small.

  3. #48
    pronounced 'fib' FillYourBrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,297
    Lack of small business importance wasn't part of my argument in the least. This is getting to be a long thread but my statements haven't strayed from:

    The rich invest much of their excess, often in business. Business uses investment for expansion. That's where jobs come from. Hurting the rich results in hurting the poor.

    All of this in response to several statements that condemn the rich and want to punish them.
    "You are stupid! You are stupid! Oh, and don't forget, you are STUPID!" - Dexter

  4. #49
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,527
    I can agree with that, then. For some reason I took your comments to mean that we were dependent on banks and limited liability investors were the lone source for venture capital, as if the rich were somehow merely allowing the poor to start businesses as an act of charity. But that isn't true, and not what you meant. So hopefully we at least cleared up that issue.

  5. #50
    pronounced 'fib' FillYourBrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,297
    no worries mate!
    "You are stupid! You are stupid! Oh, and don't forget, you are STUPID!" - Dexter

  6. #51
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,586
    Well Capitalism is working and cleaning house. WaMu collapsed today but was acquired by Jp Morgan Chase. This entire crisis is changing the face of the banking industry. What seems very different in this crisis is that some banks are actually in very good positions since they do not have a large share of toxic assets. Only those who dabbled a lot in the now toxic assets seems to be hurting for cash. But Capitalism means that there is another bank to step up and will be in a better position to shoulder the debt and that is exactly what is happening. Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase are becoming very very big banks almost overnight.

    I will get fearful when we see banks that do not have toxic assets begin to crumble under the weight of those who do. So far that does not seem to be happening.

    It is unfortunate that so many have to lose their jobs because of the actions of a select few. I'm not sure we have hit rock bottom yet in this crisis but after it has passed we should see a very different job and credit climate.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 09-26-2008 at 09:07 PM.

  7. #52
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    It is unfortunate that so many have to lose their jobs because of the actions of a select few.
    And according to a recent news on TV, of which administrators have earned bonuses on the last 2 years that go well over the proposed 700 billion dollars.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. What does this do (Windows API)?
    By EVOEx in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 09:48 AM
  2. Writing array, to file
    By zootreeves in forum C Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 05:06 PM
  3. I thought pointers were pointers...
    By keira in forum C Programming
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 11:48 PM
  4. DX - CreateDevice - D3DERR_INVALIDCALL
    By Tonto in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-01-2006, 06:17 PM
  5. pointers
    By InvariantLoop in forum C Programming
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-04-2005, 08:32 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21