- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:36 pm to I B Freeman
I'm telling you where they come from.. who's the cheapest source of beans in the world? No one has said that China is buying 100% of the beans they normally do from the US via other countries
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:39 pm to I B Freeman
Are you sure? Even if not, 1.5 million jobs. When our unemployment is 3.9% and the total unemployed is 6.25 million, that’s almost 1/4 of the jobs needed for the unemployed, and would bring unemployment to its lowest number since 1952, and one of the lowest numbers ever. Trump would be the greatest president ever for jobs
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:39 pm to ClampClampington
quote:
China is buying 100% of the beans they normally do from the US via other countries
Not even close to 100%. Not even close to 10%.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:41 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Oh my. Let me try to simplify:
Well read the part to me again about that ROI and job growth you said.
(1) If we received a $167B/yr economic infusion (likely a vast overestimate d/t production cost offsets) that money could go to (a) Jobs, or (b) Various investments.
For (a)jobs created, other new jobs will be fractionally supported. That is the way this stuff works. If 2M jobs were directly created, others would be created indirectly as a result. You really did not know that? Really?
For (b)investments undertaken, one would anticipate a positive ROI. Positive ROI's compound within a growing economy. You really did not know that? Really?
This post was edited on 1/18/19 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:41 pm to Upperdecker
That is my understanding and I see no way to guess about the job numbers. Shipping massive ship loads of LNG would not require very many workers per dollar of goods for example.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:43 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Excuse me?quote:We have not a clue
$167 billion per year we are to assume. Making that assumption, how many jobs at $80K/yr per job would be created?
Let's try that again:
$167 billion per year we are to assume. Making that assumption, how many jobs at $80K/yr per job would be created?
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Let me try to simplify
fail
you said the number of jobs would grow each year yet you did not say where the economic activity to grow the jobs would come from.
At your snow ball stand "Hillbilly Snowballs" if you contract to deliver $10000 worth of snowballs per year to the government for 6 years you should not add a single job past the first year for any body--not the ice man, not the sno ball machine company, not the paper cup company NOBODY. As a matter of fact a good operator should be able to do it with less money in year 6 than in year 1.
This post was edited on 1/18/19 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:51 pm to I B Freeman
quote:NO SIR!
you said the number of jobs would grow each year
Learn to read, or check the post you are responding to.
Either you've got the wrong post, you don't understand compounding ROI, or you are illiterate.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:53 pm to IceTiger
I will back down on the impeachable offense. However it would be very much inappropriate if the issues of the directive were solved and the president continued the tariffs.
What remedies Congress would have I am not sure.
They need to take back some of their tariff power.
What remedies Congress would have I am not sure.
They need to take back some of their tariff power.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:53 pm to NC_Tigah
You were responding to my conversation with upper deck.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:55 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Correct. That is why we ran the theoretic $167B per year over 6yrs rather than using a 7 year schedule accounting for AR in year 7. Right?
you should not add a single job past the first year for any body
But as I said, "we don't really know enough about the spend to say, do we?"
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:57 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Is that a "ooops-my-bad"? I presume so.
You were responding to my conversation with upper deck.
Now then once again:
$167 billion per year we are to assume. Making that assumption, how many jobs at $80K/yr per job would be created?
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:59 pm to NC_Tigah
Well there is a very big difference in saying "imports slowed" and "growth of imports slowed".
Posted on 1/18/19 at 4:03 pm to I B Freeman
Dude. Your delusions used to be funny but now they're kid of just sad.
This post was edited on 1/18/19 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 1/18/19 at 4:04 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Is that a "ooops-my-bad"? I presume so.
No. I don't see what post you were addressing if not that conversation.
quote:
Now then once again:
$167 billion per year we are to assume. Making that assumption, how many jobs at $80K/yr per job would be created?
No possible way to know or to even guess.
I know that agricultural grain production and oil and gas production produce a lot of revenue with very little labor.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 4:05 pm to Nguyener
Which ones are you ready to discuss?
Posted on 1/18/19 at 4:09 pm to I B Freeman
Oil prices about to skyrocket. Already up this afternoon
Posted on 1/18/19 at 4:10 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
know that agricultural grain production and oil and gas production produce a lot of revenue with very little labor.
It requires a lot of expensive equipment and infrastructure though.
Somebody has to build and maintain those
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News