74% of CEOs fear the consequences of an Obama Presidency

[T-TownVol]

If I were a fat cat, I'd worry about getting the gravy train shut down too. It's simple, these folks are more worried about personal finances than they are about American sustainability and growth.

exactly

 

[KingNick865]

Perfect example why liberals shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Do you have a clue what happens when the very wealthy get scared financially? They start closing purse strings. That means lost jobs, lost health insurance benefits for those displaced workers, and lost tax revenue.

OH WAIT....my mistake. It's those hard working people who think that NObama is going to fill their tank and pay their mortgage that create jobs.

Ok, so only conservatives should be allowed to vote? I do not consider myself to be a "liberal", but to propose disenfranchising a significant base of the voting public, simply because you disagree with a number of thier views, is the most communist/totaltarian thing of all.

 

[UT IE 95]

I repeat, not without the ingenuity to provide something they're willing to pay for.

Your argument suffers a bit when India and China boast a full third of the world's people but fewer jobs than the US boasts.

That's because the consumers of the jobs created in India and China are in the US.

 

[UT IE 95]

the bottom line is that the demand for the Rubik's Cube didn't come before the design and marketing of the Rubik's Cube. The people making them had nothing to do with that enormous demand. If those workers didn't show up to make them, someone else would have.

Great example. Couple of nerds make a cube and show up at a toy convention. They get a few thousand orders and go back, hire some labor and start producing. As consumers grew, more jobs were created to build cubes. When the market was saturated and consumer demand dropped, the nerds laid off people. Jobs were created and destroyed based on consumer demand of the product.

 

[therealUT]

Great example. Couple of nerds make a cube and show up at a toy convention. They get a few thousand orders and go back, hire some labor and start producing. As consumers grew, more jobs were created to build cubes. When the market was saturated and consumer demand dropped, the nerds laid off people. Jobs were created and destroyed based on consumer demand of the product.

If you are looking for a "great example" try this one IE.

Between 4,500 and 11,500 years ago, hunter gatherer societies from Mesopotamia throughout Eurasia, advanced into settled societies that subsisted on domesticated plants and animals.

Throughout this transition, there were still plenty of large, wild mammals and wild plants in these regions (enough to continue to sustain the early human societies). Therefore, there was little to no demand for domesticated crops and domesticated livestock. Yet, a handful of innovative humans in their respective societies took risks, leaps of faith, and invested their time and energy into raising domesticated foods.

Consumers of domesticated foods were created by those with the vision, innovation, and capital (these persons had to have had enough power or pull over their respective societies, that they would be provided with such wild food to sustain themselves while they spent their time and effort trying to develop domesticated food sources) to create a new product.

The product created the demand. The demand, in turn, created more jobs. However, do not ever forget, that the initial innovation is what creates the consumer.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

Ok, so only conservatives should be allowed to vote? I do not consider myself to be a "liberal", but to propose disenfranchising a significant base of the voting public, simply because you disagree with a number of thier views, is the most communist/totaltarian thing of all.

Ranks right up there with "spreading the wealth", "bottom up economics", and "fairness doctrines", doesn't it?

 

[jcwvolfan]

I repeat, consumers create jobs.

Consumers only have the power to voice demand. It takes capital, in pursuit of profit, to meet that demand. Jobs aren't spontaneously created after a demand is identified.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[droski]

Great example. Couple of nerds make a cube and show up at a toy convention. They get a few thousand orders and go back, hire some labor and start producing. As consumers grew, more jobs were created to build cubes. When the market was saturated and consumer demand dropped, the nerds laid off people. Jobs were created and destroyed based on consumer demand of the product.

you google friends are the perfect example. 3 guys invented the best search engine on earth and created a company to take advantage of it. all those guys under the google guys haven't created a single product that generates revenue that isn't related to search.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Great example. Couple of nerds make a cube and show up at a toy convention. They get a few thousand orders and go back, hire some labor and start producing. As consumers grew, more jobs were created to build cubes. When the market was saturated and consumer demand dropped, the nerds laid off people. Jobs were created and destroyed based on consumer demand of the product.

you act as if the employees in the middle didn't benefit while they were making the Rubik's cube or that it was some sin that the market didn't pay their salaries in perpetuity. That's silliness.

The bottom line is that the product and marketing generated the demand, which, in turn generated the jobs and paid lots of people who would otherwise have been unemployed or forced someone else into unemployment.

Any way you slice it, the grand man was not the employee in the middle. The consumer is clearly a part of the equation. See, those consumers get their money when they have jobs from guys like Rubik, not when they get money from the gov't.

I don't know if you want to reason through this, but had the government been taking too large of a slice from Rubik, he doesn't find the capital available nor does the risk to initially develop and market the product justify the tax eaten returns. See risk vs. return of capital is what you miss in your entire little premise that the world is employees and consumers. It starts with investment capital and always has. It isn't a chicken vs. egg argument, ever. The returns on the capital have to warrant investment. When they don't the capital goes elsewhere and Mr. Rubik never makes his cube. Hence the jobs never exist and nobody ever has a national fastest contest.

 

[UT IE 95]

you act as if the employees in the middle didn't benefit while they were making the Rubik's cube or that it was some sin that the market didn't pay their salaries in perpetuity. That's silliness.

The bottom line is that the product and marketing generated the demand, which, in turn generated the jobs and paid lots of people who would otherwise have been unemployed or forced someone else into unemployment.

Any way you slice it, the grand man was not the employee in the middle. The consumer is clearly a part of the equation. See, those consumers get their money when they have jobs from guys like Rubik, not when they get money from the gov't.

I don't know if you want to reason through this, but had the government been taking too large of a slice from Rubik, he doesn't find the capital available nor does the risk to initially develop and market the product justify the tax eaten returns. See risk vs. return of capital is what you miss in your entire little premise that the world is employees and consumers. It starts with investment capital and always has. It isn't a chicken vs. egg argument, ever. The returns on the capital have to warrant investment. When they don't the capital goes elsewhere and Mr. Rubik never makes his cube. Hence the jobs never exist and nobody ever has a national fastest contest.

Investment capital is a non-issue. If you have a solid roi in your business plan then there are endless sources of global venture, start-up, and investment capital.

To say that taxes will take a once viable start-up business model and render it infeasible is giving an Obama administration too much credit.

 

[droski]

If you have a solid roi in your business plan then there are endless sources of global venture, start-up, and investment capital.

true 18 months ago. not true in the slightest today.

 

[UT IE 95]

true 18 months ago. not true in the slightest today.

18 months ago you could get capital to fund a giraffe neck warmer start-up business. The capital for high-risk ventures is gone, but for solid business plans, it is still easily obtainable.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Investment capital is a non-issue. If you have a solid roi in your business plan then there are endless sources of global venture, start-up, and investment capital.

To say that taxes will take a once viable start-up business model and render it infeasible is giving an Obama administration too much credit.

if you're pretending that taxes aren't a massive impact to ROI, then you should stop the conversation here.

Taxes will absolutely render many worthless and curtail investments. Taxes not only reduce the income of the startup, but also hit the investor after he makes his return. If startup capital costs roughly 30% today, what do you think it will cost 3 years from now and how many businesses can live up to it. How many investors will continue to take the same level of risk for reduced returns?

 

[UT IE 95]

if you're pretending that taxes aren't a massive impact to ROI, then you should stop the conversation here.

Taxes will absolutely render many worthless and curtail investments. Taxes not only reduce the income of the startup, but also hit the investor after he makes his return. If startup capital costs roughly 30% today, what do you think it will cost 3 years from now and how many businesses can live up to it. How many investors will continue to take the same level of risk for reduced returns?

We can stop here. Increased taxes that render a business model worthless was probably a worthless high-risk low profit business to begin with. Increasing taxes by percentages may impact profit but will not render the business worthless.

 

[BigPapaVol]

18 months ago you could get capital to fund a giraffe neck warmer start-up business. The capital for high-risk ventures is gone, but for solid business plans, it is still easily obtainable.

that is untrue. Heck, strong monster businesses out there now struggle for overnights.

 

[BigPapaVol]

We can stop here. Increased taxes that render a business model worthless was probably a worthless high-risk low profit business to begin with. Increasing taxes by percentages may impact profit but will not render the business worthless.

the business plan is immaterial when the investor has a certain risk / return threshold. Absolutely immaterial.

When his threshold forces him to charge more money for his cash and the business makes less cash due to tax bills, the compounding effect renders plans undoable.

You don't have to agree, but you will see in action the reduced investment levels, diminished hedge fund, equity group and venture fund capital. I guarantee you that's coming.

 

[droski]

that is untrue. Heck, strong monster businesses out there now struggle for overnights.

yup i have some clients with tens of millions in cash and massive positive cash flow who can't get loans for new developments. some firms wont offer prime conforming mortgages unless you put 40% down.

 

[droski]

Some other interesting quotes from this article:

What worries business especially is Obama's populist campaign rhetoric, which often became stridently anti-corporate in tone. Given the Democrats' resounding victory, the business lobby can easily imagine a scenario in which a Democratic Congress lets its zeal for reform go too far. "The first piece of advice I would offer to our next President is to stop using 'business' as a dirty word," says Staples (SPLS) CEO Ronald L. Sargent. Also weighing on many minds is the fear that the need for more regulation in financial services and other sectors could turn into a dense new layer of rules. "No question we are in for some reregulation," says James Turley, CEO of Ernst & Young. "But I hope that we are very thoughtful in how we do it so that we do not squeeze out innovation."

Moreover, despite Obama's shift to a more nuanced stance on trade after winning the primaries, many executives worry that the country could move toward a more protectionist direction. They say that the push for more free-trade pacts will be vital to renewed growth. "The next President has to realize that global trade has been a primary driver—if not the primary driver—of our economic progress, and we cannot get caught in a protectionist web," says Nasdaq (NDAQ) boss Robert Greifeld.

I hope obama listens to him.

 

[T-TownVol]

it depends on if he has ever been registered as a Republican

 

[truefan]

That takes financial capital until the company is viable enough to generate a revenue stream. Guess where that capital comes from?

Investors......not always wealthy ones either. Could be a large number of small investors.

The CEOs getting the highest compensation AREN'T creating the jobs

Nevermind, you are afraid of and hate what you don't know

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

Investors......not always wealthy ones either. Could be a large number of small investors.

The CEOs getting the highest compensation ARE
N'T creating jobs, dumbo.

Nevermind, you are afraid of and hate what you don't know

You really aren't very bright, are you?

It's not an act, is it?