A question for Republicans

[ilia25]

If there is a finite amount of money then tell me what that amount is.

There are different measures, but M2 is about 8 trillions now.



Exactly, and if you can exchange your labour for more goods and services, then someone else's labour is valued less in goods and services -- means you getting richer and that guy is getting poorer.



It is not, the pie is getting bigger -- but if your piece is growing faster, then someone else is growing not as fast, or getting smaller:
1) The whole pie is $1000, you are getting 600, the other guy is left with 400
2) The pie grew twice to $2000, you are getting 1700, the other guy is getting only 300.

The pie got bigger -- not a zero sum game, but other guy is now poorer.

You are defining a zero sum game.

Zero-Sum Game Definition | Investopedia

A situation in which one participant's gains result only from another participant's equivalent losses. The net change in total wealth among participants is zero; the wealth is just shifted from one to another.

No. Remember in my example your gain -- $1100 -- was NOT equivalent to the other guy loss -- $100. Therefore, it was NOT a zero sum game.

Of course you can come you with your definition of equivalence, or game, or anything, but it does not change the fact that your rise in income probably cost some other guy his. Not your fault, and not necessarily a bad thing. But it can result in rising inequality and stagnating middle class incomes -- and that is what has been happening in the past 30 years.

 

[Big Fitz]

There are different measures, but M2 is about 8 trillions now.



Exactly, and if you can exchange your labour for more goods and services, then someone else's labour is valued less in goods and services -- means you getting richer and that guy is getting poorer.



It is not, the pie is getting bigger -- but if your piece is growing faster, then someone else is growing not as fast, or getting smaller:
1) The whole pie is $1000, you are getting 600, the other guy is left with 400
2) The pie grew twice to $2000, you are getting 1700, the other guy is getting only 300.

The pie got bigger -- not a zero sum game, but other guy is now poorer.

You are defining a zero sum game.

Zero-Sum Game Definition | Investopedia

A situation in which one participant's gains result only from another participant's equivalent losses. The net change in total wealth among participants is zero; the wealth is just shifted from one to another.

No. Remember in my example your gain -- $1100 -- was NOT equivalent to the other guy loss -- $100. Therefore, it was NOT a zero sum game.

Of course you can come you with your definition of equivalence, or game, or anything, but it does not change the fact that your rise in income probably cost some other guy his. Not your fault, and not necessarily a bad thing. But it can result in rising inequality and stagnating middle class incomes -- and that is what has been happening in the past 30 years.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EryhQdXTjP8]Simpsons - Sideshow bob steps on rakes - YouTube[/ame]


More of the same fail.

 

[logical4u]

Are you happy to pay higher taxes, so the super rich can pay less?

I am STILL waiting for you to list the "idle" rich.

 

[logical4u]

You have to be a heartless moron to think that people are dependant on the government because they are lazy and they choose to be poor. Or that those people -- or the liberals -- are to be blamed for the growth of the dependance.

economics doesn't give a shit about 'heart'.

Neither economics see any benefits in CEO having his disposable income 100 larger than that of an engineer.

Such inequality only harms the society.

become a CEO!

 

[Skull Pilot]

There are different measures, but M2 is about 8 trillions now.



Exactly, and if you can exchange your labour for more goods and services, then someone else's labour is valued less in goods and services -- means you getting richer and that guy is getting poorer.



It is not, the pie is getting bigger -- but if your piece is growing faster, then someone else is growing not as fast, or getting smaller:
1) The whole pie is $1000, you are getting 600, the other guy is left with 400
2) The pie grew twice to $2000, you are getting 1700, the other guy is getting only 300.

The pie got bigger -- not a zero sum game, but other guy is now poorer.

You are defining a zero sum game.

Zero-Sum Game Definition | Investopedia

A situation in which one participant's gains result only from another participant's equivalent losses. The net change in total wealth among participants is zero; the wealth is just shifted from one to another.

No. Remember in my example your gain -- $1100 -- was NOT equivalent to the other guy loss -- $100. Therefore, it was NOT a zero sum game.

Of course you can come you with your definition of equivalence, or game, or anything, but it does not change the fact that your rise in income probably cost some other guy his. Not your fault, and not necessarily a bad thing. But it can result in rising inequality and stagnating middle class incomes -- and that is what has been happening in the past 30 years.

No you're just saying that the aggregate gain is equal to the aggregate loss.

Once again zero sum.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If my pay went from 100K to 200K it has nothing to do with what you make.

In fact my wife and I have tripled our income in the past 5 years and no one has made any less because of it.

I already answered that question. If your income grows faster than GDP, it could only happen if someone else's income grows slower -- or, indeed, is contracting.

And you know who those people are -- those whose labor is now valued less beacause yours is now valued more.

Again, that's what has been happening in the past 30 years -- GDP per capita doubled, but the median household income stayed the same, because all that additional income went to the rich households.

Do you understand what median means?
Sure doesn't appear you do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you add? At any giving moment there is a finite amount of money in the system. If you got paid more, someone else is paid less.

And yes, I know that the money supply is growing -- but if your income is growing faster, then someone else's is growing slower.

If there is a finite amount of money then tell me what that amount is.

There are different measures, but M2 is about 8 trillions now.

And money is merely the medium of exchange. It's the products and services that make an economy.

Exactly, and if you can exchange your labour for more goods and services, then someone else's labour is valued less in goods and services -- means you getting richer and that guy is getting poorer.

Hence the economy is not a zero sum game.

It is not, the pie is getting bigger -- but if your piece is growing faster, then someone else is growing not as fast, or getting smaller:
1) The whole pie is $1000, you are getting 600, the other guy is left with 400
2) The pie grew twice to $2000, you are getting 1700, the other guy is getting only 300.

The pie got bigger -- not a zero sum game, but other guy is now poorer.

In your example, the median went from $500 to $1000.

 

[Chris]

 

[Big Fitz]

Ole PissyChrissy shampoo action once again. Lather, Rinse, Repeat, Ad Nauseum.

 

[ilia25]

You are defining a zero sum game.

Zero-Sum Game Definition | Investopedia

No. Remember in my example your gain -- $1100 -- was NOT equivalent to the other guy loss -- $100. Therefore, it was NOT a zero sum game.

Of course you can come you with your definition of equivalence, or game, or anything, but it does not change the fact that your rise in income probably cost some other guy his. Not your fault, and not necessarily a bad thing. But it can result in rising inequality and stagnating middle class incomes -- and that is what has been happening in the past 30 years.

No you're just saying that the aggregate gain is equal to the aggregate loss.

Once again zero sum.

I am saying that $1100 gain is NOT equal to $100 loss. Not even after you decide to call them both "aggregate". And the sum of them is not zero either.

So stop talking nonsense.

 

[ilia25]

If there is a finite amount of money then tell me what that amount is.

There are different measures, but M2 is about 8 trillions now.



Exactly, and if you can exchange your labour for more goods and services, then someone else's labour is valued less in goods and services -- means you getting richer and that guy is getting poorer.

Hence the economy is not a zero sum game.

It is not, the pie is getting bigger -- but if your piece is growing faster, then someone else is growing not as fast, or getting smaller:
1) The whole pie is $1000, you are getting 600, the other guy is left with 400
2) The pie grew twice to $2000, you are getting 1700, the other guy is getting only 300.

The pie got bigger -- not a zero sum game, but other guy is now poorer.

In your example, the median went from $500 to $1000.

You are confusing median and average. What went up is the average. The median of two values does not even exist.

 

[Chris]

Ole PissyChrissy shampoo action once again. Lather, Rinse, Repeat, Ad Nauseum.

Insults from you don't bother me.

They are like kisses from God.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No. Remember in my example your gain -- $1100 -- was NOT equivalent to the other guy loss -- $100. Therefore, it was NOT a zero sum game.

Of course you can come you with your definition of equivalence, or game, or anything, but it does not change the fact that your rise in income probably cost some other guy his. Not your fault, and not necessarily a bad thing. But it can result in rising inequality and stagnating middle class incomes -- and that is what has been happening in the past 30 years.

No you're just saying that the aggregate gain is equal to the aggregate loss.

Once again zero sum.

I am saying that $1100 gain is NOT equal to $100 loss. Not even after you decide to call them both "aggregate". And the sum of them is not zero either.

So stop talking nonsense.

In one example you say that my gain is a loss somewhere else in the economy in another you say only some of my gain is a loss somewhere else in the economy.

make up your mind.

 

[Big Fitz]

Ole PissyChrissy shampoo action once again. Lather, Rinse, Repeat, Ad Nauseum.

Insults from you don't bother me.

They are like kisses from God.

That would explain why you're so messed up in the head.

 

[Peach]

The Buffet Rule would be fair to all those whose wealth was accumulated because of the sacrifices of those who preserved this great nation. But CONs have no problem sending OTHER people to DIE for this nation; they just don't want to pay money to live here.

 

[beagle9]

If there is a finite amount of money then tell me what that amount is.

There are different measures, but M2 is about 8 trillions now.

Exactly, and if you can exchange your labour for more goods and services, then someone else's labour is valued less in goods and services -- means you getting richer and that guy is getting poorer.

Hence the economy is not a zero sum game.

It is not, the pie is getting bigger -- but if your piece is growing faster, then someone else is growing not as fast, or getting smaller:
1) The whole pie is $1000, you are getting 600, the other guy is left with 400
2) The pie grew twice to $2000, you are getting 1700, the other guy is getting only 300.

The pie got bigger -- not a zero sum game, but other guy is now poorer.

I see what he's trying to claim. That as the pie grows, poor people are robbed by the rich making them even poorer. It's not true of course, but he won't accept any other answer. Secondly, he seems to believe this to be a permanent state if it DID exist. Not to mention the false conclusion that anyone not rich gets less as the pie grows.

So it's a quartet of (false?) philosophical arguments that have no evidence of being true.

1. The Rich rob the poor when there is economic growth.
2. The Rich keep all profit to themselves and it STAYS with them helping no one else.
3. Everyone remains locked in permanent class status with no mobility.
4. It is your business what someone else makes because somehow it affects you.

There has sadly become a trend where as the rich are wanting far to much when the pie grows these days (refusing to respect or to share that which was gained by all in the situation responsibly and morally), and they have more excuses than a young feller standing there with all the cookies from the cookie jar now found in his hands (stealing them), in which he somehow tries to make excuses for, (wildly doing this with crumbs all over his face), where he attemps to make these excuses anyway once called out on his bad/greed when caught, and this after the damage has been done.

Meanwhile his brothers and sisters (whom work in the store as employee's) await his return to the wagon, in hopes that he had went in to the store that he manages, in order to just buy a few cookies extra, to then share in kind with them upon his return, not realizing that his greed had now gotten the best of him while he awaits his fate inside.

Now who are the owners of the mercantile/store ? x____________________________________.
(1) The government indirectly through subsidies, loans, grants and more that were given ?
(2) The CEO of say a cookie corporation/franchise, that the young man was working for as management, in which unkowingly taught him these things that he has now learned, via bad cookie bonus programs that were offered him, and/or through other methods of free unregulated and unwatched activities that had now grown him into a greed mister, and all these days as a result of ? Add some more possibilities if want to, and this upon helping to identify all the players who are involved.


We know who the young man is now, and we know now what his character is or has since become, but how many are liken to him now in this nation? #____.

Who was hurt the most from his activities? x__________________________________.

If activities are linked to just one, then it should be defined and kept as such, later to be delt with as a blip on the radar screen, but if a trend had since gotten started, and it involves many, then lables begin to fly as a result of always, and then they begin to stick (i.e. ditto the words, the rich), in which gets used in a blanketing way (sometimes to be viewed in a blanketing manor, all due to them linking themselves together in cliques or sticking together in groups or communities that work together it seems in these ways when found out about), and usually all due to the situation becoming over bearing when so many of these rich guy's begin doing these sorts of things together in trends these days, and in a far to greedy way they had begun to do it, while the employee's/citizens are out on the wagon in the hot sun, awaiting their once intrusted friends return to share with them some of the product or wealth, in which isn't coming now as a result of this greed.

Does the government now see itself as rescuing the employee's and/or citizens from the hot sun upon the worn out wagon in which they now sit in it all ? It apears so...

Are their Private Sector forces, that can self regulate now (?), by taking care of the internal problems themselves, instead of allowing the government to do it for them? This would be the best senario, but when the CEO's and management's are involved up to their necks in corruption and greed, then the government has no choice but to try and step in, and to regulate it somehow from the information and fall out that it is seeing and gaining in it all, and this from the outside looking in.

 

[Big Fitz]

The Buffet Rule would be fair to all those whose wealth was accumulated because of the sacrifices of those who preserved this great nation.

How? I'd LOVE to see the logistics of that one.

But CONs have no problem sending OTHER people to DIE for this nation;

Spanish/American War: McKinley (R)
WW1: Wilson (D)
WW2: FDR (D)
Korea: Truman (D)
Vietnam: Kennedy (D)
Gulf War: HW Bush (R)
War in Afghanistan: W Bush (R)
War in Iraq: W Bush (R)

Don't sit there and try to claim only republicans are warmongerers. You libs have your hands dipped in blood to. Sometimes for good reason, other times, not so much. Those are only the 20th century wars (plus the last 12 years)

they just don't want to pay money to live here.

(cough) Timmy Geithner (cough)

What a blatantly stupid, inflammatory statement with no basis in reality. Warren Buffet pays all the money he is legally supposed to pay. If you want him to pay more, stop fucking around with the tax code, eliminate exemptions and deductions, drop it to a low flat rate that gives little impetus or profit to dodge and apply it EQUALLY TO EVERYONE. THAT is FAIRNESS.

No, what you're really bitching about is the same gripe leftists, socialists, marxists, progressives, collectivists and fascists always do: the access to other peoples money to do what they want with, while protecting their own.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are different measures, but M2 is about 8 trillions now.



Exactly, and if you can exchange your labour for more goods and services, then someone else's labour is valued less in goods and services -- means you getting richer and that guy is getting poorer.



It is not, the pie is getting bigger -- but if your piece is growing faster, then someone else is growing not as fast, or getting smaller:
1) The whole pie is $1000, you are getting 600, the other guy is left with 400
2) The pie grew twice to $2000, you are getting 1700, the other guy is getting only 300.

The pie got bigger -- not a zero sum game, but other guy is now poorer.

In your example, the median went from $500 to $1000.

You are confusing median and average. What went up is the average. The median of two values does not even exist.

Really? There is no median for the numbers 400 and 600? LOL!
How old were you when you first failed math?

 

[Big Fitz]

A large set of false premises and assumptions.

1. All people are greedy and seek every opportunity to profit at the expense of another.
2 The richer someone is, the greedier they are.
3. There are two choices on business ownership: Innocent beatific government or corrupt greedy capitalists.
4. The Government always has everyone's best interest at heart.
5. When people of similar industry or wealth get together, they conspire against the rest.
6. The only way to profit and grow wealth is by stealing from another.
7. Self regulation is always corrupt and unfair.
8. The government is somehow an outside entity not tied into or part of the problem and equation.

It seems that so many people have no concept of how wealth is generated. Let's give a little example that is so 'econ 101' they shouldn't have trouble getting it.

Joe is an engineer. He sees a problem with life and decides to invent something to fix it. Joe works at the problem for a while, and finally realizes a nifty solution to the problem and wishes to build a prototype. Ignoring the process to get funding to go to production, Joe builds his solution and starts to sell it for 10 dollars each. The product actually costs Joe only 2 dollars each, but he now has a few employees to pay and his creditors expect to get their money back plus interest so his real cost is 5 dollars each. So Joe makes a tidy profit and becomes successful. He is earning 5 dollars per unit sold above his costs. Should he be forced to give that money back? No. The consumer thought the product was a fair price to fix their problem. The employees thought it was a fair wage to be paid. The creditors thought it was a fair interest rate to be reimbursed. So Joe gets to keep his modest profit from modest sales.

Now, let's suppose Joe's product goes Crazy Popular! Say Oprah advertised it with Billy Mays and Ron Popiel and Joe gets orders for 10,000% more than normal! He can't keep up, and so he starts taking money he's been earning, reinvesting into his own company and expanding! It's not fast enough, and he needs to grow more, faster, so he takes out loans AND to help slow down demand and deal with the growing cost of business (which has jumped from 5 to 8 dollars per unit) he raises the price to 20 dollars a unit, profiting him 12 dollars each. This does little to slow demand, and even with rapid expansion he's still not able to keep up, so the price goes up to 30 a unit profiting the company 18. Most of the money at this time goes right back into the business to solidify growth, but throughout all of this, Joe keeps earning his personal 5 dollars a unit while the remaining 13 went to expansion. Now, millions of units later, those 5 bucks a unit profit that he kept personally, has amassed a vast fortune for him.

Now a strange thing happens. The business no longer needs to expand. The expenses have stabilized and there is no further need to grow bigger so fast. The cost of business drops back from 12 dollars a unit to 9. Plus the expansion which was needed is now building up, unused. What is to be done with that capital? Technically it's all Joe's, because he owns the company and it's just sitting in expansion funds doing nothing. It's time to reorganize the money.

Joe has many options and all of them, since it is HIS profit, earned fairly from the public. His workers were fairly paid and the creditors got their money back fairly too. So, Joe, deciding that he doesn't need the whole extra 13 bucks per unit decides to share it with other as well. He ups HIS profit per unit to 10. (30 bucks is a fair price to the public because the value the product gives) He then gives 5 more dollars per unit to the workers in his corporation, 2 dollars he chooses to give to charities, and 1 dollar he gives back to the public in lower prices.

Is this fair? Joe is a wealthy man, he has may well paid employees, he donates to charities he supports and he's even cut the price a little to the consumer who already thinks it is a fair value to them.

This is how MOST businesses and self made rich (which is most of them) become so.

 

[ilia25]

No you're just saying that the aggregate gain is equal to the aggregate loss.

Once again zero sum.

I am saying that $1100 gain is NOT equal to $100 loss. Not even after you decide to call them both "aggregate". And the sum of them is not zero either.

So stop talking nonsense.

In one example you say that my gain is a loss somewhere else in the economy in another you say only some of my gain is a loss somewhere else in the economy.

make up your mind.

Of course it's the later -- only some of your gain is someone else's loss (on average). I never said othervise.But if that some is 90%, or even 50%, then the results are not much different from that of the zero sum game.

It would lead to more inequality and the question remains -- do you want to live as part of tiny superrich elite surrounded by the poor. Is this what America should become?

And if the answer is "no", then we need more social transfers -- like it is done in most adwanced countries, BTW.