CBO: extending unemployment benefits creates 19,000 jobs per billion dollar stimulus

[Billy000]

It IS unsustainable but try telling that to the idiot sycophants who are following Obama off the cliff.

How do you not understand the basics of supply and demand?

How do YOU not understand that taking money from person A and giving it to person in no way stimulates the economy.....further stupidity from you people......

You try tell us that when you take 1 dollar from person A it magically morphs into 1 Dollar and 60 cents by the time it reaches person B's hands...seriously you people are not very bright.

We aren't talking about one person. This is revenue taken from millions of tax payers. How exactly do you think our economy grows? Economic demand is what makes our economy grow. It astounds me you can't grasp this.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a load of rancid horseshit.

Government spending doesn't "pump money into the economy". It merely shifts money from one spot to another without creating any new purchasing power. AND since it tends to shift money away from producers to the less-productive, it tends to retard the economy, rather than "stimulating" it. It isn't as though the government is famous for being a wise, thrifty shopper and getting good value for its dollar.

I don't doubt that you think we shouldn't even bother to discuss whether or not your assertions are worth the air it takes to say them, and instead believe that we should just jump right to assuming you're right, and then discussing HOW right you are. Unfortunately for you, most of us aren't as stupid and gullible as you are.

It shifts without creating any purchasing power? What are you talking about? The money goes to consumers. Of course it creates purchasing power. This isn't hard to figure out. The benefits go to people who would otherwise be not spending any money. They spend ALL of it quickly on basic goods. That stimulus creates jobs.

If that were the case we would see UE about 5%. We have seen the biggest "stimulus" ever over the last 5 years and it resulted in the worst performance out of a recession in post war history.

Consumer spending does not stimulate the economy. I have written this over and over and provided links and proof. Government does not stimulate the economy. This has also been proven over and over.
The broken window fallacy is just that: a fallacy. You do not stimulate anything by taking from productive people and giving to unproductive people.

The truth is that consumer spending does not account for 70 percent of economic activity and is not the mainstay of the U. S. economy. Investment is! Business spending on capital goods, new technology, entrepreneurship, and productivity are more significant than consumer spending in sustaining the economy and a higher standard of living.

Granted, personal consumption expenditures represent 70 percent of gross domestic product, but journalists should know from Econ 101 that GDP only measures the value of final output. It deliberately leaves out a big chunk of the economy — intermediate production or goods-in-process at the commodity, manufacturing, and wholesale stages — to avoid double counting. I calculated total spending (sales or receipts) in the economy at all stages to be more than double GDP (using gross business receipts compiled annually by the IRS). By this measure — which I have dubbed gross domestic expenditures, or GDE — consumption represents only about 30 percent of the economy, while business investment (including intermediate output) represents over 50 percent.

Thus the truth is just the opposite: Consumer spending is the effect, not the cause, of a productive healthy economy.

Consumer Spending Doesn?t Drive the Economy, Investment Does by Mark Skousen

 

[S.J.]

It shifts without creating any purchasing power? What are you talking about? The money goes to consumers. Of course it creates purchasing power. This isn't hard to figure out. The benefits go to people who would otherwise be not spending any money. They spend ALL of it quickly on basic goods. That stimulus creates jobs.

One person spending an unemployment check isn't going to create any jobs. Unemployment is a subsidy, and subsidies are money that never comes back. Maybe 20 UE checks could create the need for 1 job, which means it costs the taxpayers more to create that job than the job pays. Besides that, ANY job (or UE check) that is paid for by the government is a drag on the economy because someone else has to pay for it. Private sector jobs pay for themselves, which is the only way to grow the economy. Government jobs do not.

Have some humility that economists would know more than you. You have no idea what you are talking about and you know it. And it is just one person, it is the entire million. This money creates economic demand, as in stimulus. That is how our economic system works. Your dumbass also doesn't seem to understand that the government is directly creating any jobs. Demand is created by the consumer.

You think tax cuts are free? No they are not. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar to our national debt. Stop watching Fox News.

Until you're able to put a coherent sentence together, you're in no position to call someone else a "dumbass", dumbass. And while you're at it, you can explain why the economic policies you think you know so much about haven't worked over the past 5 years (that is if you can manage to say it in a way that doesn't sound like a third grader with a learning disability).

 

[Cecilie1200]

It shifts without creating any purchasing power? What are you talking about? The money goes to consumers. Of course it creates purchasing power. This isn't hard to figure out. The benefits go to people who would otherwise be not spending any money. They spend ALL of it quickly on basic goods. That stimulus creates jobs.

If that were the case we would see UE about 5%. We have seen the biggest "stimulus" ever over the last 5 years and it resulted in the worst performance out of a recession in post war history.

Consumer spending does not stimulate the economy. I have written this over and over and provided links and proof. Government does not stimulate the economy. This has also been proven over and over.
The broken window fallacy is just that: a fallacy. You do not stimulate anything by taking from productive people and giving to unproductive people.

Rabbit, how fucking stupid are you really? You write lots of stupid shit over and over. Matter of fact, you write the SAME stupid shit over and over. It was wrong the first time and didn't get right by repeating it.

Stupid fucking rabbit. 70% of our economy is consumer spending. But that spending doesn't "stimulate" the economy.

That statement is fucking amazing in its stupidity.

Silly fucking rabbit.

See my previous post.

 

[Billy000]

One person spending an unemployment check isn't going to create any jobs. Unemployment is a subsidy, and subsidies are money that never comes back. Maybe 20 UE checks could create the need for 1 job, which means it costs the taxpayers more to create that job than the job pays. Besides that, ANY job (or UE check) that is paid for by the government is a drag on the economy because someone else has to pay for it. Private sector jobs pay for themselves, which is the only way to grow the economy. Government jobs do not.

Have some humility that economists would know more than you. You have no idea what you are talking about and you know it. And it is just one person, it is the entire million. This money creates economic demand, as in stimulus. That is how our economic system works. Your dumbass also doesn't seem to understand that the government is directly creating any jobs. Demand is created by the consumer.

You think tax cuts are free? No they are not. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar to our national debt. Stop watching Fox News.

Until you're able to put a coherent sentence together, you're in no position to call someone else a "dumbass", dumbass. And while you're at it, you can explain why the economic policies you think you know so much about haven't worked over the past 5 years (that is if you can manage to say it in a way that doesn't sound like a third grader with a learning disability).

Um no it does work. The Recovery Act created or saved 2.5 million jobs through demand side economic policies. I have provided proof for this multiple times on this forum.

 

[Meister]

Have some humility that economists would know more than you. You have no idea what you are talking about and you know it. And it is just one person, it is the entire million. This money creates economic demand, as in stimulus. That is how our economic system works. Your dumbass also doesn't seem to understand that the government is directly creating any jobs. Demand is created by the consumer.

You think tax cuts are free? No they are not. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar to our national debt. Stop watching Fox News.

Until you're able to put a coherent sentence together, you're in no position to call someone else a "dumbass", dumbass. And while you're at it, you can explain why the economic policies you think you know so much about haven't worked over the past 5 years (that is if you can manage to say it in a way that doesn't sound like a third grader with a learning disability).

Um no it does work. The Recovery Act created or saved 2.5 million jobs through demand side economic policies. I have provided proof for this multiple times on this forum.

How does one put a number on jobs saved? At best it could only be a guess, in reality it's BS that the administration put out so the echo chamber has something to print.

 

[Billy000]

It shifts without creating any purchasing power? What are you talking about? The money goes to consumers. Of course it creates purchasing power. This isn't hard to figure out. The benefits go to people who would otherwise be not spending any money. They spend ALL of it quickly on basic goods. That stimulus creates jobs.

If that were the case we would see UE about 5%. We have seen the biggest "stimulus" ever over the last 5 years and it resulted in the worst performance out of a recession in post war history.

Consumer spending does not stimulate the economy. I have written this over and over and provided links and proof. Government does not stimulate the economy. This has also been proven over and over.
The broken window fallacy is just that: a fallacy. You do not stimulate anything by taking from productive people and giving to unproductive people.

The truth is that consumer spending does not account for 70 percent of economic activity and is not the mainstay of the U. S. economy. Investment is! Business spending on capital goods, new technology, entrepreneurship, and productivity are more significant than consumer spending in sustaining the economy and a higher standard of living.

Granted, personal consumption expenditures represent 70 percent of gross domestic product, but journalists should know from Econ 101 that GDP only measures the value of final output. It deliberately leaves out a big chunk of the economy — intermediate production or goods-in-process at the commodity, manufacturing, and wholesale stages — to avoid double counting. I calculated total spending (sales or receipts) in the economy at all stages to be more than double GDP (using gross business receipts compiled annually by the IRS). By this measure — which I have dubbed gross domestic expenditures, or GDE — consumption represents only about 30 percent of the economy, while business investment (including intermediate output) represents over 50 percent.

Thus the truth is just the opposite: Consumer spending is the effect, not the cause, of a productive healthy economy.

Consumer Spending Doesn?t Drive the Economy, Investment Does by Mark Skousen

Supply side economics only apply to people who can afford to save money and invest. To downplay the importance of consumer spending is non sense. For the unemployed/poor, they don't have money to invest or save. Obviously their money is better suited to spending it. If consumer spending accounts for 70% of our economy, then obviously jobs are created through it.


That article obviously has an agenda.

 

[Billy000]

Until you're able to put a coherent sentence together, you're in no position to call someone else a "dumbass", dumbass. And while you're at it, you can explain why the economic policies you think you know so much about haven't worked over the past 5 years (that is if you can manage to say it in a way that doesn't sound like a third grader with a learning disability).

Um no it does work. The Recovery Act created or saved 2.5 million jobs through demand side economic policies. I have provided proof for this multiple times on this forum.

How does one put a number on jobs saved? At best it could only be a guess, in reality it's BS that the administration put out for the echo chamber has something to print.

Moody, JP Morgan, and the CBO have all come up with this figure. Economic demand prevents lay offs. It is that simple.

 

[S.J.]

Have some humility that economists would know more than you. You have no idea what you are talking about and you know it. And it is just one person, it is the entire million. This money creates economic demand, as in stimulus. That is how our economic system works. Your dumbass also doesn't seem to understand that the government is directly creating any jobs. Demand is created by the consumer.

You think tax cuts are free? No they are not. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar to our national debt. Stop watching Fox News.

Until you're able to put a coherent sentence together, you're in no position to call someone else a "dumbass", dumbass. And while you're at it, you can explain why the economic policies you think you know so much about haven't worked over the past 5 years (that is if you can manage to say it in a way that doesn't sound like a third grader with a learning disability).

Um no it does work. The Recovery Act created or saved 2.5 million jobs through demand side economic policies. I have provided proof for this multiple times on this forum.

You haven't provided shit. That's an empty claim that cannot be proven. You're repeating talking points that were advanced to try to explain away the fact that no jobs were created.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anytime you pump money into the economy you stimulate it and thus create jobs so the president is correct. Extending unemployment benefits will create jobs. The points that should be debated is not whether it will create jobs but rather what kind of jobs are created, how efficient is extending unemployment benefits at creating jobs, and what happens to those jobs when the unemployment benefits stop.

What a load of rancid horseshit.

Government spending doesn't "pump money into the economy". It merely shifts money from one spot to another without creating any new purchasing power. AND since it tends to shift money away from producers to the less-productive, it tends to retard the economy, rather than "stimulating" it. It isn't as though the government is famous for being a wise, thrifty shopper and getting good value for its dollar.

I don't doubt that you think we shouldn't even bother to discuss whether or not your assertions are worth the air it takes to say them, and instead believe that we should just jump right to assuming you're right, and then discussing HOW right you are. Unfortunately for you, most of us aren't as stupid and gullible as you are.

I think you'll find few economists that would disagree with the statement that government spending pumps money into the economy.

I actually think I will find a lot of economists who say exactly that. Granted, I'm not going to find any "economists" of the sort dipshits like you worship, but since I tend not to like being lied to, that actually works for me.

Let me list you some economists who agree with me that government spending pumps nothing but leftist egos:

Mark Skousen, PhD, Economics - former economic analyst for the CIA, columnist for Forbes, and namesake of the Grantham University Mark Skousen School of Business

Thomas Sowell, PhD, Economics - Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University

Thomas J. Sargent, PhD, Economics - 2011 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics

Christopher Sims, PhD, Economics - 2011 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, John F. Sherrerd ’52 University Professor of Economics at Princeton University

I can keep going, if you like.

The money for the spending either comes from future tax collections or debt.

Which is, right there, why it's not "pumping" anything into the economy. It's just shifting it around without creating anything new.

The spending creates an immediate stimulus increasing current demand and jobs.

Nope. Since the money has simply been moved from one place to another, the demands and jobs have ALSO been merely moved from one place to another, thus creating an equal and opposite reaction economic reduction in the place the money was removed from.

If the stimulus does promote enough growth in the economy then future tax collections and interest on debt can be drag on the economy.

Moot point, since government spending doesn't stimulate any growth.

That has been an argument between supply side and demand side economist for many years. However, your claim that government spending doesn't pump money into the economy is ridiculous.

What?! How can it be an argument, if you insisted at the beginning of this post that I couldn't find any economists who held this position?

 

[The Rabbi]

Have some humility that economists would know more than you. You have no idea what you are talking about and you know it. And it is just one person, it is the entire million. This money creates economic demand, as in stimulus. That is how our economic system works. Your dumbass also doesn't seem to understand that the government is directly creating any jobs. Demand is created by the consumer.

You think tax cuts are free? No they are not. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar to our national debt. Stop watching Fox News.

Until you're able to put a coherent sentence together, you're in no position to call someone else a "dumbass", dumbass. And while you're at it, you can explain why the economic policies you think you know so much about haven't worked over the past 5 years (that is if you can manage to say it in a way that doesn't sound like a third grader with a learning disability).

Um no it does work. The Recovery Act created or saved 2.5 million jobs through demand side economic policies. I have provided proof for this multiple times on this forum.

That "proof" has been refuted multiple times on this forum.
Some people never learn.

 

[Billy000]

Until you're able to put a coherent sentence together, you're in no position to call someone else a "dumbass", dumbass. And while you're at it, you can explain why the economic policies you think you know so much about haven't worked over the past 5 years (that is if you can manage to say it in a way that doesn't sound like a third grader with a learning disability).

Um no it does work. The Recovery Act created or saved 2.5 million jobs through demand side economic policies. I have provided proof for this multiple times on this forum.

You haven't provided shit. That's an empty claim that cannot be proven. You're repeating talking points that were advanced to try to explain away the fact that no jobs were created.

Talking points? Um no. I was citing The Congressional Budget office, Moody, and JP Morgan. None of it came from liberal biased sources.

 

[Billy000]

Until you're able to put a coherent sentence together, you're in no position to call someone else a "dumbass", dumbass. And while you're at it, you can explain why the economic policies you think you know so much about haven't worked over the past 5 years (that is if you can manage to say it in a way that doesn't sound like a third grader with a learning disability).

Um no it does work. The Recovery Act created or saved 2.5 million jobs through demand side economic policies. I have provided proof for this multiple times on this forum.

That "proof" has been refuted multiple times on this forum.
Some people never learn.

Your continued denial that I am right is frankly childish.

 

[Billy000]

What a load of rancid horseshit.

Government spending doesn't "pump money into the economy". It merely shifts money from one spot to another without creating any new purchasing power. AND since it tends to shift money away from producers to the less-productive, it tends to retard the economy, rather than "stimulating" it. It isn't as though the government is famous for being a wise, thrifty shopper and getting good value for its dollar.

I don't doubt that you think we shouldn't even bother to discuss whether or not your assertions are worth the air it takes to say them, and instead believe that we should just jump right to assuming you're right, and then discussing HOW right you are. Unfortunately for you, most of us aren't as stupid and gullible as you are.

I think you'll find few economists that would disagree with the statement that government spending pumps money into the economy.

I actually think I will find a lot of economists who say exactly that. Granted, I'm not going to find any "economists" of the sort dipshits like you worship, but since I tend not to like being lied to, that actually works for me.

Let me list you some economists who agree with me that government spending pumps nothing but leftist egos:

Mark Skousen, PhD, Economics - former economic analyst for the CIA, columnist for Forbes, and namesake of the Grantham University Mark Skousen School of Business

Thomas Sowell, PhD, Economics - Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University

Thomas J. Sargent, PhD, Economics - 2011 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics

Christopher Sims, PhD, Economics - 2011 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, John F. Sherrerd ’52 University Professor of Economics at Princeton University

I can keep going, if you like.



Which is, right there, why it's not "pumping" anything into the economy. It's just shifting it around without creating anything new.



Nope. Since the money has simply been moved from one place to another, the demands and jobs have ALSO been merely moved from one place to another, thus creating an equal and opposite reaction economic reduction in the place the money was removed from.

If the stimulus does promote enough growth in the economy then future tax collections and interest on debt can be drag on the economy.

Moot point, since government spending doesn't stimulate any growth.

That has been an argument between supply side and demand side economist for many years. However, your claim that government spending doesn't pump money into the economy is ridiculous.

What?! How can it be an argument, if you insisted at the beginning of this post that I couldn't find any economists who held this position?

You need links to those sources. I want to read them myself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think you'll find few economists that would disagree with the statement that government spending pumps money into the economy.

I actually think I will find a lot of economists who say exactly that. Granted, I'm not going to find any "economists" of the sort dipshits like you worship, but since I tend not to like being lied to, that actually works for me.

Let me list you some economists who agree with me that government spending pumps nothing but leftist egos:

Mark Skousen, PhD, Economics - former economic analyst for the CIA, columnist for Forbes, and namesake of the Grantham University Mark Skousen School of Business

Thomas Sowell, PhD, Economics - Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University

Thomas J. Sargent, PhD, Economics - 2011 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics

Christopher Sims, PhD, Economics - 2011 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, John F. Sherrerd ’52 University Professor of Economics at Princeton University

I can keep going, if you like.



Which is, right there, why it's not "pumping" anything into the economy. It's just shifting it around without creating anything new.



Nope. Since the money has simply been moved from one place to another, the demands and jobs have ALSO been merely moved from one place to another, thus creating an equal and opposite reaction economic reduction in the place the money was removed from.



Moot point, since government spending doesn't stimulate any growth.

That has been an argument between supply side and demand side economist for many years. However, your claim that government spending doesn't pump money into the economy is ridiculous.

What?! How can it be an argument, if you insisted at the beginning of this post that I couldn't find any economists who held this position?

You need links to those sources. I want to read them myself.

Um, links to WHAT sources, exactly? I didn't cite any articles, dimwit. He asked for names, and I provided them. Every single one of those economists can be Googled, if you feel the urge to read their work. Have at it.

I have, however, provided a link to an article by Mark Skousen on EXACTLY this topic in one of my other posts. Feel free to go read them and find it. I don't really care for repeating myself.

 

[Billy000]

I actually think I will find a lot of economists who say exactly that. Granted, I'm not going to find any "economists" of the sort dipshits like you worship, but since I tend not to like being lied to, that actually works for me.

Let me list you some economists who agree with me that government spending pumps nothing but leftist egos:

Mark Skousen, PhD, Economics - former economic analyst for the CIA, columnist for Forbes, and namesake of the Grantham University Mark Skousen School of Business

Thomas Sowell, PhD, Economics - Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University

Thomas J. Sargent, PhD, Economics - 2011 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics

Christopher Sims, PhD, Economics - 2011 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, John F. Sherrerd ’52 University Professor of Economics at Princeton University

I can keep going, if you like.



Which is, right there, why it's not "pumping" anything into the economy. It's just shifting it around without creating anything new.



Nope. Since the money has simply been moved from one place to another, the demands and jobs have ALSO been merely moved from one place to another, thus creating an equal and opposite reaction economic reduction in the place the money was removed from.



Moot point, since government spending doesn't stimulate any growth.



What?! How can it be an argument, if you insisted at the beginning of this post that I couldn't find any economists who held this position?

You need links to those sources. I want to read them myself.

Um, links to WHAT sources, exactly? I didn't cite any articles, dimwit. He asked for names, and I provided them. Every single one of those economists can be Googled, if you feel the urge to read their work. Have at it.

I have, however, provided a link to an article by Mark Skousen on EXACTLY this topic in one of my other posts. Feel free to go read them and find it. I don't really care for repeating myself.

See I'm sure they are accurately describing the importance of investment, but I'm sure they also stress that stimulating the demand side of our economy is just as critical. Yes, let's invest but we also need to spend. The products the unemployed buy -- basic essentials -- are what stimulate the economy as well. Poor people cannot afford to in invest. Rich people in reality invest very little money. They hoard most of their money.

 

[S.J.]

You need links to those sources. I want to read them myself.

Um, links to WHAT sources, exactly? I didn't cite any articles, dimwit. He asked for names, and I provided them. Every single one of those economists can be Googled, if you feel the urge to read their work. Have at it.

I have, however, provided a link to an article by Mark Skousen on EXACTLY this topic in one of my other posts. Feel free to go read them and find it. I don't really care for repeating myself.

See I'm sure they are accurately describing the importance of investment, but I'm sure they also stress that stimulating the demand side of our economy is just as critical. Yes, let's invest but we also need to spend. The products the unemployed buy -- basic essentials -- are what stimulate the economy as well. Poor people cannot afford to in invest. Rich people in reality invest very little money. They hoard most of their money.

Another myth.

 

[zeke]

It shifts without creating any purchasing power? What are you talking about? The money goes to consumers. Of course it creates purchasing power. This isn't hard to figure out. The benefits go to people who would otherwise be not spending any money. They spend ALL of it quickly on basic goods. That stimulus creates jobs.

If that were the case we would see UE about 5%. We have seen the biggest "stimulus" ever over the last 5 years and it resulted in the worst performance out of a recession in post war history.

Consumer spending does not stimulate the economy. I have written this over and over and provided links and proof. Government does not stimulate the economy. This has also been proven over and over.
The broken window fallacy is just that: a fallacy. You do not stimulate anything by taking from productive people and giving to unproductive people.

The truth is that consumer spending does not account for 70 percent of economic activity and is not the mainstay of the U. S. economy. Investment is! Business spending on capital goods, new technology, entrepreneurship, and productivity are more significant than consumer spending in sustaining the economy and a higher standard of living.

Granted, personal consumption expenditures represent 70 percent of gross domestic product, but journalists should know from Econ 101 that GDP only measures the value of final output. It deliberately leaves out a big chunk of the economy — intermediate production or goods-in-process at the commodity, manufacturing, and wholesale stages — to avoid double counting. I calculated total spending (sales or receipts) in the economy at all stages to be more than double GDP (using gross business receipts compiled annually by the IRS). By this measure — which I have dubbed gross domestic expenditures, or GDE — consumption represents only about 30 percent of the economy, while business investment (including intermediate output) represents over 50 percent.

Thus the truth is just the opposite: Consumer spending is the effect, not the cause, of a productive healthy economy.

Consumer Spending Doesn?t Drive the Economy, Investment Does by Mark Skousen

LMAO. What a crock of shit you are selling. I did the same search you evidently did. You and I both found this Cravitas guy out of NC writing a blog piece.

I liked the economic gobbledygook shit you tried to spew.

Wonder why you didn't mention the dozen or so other links (on the first page) to reputable sources saying consumer spending accounts from as little as 2/3 or 66% (Fox) to 71% (Washington Post).

Wait, I know why. You didn't want to be proven wrong. Again.

Go back to your no name source. He'd believe your bullshit.

 

[zeke]

Brian Balfour is actually the author of the piece linked. Brian quotes an economist that is known to be very right winged. Brian is a right wing activist making his living selling right wing fantasies.

Neither one (that I could find) offered proof of their assertions.

 

[Billy000]

Um, links to WHAT sources, exactly? I didn't cite any articles, dimwit. He asked for names, and I provided them. Every single one of those economists can be Googled, if you feel the urge to read their work. Have at it.

I have, however, provided a link to an article by Mark Skousen on EXACTLY this topic in one of my other posts. Feel free to go read them and find it. I don't really care for repeating myself.

See I'm sure they are accurately describing the importance of investment, but I'm sure they also stress that stimulating the demand side of our economy is just as critical. Yes, let's invest but we also need to spend. The products the unemployed buy -- basic essentials -- are what stimulate the economy as well. Poor people cannot afford to in invest. Rich people in reality invest very little money. They hoard most of their money.

Another myth.

Onswipe