Makers vs Takers? Nope. How about "Contributors" vs "Non-Contributors"

[The Rabbi]

Really? Is this really that complicated? Money is just like any other form of energy. It isn't possible to create value out of nothing. If they have gained something, that gain came from somewhere. It came from other investors.

"Some people cannot look at a fat man standing next to a thin man without thinking the fat man got something from the thin fellow." -Reagan.

Intel creates value out of sand, literally. Microsoft creates value literally out of ideas. You are simply misinformed.

You are confusing producing something using of something with little value, with producing microchips out of the contents of a vacuum*. Obviously the last is not possible.

*by which I don't mean a vacuum cleaner, but a physical vacuum.

Microsoft produces something of value out of literally nothing--thoughts.
But you in no way refute my points. No one took anything from anyone else.

 

[Agit8r]

"Some people cannot look at a fat man standing next to a thin man without thinking the fat man got something from the thin fellow." -Reagan.

Intel creates value out of sand, literally. Microsoft creates value literally out of ideas. You are simply misinformed.

You are confusing producing something using of something with little value, with producing microchips out of the contents of a vacuum*. Obviously the last is not possible.

*by which I don't mean a vacuum cleaner, but a physical vacuum.

Microsoft produces something of value out of literally nothing--thoughts.
But you in no way refute my points. No one took anything from anyone else.

So, in your make-believe world, money does not operate like every other physical system?

This explains so much...

To say nothing of this absurdity about innovation not adding value holy crap..

 

[The Rabbi]

You are confusing producing something using of something with little value, with producing microchips out of the contents of a vacuum*. Obviously the last is not possible.

*by which I don't mean a vacuum cleaner, but a physical vacuum.

Microsoft produces something of value out of literally nothing--thoughts.
But you in no way refute my points. No one took anything from anyone else.

So, in your make-believe world, money does not operate like every other physical system?

This explains so much...

To say nothing of this absurdity about innovation not adding value holy crap..

Money is simply an idea. You fail to refute a single point. You escape by labeling things I write cuckoo. If they were really cuckoo you'd have no problem showing how I'm wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

The topic was about day-traders, and how they extract value from our retirement accounts, and leave them depreciated.

They do nothing of the sort. If you don't want to sell them your stock, no one if forcing you to. If you don't want to buy stock they're selling, no one is forcing you to. day trading does not have a net negative impact on the average price of the market.

Really? Is this really that complicated? Money is just like any other form of energy. It isn't possible to create value out of nothing. If they have gained something, that gain came from somewhere. It came from other investors.

First off, money isn't energy. The two things aren't even remotely comparable. Second: You're assuming they all gain something. Everyone who buys a share of stock is an "investor." So who is having something "taken" from them

 

[Sunshine]

And the gov't does that all the time through both taxation and regulation.
But what does that have to do with capitalism or the private sector?

The topic was about day-traders, and how they extract value from our retirement accounts, and leave them depreciated.

No one extracts value from out retirement accounts unless the professionals we have managing those accounts let it happen. There can be no willing buyers, unless there are willing sellers. Day traders are gamblers, gambling that they can outguess the markets. Some win and some lose. They buy no stock that someone else is not willing to sell at the price offered, and they sell no stock that someone else is not willing to buy at that price.

The problem with people who lost their 401K accounts is that they never bothered to learn how to manage the money in them. Those accounts give you several choices of stocks, bonds, and money market options. All you need to know is when to move your money around. Most people mistake the annuity salesman for their financial manager and he is not. He is just an annuity salesman and once he sets you up, poof, he is gone. It is then up to you to learn what you need to do. I did, and never lost a dime.

 

[Sunshine]

They do nothing of the sort. If you don't want to sell them your stock, no one if forcing you to. If you don't want to buy stock they're selling, no one is forcing you to. day trading does not have a net negative impact on the average price of the market.

Really? Is this really that complicated? Money is just like any other form of energy. It isn't possible to create value out of nothing. If they have gained something, that gain came from somewhere. It came from other investors.

First off, money isn't energy. The two things aren't even remotely comparable. Second: You're assuming they all gain something. Everyone who buys a share of stock is an "investor." So who is having something "taken" from them

Hello! That 'money is energy' statment was so funny I spit coffee everywhere!

 

[Agit8r]

Microsoft produces something of value out of literally nothing--thoughts.
But you in no way refute my points. No one took anything from anyone else.

So, in your make-believe world, money does not operate like every other physical system?

This explains so much...

To say nothing of this absurdity about innovation not adding value holy crap..

Money is simply an idea. You fail to refute a single point. You escape by labeling things I write cuckoo. If they were really cuckoo you'd have no problem showing how I'm wrong.

I think that it is beyond obvious that innovations ("thoughts") add value. Do you want me to write you a treatise on how innovation adds value?

 

[The Rabbi]

So, in your make-believe world, money does not operate like every other physical system?

This explains so much...

To say nothing of this absurdity about innovation not adding value holy crap..

Money is simply an idea. You fail to refute a single point. You escape by labeling things I write cuckoo. If they were really cuckoo you'd have no problem showing how I'm wrong.

I think that it is beyond obvious that innovations ("thoughts") add value. Do you want me to write you a treatise on how innovation adds value?

Please quote where I wrote anything like that.

You are the one claiming day traders stole money from people's 401ks, that investing is like poker, that money is like energy. All of these have been soundly refuted. Now you want to argue with something I didnt write to deflect attention.

 

[Agit8r]

The topic was about day-traders, and how they extract value from our retirement accounts, and leave them depreciated.

No one extracts value from out retirement accounts unless the professionals we have managing those accounts let it happen. There can be no willing buyers, unless there are willing sellers. Day traders are gamblers, gambling that they can outguess the markets. Some win and some lose. They buy no stock that someone else is not willing to sell at the price offered, and they sell no stock that someone else is not willing to buy at that price.

The problem with people who lost their 401K accounts is that they never bothered to learn how to manage the money in them. Those accounts give you several choices of stocks, bonds, and money market options. All you need to know is when to move your money around. Most people mistake the annuity salesman for their financial manager and he is not. He is just an annuity salesman and once he sets you up, poof, he is gone. It is then up to you to learn what you need to do. I did, and never lost a dime.

This isn't so much about losing money. It's about getting a just return. I work, I put a small surplus away in the hope that it doesn't depreciate with inflation. That is legitimate investment. I'm not in it to gamble, and my fund only lets me move so much from place to place so often, that I couldn't anyway.

Now there are other people who game the system because they don't want to do actual work. They are not contributing anything. They are just taking advantage of the disadvantage that we legitimate investors our put at. Our laws allow that for some reason, but I'm still gonna call them out for being mooches.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"money is energy" Lmao

 

[Agit8r]

Money is simply an idea. You fail to refute a single point. You escape by labeling things I write cuckoo. If they were really cuckoo you'd have no problem showing how I'm wrong.

I think that it is beyond obvious that innovations ("thoughts") add value. Do you want me to write you a treatise on how innovation adds value?

Please quote where I wrote anything like that.

You are the one claiming day traders stole money from people's 401ks, that investing is like poker, that money is like energy. All of these have been soundly refuted. Now you want to argue with something I didnt write to deflect attention.

Getting somebody to spray coffee through their nose is not a refutation.

I responded to the comment that day-trader were just harmless "gamblers" by examining what that meant in practical terms.

You did in fact say that microsoft makes money off of "thoughts" which were "literally nothing."

It's sad that you can't even be honest about what was actually said here.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think that it is beyond obvious that innovations ("thoughts") add value. Do you want me to write you a treatise on how innovation adds value?

Please quote where I wrote anything like that.

You are the one claiming day traders stole money from people's 401ks, that investing is like poker, that money is like energy. All of these have been soundly refuted. Now you want to argue with something I didnt write to deflect attention.

Getting somebody to spray coffee through their nose is not a refutation.

I responded to the comment that day-trader were just harmless "gamblers" by examining what that meant in practical terms.

You did in fact say that microsoft makes money off of "thoughts" which were "literally nothing."

It's sad that you can't even be honest about what was actually said here.

It is true that a thought is literally nothing. Yet Microsoft has built a fortune from it.
You are the dishonest one here. I dont know where you came up with the malarkey about coffee spraying. But it is merely anotehr deflection from the fact that you have been refuted soundly.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Under your logic.....

A Navy SEAL is a "taker", since he creates 0 jobs, and lives off government pay.

A strip club owner is a "maker", since he creates jobs and doesnt live off government pay.

So, Navy SEAL's are less valuable to society than strip club owners under your makers vs takers ideal. Right?

SEALS and business owners have different values to society.

Exactly right. Which is why it is so disgusting that the right wing tries to define a citizen's worth to society through simply how much they make in salary, and how much they pay in taxes, and whether or not they recieve a check of any form from the government.

Its so much more complex than that, but the right wing is basing it's ideology off easy bumper sticker size slogans and quotes.

But by the right wings "makers vs takers" logic, a SEAL is a taker and a strip club owner is a maker. And they keep pushing that makers vs takers bumper sticker slogan.

Are you really this stupid? You define what a conservative considers a maker and a taker.
The only problem is thats not how any conservative I know would define it. So your theory is shot to hell before the discussion can begin.
I wont even say "nice try"because it aint even close.

 

[Agit8r]

Please quote where I wrote anything like that.

You are the one claiming day traders stole money from people's 401ks, that investing is like poker, that money is like energy. All of these have been soundly refuted. Now you want to argue with something I didnt write to deflect attention.

Getting somebody to spray coffee through their nose is not a refutation.

I responded to the comment that day-trader were just harmless "gamblers" by examining what that meant in practical terms.

You did in fact say that microsoft makes money off of "thoughts" which were "literally nothing."

It's sad that you can't even be honest about what was actually said here.

It is true that a thought is literally nothing. Yet Microsoft has built a fortune from it.
You are the dishonest one here. I dont know where you came up with the malarkey about coffee spraying. But it is merely anotehr deflection from the fact that you have been refuted soundly.

The difference is that thought can and do add value, so they are not "nothing" unless people fail to realize them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Getting somebody to spray coffee through their nose is not a refutation.

I responded to the comment that day-trader were just harmless "gamblers" by examining what that meant in practical terms.

You did in fact say that microsoft makes money off of "thoughts" which were "literally nothing."

It's sad that you can't even be honest about what was actually said here.

It is true that a thought is literally nothing. Yet Microsoft has built a fortune from it.
You are the dishonest one here. I dont know where you came up with the malarkey about coffee spraying. But it is merely anotehr deflection from the fact that you have been refuted soundly.

The difference is that thought can and do add value, so they are not "nothing" unless people fail to realize them.

They literally have no dimension, no substance. They are literally nothing.
Again, we are back to you deflecting from the obvious failre of your assertions.

 

[Agit8r]

It is true that a thought is literally nothing. Yet Microsoft has built a fortune from it.
You are the dishonest one here. I dont know where you came up with the malarkey about coffee spraying. But it is merely anotehr deflection from the fact that you have been refuted soundly.

The difference is that thought can and do add value, so they are not "nothing" unless people fail to realize them.

They literally have no dimension, no substance. They are literally nothing.
Again, we are back to you deflecting from the obvious failre of your assertions.

This never was about whether something had dimension or substance. It was about whether value was added to the system. And my assertion is that neither physical nor creative energy is being added to the system by people who are speculating on the fluctuations and profiting from them. If you can refute that, fine, but don't pretend that your word games are proof that you know what you are talking about.

 

[The Rabbi]

The difference is that thought can and do add value, so they are not "nothing" unless people fail to realize them.

They literally have no dimension, no substance. They are literally nothing.
Again, we are back to you deflecting from the obvious failre of your assertions.

This never was about whether something had dimension or substance. It was about whether value was added to the system. And my assertion is that neither physical nor creative energy is being added to the system by people who are speculating on the fluctuations and profiting from them. If you can refute that, fine, but don't pretend that your word games are proof that you know what you are talking about.

OK, you are completely wrong. Speculators provide a valuable service, which is why they get paid to do it.

 

[blackhawk]

I've was reading about yet another "takers" comment some idiot right winger made. And I thought about that jackass Romney and his 47% comment that so many right wingers agreed with. And I came to a conclusion.

There is no such thing as "Makers vs Takers". Just positive contributors vs negative contributors. You are either adding something positive to society, or, adding something negative. There really isn't much in between. For example:

Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a Navy SEAL would be a taker. He makes a modest salary, probably under 40K. He lives off a government paycheck. He creates ZERO jobs. Thats right. A SEAL would be a taker. So would a teacher. She doesnt create one single job, and also lives off government checks. But they contribute a lot of positive to our society. They are Contributors.

Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a strip club owner is a "maker". He opens a business. Creates dozens of jobs. He doesnt make his money off govt checks. But, he is a negative contributor to society. Filth, drugs, violence, morals. But in the right wing's definition of worth, he is worth more than a SEAL or teacher.

A trust fund baby who grows up pampered in life, then gets a job as, say, well, trading stocks and living off that is a "maker" to Republicans. He doesnt really create jobs, he indirectly does by buying stocks maybe. But he earns incredible wealth by, well, being born wealthy and owning stock. And he pays high taxes and doesnt get govt checks. But does he make a positive contribution to society? Maybe. Depends what he does with his free time.

You may have uber wealthy "makers" who poach smaller companies, and end up slashing more jobs than they actually create. A net negative due to their harm to so many people's lives out of greed.

You may have someone like, say, University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban. A millionaire coach, who has lived almost his entire life off government checks at public universities (Mich. State, LSU, Alabama), and he creates 0 jobs. BUT...look at how many young mens lives he has touched, by instilling discipline, work ethic, a structured environment, a drive to succeed. Those lessons are worth more than money can define. A net positive.



So, Im personally redefining the "makers vs takers" nonsense. Its Contributor vs Non-Contributor. Someone is either adding something good to America, or they are not. Thats what really matters.........not just the number that is on your tax filing.

More Liberal S.S.D.D. neither original or interesting please come up with some new material.