War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[thereisnospoon]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

A proven lie.

It's mathematically impossible to divide a pie into pieces that then add up to a sum bigger than the original pie.

I know the argument that he is making and the flaw is that liquid assets are the essential part of wealth that grows the economy. Theoretically there is no end of wealth but there is a definite limit to economic activity and it is all based by how much wealth is allowed to flow through the economy and how much personal debt is dragging it down.

A most fundamental principle of the study of economics is scarcity, not infinite supply.

What he is claiming thus defies the most fundamental principle of economics.

Would you please just stop spewing this nonsense.
The study of economics? Yeah, that's what liberal professors in colleges across the country drive into the heads of their students. Once these kids get out of school and join the real world, within a year or two they come to the realization that these so called educators have not tasted a single part of the real world and that graduate could have saved himself about $100k on an education they could have received had they paid attention to their environment.
Ya know what the study of economics is? Trying to figure out two things. A budget. Trying figure out how to make the money grow which pays for the budget.
There. In 30 seconds I just gave you all the knowledge you need. Now go and face reality and DO SOMETHING besides bitch and complain.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

Random thoughts, barfed out onto the screen for all to see:

1. In a symbiotic and interconnected global economy, wealth is not finite and it is not static. "The Rich" do not bury piles of money in the back yard. It moves.

2. This notion that "The Rich" are "job creators" is a nice try, I guess, but not really true other than the fact that their investing and spending contributes to the economy. Which leads me to...

3. Any time an issue becomes politicized, it becomes dumbed down and over-simplified on both ends. And this whole topic has become very politicized.

4. It really isn't that difficult to see that wealth concentration in this country is both a problem and a significant danger, and the Right just doesn't want to admit that. See #3.

5. The Left appears to be completely disinterested in the fact that "The Rich" pay attention to things the Left says and does that create dis-incentives. See #3.

6. The Left appears to have virtually no understanding of, or interest in, the psychology of business. They create dis-incentives (both real and perceived) and wonder why business reacts the way it does.

7. The Right is now so utterly clueless about the importance of messaging and so paralyzed by its libertarian components that it's currently reduced to simplistic, absolutist thinking that makes it an easy target for the Left.

8. When people who have sacrificed, worked hard, stayed disciplined and become successful are looked at with disdain, anger and distrust, you've really turned a corner, and we have. See #6 and #7.

Okay, barf completed.

.

I wonder why this post was largely ignored? Many good points made here.

That last bit is a bit off....but all in all...pretty well stated.

Anyone?

 

[LoneLaugher]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

A proven lie.

It's mathematically impossible to divide a pie into pieces that then add up to a sum bigger than the original pie.

I know the argument that he is making and the flaw is that liquid assets are the essential part of wealth that grows the economy. Theoretically there is no end of wealth but there is a definite limit to economic activity and it is all based by how much wealth is allowed to flow through the economy and how much personal debt is dragging it down.

A most fundamental principle of the study of economics is scarcity, not infinite supply.

What he is claiming thus defies the most fundamental principle of economics.

Would you please just stop spewing this nonsense.
The study of economics? Yeah, that's what liberal professors in colleges across the country drive into the heads of their students. Once these kids get out of school and join the real world, within a year or two they come to the realization that these so called educators have not tasted a single part of the real world and that graduate could have saved himself about $100k on an education they could have received had they paid attention to their environment.
Ya know what the study of economics is? Trying to figure out two things. A budget. Trying figure out how to make the money grow which pays for the budget.
There. In 30 seconds I just gave you all the knowledge you need. Now go and face reality and DO SOMETHING besides bitch and complain.

Are you of the opinion that anyone who studies economics in college is wasting their time and money? Or....just some people?

 

[LoneLaugher]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

How can wealth be infinite. Is the annual GDP number 'infinity'?

A nation can only generate so much wealth per year; the more of it the Rich keep, the less for the rest of us.

Without the rich, you will not receive your welfare check. So quit complaining.

Once and for all.....name the USMB members who you know to be collecting welfare.

Thank you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

A proven lie.

It's mathematically impossible to divide a pie into pieces that then add up to a sum bigger than the original pie.

I know the argument that he is making and the flaw is that liquid assets are the essential part of wealth that grows the economy. Theoretically there is no end of wealth but there is a definite limit to economic activity and it is all based on how much wealth is allowed to flow through the economy and how much personal debt is dragging it down.

Its more complicated than that, but in essence, as long as no entity interferes with or hampers growth, wealth is grown and infinite.

What I was talking about is liquidity, huge piles of wealth are of no benefit to society until it is spent or invested in something that creates jobs. I could have a hundred trillion dollars but the relatively small amount I would spend is all that matters to the economy.

Your point?

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's the Rich who made the not-rich the enemy.

It wasn't the working class who moved the work to China, was it?

They have made working class Americans the enemy. It is not the rich who are being portrayed as greedy and selfish....it is the workers
We have the GOP to thank

Starting with unions. It's greed if the workers want a bigger share of the wealth produced by an industry, and yet,

it's somehow good, according to these apologists for the wealthy, if the rich owners of the industry get to keep as big a share as they can.

In fact, these apologists are all for taking away every bit possible of the ability of the workers to fight for a bigger share.

It's not the only double standard they labor under, they blow huge holes in budgets giving hand-outs to the wealthy with no demonstrable economic benefit while trying to destroy social programs that have solid stabilizing benefits to society.

There are no hand-outs to the wealthy.

You in fact, cannot show any case in which the government has given money to the rich. None.

You people like to call them tax cuts and "tax incentives to promote growth". They have a negative effect on revenue and are no different than spending.

That's horseshit. Amazon is building a new facility near here. The facility will employ over 2500 workers. 2500 NEW taxpayers.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What I was talking about is liquidity, huge piles of wealth are of no benefit to society until it is spent or invested in something that creates jobs. I could have a hundred trillion dollars but the relatively small amount I would spend is all that matters to the economy.

Every investment creates jobs

And if a retailer invests in automated cash registers to replace human cashiers?

No. It creates jobs for those who can build and service the machines. Far higher paying jobs than the ones those machines replaced. More people earning more is a GOOD thing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What I was talking about is liquidity, huge piles of wealth are of no benefit to society until it is spent or invested in something that creates jobs. I could have a hundred trillion dollars but the relatively small amount I would spend is all that matters to the economy.

Every investment creates jobs

Nope, there are a whole class of investments that are no more than casino bets on worthless paper and have no positive effect on the economy.

Oh? Which ones? Do you really think that investment is stagnant?

 

[jknowgood]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

How can wealth be infinite. Is the annual GDP number 'infinity'?

A nation can only generate so much wealth per year; the more of it the Rich keep, the less for the rest of us.

Without the rich, you will not receive your welfare check. So quit complaining.

Once and for all.....name the USMB members who you know to be collecting welfare.

Thank you.

The ones claiming we need more welfare.

 

[thereisnospoon]

A proven lie.

It's mathematically impossible to divide a pie into pieces that then add up to a sum bigger than the original pie.

I know the argument that he is making and the flaw is that liquid assets are the essential part of wealth that grows the economy. Theoretically there is no end of wealth but there is a definite limit to economic activity and it is all based by how much wealth is allowed to flow through the economy and how much personal debt is dragging it down.

A most fundamental principle of the study of economics is scarcity, not infinite supply.

What he is claiming thus defies the most fundamental principle of economics.

Would you please just stop spewing this nonsense.
The study of economics? Yeah, that's what liberal professors in colleges across the country drive into the heads of their students. Once these kids get out of school and join the real world, within a year or two they come to the realization that these so called educators have not tasted a single part of the real world and that graduate could have saved himself about $100k on an education they could have received had they paid attention to their environment.
Ya know what the study of economics is? Trying to figure out two things. A budget. Trying figure out how to make the money grow which pays for the budget.
There. In 30 seconds I just gave you all the knowledge you need. Now go and face reality and DO SOMETHING besides bitch and complain.

Are you of the opinion that anyone who studies economics in college is wasting their time and money? Or....just some people?

No. The "study" of economics is a means to an end. For the person taking the course to earn a college degree. It is the proper and practical application of economic principles which applies to the real world.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Human speed is "finite" but there are always going to be the fastest runners.
Human intelligence is "finite" but not everyone will reach genius status.
Football games are regulated by time and rules but there can only be one Super Bowl trophy awarded.

Life simply isn't "fair" nor has it ever been. Time to get over it and do the best with what you got. Want more money? Invent something; earn a degree and get a better job; work longer hours; stop spending as much and invest more wisely; etc.

Lots of people did all that and still lost, the "life isn't fair" dodge is frequently used to cover for reckless policy and predatory business practices, will it ever be time to make the economically powerful accountable for their actions?

I agree with you. Let's start making people accountable. Let's do away with all forms of welfare, Raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, and allow companies to indiscriminately fire employees who aren't worth that wage.

Business would be fine, and losers would be starving daily. Accountability right?

Oh no, no, no, no, no. Libs want what the rich have but only want to work part time; continue getting their welfare checks; and put forth a half-ass effort to get it. They're perpetual "wanters" ... not "earners."

I actually read an interesting treatise on this subject awhile back, can't recall where.

Anyway the writer suggested, and backed this up with actual figures, that it would be cheaper for all concerned if the USG simply shut down all welfare programs, Just completely shuttered them, and then just sent every adult American a check for $30K once a year, and those who wanted to have more could get a job, while those who did not want to work could make do with $30K.

His solution also required getting rid of the income tax and going with a 10% national sales tax at the retail level.

He opined that it would result in better , and better paid, employees in every industry and would do a far better job of eliminating poverty than the welfare programs we have now.

I think I agree with him.

That is a guaranteed minimum income. And it is very socialist.

Yes it is, and yes it is.

Many aspects of our government are socialist in nature.

 

[thereisnospoon]

We should continue to subsidize the Walton's who inherited their wealth and don't have enough billions stashed away. Without our help they will take a half a decade to reach a 200 billion dollar stash of cash.

What the Walton family does with its cash reserves is none of your business.

 

[rightwinger]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

Again... This is the kind of propaganda you believe when you think wealth is finite.

Propaganda? If decrying the sorry state of wealth distribution is propaganda then what is your cheerleading for a flawed system that clearly leaves so many in want? Look at the reality of things, sure there is wealth being generated but not by wage earners. We do not have a perfect system, it is not a class war to examine the flaws and attempt to address them.

The propaganda is the belief that wealth should be equally distributed in society.

It is class warfare to deliberately seek to harm one group of people out of greed and envy. People who are in want are people who are striving to be more than they are. Or they used to be. Until the mentality such as yours comes along and eliminates the need for people to strive to be better.

Rather they have it handed to them through false prophecy of compassion than to hunger to be better.

Nobody is asking to take money away from rich people and give it to the poor. What we are asking is why does our government continue economic policies that ensure more wealth is distributed at the top. These policies were supposed to result in more jobs and a rising economic tide that benefitted everyone
Those policies did not work.....why do we continue them?

Oh yes you are. In fact you demand it. Your side has put forth the idea that taxation on anyone with whom you feel has an uncomfortable amount of wealth or earns more than an imaginary wage or salary for the sole purpose of "getting even" or to punish.
On this alleged government policy which benefits only those with wealth, I have a question. Which policy might that be?
BTW, that idea of a rising tide lifts all boats is a maritime concept based on the laws of physics. It has nothing to do with economics, It is simply a cry out for help from government to make laws to equalize that which you are convinced must be equal.
Finally, you are free to conceptualize and then produce YOUR solution to this alleged government policy.
Have at it. If you dare.

There is no getting even or punishment. In fact, our wealthy have been enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in generations. Our working class has suffered for it. The rising tide does not lift all boats.....it only lifts the yachts
Time to admit we made a mistake and move on

 

[rightwinger]

It's the Rich who made the not-rich the enemy.

It wasn't the working class who moved the work to China, was it?

They have made working class Americans the enemy. It is not the rich who are being portrayed as greedy and selfish....it is the workers
We have the GOP to thank

Starting with unions. It's greed if the workers want a bigger share of the wealth produced by an industry, and yet,

it's somehow good, according to these apologists for the wealthy, if the rich owners of the industry get to keep as big a share as they can.

In fact, these apologists are all for taking away every bit possible of the ability of the workers to fight for a bigger share.

You confuse share with ownership.

Do the employees own the business? No. Do the Employees share the risk of lost wages if the economy turns down? Do the employees pay back the costs they incur to business through their theft of material goods and time?

Employees have a dog in the fight. During an economic downturn, it is the employees who first feel the pinch with lower wages and layoffs

Equals, the Obama economy.

Very true.....I'm willing to do something about it
Are you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

A proven lie.

It's mathematically impossible to divide a pie into pieces that then add up to a sum bigger than the original pie.

I know the argument that he is making and the flaw is that liquid assets are the essential part of wealth that grows the economy. Theoretically there is no end of wealth but there is a definite limit to economic activity and it is all based on how much wealth is allowed to flow through the economy and how much personal debt is dragging it down.

Its more complicated than that, but in essence, as long as no entity interferes with or hampers growth, wealth is grown and infinite.

What I was talking about is liquidity, huge piles of wealth are of no benefit to society until it is spent or invested in something that creates jobs. I could have a hundred trillion dollars but the relatively small amount I would spend is all that matters to the economy.

which is no ones business but the owner of the liquidity.

I thought you people were talking about income inequality, not how much assets someone had.

Oh no. It is clear the underlying argument we see from the Left is an objection to the amount of assets. To them it is "unfair for one person to have all that money".

 

[thereisnospoon]

What I was talking about is liquidity, huge piles of wealth are of no benefit to society until it is spent or invested in something that creates jobs. I could have a hundred trillion dollars but the relatively small amount I would spend is all that matters to the economy.

Every investment creates jobs

Nope, there are a whole class of investments that are no more than casino bets on worthless paper and have no positive effect on the economy.

Such as...

Ask AIG, they foolishly insured enough worthless shit with no real value to crash the economy. It's the stuff bubbles are made of.

Actually, ha the federal government not set up the rules and not attempted to manipulate the real estate marketplace, AIG would never have gotten involved.
The simple explanation is the federal government forced banks to make loans to those who in the past could not pass credit standards to qualify for a mortgage. The banks were threatened with all kinds of sanctions including but not limited to lawsuits from the US Atty General accusing the banks of "red lining". The government then offered an olive branch of the guarantee of these loans in the event of default.

 

[jknowgood]

They have made working class Americans the enemy. It is not the rich who are being portrayed as greedy and selfish....it is the workers
We have the GOP to thank

Starting with unions. It's greed if the workers want a bigger share of the wealth produced by an industry, and yet,

it's somehow good, according to these apologists for the wealthy, if the rich owners of the industry get to keep as big a share as they can.

In fact, these apologists are all for taking away every bit possible of the ability of the workers to fight for a bigger share.

You confuse share with ownership.

Do the employees own the business? No. Do the Employees share the risk of lost wages if the economy turns down? Do the employees pay back the costs they incur to business through their theft of material goods and time?

Employees have a dog in the fight. During an economic downturn, it is the employees who first feel the pinch with lower wages and layoffs

Equals, the Obama economy.

Very true.....I'm willing to do something about it
Are you?

Yeah, vote republican or libertarian next month.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It's mathematically impossible to divide a pie into pieces that then add up to a sum bigger than the original pie.

I know the argument that he is making and the flaw is that liquid assets are the essential part of wealth that grows the economy. Theoretically there is no end of wealth but there is a definite limit to economic activity and it is all based by how much wealth is allowed to flow through the economy and how much personal debt is dragging it down.

A most fundamental principle of the study of economics is scarcity, not infinite supply.

What he is claiming thus defies the most fundamental principle of economics.

Would you please just stop spewing this nonsense.
The study of economics? Yeah, that's what liberal professors in colleges across the country drive into the heads of their students. Once these kids get out of school and join the real world, within a year or two they come to the realization that these so called educators have not tasted a single part of the real world and that graduate could have saved himself about $100k on an education they could have received had they paid attention to their environment.
Ya know what the study of economics is? Trying to figure out two things. A budget. Trying figure out how to make the money grow which pays for the budget.
There. In 30 seconds I just gave you all the knowledge you need. Now go and face reality and DO SOMETHING besides bitch and complain.

Are you of the opinion that anyone who studies economics in college is wasting their time and money? Or....just some people?

No. The "study" of economics is a means to an end. For the person taking the course to earn a college degree. It is the proper and practical application of economic principles which applies to the real world.

Then why are you shitting on people who study economics in college. You ought to use more measured terms when judging others.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It's mathematically impossible to divide a pie into pieces that then add up to a sum bigger than the original pie.

I know the argument that he is making and the flaw is that liquid assets are the essential part of wealth that grows the economy. Theoretically there is no end of wealth but there is a definite limit to economic activity and it is all based on how much wealth is allowed to flow through the economy and how much personal debt is dragging it down.

Its more complicated than that, but in essence, as long as no entity interferes with or hampers growth, wealth is grown and infinite.

What I was talking about is liquidity, huge piles of wealth are of no benefit to society until it is spent or invested in something that creates jobs. I could have a hundred trillion dollars but the relatively small amount I would spend is all that matters to the economy.

which is no ones business but the owner of the liquidity.

I thought you people were talking about income inequality, not how much assets someone had.

Oh no. It is clear the underlying argument we see from the Left is an objection to the amount of assets. To them it is "unfair for one person to have all that money".

Nope. It is unwise to allow so few people to have all the money. Your understanding of what the left wants is not accurate.

 

[rightwinger]

Starting with unions. It's greed if the workers want a bigger share of the wealth produced by an industry, and yet,

it's somehow good, according to these apologists for the wealthy, if the rich owners of the industry get to keep as big a share as they can.

In fact, these apologists are all for taking away every bit possible of the ability of the workers to fight for a bigger share.

You confuse share with ownership.

Do the employees own the business? No. Do the Employees share the risk of lost wages if the economy turns down? Do the employees pay back the costs they incur to business through their theft of material goods and time?

Employees have a dog in the fight. During an economic downturn, it is the employees who first feel the pinch with lower wages and layoffs

Equals, the Obama economy.

Very true.....I'm willing to do something about it
Are you?

Yeah, vote republican or libertarian next month.

How on earth would that make the lives of working Americans better. More right to work legislation, more Union killing, nobody to look out for them