What's Better? Greed? Giving? Or Government?

[Foxfyre]

When Mr. Foxfyre and I spent a spring and summer in West Virginia, we rented a two-bedroom apartment in a small motel. And we made the acquaintance of a man from Hong Kong, a Chinese citizen, then a university student in France, who was renting another room for the summer in the same motel. (He and Mr. Foxfyre were classmates in the photography school they were attending.) He advised us he was amazed when they showed him the room. In Hong Kong--a very wealthy city and he himself was not poor--and on campus in France, he said for that room, at least five people would live there.

Different cultures. Different folks. And it still doesn't change the dynamics of how that $100 million would best benefit society.

 

[Clementine]

Expanding business and jobs benefits all including the government.

That is certainly the position that author was taking, i.e. that $100 million would multiply itself many times over providing opportunity for others to prosper. The businessman would pay more in taxes. Those who prospered would dutifully pay their taxes owed. And the increased prosperity would lessen the need for charity.

And it makes perfect sense. But there wouldn't be a need for nanny government.
Are you trying to cause the liberals to have panic attacks? "increased prosperity would lessen the need for charity." LOL, it's so true and it's a threat to the dependent/provider relationship that took liberals decades to build. Reading that must send chills up their spines. The whole Dem party thrives on a needy underclass of people that are uneducated and willing to keep their sugar daddies in office.

 

[Clementine]

This week I happened across John Stossel's late night television program in which he was interviewing an author who put forth an interesting concept. If a very wealthy businessman has $100 million extra dollars to use, what would benefit the general public more?

1. He pays that money in taxes to the government?

2. He gives that money to a good charity?

3.. He invests that money in commerce and industry?

The author made an argument for how investment of the money in commerce and industry to help business grow, prosper, expand, and thereby create more jobs would be the most judicious and beneficial use of that money.

The arguments against that concept, however, come from those who consider the wealthy who strive to be even more wealthy as being greedy. They should pay a lot more in taxes for the government to use.

And there is a third group who sees the greatest virtue in giving the money away to those in need via good charities.

So which is right?

What matters is what the gazillionaire actually DOES with his money. If he sits on it, is that worse than giving it to the government, vis a vis "benefit to the public"?

If he buy's hookers and blow with it, is that better than giving it to the government?

What do people with "extra" cash actually do with that money? That's the critical key.

People like George Soros are dangerous with their money. Shame he doesn't pay American taxes or the Occupoopers could protest him for being the greedy, sleazy 1%.

Some people have tons of money and they retire and don't build up any more companies, but they still have living expenses, which are way higher than the average person, and they probably take lots of vacation so they still contribute to the local economies.

 

[gallantwarrior]

This week I happened across John Stossel's late night television program in which he was interviewing an author who put forth an interesting concept. If a very wealthy businessman has $100 million extra dollars to use, what would benefit the general public more?

1. He pays that money in taxes to the government?

2. He gives that money to a good charity?

3.. He invests that money in commerce and industry?

The author made an argument for how investment of the money in commerce and industry to help business grow, prosper, expand, and thereby create more jobs would be the most judicious and beneficial use of that money.

The arguments against that concept, however, come from those who consider the wealthy who strive to be even more wealthy as being greedy. They should pay a lot more in taxes for the government to use.

And there is a third group who sees the greatest virtue in giving the money away to those in need via good charities.

So which is right?

What matters is what the gazillionaire actually DOES with his money. If he sits on it, is that worse than giving it to the government, vis a vis "benefit to the public"?

If he buy's hookers and blow with it, is that better than giving it to the government?

What do people with "extra" cash actually do with that money? That's the critical key.

Wait a minute...if he buys hookers and blow with it, he is helping the economy. Don't hookers and drug dealers buy groceries and pay rent?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Wall Street has never been any kind of net benefit to society and never will be, the very concept runs counter to their mission of concentrating wealth in the hands of a few lucky people at the top of a pyamid of greed.

Where was the choice of Wall Street?
I only see three choices and Wall St. is not one of them.

Don't be dense, the thrust of the author in the op is that investment is more of a net benefit than taxes or charity and that is just insane, there is not a bit of altruism in investing money in business.

There is no such thing as altruism. Even the most pious penitent will sacrifice all worldly goods to achieve a place in heaven. That isn't altruism, that's self-interest.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why is investing money considered greed?

Because, if you have money to invest, you must be greedy.

 

[gallantwarrior]

This week I happened across John Stossel's late night television program in which he was interviewing an author who put forth an interesting concept. If a very wealthy businessman has $100 million extra dollars to use, what would benefit the general public more?

1. He pays that money in taxes to the government?

2. He gives that money to a good charity?

3.. He invests that money in commerce and industry?

The author made an argument for how investment of the money in commerce and industry to help business grow, prosper, expand, and thereby create more jobs would be the most judicious and beneficial use of that money.

The arguments against that concept, however, come from those who consider the wealthy who strive to be even more wealthy as being greedy. They should pay a lot more in taxes for the government to use.

And there is a third group who sees the greatest virtue in giving the money away to those in need via good charities.

So which is right?

None of the above in my opinion.

The funds should be used for micro loans instead!

Kiva - Loans that change lives

Helping people to better themselves, especially those who can't obtain help from the regular channels, is by far the best use of this money. Just read the stories on that website and you will see the kind of vast difference even a small loan can make to people's lives.

This is not government. This is not charity and it is not commerce in the generally accepted sense. But it is real and it does work.

Actually, it is a form of charity. Providing loans to high-risk investments. Loads of small loan investments will pay off, but many won't. It's a gamble.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Studies prove that Republicans give more to charity. There are countless charities that have been around forever and probably do more good than government.

If you give money to government, they waste it. Not all of the money goes to help the intended cause because bureaucrats get paid and pork is added to every spending bill to ensure even more money is wasted.

If you give it all to charity, it helps some people for a while, then runs out.

If you create jobs with it, then it offers people the chance to lift themselves up so they no longer require charity. In the long run, this is the most benevolent choice. Unfortunately, many reject or even resent the notion that they should work if they are able. Liberals see nothing but helpless people and greedy people. They never, ever comment on the successful people who deserve everything they have. They want equal outcomes, so if you have more than your neighbor, you are seen as greedy, not as someone who works hard and sees the virtue in taking personal responsibility for your life.

Allowing people to keep their money means that they will donate more to charity. If liberals believed in people, they would make it easier for some to give, but they prefer to treat the entire populace as children who must be forced to do what the government wants.

Government has taken in trillions and managed to make the problem worse. Of course, they don't blame themselves for failed programs and like to pass blame to those who didn't pay more into government. Never mind that government can take what it wants from any of us and if the rich aren't paying more, then it's totally government's fault.

Why don't some of these big time liberals start writing checks if they believe they have too much money. Madonna made over $100 million this year, so she and others like her could send as much as they wanted to government. They never do that willingly and are likely as anyone to look for tax shelters. Hmmm, could they be hypocrites? How much has Barbra Streisand and others voluntarily given to government to help people? They constantly bash others who are not nearly as wealthy as they are and say we should all pay more. IF they believed that, the checks would have been sent all these years to back up what they say. Funny that hasn't happened.

Obama's own wealth has increased by leaps and bounds since becoming president. Does he voluntarily hand it over to pay for his big ideas? If he believed in what he was doing, he would have been the first to sign up for Obamacare, he would have capped the salaries of himself and congress and he would have given up millions to help the needy he claims to help.

Watch what people do, not what they say. I see greed in Washington far more than in the private sector.

You put a lot of effort into this post, Clementine, and covered a lot of territory. I take it as an argument for why the $100 million going to government is not the best use of that money.

It is true that conservatives more often look to the private sector as the private distributor of charity and, as a group, do give more generously of their blood, their time, talents, and personal resources for the benefit of the less fortunate. But to say that liberals never do would be incorrect because some do. Liberals also look to government as the necessary distributor of charity which most conservatives do not. But that does not change whether the $100 million given privately to charity benefits more people than would the same money invested in commerce and industry or distributed by the government.

As to who is greedier, that is too subjective a subject to deal with here, and anyway, it is really immaterial as I intend us to be focused on results rather than motive.

The person who benefits from benevolence through a private charity or from government distribution or from opportunity offered in a private sector job will benefit in the same way regardless of the motives of the person authorizing the benefit. The charity may be completely self serving - the private boss may be a complete asshole - the government may just be buying the vote - but none of those motives changes the value of the immediate benefit to the person receiving it. Whether he/she will benefit more in the long term could be a valid consideration in this thread, however.

So we need to look beyond the motive and beyond the individual beneficiary, to see which use of the $100 million produces the most overall benefit to society.

I think benefits provided by a private charity are less likely to be taken for granted and abused than "free" money handed out by government. Private charities are not necessarily viewed as a lifestyle choice, but rather a hand up instead of a government hand out.

 

[G.T.]

And despite poor GT's conviction, I maintain that most are quite honorable and ethical and not the least bit nefarious when they do so.

My conviction is that most AREN'T?

That's either a lie, or really bad reading comprehension.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This week I happened across John Stossel's late night television program in which he was interviewing an author who put forth an interesting concept. If a very wealthy businessman has $100 million extra dollars to use, what would benefit the general public more?

1. He pays that money in taxes to the government?

2. He gives that money to a good charity?

3.. He invests that money in commerce and industry?

The author made an argument for how investment of the money in commerce and industry to help business grow, prosper, expand, and thereby create more jobs would be the most judicious and beneficial use of that money.

The arguments against that concept, however, come from those who consider the wealthy who strive to be even more wealthy as being greedy. They should pay a lot more in taxes for the government to use.

And there is a third group who sees the greatest virtue in giving the money away to those in need via good charities.

So which is right?

None of the above in my opinion.

The funds should be used for micro loans instead!

Kiva - Loans that change lives

Helping people to better themselves, especially those who can't obtain help from the regular channels, is by far the best use of this money. Just read the stories on that website and you will see the kind of vast difference even a small loan can make to people's lives.

This is not government. This is not charity and it is not commerce in the generally accepted sense. But it is real and it does work.

Actually, it is a form of charity. Providing loans to high-risk investments. Loads of small loan investments will pay off, but many won't. It's a gamble.

If that were true then Microcredit organizations like Grameen would be registered as charities and showing losses on their books. Instead they are regular corporations and show profits even though they charge minimal interest rates.

Grameen Bank | Bank for the poor - Historical Data Series in USD

Grameen Bank | Bank for the poor - Breaking the vicious cycle of proverty through microcredit

The success of this approach shows that a number of objections to lending to the poor can be overcome if careful supervision and management are provided. For example, it had earlier been thought that the poor would not be able to find renumerative occupations. In fact, Grameen borrowers have successfully done so. It was thought that the poor would not be able to repay; in fact, repayment rates reached 97 percent. It was thought that poor rural women in particular were not bankable; in fact, they accounted for 94 percent of borrowers in early 1992. It was also thought that the poor cannot save; in fact, group savings have proven as successful as group lending. It was thought that rural power structures would make sure that such a bank failed; but the Grameen Bank has been able to expand rapidly. Indeed, from fewer than 15,000 borrowers in 1980, the membership had grown to nearly 100,000 by mid-1984. By the end of 1998, the number of branches in operation was 1128, with 2.34 million members (2.24 million of them women) in 38,957 villages. There are 66,581 centres of groups, of which 33,126 are women. Group savings have reached 7,853 million taka (approximately USD 162 million), out of which 7300 million taka (approximately USD 152 million) are saved by women.

 

[eagle1462010]

I chose Option 3...............

My main point being the movement of money, or money's velocity.............

The more the money is exchanged the better it is for the economy...........

Perhaps I should use Circulation of money.............

In all regards, big daddy Gov't gets part of the pie in all of the equations, and is known to waste a lot of it. So in that regards it depends on exactly how it is used............

Either way, the Velocity of money has been going down since the year 2000, and that isn't good news.................

As imports have gone up up and away..............

 

[eagle1462010]

?Velocity of Money? Is Rx for Economy

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or even a Georgetown MBA to understand that it is the “velocity of money” that is the prescription for a healthier economy.

It is common sense that every time a dollar changes hands it gins up the marketplace, whether it is exchanged at the deli on Main Street or the brokerage house on Wall Street. If a dollar changes hands once, we are in a depression, however, if that same dollar changes hands 10 times in the same amount of time we are in boom times.

How do we then increase the velocity of money?

Do that which has been done before and is proven. Unleash the power of the individual. Get rid of the restrictions to velocity imposed by the government on the taxpayer and small business owner.

It is not the government collecting and spending money on its own maintenance that increases velocity, it is the private sector exchanging money that creates a velocity of money that will rally and rebound our weakened economy.

The problem today dates back to age-old, fundamental differences in philosophy between Democrats and Republicans regarding the economy.

Republicans believe in smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation and people. Democrats believe in large government, high taxes, more regulation, and more government.

 

[Derideo_Te]

?Velocity of Money? Is Rx for Economy

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or even a Georgetown MBA to understand that it is the “velocity of money” that is the prescription for a healthier economy.

It is common sense that every time a dollar changes hands it gins up the marketplace, whether it is exchanged at the deli on Main Street or the brokerage house on Wall Street. If a dollar changes hands once, we are in a depression, however, if that same dollar changes hands 10 times in the same amount of time we are in boom times.

How do we then increase the velocity of money?

Do that which has been done before and is proven. Unleash the power of the individual. Get rid of the restrictions to velocity imposed by the government on the taxpayer and small business owner.

It is not the government collecting and spending money on its own maintenance that increases velocity, it is the private sector exchanging money that creates a velocity of money that will rally and rebound our weakened economy.

The problem today dates back to age-old, fundamental differences in philosophy between Democrats and Republicans regarding the economy.

Republicans believe in smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation and people. Democrats believe in large government, high taxes, more regulation, and more government.

Right now literally trillions of dollars are locked up and kept out of circulation by both the wealthy and corporations. Whereas individuals are struggling to get by with savings at record lows. It was government that tried to remedy this situation by putting more money into circulation except that it has been stymied from doing so by the cacophony from the extreme right about government "spending".

So the individuals are maxed out and government cannot spend any more so who has the money to circulate that will improve the economy if the wealthy and the corporations continue to sit on the trillions they have locked out of the economy?

 

[Nosmo King]

Capitalism is not philanthropy. Philanthropy is not Capitalism. But trying to equate Capitalism with philanthropy is another in a series of ham handed gestures on behalf of the greedy to justify their actions.

 

[editec]

The thing about people who do not understand economics is this:

They imagine that the same solution works every time in every circumstance and every economic environment.

They're like children in that respect.

They learned some basically sound rules and thinks that's how the world works no matter what.

The basic premise of this thread is based on such a misunderstanding of how the world works.

But ya know..everybody understands why cars have accelerators AND brakes.

But somehow they think that a national economy is less complicated than driving a car.

Idiots.

 

[BlackSand]

?Velocity of Money? Is Rx for Economy

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or even a Georgetown MBA to understand that it is the “velocity of money” that is the prescription for a healthier economy.

It is common sense that every time a dollar changes hands it gins up the marketplace, whether it is exchanged at the deli on Main Street or the brokerage house on Wall Street. If a dollar changes hands once, we are in a depression, however, if that same dollar changes hands 10 times in the same amount of time we are in boom times.

How do we then increase the velocity of money?

Do that which has been done before and is proven. Unleash the power of the individual. Get rid of the restrictions to velocity imposed by the government on the taxpayer and small business owner.

It is not the government collecting and spending money on its own maintenance that increases velocity, it is the private sector exchanging money that creates a velocity of money that will rally and rebound our weakened economy.

The problem today dates back to age-old, fundamental differences in philosophy between Democrats and Republicans regarding the economy.

Republicans believe in smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation and people. Democrats believe in large government, high taxes, more regulation, and more government.

Consumer Confidence

.

 

[Foxfyre]

And despite poor GT's conviction, I maintain that most are quite honorable and ethical and not the least bit nefarious when they do so.

My conviction is that most AREN'T?

That's either a lie, or really bad reading comprehension.

Why is my opinion about the ethics or moral center of a businessman a lie any more than your opinion is a lie? I was not misreading your comments. I was disagreeing with them. That is neither a lie nor bad reading comprehension.

But what if somebody is a total jerk? A greedy bastard? A selfish miser? Nevertheless he invests $100 million of all that money he has way too much of to create a business or expand or grow one. He spends a lot of money with other private enterprise when he does so. He hires a large workforce who themselves are then able to buy a house and buy stuff from area merchants that they couldn't afford previously. Both the business and its employers are paying taxes that previously were not being paid into the system. Some of the employees no longer need public assistance or subsidies.

Will that benefit the community - benefit society as a whole - more than would be benefitted had he given that money to a good charity?

Will that benefit the community - benefit society as a whole - more than would be benefitted had he paid that money in higher taxes to the government?

Or is the fact that he has 'too much money' and is a greedy, nefarious character the only thing we should focus on?

 

[Foxfyre]

Capitalism is not philanthropy. Philanthropy is not Capitalism. But trying to equate Capitalism with philanthropy is another in a series of ham handed gestures on behalf of the greedy to justify their actions.

It is true that capitalism and philanthrophy and taxes are three separate things. But what if philanthrophy is provided by a corrupt, selfish, greedy, bastard just trying to justify an action or salvage his reputation? Are the recipients of that philanthrophy benefitted any less when the character or morals of the donor are questionable? But the money taken is removed from the economy and there will be a net loss on one end despite whatever benefit is achieved on the other.

When the government takes money in taxes, a huge percentage of that money is immediately consumed by the government itself. But even when the money is not wasted by unnecessary or self serving or careless or incompetent or corrupt expenditures by corrupt politicians and/or bureaucrats--when it is used jurisprudently and effectively--it still removes the money from the economy before the government can use it. And because the government itself is so large and so expensive, a significant percentage of the $100 million will be be swallowed up by the bureaucracy charged with distributing it.

So that brings us to that greedy, selfish, bastard who cares about nothing or nobody other than himself investing that $100 million to start a business or grow or expand one. A business that will buy stuff from the community, will pay taxes, will likely contribute to charity to promote its image, and will provide a lot of jobs for people who need them. People who will then themselves buy what they need from the money they earn, pay taxes, and some will contribute to charity even as they no longer need charity themselves.

To me it is a no brainer.

My husband and I give of our blood, our time and talent as volunteers, and contribute what we reasonably can from our limited financial resources, and I pray that does others some good. But I have no illusions that we are benefitting society or promoting the general welfare as effectively as the guy running a business, hiring, training, and paying people to work in it, and increasing the net prosperity of the community.

And neither whatever money a rich guy retains nor the motives or morals of whoever is providing the money in whatever has any significant bearing on the benefit to those who are on the receiving end.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some taxes are absolutely necessary as some government functions are absolutely necessary.
Philanthrophy is a good thing providing blessings to both the giver and the receiver.
But is not the greedy, selfish, crass rich guy who is just trying to make himself much richer also benefitting society? Maybe more than anybody else?

 

[Nosmo King]

Capitalism is not philanthropy. Philanthropy is not Capitalism. But trying to equate Capitalism with philanthropy is another in a series of ham handed gestures on behalf of the greedy to justify their actions.

It is true that capitalism and philanthrophy and taxes are three separate things. But what if philanthrophy is provided by a corrupt, selfish, greedy, bastard just trying to justify an action or salvage his reputation? Are the recipients of that philanthrophy benefitted any less when the character or morals of the donor are questionable? But the money taken is removed from the economy and there will be a net loss on one end despite whatever benefit is achieved on the other.

When the government takes money in taxes, a huge percentage of that money is immediately consumed by the government itself. But even when the money is not wasted by unnecessary or self serving or careless or incompetent or corrupt expenditures by corrupt politicians and/or bureaucrats--when it is used jurisprudently and effectively--it still removes the money from the economy before the government can use it. And because the government itself is so large and so expensive, a significant percentage of the $100 million will be be swallowed up by the bureaucracy charged with distributing it.

So that brings us to that greedy, selfish, bastard who cares about nothing or nobody other than himself investing that $100 million to start a business or grow or expand one. A business that will buy stuff from the community, will pay taxes, will likely contribute to charity to promote its image, and will provide a lot of jobs for people who need them. People who will then themselves buy what they need from the money they earn, pay taxes, and some will contribute to charity even as they no longer need charity themselves.

To me it is a no brainer.

My husband and I give of our blood, our time and talent as volunteers, and contribute what we reasonably can from our limited financial resources, and I pray that does others some good. But I have no illusions that we are benefitting society or promoting the general welfare as effectively as the guy running a business, hiring, training, and paying people to work in it, and increasing the net prosperity of the community.

And neither whatever money a rich guy retains nor the motives or morals of whoever is providing the money in whatever has any significant bearing on the benefit to those who are on the receiving end.

Sure it's a "no brainer" if at first you cast doubt and suspicion on charitable organizations! Then laud praise on Capitalism that has a proven track record of exploitation, greed and selfishness.