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

[Foxfyre]

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 them. The right invests the money in the Swiss or Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes, money which said foreign banks loan to foreign business and industry to undercut American commerce.

On the other hand we might look to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their practices of sharing the wealth.

It really doesn't matter where the money is invested that determines its overall value to society. If invested in the Cayman Islands, it benefits the society there. If invested in the USA, it benefits the society here. Of course we if we want to benefit our own society more than we wish to benefit the Cayman Islands, it would be prudent to make it attractive for the businessman to start, grow, or expand his business here.

As for Bill and Melinda Gates, had they not invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Microsoft or a similar enterprise, tens of thousands of people would not have had jobs with Microsoft, would not have been paying taxes because of Microsoft, would not have had the wherewithal that their income from Microsoft provided that allowed them to give to charity.

But even now, if Bill and Melinda Gates pay $100,000 in taxes, or give away $100,000 through their foundation, or use that same $100,000 to start, grow, and expand another business, which would more likely benefit the most people, i.e. provide the greater benefit to society as a whole?

 

[daveman]

Well, didn't you notice the OP didn't even mention "teaching" and "helping"? Because it didn't occur to them. Since so many Republicans have lost the capacity to learn anything except "talking point propaganda" and think helping is "socialism", of course they don't want to discuss them. But those are the two things that are actually the most important.

The OP didn't mention helping?

What do you think charity is, you stupid, stupid little man?

Charity isn't "helping" shit for brains, it's "giving". This is the difference between "teaching" and "giving".

"Give a man a fish, and you have fed him once. Teach him how to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime."

I just "gave" you a "teaching" moment. Did it "take"?

You are, without a doubt, one of the absolute dumbest people on this planet.

 

[daveman]

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 them. The right invests the money in the Swiss or Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes, money which said foreign banks loan to foreign business and industry to undercut American commerce.

On the other hand we might look to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their practices of sharing the wealth.

That's right, because NO ONE on the left ever did anything to avoid taxes.

Say, where does John Kerry berth his yacht these days?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Totally depends on the investment and the charity and what the money is used on if paid in taxes. Hand-ups could create thousands of Industrious people. Same goes for the investment, sort of depends on how the money is spent. If the hundred million were spent to successfully stop a world war... well that would be well spent too.

Thus the problem with your questions is generalizing. Making the implication that one is always better than the other, or at least best, is no different than saying that person is the smartest person on USMB, without even discussing what it is that you are even talking about.

The question did not generalize at all. And it has encouraged some pretty decent discussion. The one error I made in the OP is not using the phrase "more likely to benefit, which I did do in subsequent discussion, but most of the more intelligent members have been able to consider the question objectively and without ideological prejudice. So we can quarrel over the question. Or we can use our intelligence, experience, and intuition and appreciate the concept behnd it.

Translation: You wave your magic wand and declare all investment types are the same, all charities are benevolent and the same, all government spending... is the same.

Not my fault you are incapable of understanding why your questions are the reason for discord in this country. You think your questions are good questions? Why because people tell you how smart you are? Your arguments and questions are the exact same excuses made by racists and bigots the world wide. You put people in one huge box, you dehumanize them to justify your hate for one and love for the other? Trust me your generalizing is not good. The not so subtle declaration that one of these three must be better than the others... is not going to bring people together.

 

[RKMBrown]

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 them. The right invests the money in the Swiss or Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes, money which said foreign banks loan to foreign business and industry to undercut American commerce.

On the other hand we might look to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their practices of sharing the wealth.

It really doesn't matter where the money is invested that determines its overall value to society. If invested in the Cayman Islands, it benefits the society there. If invested in the USA, it benefits the society here. Of course we if we want to benefit our own society more than we wish to benefit the Cayman Islands, it would be prudent to make it attractive for the businessman to start, grow, or expand his business here.

As for Bill and Melinda Gates, had they not invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Microsoft or a similar enterprise, tens of thousands of people would not have had jobs with Microsoft, would not have been paying taxes because of Microsoft, would not have had the wherewithal that their income from Microsoft provided that allowed them to give to charity.

But even now, if Bill and Melinda Gates pay $100,000 in taxes, or give away $100,000 through their foundation, or use that same $100,000 to start, grow, and expand another business, which would more likely benefit the most people, i.e. provide the greater benefit to society as a whole?

Again.. you can't make that decision without some rudimentary detail. Your question pretends one is better than the other based on NOTHING BUT A BROADLY GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION MEANS. Your questions are not answerable without detailed study of narrow use cases and return on investment for said use cases. Any one of those ways for them to spend their money could be better than the other.. it DEPENDS ON THE DETAILS.

 

[daveman]

Translation: You wave your magic wand and declare all investment types are the same, all charities are benevolent and the same, all government spending... is the same.

Not my fault you are incapable of understanding why your questions are the reason for discord in this country. You think your questions are good questions? Why because people tell you how smart you are? Your arguments and questions are the exact same excuses made by racists and bigots the world wide. You put people in one huge box, you dehumanize them to justify your hate for one and love for the other? Trust me your generalizing is not good. The not so subtle declaration that one of these three must be better than the others... is not going to bring people together.

Again.. you can't make that decision without some rudimentary detail. Your question pretends one is better than the other based on NOTHING BUT A BROADLY GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION MEANS. Your questions are not answerable without detailed study of narrow use cases and return on investment for said use cases. Any one of those ways for them to spend their money could be better than the other.. it DEPENDS ON THE DETAILS.

 

[rdean]

The OP didn't mention helping?

What do you think charity is, you stupid, stupid little man?

Charity isn't "helping" shit for brains, it's "giving". This is the difference between "teaching" and "giving".

"Give a man a fish, and you have fed him once. Teach him how to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime."

I just "gave" you a "teaching" moment. Did it "take"?

You are, without a doubt, one of the absolute dumbest people on this planet.

You call me dumb yet you don't even know the difference between "giving" and "teaching". Hilarious. You don't even know you just got "taught". Obviously it didn't "take". I didn't think it would. You have met expectations.

 

[RKMBrown]

Translation: You wave your magic wand and declare all investment types are the same, all charities are benevolent and the same, all government spending... is the same.

Not my fault you are incapable of understanding why your questions are the reason for discord in this country. You think your questions are good questions? Why because people tell you how smart you are? Your arguments and questions are the exact same excuses made by racists and bigots the world wide. You put people in one huge box, you dehumanize them to justify your hate for one and love for the other? Trust me your generalizing is not good. The not so subtle declaration that one of these three must be better than the others... is not going to bring people together.

Again.. you can't make that decision without some rudimentary detail. Your question pretends one is better than the other based on NOTHING BUT A BROADLY GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION MEANS. Your questions are not answerable without detailed study of narrow use cases and return on investment for said use cases. Any one of those ways for them to spend their money could be better than the other.. it DEPENDS ON THE DETAILS.

What makes you think I'm not calm?

What's better... Greed, Giving, or Government? ...

What's better is not making the implied suggestion that people are having a problem choosing between greed, giving, and government.

 

[Sunshine]

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 find it fascinating that people who have no money to give away think you are greedy if you don't give them yours.

I think my answer would be contingent upon how one got the 100 million. A capitalist who has created his own wealth certainly knows more about using the money to provide jobs AND keep his own wealth secure. For THAT person, creating jobs would be the best. I'm not sure someone who wins the lottery would have enough knowledge to morph into that capitalist providing jobs. In his case, I would say the best thing for himself and society is to invest it wisely so he and his family will, for generations, enjoy the stability of having it, reap the benefits of the capital gains, and donate some of the earnings to charity. Perhaps some of his progeny could learn the skills to create jobs and invest in society in that manner. I like the line delivered by George Clooney in The Descendants about giving children money, 'give them enough to do something, but not enough to do nothing.' Good concept. Even God only asks for 10%. I would hold no one to more than that for charitable pursuits.

Likely not the answer you were looking for. But reality is that all people are not equal in their abilities. So, I would not hold them equal in my expectations.

 

[Sunshine]

Maybe tomorrow I'll get the rest of this thread read. Right now, I'm needing to get some sleep. And I'm cold. I've lost 15 pounds, and damned if I can stay warm.

Then again, maybe I'll skip the other posts! LOL

 

[daveman]

Charity isn't "helping" shit for brains, it's "giving". This is the difference between "teaching" and "giving".

"Give a man a fish, and you have fed him once. Teach him how to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime."

I just "gave" you a "teaching" moment. Did it "take"?

You are, without a doubt, one of the absolute dumbest people on this planet.

You call me dumb yet you don't even know the difference between "giving" and "teaching". Hilarious. You don't even know you just got "taught". Obviously it didn't "take". I didn't think it would. You have met expectations.

I'm going to ignore your bullshit that's derailing the thread.

Go throw your little I-hate-Republicans-because-I-hate-them hissy fit elsewhere.

 

[daveman]

What makes you think I'm not calm?

What's better... Greed, Giving, or Government? ...

What's better is not making the implied suggestion that people are having a problem choosing between greed, giving, and government.

I seem to have missed your choice. Have you made it?

 

[RKMBrown]

What makes you think I'm not calm?

What's better... Greed, Giving, or Government? ...

What's better is not making the implied suggestion that people are having a problem choosing between greed, giving, and government.

I seem to have missed your choice. Have you made it?

When I want to give my assets away I do it for family members and charities of my choice, which are those that exercise prudence and focus on hand-ups over hand-outs. When I want to invest for future income I do it based on sound strategies, not greed. When I vote for and against government funding issues I do so with a focus on sound economic strategies that keep the scope of government within the confines originally intended for each level of government, not for greed or personal aggrandizement.

In short, there is no correct answer to the question posed. There is no correct answer because the question is flawed. It is the moral equivalent of asking someone when do they think they will stop beating their wife, this of course without there being any evidence of the accusation.

 

[rdean]

What makes you think I'm not calm?

What's better... Greed, Giving, or Government? ...

What's better is not making the implied suggestion that people are having a problem choosing between greed, giving, and government.

I seem to have missed your choice. Have you made it?

When I want to give my assets away I do it for family members and charities of my choice, which are those that exercise prudence and focus on hand-ups over hand-outs. When I want to invest for future income I do it based on sound strategies, not greed. When I vote for and against government funding issues I do so with a focus on sound economic strategies that keep the scope of government within the confines originally intended for each level of government, not for greed or personal aggrandizement.

In short, there is no correct answer to the question posed. There is no correct answer because the question is flawed. It is the moral equivalent of asking someone when do they think they will stop beating their wife, this of course without there being any evidence of the accusation.

If they had included "helping and teaching", the question would have made sense. But "greed" and "giving something away"? Doesn't make sense. In the long run, neither helps anyone. Even the greedy will eventually suffer.

 

[rdean]

You are, without a doubt, one of the absolute dumbest people on this planet.

You call me dumb yet you don't even know the difference between "giving" and "teaching". Hilarious. You don't even know you just got "taught". Obviously it didn't "take". I didn't think it would. You have met expectations.

I'm going to ignore your bullshit that's derailing the thread.

Go throw your little I-hate-Republicans-because-I-hate-them hissy fit elsewhere.

Bullshit? You are such a dumbass. No really. So many of the right wingers on this site are. All the "Obama this" and "Obama that" and the "liberals are......" nonsense. I only point out what Republicans actually do and say. In real life. I don't need to make anything up. And if I did, prove I was wrong. Only we both know you can't.

 

[Darkwind]

None of them. The right invests the money in the Swiss or Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes, money which said foreign banks loan to foreign business and industry to undercut American commerce.

On the other hand we might look to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their practices of sharing the wealth.

It really doesn't matter where the money is invested that determines its overall value to society. If invested in the Cayman Islands, it benefits the society there. If invested in the USA, it benefits the society here. Of course we if we want to benefit our own society more than we wish to benefit the Cayman Islands, it would be prudent to make it attractive for the businessman to start, grow, or expand his business here.

As for Bill and Melinda Gates, had they not invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Microsoft or a similar enterprise, tens of thousands of people would not have had jobs with Microsoft, would not have been paying taxes because of Microsoft, would not have had the wherewithal that their income from Microsoft provided that allowed them to give to charity.

But even now, if Bill and Melinda Gates pay $100,000 in taxes, or give away $100,000 through their foundation, or use that same $100,000 to start, grow, and expand another business, which would more likely benefit the most people, i.e. provide the greater benefit to society as a whole?

Again.. you can't make that decision without some rudimentary detail. Your question pretends one is better than the other based on NOTHING BUT A BROADLY GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION MEANS. Your questions are not answerable without detailed study of narrow use cases and return on investment for said use cases. Any one of those ways for them to spend their money could be better than the other.. it DEPENDS ON THE DETAILS.

Do you know how research is accomplished?

Do you think that research starts with the specifics and then drills up to the generalized?

Discussions work the same way as research. You begin with a generalized concept of what is the most effective. You then, in a later conversation, drill down deeper into specifics.

Your scatter shot examples are so tainted with talking points, that they are meaningless.

Your lashing out against the OP paints you as childish.

 

[Darkwind]

You call me dumb yet you don't even know the difference between "giving" and "teaching". Hilarious. You don't even know you just got "taught". Obviously it didn't "take". I didn't think it would. You have met expectations.

I'm going to ignore your bullshit that's derailing the thread.

Go throw your little I-hate-Republicans-because-I-hate-them hissy fit elsewhere.

Bullshit? You are such a dumbass. No really. So many of the right wingers on this site are. All the "Obama this" and "Obama that" and the "liberals are......" nonsense. I only point out what Republicans actually do and say. In real life. I don't need to make anything up. And if I did, prove I was wrong. Only we both know you can't.

You have difficulty distinguishing reality deany....That much is true. Before you go asking Me to prove it, why don't you list the sources of information YOU would fine acceptable for that proof. I'm guessing that you would not accept anything that proves you wrong, regardless of where it came from. So why not just accept the fact that you're a partisan hack with a tenacious grasp on reality at best, and an imagination that is quite active.

 

[Care4all]

It really doesn't matter where the money is invested that determines its overall value to society. If invested in the Cayman Islands, it benefits the society there. If invested in the USA, it benefits the society here. Of course we if we want to benefit our own society more than we wish to benefit the Cayman Islands, it would be prudent to make it attractive for the businessman to start, grow, or expand his business here.

As for Bill and Melinda Gates, had they not invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Microsoft or a similar enterprise, tens of thousands of people would not have had jobs with Microsoft, would not have been paying taxes because of Microsoft, would not have had the wherewithal that their income from Microsoft provided that allowed them to give to charity.

But even now, if Bill and Melinda Gates pay $100,000 in taxes, or give away $100,000 through their foundation, or use that same $100,000 to start, grow, and expand another business, which would more likely benefit the most people, i.e. provide the greater benefit to society as a whole?

Again.. you can't make that decision without some rudimentary detail. Your question pretends one is better than the other based on NOTHING BUT A BROADLY GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION MEANS. Your questions are not answerable without detailed study of narrow use cases and return on investment for said use cases. Any one of those ways for them to spend their money could be better than the other.. it DEPENDS ON THE DETAILS.

Do you know how research is accomplished?

Do you think that research starts with the specifics and then drills up to the generalized?

Discussions work the same way as research. You begin with a generalized concept of what is the most effective. You then, in a later conversation, drill down deeper into specifics.

Your scatter shot examples are so tainted with talking points, that they are meaningless.

Your lashing out against the OP paints you as childish.

you think he is 'lashing out' Darkwind? He just seems to be voicing his opinion...no flaming or vulgar-ness or wicked name calling??

I happen to mostly agree with...'there is not enough infomation or background to give a definitive answer to the poll....'

offhand, number 3 seems like it would be the answer to me...but each circumstance and each and every individual with this extra 100 million burning a hole in their pocket could and more than likely would, be different....good scenarios/bad scenarios....

this is a good thread, and good topic of discussion, so let's discuss it and why we all think the way we think, on the topic.....

Andddd, I am a Christian and under no circumstances what so ever, will I ever agree that GREED is good, as some seem to imply....because my God says that greed is NOT GOOD and all the greedy in the end of time (as we know it), will be thrown in to the lake of fire!

So, kinda hard for me to say that greed is good, in any way, shape, or form.

Ambition is good, but greed, NO, NO WAY JOSE.....not ever....at least with me.

Care

 

[RKMBrown]

It really doesn't matter where the money is invested that determines its overall value to society. If invested in the Cayman Islands, it benefits the society there. If invested in the USA, it benefits the society here. Of course we if we want to benefit our own society more than we wish to benefit the Cayman Islands, it would be prudent to make it attractive for the businessman to start, grow, or expand his business here.

As for Bill and Melinda Gates, had they not invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Microsoft or a similar enterprise, tens of thousands of people would not have had jobs with Microsoft, would not have been paying taxes because of Microsoft, would not have had the wherewithal that their income from Microsoft provided that allowed them to give to charity.

But even now, if Bill and Melinda Gates pay $100,000 in taxes, or give away $100,000 through their foundation, or use that same $100,000 to start, grow, and expand another business, which would more likely benefit the most people, i.e. provide the greater benefit to society as a whole?

Again.. you can't make that decision without some rudimentary detail. Your question pretends one is better than the other based on NOTHING BUT A BROADLY GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION MEANS. Your questions are not answerable without detailed study of narrow use cases and return on investment for said use cases. Any one of those ways for them to spend their money could be better than the other.. it DEPENDS ON THE DETAILS.

Do you know how research is accomplished?

Do you think that research starts with the specifics and then drills up to the generalized?

Discussions work the same way as research. You begin with a generalized concept of what is the most effective. You then, in a later conversation, drill down deeper into specifics.

Your scatter shot examples are so tainted with talking points, that they are meaningless.

Your lashing out against the OP paints you as childish.

>> Do you know how research is accomplished?

Yes.

>> Do you think that research starts with the specifics and then drills up to the generalized?

Do you think that question makes any sense whatsoever?

>> Discussions work the same way as research. You begin with a generalized concept of what is the most effective. You then, in a later conversation, drill down deeper into specifics.

So basically you are trying to say what I said. The questions, you will note, did not ask what is the most effective way to spend one's money to improve society, it asked which of these three generalized distribution means are the most effective.

>> Your scatter shot examples are so tainted with talking points, that they are meaningless.

Yes, that was my point, glad you figured that out.

>> Your lashing out against the OP paints you as childish.

Disagreement is lashing out? Or is calling someone names, such as "childish", lashing out? You wouldn't be super sensitive would you?

 

[RKMBrown]

Again.. you can't make that decision without some rudimentary detail. Your question pretends one is better than the other based on NOTHING BUT A BROADLY GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION MEANS. Your questions are not answerable without detailed study of narrow use cases and return on investment for said use cases. Any one of those ways for them to spend their money could be better than the other.. it DEPENDS ON THE DETAILS.

Do you know how research is accomplished?

Do you think that research starts with the specifics and then drills up to the generalized?

Discussions work the same way as research. You begin with a generalized concept of what is the most effective. You then, in a later conversation, drill down deeper into specifics.

Your scatter shot examples are so tainted with talking points, that they are meaningless.

Your lashing out against the OP paints you as childish.

you think he is 'lashing out' Darkwind? He just seems to be voicing his opinion...no flaming or vulgar-ness or wicked name calling??

I happen to mostly agree with...'there is not enough infomation or background to give a definitive answer to the poll....'

offhand, number 3 seems like it would be the answer to me...but each circumstance and each and every individual with this extra 100 million burning a hole in their pocket could and more than likely would, be different....good scenarios/bad scenarios....

this is a good thread, and good topic of discussion, so let's discuss it and why we all think the way we think, on the topic.....

Andddd, I am a Christian and under no circumstances what so ever, will I ever agree that GREED is good, as some seem to imply....because my God says that greed is NOT GOOD and all the greedy in the end of time (as we know it), will be thrown in to the lake of fire!

So, kinda hard for me to say that greed is good, in any way, shape, or form.

Ambition is good, but greed, NO, NO WAY JOSE.....not ever....at least with me.

Care

Exactly, the way it was phrased appeared to be somewhat biased against industry, business, invention, and progress by calling investments in such greed.

There are many factors that go into spending ones personal assets.

Self over Others, others including family, extended family, neighbors, then extended communities scaling up from neighborhood to city to county to state to country to all the rest.

Then there are modes (means) of spending, such as taxes (forced and voluntary of all sorts) and investments (personal, family, community, charity...)

The number of factors are probably not measurable by any one person.