Moderator: Community Team
























riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.





















BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.







bedub1 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.
Irrelevant. Everybody's savings and consumption decisions affect others. The fact is Mr. Rich isn't working. He doesn't have a job.

















bedub1 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.
Irrelevant. Everybody's savings and consumption decisions affect others. The fact is Mr. Rich isn't working. He doesn't have a job.




















BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.
Consumption
Mr Rich adds to the economy of producers and consumers of that beach. His parties also contribute, as does his spending on cocaine. Taxing him takes money from the producers of alcohol, parties, tourist attractions, the transportation of these related goods (and the tourists), airlines, cars, the cocaine producers and distributors, etc. etc. etc.
You miss all the transactions which he creates within many markets.






























3




2

Dukasaur wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.
Consumption
Mr Rich adds to the economy of producers and consumers of that beach. His parties also contribute, as does his spending on cocaine. Taxing him takes money from the producers of alcohol, parties, tourist attractions, the transportation of these related goods (and the tourists), airlines, cars, the cocaine producers and distributors, etc. etc. etc.
You miss all the transactions which he creates within many markets.
Wrong. He creates nothing. You're committing the (very common) error of ignoring Say's Law.
Production equals consumption -- that is not negotiable. Since there are no practical limits to consumption, but there are practical limits to production, the latter is the only defining variable.
Inherited wealth is mortmain. It really makes no difference if Mr. Rich spends the money on caviar and cocaine himself, or if the governement taxes it all away, distributes it to welfare mothers in the Bronx, and they spend it all on caviar and cocaine. Economically there's no difference between parasites who inherited their unearned wealth and parasites who get it in the form of a monthly cheque.






Dukasaur wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.
Consumption
Mr Rich adds to the economy of producers and consumers of that beach. His parties also contribute, as does his spending on cocaine. Taxing him takes money from the producers of alcohol, parties, tourist attractions, the transportation of these related goods (and the tourists), airlines, cars, the cocaine producers and distributors, etc. etc. etc.
You miss all the transactions which he creates within many markets.
Wrong. He creates nothing. You're committing the (very common) error of ignoring Say's Law.
Production equals consumption -- that is not negotiable. Since there are no practical limits to consumption, but there are practical limits to production, the latter is the only defining variable.
Dukasaur wrote:Inherited wealth is mortmain. It really makes no difference if Mr. Rich spends the money on caviar and cocaine himself, or if the governement taxes it all away, distributes it to welfare mothers in the Bronx, and they spend it all on caviar and cocaine. Economically there's no difference between parasites who inherited their unearned wealth and parasites who get it in the form of a monthly cheque.

















John Below #1 works a normal 40 hours a week job, earns 50k a year. He get's taxed at a 25% tax rate. pays $12,500 in taxes.
Jane Blows #2 works a long 50 hours a week job, earning 150k a year. She get's taxed at a 28% tax rate. pays $42,000 in taxes.
Joe Blow #3 works his ass off, 60 hours a week, does damn good for himself, and ends up making 400k a year. He get's taxed at a 35% tax rate. pays $140,000 in taxes.
Mr Rich does nothing all year but party, relax on the beach, and snort blow. He makes 3.5 million dollars due to his fat stack of cash. He gets taxed at a 15% tax rate. pays $525,000 in taxes.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880












BigBallinStalin wrote:bedub1 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.
Irrelevant. Everybody's savings and consumption decisions affect others. The fact is Mr. Rich isn't working. He doesn't have a job.
Does consuming and saving some mix of $1 billion dollars affect others more than consuming and saving a grand total of $10?




















zimmah wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:bedub1 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.
Irrelevant. Everybody's savings and consumption decisions affect others. The fact is Mr. Rich isn't working. He doesn't have a job.
Does consuming and saving some mix of $1 billion dollars affect others more than consuming and saving a grand total of $10?
the point is that the extremely rich people do not consume, that is what's killing the economy. the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.

















BigBallinStalin wrote:zimmah wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:bedub1 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.
Irrelevant. Everybody's savings and consumption decisions affect others. The fact is Mr. Rich isn't working. He doesn't have a job.
Does consuming and saving some mix of $1 billion dollars affect others more than consuming and saving a grand total of $10?
the point is that the extremely rich people do not consume, that is what's killing the economy. the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.
If rich people didn't consume, then all their income would be dedicated to savings. But rich people do consume. Buying caviar, cigars, airline tickets to the beach, etc. are all forms of consumption.
"Stockpiling of money" is saving, and this money is also exchanged for bonds, shares, etc. . The sellers of these bonds take the money and spend it or save it. It isn't only stockpiled under the mattress, and if the money was stockpiled in a bank, then that again contributes to the economy. The deposit is a loan to the bank, which the bank then loans to others. (I'll admit that there's a problem with this credit expansion and contraction but that's a different topic).
So, "stockpiling money," which isn't the only thing that rich people do, still helps the economy. It provides more opportunities for more production and consumption. How are more opportunities hurtful to the majority?




















Zimmah wrote: the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.

zimmah wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:zimmah wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Does consuming and saving some mix of $1 billion dollars affect others more than consuming and saving a grand total of $10?
the point is that the extremely rich people do not consume, that is what's killing the economy. the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.
If rich people didn't consume, then all their income would be dedicated to savings. But rich people do consume. Buying caviar, cigars, airline tickets to the beach, etc. are all forms of consumption.
"Stockpiling of money" is saving, and this money is also exchanged for bonds, shares, etc. . The sellers of these bonds take the money and spend it or save it. It isn't only stockpiled under the mattress, and if the money was stockpiled in a bank, then that again contributes to the economy. The deposit is a loan to the bank, which the bank then loans to others. (I'll admit that there's a problem with this credit expansion and contraction but that's a different topic).
So, "stockpiling money," which isn't the only thing that rich people do, still helps the economy. It provides more opportunities for more production and consumption. How are more opportunities hurtful to the majority?
they still consume far less then they recieve. so it's stockpiling.

















BigBallinStalin wrote:zimmah wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:zimmah wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Does consuming and saving some mix of $1 billion dollars affect others more than consuming and saving a grand total of $10?
the point is that the extremely rich people do not consume, that is what's killing the economy. the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.
If rich people didn't consume, then all their income would be dedicated to savings. But rich people do consume. Buying caviar, cigars, airline tickets to the beach, etc. are all forms of consumption.
"Stockpiling of money" is saving, and this money is also exchanged for bonds, shares, etc. . The sellers of these bonds take the money and spend it or save it. It isn't only stockpiled under the mattress, and if the money was stockpiled in a bank, then that again contributes to the economy. The deposit is a loan to the bank, which the bank then loans to others. (I'll admit that there's a problem with this credit expansion and contraction but that's a different topic).
So, "stockpiling money," which isn't the only thing that rich people do, still helps the economy. It provides more opportunities for more production and consumption. How are more opportunities hurtful to the majority?
they still consume far less then they recieve. so it's stockpiling.
It makes sense to consume less than you earn; otherwise, you run out of money...
Besides, what's your point? The "stockpiled" money is still contributing. Your term is misleading you. Somehow, stockpiling, which isn't the only activity occurring, is evil... EVILLLL EVILLL!1

patches70 wrote:Zimmah wrote: the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.
It's a sad testament to a system that hold saving as a "bad thing" for the economy. "That money has got to keep up it's velocity through the system!"
The reason being is that the very velocity is the only thing that keeps the sham of a monetary system going.
What you say is not untrue. However, I ask you to consider-
When people invest in something, do they do it from a point of no resources or is it better to invest with excess?
What I mean is, is it better to borrow to invest or invest with what is in excess of your needs? That is what has happened to the US, we invest through debt instead of invest through excess that has been saved.
If everyone in the US actually saved instead of going further and further into debt, even more money would have to be created just to inject the cash needed to pay interest on that debt. One of the cons of the fractional reserve banking system. The money to pay back a debt exists, but the money to pay the interest does not. Money flowing keeps this particular con from reaching it's obvious eventual end point. It's why deflation is so severely feared by the money powers.
The over inflation of assets always crumbles eventually. But in it's death throes the savers have to be dealt with in an attempt to keep the doomed fiat currency alive. It's always happened this way through history with fiat money and the US is not immune.

























































Night Strike wrote:Loans are vital to our economy. They provide quick cash to businesses to make large capital improvements that will increase the earning power of the business, which will provide more jobs and taxes. Most businesses don't have enough cash on hand to engage in capital projects, even if they are making a profit. You're stifling economic growth by requiring all cash to be on hand. Stocks and bonds are also considered loans, which are vital to both businesses and governments to operate.
Loans are also very important for those people who choose to go to college. They allow young people to go to college even if they don't have the full costs saved up (or don't have rich parents to provide it to them). This almost always increases the earning power of the graduate, which allows them to earn more money early in their careers. Not only can they use this money to pay back the loans, but they will be able to spend more in the economy and begin saving more for retirement earlier.


Dukasaur wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.
Consumption
Mr Rich adds to the economy of producers and consumers of that beach. His parties also contribute, as does his spending on cocaine. Taxing him takes money from the producers of alcohol, parties, tourist attractions, the transportation of these related goods (and the tourists), airlines, cars, the cocaine producers and distributors, etc. etc. etc.
You miss all the transactions which he creates within many markets.
Wrong. He creates nothing. You're committing the (very common) error of ignoring Say's Law.
Production equals consumption -- that is not negotiable. Since there are no practical limits to consumption, but there are practical limits to production, the latter is the only defining variable.
Inherited wealth is mortmain. It really makes no difference if Mr. Rich spends the money on caviar and cocaine himself, or if the governement taxes it all away, distributes it to welfare mothers in the Bronx, and they spend it all on caviar and cocaine. Economically there's no difference between parasites who inherited their unearned wealth and parasites who get it in the form of a monthly cheque.
















PLAYER57832 wrote:Dukasaur wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.
Consumption
Mr Rich adds to the economy of producers and consumers of that beach. His parties also contribute, as does his spending on cocaine. Taxing him takes money from the producers of alcohol, parties, tourist attractions, the transportation of these related goods (and the tourists), airlines, cars, the cocaine producers and distributors, etc. etc. etc.
You miss all the transactions which he creates within many markets.
Wrong. He creates nothing. You're committing the (very common) error of ignoring Say's Law.
Production equals consumption -- that is not negotiable. Since there are no practical limits to consumption, but there are practical limits to production, the latter is the only defining variable.
Inherited wealth is mortmain. It really makes no difference if Mr. Rich spends the money on caviar and cocaine himself, or if the governement taxes it all away, distributes it to welfare mothers in the Bronx, and they spend it all on caviar and cocaine. Economically there's no difference between parasites who inherited their unearned wealth and parasites who get it in the form of a monthly cheque.
You miss a couple of facts. The wealthy actually don't spend proportional amounts of their income. They tend to invest and save more than those with lesser incomes. They might spend more in absolute terms, but not proportionally. Giving $50,000 to 100 people in wages will spur the economy FAR more than giving 5,000,000 to one person.




















Night Strike wrote:So investments and savings (in a bank or other entity) don't lead to economic growth?
Night Strike wrote:Loans are vital to our economy.

Users browsing this forum: No registered users