WalMart Heirs Have Same Net Worth As the Bottom 30 Percent Of Americans

[lawrocket 3]

Divide by wealth? The statistics don’t lie! I mean, did you know that fully one half of all Americans are in the lower 50% of yearly income? It’s an abomination that should be fixed, and the only way to fix it is by taking the wealth from the upper echelons to even it out.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shah269 0]

Quote

Quote

And you know you could argue with good reason that Robin Hood helped grow the economy. By freeing that capital and giving to those who would use it to procure the most goods and services the economy grew.

Yes. Robin Hood gave the tax rebate. But how about just letting them keep the money to spend it?

By the way. Welcome, Shah, to the libertarian party. You've just given a concise statement of libetarian economics.

And if he were to take money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and gave it to those who would spend it to buy goods and services to create jobs...he would be.....



The long and short of it the easier money flows with in a system the more jobs it creates the more wealth it creates. The more money is held by the few the less power it has.

Now feel free to argue this point but do it with an understanding of Macro Economics. Not based on spin.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm sorry but i'm not a jellocrat, i have a spine.
Please respect that and provide me with a well thought out analysis with respect to movement of capital and how such movements of capital generate jobs and how when such vast sums of capital are withheld from the market how the markets will react.

There is no room for spin in economics. Just facts.
Try again.

Showing once again your (lack of age). No spin in economics? I thought you went to college - you're giving us the high school view of economics.

How much did you pay for your business school? Send me the same, and I'll do as you ask. My time isn't free.

In the meanwhile, you made an assertion, I shot it down. That does not obligate me to answer all your questions in life.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The long and short of it the easier money flows with in a system the more jobs it creates the more wealth it creates. The more money is held by the few the less power it has.

and it's silly that you think it flows easier when routed through the government (a single entity) rather than the private sector (300 million)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It is that government. We can still vote them out. It’s what we have.

But that is the point, with a plutarchy, that is no longer a possibility. Election campaigns are getting more and more expensive. Every cycle, more money is required to get elected. When the circle that holds the wealth gets small enough, the politicians don't matter anymore.

I am deliberately trying to look at this without a party ideology. The rest of your post is regarding poverty and I agree with your opinions regarding that issue.

As I said earlier, the problem isn't now, or in the immediate future. The problem resides in what lies at the end of the road that we are on.

I don't have an issue with people getting rich, I am relatively rich and working to get even richer. I have no delusions of eliminating poverty, it will always exist to some extent.

I do have a concern with the continued path of the widening wealth gap and the exponential accumulation of wealth by a small group (whomever that group is) at the top.

As a side note. It is that concern that underlies Warren Buffet's view on taxation.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Paris Hilton and the Kardashians come to minf...

Paris Hilton enterprises have generated millions in sales (tv shows, luxury goods, porn). No question she got a leg up to start, but she's not been sitting back living off the inheritance.

I can't figure out the fascination with the Kardiashian family, but it appears that they created the marketplace for their sordid life, much like that Tila Tequila created something out of myspace fame. It's the American way, no? Hardly different from Hollywood fame.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

And if he were to take money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and gave it to those who would spend it to buy goods and services to create jobs...he would be.....

You need to provide a list of One Billionaire that has publicly stated they hold all their currency (paper and coin money - can't count gold or art, that has to be bought) in box or bin hidden somewhere.

Then I'll take up your side

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And you know you could argue with good reason that Robin Hood helped grow the economy. By freeing that capital and giving to those who would use it to procure the most goods and services the economy grew.

Yes. Robin Hood gave the tax rebate. But how about just letting them keep the money to spend it?

By the way. Welcome, Shah, to the libertarian party. You've just given a concise statement of libetarian economics.

And if he were to take money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and gave it to those who would spend it to buy goods and services to create jobs...he would be.....



The long and short of it the easier money flows with in a system the more jobs it creates the more wealth it creates. The more money is held by the few the less power it has.

Now feel free to argue this point but do it with an understanding of Macro Economics. Not based on spin.

the velocity of money is faster the poorer you get...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Paris Hilton and the Kardashians come to minf...

Paris Hilton enterprises have generated millions in sales (tv shows, luxury goods, porn). No question she got a leg up to start, but she's not been sitting back living off the inheritance.

I can't figure out the fascination with the Kardiashian family, but it appears that they created the marketplace for their sordid life, much like that Tila Tequila created something out of myspace fame. It's the American way, no? Hardly different from Hollywood fame.

Ahh! Paris is off the hook, then. The Kardashians are famous for being famous. Bruce Jenner just gets the scraps. In an interview with Barbara Walters, Ms. Walters said; "None of you can sing, dance or act... you have no talent!" One of the Kardashian girls responded with; 'We are just being ourselves. People want to see us and how we live. It's hard... it's difficult!' Say WHAT? You gotta be kiddin' me! It's amazing but you're right... it's the American way! It's nuts!


Chuck

[shah269 0]

It is funny how people will argue against their best interests.

It is in your best interest that those who are holding the most capital either spend it or invest it in positions that create jobs within the US.

As it stands today, those with capital do actually hold on to it in terms of procuring bonds or heck just gold and if they do invest they invest in Asia due to the amazingly low cost of labor.


So let me ask a question, what's in it for you if more and more capital is held by fewer and fewer people?

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the velocity of money is faster the poorer you get...

everyday joe gets on line - picks a stock - pushes a button - spends $500 - transaction time (about a minute)

DD gets a $20 tip for an average video. Puts it in his wallet. Later that week he goes into town, gets a lap dance ($10) and a couple drinks (the other $10) - transaction time (a couple days)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

what's in it for you if more and more capital is held by fewer and fewer people?

exactly - what's in it for us if only 535 people hold all the money?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[masterrig 1]

It is in your best interest that those who are holding the most capital either spend it or invest it in positions that create jobs within the US.

Is that why, so many athletes, race car drivers, entertainers form 'charities'? To avoid a large tax bill?


Chuck

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Earlier you declared that the rich have a stranglehold on our government and will be on top forever due to military might. On that statement there is sufficient recent evidence to show it to be utterly false.

Bullshit. Read your quoted sentence. See the keyword "our"? And you guys are using some stoopid shit concerning the old USSR to refute?

For all your words, pops, I didn't see a counterargument other than a claim that America is different from every other country on earth.

And why would that be? The Soviets had a stronger hold over their people, their people were less well armed, and they had difficult time communicating, esp when in many of the Eastern block nations the informants nearly outnumbered the non. There was no military coup here.

Nor was there in Libya, or Egypt. Nor Syria or Iran...still in progress. When the people start to uprise, the powers often make the changes before it's too late. In China near Xian they have uncovered extensive lots of ceramic (Terra Cotta) soldiers, buried with a dead leader. Before that they used to bury the living...that didn't go over well for long. So they changed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Even if he gets that much money, his chances of reelection are getting slimmer by the month. No amount of campaign money is going to change that.

No amount of money can give Romney a principle he'll keep, or allow Newt to erase from memory all the things he's said and done.

But we can be assured that all 3 will spend a shitload of money trying. If you don't have a Tivo/DVR already, go get one quick, especially you unlucky saps in the battleground states.

[shah269 0]

Quote

Quote

what's in it for you if more and more capital is held by fewer and fewer people?

exactly - what's in it for us if only 535 people hold all the money?

A very dark future with little to no upward mobility in income.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Obama's reelection campaign goal is $1 Billion. That's 'billion' with a capital 'B.'

Even if he gets that much money, his chances of reelection are getting slimmer by the month. No amount of campaign money is going to change that.

You are personalizing it. Let's say one candidate has $5 Billion in campaign funds and his opposition has $1 million.

Who do you think has a much better chance of getting elected?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And if he were to take money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and gave it to those who would spend it to buy goods and services to create jobs...he would be.....

He would be choosing which forms of spending he prefers. This is called a command economy. Rather than having money spent the way the economy (which is the collective will of the people) wants it spent, the person decides to spend it on others.

You were married, Shah. Not anymore. I understand you had to pay some temporary support for your wife. Rather than you hanging on to your money and using it in a way that was no consistent with the policy of the government, your money was given to her so that she could spend it on things she wanted or needed, including doing her role to help the economy by making your life hell.

As I’ve written MANY MANY times, there are four ways of spending money. (1) spend your money on yourself; (2) spend your money on someone else; (3) spend someone else’s money on yourself; and (4) spend someone else’s money on someone else. Only (1) promotes efficiency and recognizes the individual’s needs and limitations.

Quote

The long and short of it the easier money flows with in a system the more jobs it creates the more wealth it creates.

Yep. Take a look at 2002-2008. It rocked, didn’t it? Money was flowing so easily and people were getting so wealthy that…

Quote

The more money is held by the few the less power it has.

Yes. So let’s quit consolidating a third of the economy in the federal government.

Quote

Now feel free to argue this point but do it with an understanding of Macro Economics. Not based on spin.

The critique is that money held by the wealthy flows into the economy just as easily as with the poor. Or even more so. How many poor people do not have a bank account? Instead they use money orders or cash to pay for things. Plenty. They operate on a cash basis and fundamentally have the money under the mattress until they use it. The poor – from a purely statistical analysis – don’t rotate money as freely. In fact, the poor have reason to be miserly with their money.

Compare to a trust fund baby. The trust fund kid is either spending large amounts of money (which is good for an economy) or keeping it in the bank (which is good for the economy). By keeping it in the bank, the kid is saving (which is good for him) AND has liquidity there being loaned out to others (his money is being spent by others, who repay it with interest).

This IS macroeconomics. What happens when the government says, “We’re going to take 50% of trust funds on January 1, 2012?” Here’s what macroeconomics (the neokeynesian response of DSGE models) says: there will be a rational expectation that the trust fund beneficiaries will remove their money from the banks and stash it under the mattress. This will cause a run on banks, a massive loss of liquidity, and an economic shock/crash/recession.

Changes in expectations change macroeconomic patterns. Period. And a person who thinks his wealth will be seized will take it and leave. Period.

What you fail to grasp in a macroeconomic sense is that all that money sitting in checking accounts and savings accounts is being loaned to others who are spending it. The Keynesian seeks to manage the growth so that it is slower and steadier.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shah269 0]

Very well put responce.
But I didn't pay a penny to the X wife. She asked and I told her to go fuck her self!
I'm an asshole i don't care.

OK so yes they hold their money in banks which they themselves have an interest in. The problem as I stated is that the money isn't being reinvested in the US. Most major banks make more money investing in Asia than they do in the US. And if you want to change that well you will have to make much much much less such that your income is lower than that of China.

Yes they are not sitting on huge piles of money but their money makes more money when you make less.

Case in point look at the Waltons, every penny they pay less as compinsation they take in terms of increased profits.

But you know what....the more I think about it the less I care.

The system is broken. The rich will get rich, the poor will die off and thank god I speak spanish.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It is in your best interest that those who are holding the most capital either spend it or invest it in positions that create jobs within the US

Here’s an idea, shah: don’t tell me what the hell my best fucking interests are. You are not me. You will never be me. And the only person on this PLANET who knows that it best for me is ME. Not you. Not anybody else. Well, maybe DFWAJG.

I mean seriously: do you have some degree of enlightenment that provides you with the authority and knowledge to tell me what is in my best interest? No you don’t. I’m enlightened enough to know my limitations. I don’t know what’s best for you. Perhaps it has something to do with the natural level of respect I have for people to let them make their own decisions and not tell them what they should do, what is good for them, or anything of that sort.

Is it in the best interests of those from who you want to take this money? I can tell you that answer is NO. And what is best for me is not to screw people over. That’s my value. I don’t’ want anybody moving in on what little I have. I treat others the way I want to be treated.

That’s my best interest. Not yours. Not anybody else’s.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

The critique is that money held by the wealthy flows into the economy just as easily as with the poor. Or even more so. How many poor people do not have a bank account? Instead they use money orders or cash to pay for things. Plenty. They operate on a cash basis and fundamentally have the money under the mattress until they use it. The poor – from a purely statistical analysis – don’t rotate money as freely. In fact, the poor have reason to be miserly with their money.

the poor spend their money as soon as they get it (because they don't have an excess to save) - this is known as the 'velocity' of money. the same dollar can sit in a bank for a year and do nothing. or it can be spent then spent again and again thus generating many dollars worth of trade. the rich don't 'spend' their money - they 'invest' it. they want money for their money. this is not sustainable as we have seen...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[shah269 0]

Quote

I don’t’ want anybody moving in on what little I have. I treat others the way I want to be treated.

So given your little wealth and desire to keep it...who has more power to take it away from you?
The Waltons of the big bad government.

I'll give you a little hint...it's not the government. In the long run.....it's not uncle sam. For any money he takes from you, you see right back in your life with respect to roads and clean water which will allow you to make more money and live a long life.

Now the waltons....well they will take your money....they won't give you shit back. Because well....why should they? They don't owe you a thing, who do you think they are the government?

Oh and just caught a bit on NPR, the Waltons tax rate on this money, under 10%. It's all capital gains so they pay less than if you were making $45k a eyar and lived in NJ.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

the poor spend their money as soon as they get it (because they don't have an excess to save) - this is known as the 'velocity' of money. the same dollar can sit in a bank for a year and do nothing. or it can be spent then spent again and again thus generating many dollars worth of trade. the rich don't 'spend' their money - they 'invest' it. they want money for their money. this is not sustainable as we have seen..

Correct. it's the EXACT reason why wealth cannot be built by giving money to the poor. They do not save it. It becomes money down the drain. Or, more likely, money that simply goes to people who CAN keep it. They save it and build wealth.

It's a simple idea.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

the poor spend their money as soon as they get it (because they don't have an excess to save) - this is known as the 'velocity' of money. the same dollar can sit in a bank for a year and do nothing. or it can be spent then spent again and again thus generating many dollars worth of trade. the rich don't 'spend' their money - they 'invest' it. they want money for their money. this is not sustainable as we have seen..

Correct. it's the EXACT reason why wealth cannot be built by giving money to the poor. They do not save it. It becomes money down the drain. Or, more likely, money that simply goes to people who CAN keep it. They save it and build wealth.

It's a simple idea.

the poor earn their own money. then they spend it. money spent is not 'money down the drain' - if that were the case the entire economy would be one big drain. remember that before there were rich people they were poor. there had to be wealth created by the poor in the first place for anyone to get 'rich'. once again the rich don't 'spend' their money - they loan it out to get more back. eventually the amount loaned out is so much that the economy can't pay the 'extra' interest money - result a crash as we have already seen. trickle up - not trickle down...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[shah269 0]

well put. very well put.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!