Interesting that you are having trouble with simple math as well as basic economics (also, a small error in thinking that employers are all rich but we'll leave that one alone for now). There are far more people with less money that must spend that $100 for the basic necessities of life. More people spending money means more money for the grocer or the hardware store owner who then will hire more people. That's the simple math part. There just aren't enough wealthy people to sustain an economy.
The economic component that you fail to note (once again) is demand. Hiring increases when demand increases. Ask a small business owner which they would rather have...investment from a "job creator" or an increase in their customer base? If they have the latter, they don't need the former.
The bigger picture here, though, is that you seem to not understand that the wealthy person has a choice. They could put that 100 dollars in savings. They don't really have to spend it. They might invest it, sure, but in what? Money? Someone who is poor does not have a choice. They have to use that 100 dollars to survive
One more item to note...for all the talk about how much the Right hates the aristocracy, you guys sure seem to embrace it in terms of economics. In fact, it's quite reminiscent of the antebellum south's structure, no?
You twit. What do you think banks do with deposits? Put it in giant Scrooge McDuck-like vaults and swim in it? No, they loan it out. Which is to say, they invest it.
You really do know what the insides of the windows of the short bus taste like, don't you? What a maroon.
Buildings. Tools and equipment. Inventory. Hiring employees. Training.
Only AFTER those things are done is there any chance for profit. And that's not guaranteed.
Put simply: No investment = no hiring = no jobs.
The wealthy are necessary for a functional economy. Money they save (which is invested indirectly) or explicitly invested means a business is being given the resources to grow, which usually involves hiring employees. If there are no wealthy, there is no investment which means no jobs.
If you strip the wealthy of their money, you destroy their ability to invest, which is the just another way to say you destroy their ability to create jobs.
That's quite a myth you bought into about liberals wanting to strip the wealthy of their money. Did it ever occur to you that there are many liberals that are wealthy and don't want their money stripped? So, the first thing that has to happen here is getting rid of this lie. This comes from rent seekers who want to enjoy free shit from the government. I was under the impression you didn't like folks like that so why do you worship them? Dominion Christianity?
Wealthy people do less to help our economy than all the rest of us, including poor people. There are simply more of us than there are of them. The middle class is the engine that fuels our economy and if they have more money, guess what? Rich people make more money. Funny how that works...
Not surprisingly, you are lying again, NMN. The other part you are leaving out is the effective rate that the wealthy pay which is less than what you and I pay. Or none, in the case of the 4,000 or so very wealthy people who pay no tax (see: the 47 percent). I guess when Ronald Reagan asked for them to pay their fair share it was OK.
And how did the wealthy get that way? Rent seeking...that's the other lie of omission here. The biggest moochers in our society are the wealthy, not the hard working poor. No doubt, there is stripping going on but it's of opportunity which is more valuable than wealth. The good news is that the wealthy are starting to wake up and seeing that they can't enjoy their wealth with this much inequality in our country. It's going to change, whether you like it or not, just as Stiglitz predicted. An End Times sign if there ever was one...an end to people listening to you.
The other part you are leaving out is the effective rate that the wealthy pay which is less than what you and I pay.
Really? You don't have savings based on investments?
That still doesn't change the FACT that you could take every single cent from "the wealthy" and that it could not fund our government's insatiable appetite for a year. Nor does it change the FACT that you keep demanding that they pay more, and more, and more, and more.
And how did the wealthy get that way? Rent seeking...that's the other lie of omission here
You're projecting again. You're the one lying by claiming that all wealth is generated by rent seeking, and that we're fine with it. Yes, many of the largest companies engage in rent-seeking activity, but to claim that ALL wealth is generated via rent seeking is flat out idiotic.
You often accuse those of us on the conservative side of being in lock-step. When it comes to reducing the size of government, we are generally in close agreement with each other.
That's why, when one of us says something like this, it's safe to say that we all agree:
You want to use the feds to eliminate rent seeking? By how? Giving them legal, financial and regulatory power? That same legal, financial and regulatory power that makes them the preferred avenue for the same rent seeking you wish to limit?
You want to limit rent seeking you take that power away from the government - not give them more. — GuardDuck, December 2012 (Be sure to read the rest of that thread. Also see here and here.)
Notice a couple of things here. First, the basis of this argument is that rent seeking is wrong. Second, the only way to end rent seeking is to return the government to its Constitutional boundaries where it could not act in ways that make rent seeking worthwhile. And that is something we ALL have argued for in no uncertain terms.
So let me say it for myself: Rent seeking is wrong. (Why don't you complain about leftist companies like GE and leftists like Warren Buffet doing it?) The problem with our current federal overregulation is that not only does it encourage rent seeking by the unethical, it demands it even from companies which would rather not engage in it just as a matter of sheer self-defense. (Apple is an example of the latter.) It needs to be stopped, and the only effective method of doing so is to make sure the government has only enough power to fight fraud and other crimes, but not enough to pick winners and losers.
This article does a great job of addressing why you (and the Pope) are wrong and why a genuinely free market (which must also be free of force and fraud to actually be free) is best for everyone.
Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. With the rise of capitalism, it became possible to amass great wealth by serving and pleasing your fellow man. Capitalists seek to discover what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible as a means to profit. … There are literally thousands of examples of how mankind’s life has been made better by those in the pursuit of profits. Here’s my question to you: Are people who, by their actions, created unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and a more pleasant life for the ordinary person — and became wealthy in the process — deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals, politicians and now the pope?
…
Try polling people with a few questions. Ask them what services they are more satisfied with and what they are less satisfied with. On the “more satisfied” list would be profit-making enterprises, such as supermarkets, theaters, clothing stores and computer stores. They’d find less satisfaction with services provided by nonprofit government organizations, such as public schools, post offices and departments of motor vehicles.
Profits force entrepreneurs to find ways to please people in the most efficient ways or go out of business. Of course, they can mess up and stay in business if they can get government to bail them out or give them protection against competition [rent seeking].
Actually, I disagree with the Pope and his views on capitalism but I guess I should expect you to understand the nuances, NMN. We're all socialists who believe in utopia and want to send freedom lovers to internment camps, right?
Actually, I disagree with the Pope and his views on capitalism
Then you should probably stop posting his quotes and titling them as 'good words' lest we be misinformed that your Marxist leanings aren't approving of the Popes misguided views of economics.
Oh wait, maybe by nuances you actually meant that you don't think the Pope leans left enough for you to approve.
The last time I checked, fellers, the Catholic Church was a private organization. So, if they want to redistribute their wealth, they can do whatever they want, right? The Pope's general call for Christians to be more generous with their wealth actually works in your favor. If the wealthy voluntarily attacked inequality in the world, governments wouldn't have to set policies to mitigate this problem. You guys would know this if you truly believed in the "constrained vision" but you actually don't.
Where I part ways with the pope is criticism of capitalism. It is the best "worst" system out there and has proven time and again to raise prosperity in the world. It is abused, of course, and the pope would have been better served in being critical of the slide towards anarcho-capitalism and Randian self interest.
If the wealthy voluntarily attacked inequality in the world, governments wouldn't have to set policies to mitigate this problem.
I love how you contradict yourself within one sentence!
"Private charity is the way to go. But it's not enough so let's do socialism!"
You really are a piece of work. Here's a hint, Mark: It's far easier to avoid contradicting yourself by keeping track of truth and reality than fantasy.
18 comments:
I would really like to see Mark answer one of those questions; specifically, the last one:
Which one do you think will produce more jobs?
In other words, which one will hire someone to do a job, pay their wages, provide their equipment, etc.?
Seriously M, your understanding of economics and capital is underwhelming. Try again.
Interesting that you are having trouble with simple math as well as basic economics (also, a small error in thinking that employers are all rich but we'll leave that one alone for now). There are far more people with less money that must spend that $100 for the basic necessities of life. More people spending money means more money for the grocer or the hardware store owner who then will hire more people. That's the simple math part. There just aren't enough wealthy people to sustain an economy.
The economic component that you fail to note (once again) is demand. Hiring increases when demand increases. Ask a small business owner which they would rather have...investment from a "job creator" or an increase in their customer base? If they have the latter, they don't need the former.
The bigger picture here, though, is that you seem to not understand that the wealthy person has a choice. They could put that 100 dollars in savings. They don't really have to spend it. They might invest it, sure, but in what? Money? Someone who is poor does not have a choice. They have to use that 100 dollars to survive
One more item to note...for all the talk about how much the Right hates the aristocracy, you guys sure seem to embrace it in terms of economics. In fact, it's quite reminiscent of the antebellum south's structure, no?
You twit. What do you think banks do with deposits? Put it in giant Scrooge McDuck-like vaults and swim in it? No, they loan it out. Which is to say, they invest it.
You really do know what the insides of the windows of the short bus taste like, don't you? What a maroon.
How many iPads did Apple sell this year? How many did they sell twenty years ago?
Hmmm, funny. Are you saying there was no demand for iPads twenty years ago?
Demand does not innovate or create. If left to demand only you would be spending your few silver Drachmas on home-spun wool clothing.
Where did this magical $100 come from that is to be given to either the poor or the wealthy?
They might invest it, sure, but in what?
Buildings. Tools and equipment. Inventory. Hiring employees. Training.
Only AFTER those things are done is there any chance for profit. And that's not guaranteed.
Put simply: No investment = no hiring = no jobs.
The wealthy are necessary for a functional economy. Money they save (which is invested indirectly) or explicitly invested means a business is being given the resources to grow, which usually involves hiring employees. If there are no wealthy, there is no investment which means no jobs.
If you strip the wealthy of their money, you destroy their ability to invest, which is the just another way to say you destroy their ability to create jobs.
That's quite a myth you bought into about liberals wanting to strip the wealthy of their money. Did it ever occur to you that there are many liberals that are wealthy and don't want their money stripped? So, the first thing that has to happen here is getting rid of this lie. This comes from rent seekers who want to enjoy free shit from the government. I was under the impression you didn't like folks like that so why do you worship them? Dominion Christianity?
Wealthy people do less to help our economy than all the rest of us, including poor people. There are simply more of us than there are of them. The middle class is the engine that fuels our economy and if they have more money, guess what? Rich people make more money. Funny how that works...
That's quite a myth you bought into about liberals wanting to strip the wealthy of their money
Explain the concept of progressive taxation then....
The problem with the tax cuts (and the tax system as a whole) is that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share.
— Markadelphia, October 2011
…it is true that the richest 5 percent of Americans pay 57 percent of all income taxes…
— Markadelphia
If the 5% wealthiest paying 57% of all taxes is not enough, then how are you not wanting to "strip the wealthy of their money"?
Even if you did take every single cent from the wealthy, there is still no way that money could pay for all your deficit spending. Period.
Not surprisingly, you are lying again, NMN. The other part you are leaving out is the effective rate that the wealthy pay which is less than what you and I pay. Or none, in the case of the 4,000 or so very wealthy people who pay no tax (see: the 47 percent). I guess when Ronald Reagan asked for them to pay their fair share it was OK.
And how did the wealthy get that way? Rent seeking...that's the other lie of omission here. The biggest moochers in our society are the wealthy, not the hard working poor. No doubt, there is stripping going on but it's of opportunity which is more valuable than wealth. The good news is that the wealthy are starting to wake up and seeing that they can't enjoy their wealth with this much inequality in our country. It's going to change, whether you like it or not, just as Stiglitz predicted. An End Times sign if there ever was one...an end to people listening to you.
The other part you are leaving out is the effective rate that the wealthy pay which is less than what you and I pay.
Really? You don't have savings based on investments?
That still doesn't change the FACT that you could take every single cent from "the wealthy" and that it could not fund our government's insatiable appetite for a year. Nor does it change the FACT that you keep demanding that they pay more, and more, and more, and more.
And how did the wealthy get that way? Rent seeking...that's the other lie of omission here
You're projecting again. You're the one lying by claiming that all wealth is generated by rent seeking, and that we're fine with it. Yes, many of the largest companies engage in rent-seeking activity, but to claim that ALL wealth is generated via rent seeking is flat out idiotic.
You often accuse those of us on the conservative side of being in lock-step. When it comes to reducing the size of government, we are generally in close agreement with each other.
That's why, when one of us says something like this, it's safe to say that we all agree:
You want to use the feds to eliminate rent seeking? By how? Giving them legal, financial and regulatory power? That same legal, financial and regulatory power that makes them the preferred avenue for the same rent seeking you wish to limit?
You want to limit rent seeking you take that power away from the government - not give them more.
— GuardDuck, December 2012 (Be sure to read the rest of that thread. Also see here and here.)
Notice a couple of things here. First, the basis of this argument is that rent seeking is wrong. Second, the only way to end rent seeking is to return the government to its Constitutional boundaries where it could not act in ways that make rent seeking worthwhile. And that is something we ALL have argued for in no uncertain terms.
So let me say it for myself: Rent seeking is wrong. (Why don't you complain about leftist companies like GE and leftists like Warren Buffet doing it?) The problem with our current federal overregulation is that not only does it encourage rent seeking by the unethical, it demands it even from companies which would rather not engage in it just as a matter of sheer self-defense. (Apple is an example of the latter.) It needs to be stopped, and the only effective method of doing so is to make sure the government has only enough power to fight fraud and other crimes, but not enough to pick winners and losers.
This article does a great job of addressing why you (and the Pope) are wrong and why a genuinely free market (which must also be free of force and fraud to actually be free) is best for everyone.
Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. With the rise of capitalism, it became possible to amass great wealth by serving and pleasing your fellow man. Capitalists seek to discover what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible as a means to profit. … There are literally thousands of examples of how mankind’s life has been made better by those in the pursuit of profits. Here’s my question to you: Are people who, by their actions, created unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and a more pleasant life for the ordinary person — and became wealthy in the process — deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals, politicians and now the pope?
…
Try polling people with a few questions. Ask them what services they are more satisfied with and what they are less satisfied with. On the “more satisfied” list would be profit-making enterprises, such as supermarkets, theaters, clothing stores and computer stores. They’d find less satisfaction with services provided by nonprofit government organizations, such as public schools, post offices and departments of motor vehicles.
Profits force entrepreneurs to find ways to please people in the most efficient ways or go out of business. Of course, they can mess up and stay in business if they can get government to bail them out or give them protection against competition [rent seeking].
Actually, I disagree with the Pope and his views on capitalism but I guess I should expect you to understand the nuances, NMN. We're all socialists who believe in utopia and want to send freedom lovers to internment camps, right?
Actually, I disagree with the Pope and his views on capitalism
Then you should probably stop posting his quotes and titling them as 'good words' lest we be misinformed that your Marxist leanings aren't approving of the Popes misguided views of economics.
Oh wait, maybe by nuances you actually meant that you don't think the Pope leans left enough for you to approve.
Then you should probably stop posting his quotes and titling them as 'good words'…
Or posting assertions that the Pope's Marxist views are "true Christianity".
The last time I checked, fellers, the Catholic Church was a private organization. So, if they want to redistribute their wealth, they can do whatever they want, right? The Pope's general call for Christians to be more generous with their wealth actually works in your favor. If the wealthy voluntarily attacked inequality in the world, governments wouldn't have to set policies to mitigate this problem.
You guys would know this if you truly believed in the "constrained vision" but you actually don't.
Where I part ways with the pope is criticism of capitalism. It is the best "worst" system out there and has proven time and again to raise prosperity in the world. It is abused, of course, and the pope would have been better served in being critical of the slide towards anarcho-capitalism and Randian self interest.
If the wealthy voluntarily attacked inequality in the world, governments wouldn't have to set policies to mitigate this problem.
I love how you contradict yourself within one sentence!
"Private charity is the way to go. But it's not enough so let's do socialism!"
You really are a piece of work. Here's a hint, Mark: It's far easier to avoid contradicting yourself by keeping track of truth and reality than fantasy.
Post a Comment