Time to crack down on them rich people

[shintao]

[irony]

Yaaaa yaaaaa yaaaaaaa - they pay nearly all the taxes, but so what? Just because they go to school longer, work harder, and are smarter, who says they should have more money than the average joe? And what do they ever do for us regular folks - besides give us jobs, provide capital for our society, and support our charities? The government should GET some of their money, and give it to us. Why? Well, because we exist. Here's the way I look at it - if you force a bank to hand over their money, it's robbery. But if the GOVERNMENT does it, it's perfectly OK, because then it's LEGAL. Funny, lots of things are like that - Madoff is going to jail for a zillion years because of running a ponzi scheme, but the government has been running a vastly bigger one for decades - social security - and just like Madoff's scheme, the last ones to put anything in are the ones to get ripped off. Isn't it amazing how all kinds of monstrous shit becomes "OK" when the government does it? It's a friggin miracle! So let's help ourselves to some of that LEGALLY gotten money from rich folks. Hell, it's like manna from heaven!!

[/irony]

It is really rough losing isn't it? Not that it is your money, you are just a retarded dummy trying to protect the rich people that fuck you over. LMAO!!!

 

[shintao]

[irony]

Yaaaa yaaaaa yaaaaaaa - they pay nearly all the taxes, but so what? Just because they go to school longer, work harder, and are smarter, who says they should have more money than the average joe? And what do they ever do for us regular folks - besides give us jobs, provide capital for our society, and support our charities? The government should GET some of their money, and give it to us. Why? Well, because we exist. Here's the way I look at it - if you force a bank to hand over their money, it's robbery. But if the GOVERNMENT does it, it's perfectly OK, because then it's LEGAL. Funny, lots of things are like that - Madoff is going to jail for a zillion years because of running a ponzi scheme, but the government has been running a vastly bigger one for decades - social security - and just like Madoff's scheme, the last ones to put anything in are the ones to get ripped off. Isn't it amazing how all kinds of monstrous shit becomes "OK" when the government does it? It's a friggin miracle! So let's help ourselves to some of that LEGALLY gotten money from rich folks. Hell, it's like manna from heaven!!

[/irony]

 

[Patrick2]

[irony]

Yaaaa yaaaaa yaaaaaaa - they pay nearly all the taxes, but so what? Just because they go to school longer, work harder, and are smarter, who says they should have more money than the average joe? And what do they ever do for us regular folks - besides give us jobs, provide capital for our society, and support our charities? The government should GET some of their money, and give it to us. Why? Well, because we exist. Here's the way I look at it - if you force a bank to hand over their money, it's robbery. But if the GOVERNMENT does it, it's perfectly OK, because then it's LEGAL. Funny, lots of things are like that - Madoff is going to jail for a zillion years because of running a ponzi scheme, but the government has been running a vastly bigger one for decades - social security - and just like Madoff's scheme, the last ones to put anything in are the ones to get ripped off. Isn't it amazing how all kinds of monstrous shit becomes "OK" when the government does it? It's a friggin miracle! So let's help ourselves to some of that LEGALLY gotten money from rich folks. Hell, it's like manna from heaven!!

[/irony]

It is really rough losing isn't it? Not that it is your money, you are just a retarded dummy trying to protect the rich people that fuck you over.

You are a loser who can't make it on your own, so you think your betters should pay for your miserable life just because you exist.

 

[shintao]

[irony]

Yaaaa yaaaaa yaaaaaaa - they pay nearly all the taxes, but so what? Just because they go to school longer, work harder, and are smarter, who says they should have more money than the average joe? And what do they ever do for us regular folks - besides give us jobs, provide capital for our society, and support our charities? The government should GET some of their money, and give it to us. Why? Well, because we exist. Here's the way I look at it - if you force a bank to hand over their money, it's robbery. But if the GOVERNMENT does it, it's perfectly OK, because then it's LEGAL. Funny, lots of things are like that - Madoff is going to jail for a zillion years because of running a ponzi scheme, but the government has been running a vastly bigger one for decades - social security - and just like Madoff's scheme, the last ones to put anything in are the ones to get ripped off. Isn't it amazing how all kinds of monstrous shit becomes "OK" when the government does it? It's a friggin miracle! So let's help ourselves to some of that LEGALLY gotten money from rich folks. Hell, it's like manna from heaven!!

[/irony]

It is really rough losing isn't it? Not that it is your money, you are just a retarded dummy trying to protect the rich people that fuck you over.

You are a loser who can't make it on your own, so you think your betters should pay for your miserable life just because you exist.

LMAO!! And you think you can intimidate me with wealth?? You are a real fucking dummy.

 

[ShackledNation]

You are completely forgetting the seller of the gold. He now has more money to invest and spend somewhere else. How does that not help the economy? You act as if when buying gold the money went into a black hole. The same is true of sellers of collectibles.

I think we were discussing activities that would grow the economy and jobs. Activities such opening a manufacturing plant, loaning money to a business to expand, or creating a new product all lead to job growth and economic expansion. Buying gold or collectibles is just an exchange of assets not likely to lead to any job growth.

That is exactly what we are discussing. And when somebody buys gold from someone else, that someone else now has the ability to perform activities such as opening a manufacturing plant, loaning money to a business, or creating a new product. The money has simply shifted hands. Investing in gold wont lead to any more or less growth in the economy because the seller of the gold will have the same amount of money to invest in other job creating projects. As I said, you are forgetting what happens after the buyer gets the gold. The seller gets the money, and then uses it himself. It doesn't disappear. You made it seem like buying gold would result in a loss of production. That is only true if sellers of gold burn their money.

The reason is simple. If we invest dollars in foreign countries, those countries can only use those dollars to buy products sold in dollars. Ultimately, those products will be from the United States. Foreign investment is not a zero-sum game.

This statement doesn't make any sense to me. If I send a million dollars to India to build a manufacturing plant. The dollars are exchanged for rupees at an Indian bank. The Indian bank sells the dollars to a US bank for rupees. The dollars are then used in US. There were no US products bought with those dollars.[/QUOTE]
No US products are bought with dollars used in the US? Even if for some reason those dollars were spent on imports (so no domestically made goods were sold), that would only mean foreign investment in the US would increase, stimulating business in the same way domestic investment would. Here is an example.

Jillian lives in Japan. Andrew lives in America. Both have 100 units of their own currency. Andrew buys $100 worth of Japanese goods. $100 has left America, and $100 worth of goods have entered it. Jillian buys no goods from America. Clearly, there is a massive trade deficit. Jillian now has $100. But to her, these dollars cannot pay her workers and other business costs because dollars are not commonly used as currency in Japan. She exchanges the $100 for 100 yen, pays her workers, and keeps the profit.

Now the Japanese Banks have $100 in reserves. This money is only useful in two ways:
1. buying American goods sold in dollars
2. investing dollars in american companies

If America produced goods Japan wanted, the trade deficit would simply be reduced as goods were bought from America. This is option number 1. However, today America is not a huge producer, so goods are not bought (thus our trade deficit).

But ultimately, this money has to get back to the US where it is actually useful. Investors in Japan exchange their own yen for the dollars in the Japanese bank reserves. They invest this money in the United States, either by funding government activities (China does this by buying US bonds) investing in US companies, or through foreign direct investment, aka outsourcing, giving US workers money to save and invest how they please, continuing the cycle. Despite exporting absolutely nothing, the US economy can still grow because of the new investment.

It is interesting to note that people complain about outsourcing jobs all the time. But in reality, due to the balance of payments, foreign countries outsource twice as many jobs to the US than we outsource to them. And these outsourced jobs are higher paying than domestic jobs. Toyota plants are an example of such investment. People often only look at one side of the balance of payments. They see that the US has a trade deficit, and deficit has negative connotations associated with it so people fear it means bad news. We export less than we import! Oh no! But they forget that we receive more investment than we give out. The money always comes back.

Hope that made some sense.

 

[jodylee]

[irony]

Yaaaa yaaaaa yaaaaaaa - they pay nearly all the taxes, but so what? Just because they go to school longer, work harder, and are smarter, who says they should have more money than the average joe? And what do they ever do for us regular folks - besides give us jobs, provide capital for our society, and support our charities? The government should GET some of their money, and give it to us. Why? Well, because we exist. Here's the way I look at it - if you force a bank to hand over their money, it's robbery. But if the GOVERNMENT does it, it's perfectly OK, because then it's LEGAL. Funny, lots of things are like that - Madoff is going to jail for a zillion years because of running a ponzi scheme, but the government has been running a vastly bigger one for decades - social security - and just like Madoff's scheme, the last ones to put anything in are the ones to get ripped off. Isn't it amazing how all kinds of monstrous shit becomes "OK" when the government does it? It's a friggin miracle! So let's help ourselves to some of that LEGALLY gotten money from rich folks. Hell, it's like manna from heaven!!

[/irony]

I think you have what is refered too as stockholm sydrome.

 

[editec]

Its time to juice up the DEMAND side of the equasion, folks.

Supply side policies are not at this time what this economy needs.

 

[rightwinger]

Its time to juice up the DEMAND side of the equasion, folks.

Supply side policies are not at this time what this economy needs.

Exactly

If people can't afford to buy...there is nothing to sell

 

[editec]

Its time to juice up the DEMAND side of the equasion, folks.

Supply side policies are not at this time what this economy needs.

Exactly

If people can't afford to buy...there is nothing to sell

The problem is that our system does not really have a good way to do that.

Redistribution of wealth by fiat violates the basic principles of the economic system we have.

To some extent, back when we had unions, the balance of power between capital formation and consumption was better.

But as we declared war on the working class's only real way of demanding their fair share of the wealth that was produced, the system has steadily been creating more capital formation than warranted.

Hence the BUBBLES in the investment world which must happen occassionally to recify the situation when there is much investment CAPITAL is chasing too few profits.

Oh and chnaging the bankruptsy laws?

ALSO a very stupid idea.

Bankruptsy laws were the emergency value that helped to mitigate the pernicious effects that compounding interest had on the working class.

the United States was had once a very fine functional balance between capital and labor. Both the working classes and the investment classes were doing splendidly.

But these foolish policies (advanced on behalf of capital) have screwed up that fine balance.

This economy is the end game of those stupid policies.


Everything the GOP wants right now is WRONG.

Not that the DEMS have a better plan far as I can tell, but the GOP's plan will actually exascerbate the problem.

 

[rightwinger]

Its time to juice up the DEMAND side of the equasion, folks.

Supply side policies are not at this time what this economy needs.

Exactly

If people can't afford to buy...there is nothing to sell

The problem is that our system does not really have a good way to do that.

Redistribution of wealth by fiat violates the basic principles of the economic system we have.

To some extent, back when we had unions, the balance of power between capital formation and consumption was better.

But as we declared war on the working class's only real way of demanding their fair share of the wealth that was produced, the system has steadily been creating more capital formation than warranted.

Hence the BUBBLES in the investment world which must happen occassionally to recify the situation when there is much investment CAPITAL is chasing too few profits.

Oh and chnaging the bankruptsy laws?

ALSO a very stupid idea.

Bankruptsy laws were the emergency value that helped to mitigate the pernicious effects that compounding interest had on the working class.

the United States was had once a very fine functional balance between capital and labor. Both the working classes and the investment classes were doing splendidly.

But these foolish policies (advanced on behalf of capital) have screwed up that fine balance.

This economy is the end game of those stupid policies.


Everything the GOP wants right now is WRONG.

Not that the DEMS have a better plan far as I can tell, but the GOP's plan will actually exascerbate the problem.

The way to redistribute wealth to the working class is not to take money and say..."Here you go, enjoy"

You redistribute wealth the same way you took it away from them. Working people do not want a handout from government. They want to be able to buy a home, send their kids to college, get medical care if they are sick, have time to spend with their families.
The same thing our fathers and grandfathers wanted from life
In the past thirty years, that has slowly been taken away from them. Home ownership is increasingly more difficult, health care can bankrupt the family, college education involves mortgaging your own and your childrens future.
Salaries have not kept up with the costs of lifes major expenditures. It is time to start giving tax breaks and subsidies for health, homes, education. Business benefits from an educated workforce, a healthy workfofce. Time for government to start subsidizing the working class rather than just the wealthiest Americans

 

[expat_panama]

The reason is simple. If we invest dollars in foreign countries, those countries can only use those dollars to buy products sold in dollars. Ultimately, those products will be from the United States. Foreign investment is not a zero-sum game.

This statement doesn't make any sense to me. If I send a million dollars to India to build a manufacturing plant. The dollars are exchanged for rupees at an Indian bank. The Indian bank sells the dollars to a US bank for rupees. The dollars are then used in US. There were no US products bought with those dollars.

Let's look at it together, and really think about it.

We're starting with you in the US with dollars in a bank and a factory builder near a bank in India with Rupees. You want a factory in India and the builder wants Rupees so you say:

Can't happen. The India bank can't get Rupees from the US becuase American banks don't have Rupees. The India bank is stuck with dollars it can't use until they can find someone with Rupees that wants to buy something in the US.

Protectionists think foreign trade is with dollars. It isn't. We don't buy Indian factories with dollars, they trade them for our goods, services, and capital assets.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The reason is simple. If we invest dollars in foreign countries, those countries can only use those dollars to buy products sold in dollars. Ultimately, those products will be from the United States. Foreign investment is not a zero-sum game.

This statement doesn't make any sense to me. If I send a million dollars to India to build a manufacturing plant. The dollars are exchanged for rupees at an Indian bank. The Indian bank sells the dollars to a US bank for rupees. The dollars are then used in US. There were no US products bought with those dollars.

Let's look at it together, and really think about it.

We're starting with you in the US with dollars in a bank and a factory builder near a bank in India with Rupees. You want a factory in India and the builder wants Rupees so you say:

Can't happen. The India bank can't get Rupees from the US becuase American banks don't have Rupees. The India bank is stuck with dollars it can't use until they can find someone with Rupees that wants to buy something in the US.

Protectionists think foreign trade is with dollars. It isn't. We don't buy Indian factories with dollars, they trade them for our goods, services, and capital assets.

Stop making sense.

 

[Flopper]

You are completely forgetting the seller of the gold. He now has more money to invest and spend somewhere else. How does that not help the economy? You act as if when buying gold the money went into a black hole. The same is true of sellers of collectibles.

I think we were discussing activities that would grow the economy and jobs. Activities such opening a manufacturing plant, loaning money to a business to expand, or creating a new product all lead to job growth and economic expansion. Buying gold or collectibles is just an exchange of assets not likely to lead to any job growth.

That is exactly what we are discussing. And when somebody buys gold from someone else, that someone else now has the ability to perform activities such as opening a manufacturing plant, loaning money to a business, or creating a new product. The money has simply shifted hands. Investing in gold wont lead to any more or less growth in the economy because the seller of the gold will have the same amount of money to invest in other job creating projects. As I said, you are forgetting what happens after the buyer gets the gold. The seller gets the money, and then uses it himself. It doesn't disappear. You made it seem like buying gold would result in a loss of production. That is only true if sellers of gold burn their money.

The reason is simple. If we invest dollars in foreign countries, those countries can only use those dollars to buy products sold in dollars. Ultimately, those products will be from the United States. Foreign investment is not a zero-sum game.

This statement doesn't make any sense to me. If I send a million dollars to India to build a manufacturing plant. The dollars are exchanged for rupees at an Indian bank. The Indian bank sells the dollars to a US bank for rupees. The dollars are then used in US. There were no US products bought with those dollars.

No US products are bought with dollars used in the US? Even if for some reason those dollars were spent on imports (so no domestically made goods were sold), that would only mean foreign investment in the US would increase, stimulating business in the same way domestic investment would. Here is an example.

Jillian lives in Japan. Andrew lives in America. Both have 100 units of their own currency. Andrew buys $100 worth of Japanese goods. $100 has left America, and $100 worth of goods have entered it. Jillian buys no goods from America. Clearly, there is a massive trade deficit. Jillian now has $100. But to her, these dollars cannot pay her workers and other business costs because dollars are not commonly used as currency in Japan. She exchanges the $100 for 100 yen, pays her workers, and keeps the profit.

Now the Japanese Banks have $100 in reserves. This money is only useful in two ways:
1. buying American goods sold in dollars
2. investing dollars in american companies

If America produced goods Japan wanted, the trade deficit would simply be reduced as goods were bought from America. This is option number 1. However, today America is not a huge producer, so goods are not bought (thus our trade deficit).

But ultimately, this money has to get back to the US where it is actually useful. Investors in Japan exchange their own yen for the dollars in the Japanese bank reserves. They invest this money in the United States, either by funding government activities (China does this by buying US bonds) investing in US companies, or through foreign direct investment, aka outsourcing, giving US workers money to save and invest how they please, continuing the cycle. Despite exporting absolutely nothing, the US economy can still grow because of the new investment.

It is interesting to note that people complain about outsourcing jobs all the time. But in reality, due to the balance of payments, foreign countries outsource twice as many jobs to the US than we outsource to them. And these outsourced jobs are higher paying than domestic jobs. Toyota plants are an example of such investment. People often only look at one side of the balance of payments. They see that the US has a trade deficit, and deficit has negative connotations associated with it so people fear it means bad news. We export less than we import! Oh no! But they forget that we receive more investment than we give out. The money always comes back.

Hope that made some sense.

I think you are forgetting that all monetary transactions are not equal when it comes to promoting economic growth. Of course the person that sells his gold could use it to build a manufacturing plant and hire workers or he just might buy treasury bills or collectibles. We can say this about almost any financial transaction. The point is there are financial transactions such as opening a manufacturing plant that will have a major impact on economic expansion and there are other transactions such as buying a rare painting which is much less likely to have any real impact. This is why economic policies encourage certain types of economic activity and discourages others.

You say ultimately, this money has to get back to the US. US trade deficits have been growing since the mid 1970’s and they don't seem to be headed toward a surplus anytime soon.

 

[expat_panama]

...The Indian bank sells the dollars to a US bank for rupees...

US banks deal in dollars not rupees.

OK, so maybe the Indian bank begs and tells the US bank that the rupees could always be exchanged for dollars in India. What happens then is the US bank official says he already has dollars and doesn't need Rupees to buy them. Eventually the only thing the Indian bank can do with the dollars is to buy US goods and sell them in India for rupees.

It's called the Balance of Payments.

 

[expat_panama]

...Stop making sense.

Wait, maybe they don't know what 'wrong' means...




Now, see if I get banned for jumping threads....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...Stop making sense.

Wait, maybe they don't know what 'wrong' means...




Now, see if I get banned for jumping threads....

If you leave John Williams alone, I'm sure you'll be okay.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh those poor poor billionaires.

They are the whipping boys of the USA.

See their suffering?

They're crying all the way to the bank.

Idiot.

Taking away their subsidies would only garner aprox $3 bil/yr.

Take away all the payouts to Dem sacred cow programs would be about $150 bil a month.

I know. You dump yours and we'll dump ours and see what happens.

 

[ShackledNation]

I think we were discussing activities that would grow the economy and jobs. Activities such opening a manufacturing plant, loaning money to a business to expand, or creating a new product all lead to job growth and economic expansion. Buying gold or collectibles is just an exchange of assets not likely to lead to any job growth.

That is exactly what we are discussing. And when somebody buys gold from someone else, that someone else now has the ability to perform activities such as opening a manufacturing plant, loaning money to a business, or creating a new product. The money has simply shifted hands. Investing in gold wont lead to any more or less growth in the economy because the seller of the gold will have the same amount of money to invest in other job creating projects. As I said, you are forgetting what happens after the buyer gets the gold. The seller gets the money, and then uses it himself. It doesn't disappear. You made it seem like buying gold would result in a loss of production. That is only true if sellers of gold burn their money.


This statement doesn't make any sense to me. If I send a million dollars to India to build a manufacturing plant. The dollars are exchanged for rupees at an Indian bank. The Indian bank sells the dollars to a US bank for rupees. The dollars are then used in US. There were no US products bought with those dollars.

No US products are bought with dollars used in the US? Even if for some reason those dollars were spent on imports (so no domestically made goods were sold), that would only mean foreign investment in the US would increase, stimulating business in the same way domestic investment would. Here is an example.

Jillian lives in Japan. Andrew lives in America. Both have 100 units of their own currency. Andrew buys $100 worth of Japanese goods. $100 has left America, and $100 worth of goods have entered it. Jillian buys no goods from America. Clearly, there is a massive trade deficit. Jillian now has $100. But to her, these dollars cannot pay her workers and other business costs because dollars are not commonly used as currency in Japan. She exchanges the $100 for 100 yen, pays her workers, and keeps the profit.

Now the Japanese Banks have $100 in reserves. This money is only useful in two ways:
1. buying American goods sold in dollars
2. investing dollars in american companies

If America produced goods Japan wanted, the trade deficit would simply be reduced as goods were bought from America. This is option number 1. However, today America is not a huge producer, so goods are not bought (thus our trade deficit).

But ultimately, this money has to get back to the US where it is actually useful. Investors in Japan exchange their own yen for the dollars in the Japanese bank reserves. They invest this money in the United States, either by funding government activities (China does this by buying US bonds) investing in US companies, or through foreign direct investment, aka outsourcing, giving US workers money to save and invest how they please, continuing the cycle. Despite exporting absolutely nothing, the US economy can still grow because of the new investment.

It is interesting to note that people complain about outsourcing jobs all the time. But in reality, due to the balance of payments, foreign countries outsource twice as many jobs to the US than we outsource to them. And these outsourced jobs are higher paying than domestic jobs. Toyota plants are an example of such investment. People often only look at one side of the balance of payments. They see that the US has a trade deficit, and deficit has negative connotations associated with it so people fear it means bad news. We export less than we import! Oh no! But they forget that we receive more investment than we give out. The money always comes back.

Hope that made some sense.

I think you are forgetting that all monetary transactions are not equal when it comes to promoting economic growth. Of course the person that sells his gold could use it to build a manufacturing plant and hire workers or he just might buy treasury bills or collectibles. We can say this about almost any financial transaction. The point is there are financial transactions such as opening a manufacturing plant that will have a major impact on economic expansion and there are other transactions such as buying a rare painting which is much less likely to have any real impact. This is why economic policies encourage certain types of economic activity and discourages others.

You arent looking at the big picture. If I buy a rare painting, the seller now has more money to invest in what you see as more favorable transactions. If I have no clue how to invest, but the seller of the painting is a great investor, then buying the painting would help me and the painter as well as the economy. Where do you think people get money to make these economy growing transactions? The purpose of production is consumption. If everyone invested in factories and never bought the trinkets it made, the factory would be useless. Free markets ensure production results in what people demand.

You say ultimately, this money has to get back to the US. US trade deficits have been growing since the mid 1970’s and they don't seem to be headed toward a surplus anytime soon.

Because the money comes back through foreign investment, not the purchase of US exports. Hence why the US insources more jobs than it outsources. We have a trade deficit but a capital account surplus. Trade deficits are not necessarily a bad thing because it means more companies are investing in us. The greater the trade deficit, the greater the capital account surplus, meaning a greater number of investments from abroad.

 

[Lovebears65]

Everyone bashes the rich but they are the ones who are providing us with the jobs. Even the die hard Liberal business owners ( steve wynn) says that Obama has been the worst president for business owners.

 

[rightwinger]

Everyone bashes the rich but they are the ones who are providing us with the jobs. Even the die hard Liberal business owners ( steve wynn) says that Obama has been the worst president for business owners.

Nobody gives you a job. It is not an act of charity on their part. You perform labor and they make a profit off of your labor. They draw more from the relationship than you do.

The tired screed that if we aren't nice to rich people they will stop giving us jobs is nonsense