War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Skull Pilot]

Once again, if the distribution of wealth is not a zero sum game, why do businesses fight so hard against raising the minimum wage, I mean,

according to you people, it's not going to come of their pockets!

Once again tell me how someone else's net worth affects your net worth.

 

[Skull Pilot]

False....

every two bit banana republic has a concentration of wealth in the top percentage of society.

so yes, what you're saying is a proven lie.

So you think wealth is finite, then?

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Yeah that works if you only live for one year but most people live a lot longer than that.

There is no limit to how high your net worth can be and no one is stopping you from increasing yours.

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, you can't point to ONE state or nation to EVER use that Ayn Rand bullshit!

No more than you can name ONE state that has EVER used that Karl Marx bullshit you push.

What's sad is that you are such a dullard that you think you're scoring points, rather than simply highlighting your own ignorance.

Marx huh? lol

"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."

- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower” 1952 in his refusal to lower the top tax rate on the rich from 91%

 

[Skull Pilot]

Got it, you can't point to ONE state or nation to EVER use that Ayn Rand bullshit!

No more than you can name ONE state that has EVER used that Karl Marx bullshit you push.

What's sad is that you are such a dullard that you think you're scoring points, rather than simply highlighting your own ignorance.

Marx huh? lol

"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."

- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower” 1952 in his refusal to lower the top tax rate on the rich from 91%

God forbid we spend less money

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

I can't imagine how far removed from actually producing anything of value you'd have to be to think that wealth is infinite. You probably think that money somehow just generates more money.

SO what limits your net worth? If someone else's net worth increases does yours decrease?

Is it what someone else makes? How does one person's salary influence how much your salary can be?

In any industry or or company, there's a certain sized market. That market can be grown to some degree but generally, individual industries or companies grow by increasing their market share. Within a company, the generally finite amount of money that's earned is distributed in some way to the people within it. If one guy gets more than he deserves, everybody else gets less. The difficulty is in determining a fair distribution.

You've shifted your analysis from "wealth" as an abstract concept, which is indeed unlimited, to wealth in the context of an individual corporation or industry.
That's a fallacy.

Well, if you never progress beyond the abstract then nothing is finite. But when the rubber meets the road, there are very finite limits to wealth.

When the chips are down dinner is served.

 

[Dad2three]

Once again, if the distribution of wealth is not a zero sum game, why do businesses fight so hard against raising the minimum wage, I mean,

according to you people, it's not going to come of their pockets!

Once again tell me how someone else's net worth affects your net worth.

The pie ALWAYS has ONLY 100%

1945-1980 THE TOP 1% HAD 6%-9% OF all us INCOME, BY 2007, THEY took 23%




Trickle down economics and lower taxes on the wealthy are synonymous with 'Banana Republic' which is exactly where we're headed with right wing republican policies. Banana Republics are also run by the 1% elite, not democracies. Given the opportunity that's exactly how the right wing would like it here in the USA and they'll do anything to get to that point - lie, cheat and steal. What baffles me is just how many of the American working class believe the republican rhetoric that they represent them when it couldn't be further from the truth. What a travesty!

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, you can't point to ONE state or nation to EVER use that Ayn Rand bullshit!

No more than you can name ONE state that has EVER used that Karl Marx bullshit you push.

What's sad is that you are such a dullard that you think you're scoring points, rather than simply highlighting your own ignorance.

Marx huh? lol

"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."

- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower” 1952 in his refusal to lower the top tax rate on the rich from 91%

God forbid we spend less money

How did austerity work out in Europe again? lol

 

[The Rabbi]

You people are song and dancing around semantics because you can't cope with the core argument.

The distribution of a nation's produced wealth determines who is Rich, who is Poor, and who is in between.

Wow, did you come up with that brilliant insight all on your own?

 

[The Rabbi]

Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society".

That is the definition/usage I was using. We can either argue about whether Adam Smith and I are misusing the word,

or, we could get back on topic. It's up to you.

We are talking about the wealth of people not of nations.

You do realize that any wealth the US government has is not yours don't you?

The wealth of people is their net worth is it not?

BTW the answer to my question I asked earlier was $1 if you couldn't figure it out.

Don't tell me what I'm talking about.

Nation - a large aggregrate of people.

Your entire premise is that your wealth is limited by someone else.

Your wealth has nothing to do with the nation's wealth and everything to do with your net worth.

Just curious are you a multi-millionaire?

Doesn't matter

So now tell me how did my increase in net worth in the past 12 months affect your net worth?

Yes. You must have taken that money from someone else.
See how that works?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Once again, if the distribution of wealth is not a zero sum game, why do businesses fight so hard against raising the minimum wage, I mean,

according to you people, it's not going to come of their pockets!

Once again tell me how someone else's net worth affects your net worth.

The pie ALWAYS has ONLY 100%

1945-1980 THE TOP 1% HAD 6%-9% OF all us INCOME, BY 2007, THEY took 23%




Trickle down economics and lower taxes on the wealthy are synonymous with 'Banana Republic' which is exactly where we're headed with right wing republican policies. Banana Republics are also run by the 1% elite, not democracies. Given the opportunity that's exactly how the right wing would like it here in the USA and they'll do anything to get to that point - lie, cheat and steal. What baffles me is just how many of the American working class believe the republican rhetoric that they represent them when it couldn't be further from the truth. What a travesty!

If the pie gets bigger every year then it is not finite.

It is only finite in retrospect if you live in one year increments.

And no one is taking money from you or stopping you from increasing your net worth.

 

[Dad2three]

False....

every two bit banana republic has a concentration of wealth in the top percentage of society.

so yes, what you're saying is a proven lie.

So you think wealth is finite, then?

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Yeah that works if you only live for one year but most people live a lot longer than that.

There is no limit to how high your net worth can be and no one is stopping you from increasing yours.

To bad most credible economists agree with me and think you are full of it!

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[The Rabbi]

Once again, if the distribution of wealth is not a zero sum game, why do businesses fight so hard against raising the minimum wage, I mean,

according to you people, it's not going to come of their pockets!

Once again tell me how someone else's net worth affects your net worth.

The pie ALWAYS has ONLY 100%

1945-1980 THE TOP 1% HAD 6%-9% OF all us INCOME, BY 2007, THEY took 23%




Trickle down economics and lower taxes on the wealthy are synonymous with 'Banana Republic' which is exactly where we're headed with right wing republican policies. Banana Republics are also run by the 1% elite, not democracies. Given the opportunity that's exactly how the right wing would like it here in the USA and they'll do anything to get to that point - lie, cheat and steal. What baffles me is just how many of the American working class believe the republican rhetoric that they represent them when it couldn't be further from the truth. What a travesty!

If the pie gets bigger every year then it is not finite.

It is only finite in retrospect if you live in one year increments.

And no one is taking money from you or stopping you from increasing your net worth.

No, see. You only get money by getting it from someone else: an employer, a customer, or the like. When he pays you, he has less and you have more.
I swear they really do think this way.

 

[Skull Pilot]

False....

every two bit banana republic has a concentration of wealth in the top percentage of society.

so yes, what you're saying is a proven lie.

So you think wealth is finite, then?

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Yeah that works if you only live for one year but most people live a lot longer than that.

There is no limit to how high your net worth can be and no one is stopping you from increasing yours.

To bad most credible economists agree with me and think you are full of it!

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

What does my statement about net worth have to do with any of the drivel you just posted?

Now tell me who is stopping you from increasing your net worth?

 

[hazlnut]

No need in chronicling the various left-wing memes, we see them daily being presented as "arguments" for justifying this insidious war against the wealthy. Form the anti-capitalists bemoaning "multi-national corporations" to the Occutards who seem to think "Wall Street" is this lumbering out-of-control monster that is gobbling up everyone's wealth except for the wealthiest. Oh... and those evil "bankers" who simply have all this unlimited supply of money and won't willingly hand it out to deadbeat liberals because they are just mean and greedy.

On and on, these people have convinced themselves that it's a great idea and 'noble cause' to wage all-out war on the rich. It is arguably the most stupid political idea ever in the history of mankind, and I am here to tell you why.

The first and foremost reason is, it's a losing strategy. In fact, it is worse of a boondoggle than Vietnam ever could have hoped to be. It's literally a war that cannot ever be won. Rich people, it just so happens, are very smart when it comes to their wealth. This fact of the matter has prompted the formation of such sayings as... "A fool and his money are soon parted." Their ability to be one step ahead of you is astonishing and impressive to say the least. No matter how much you may believe that we can use the forces of government to confiscate the wealth of the rich, it ain't ever going to happen. The more you try, the more you fail.

What you manage to do in the process is bomb your own facilities and resources. You plant land mines for unsuspecting middle-income people trying to obtain wealth through small business. You rig booby-traps for poor people who are struggling to get to middle-income with better jobs. The so-called "rich" are rarely ever affected by your actions. They simply remain a few moves ahead of you, and we never touch their wealth.

Okay, so we're going to "punish" these wealthy people and corporations by burdening them with high income taxes and corporate tax, more regulations and fines, more penalties and fees... but it never works. Tax the rich person's earned income more and they stop earning income, because they are rich and don't have to earn income anymore. Make it harder for a corporation and they close the doors or move someplace else. More regulations, mandates, burdens... they simply eliminate jobs. Obamacare alone is responsible for trillions of dollars in potential raises and bonuses for the middle-income that will never be realized now. You see, you gifted to them the ultimate excuse... "no pay raise this year... Obamacare!"

Wall Street is a location in New York City, it's where capitalists go to trade public stocks with each other in our free market capitalist system. All the crap we hear about Wall Street would lead one to believe a silver stake is needed to kill this horrible evil creature who is destroying us all. If we don't have this location in NYC where capitalists can freely trade their public stocks, what do you think will take the place of it? Because, capitalists are still going to be capitalists, it's what they do. So think about that for a moment, and explain to me what you envision the alternative would be to a Wall Street?

Okay, so we're going to "punish" all these greedy capitalists on Wall Street by implementing all sorts of trade restrictions and penalties, heap more hassle and burden on them to prevent them capitalizing TOO much... Wrong! What you are going to do is force capitalists away from your market and allow foreign markets to obtain a portion of their wealth instead. *You see, as much as you may hate the rich, other countries seem to really LIKE the rich. (*I mention this for the sheeple out there who like to follow what other countries do.)

For the past 8 years of this de facto "war against the rich" being waged by the left, we've managed to keep the economy floating by borrowing and printing more money. We've infused trillions of dollars so far, and will continue to do this as long as Obama and the Democrats are in charge politically. Now this is all money we will have to repay at some point, but for now, it's keeping the economy of America from going tits up. As this has happened, the screws have been tightened on the 'rich greedy capitalists' but the results are not forthcoming. In fact, they are moving in the opposite direction rather rapidly. Wealthy capitalists are at least two moves ahead at all times. It's how they got to be rich, for the most part.

So, ostensibly, you are waging a war you can't win against an enemy who cannot be defeated. In the process, you are destroying yourself and your only remaining resources. You will only be able to borrow and print for so long to float the economy. The only proven thing in the history of man to ever recover any failing economy is free market capitalism. Some will brazenly claim "Keynesianism" has worked, but the only times where Keynes policies ever were successful, were under a ripe and ready capitalist economy. You can't have Keynesianism without Capitalism, the numbers simply don't work.

Oh, but what about the terrible growing disparity in wealth? Well, what about that? Okay, imagine a marathon race... this represents the acquisition of wealth. In the marathon are competitors who are well-trained athletes, who know how to win, who have trained hard to win, and will ultimately be in a position to win. Also, we have some couch potatoes who have never had much interest in the race, they are just there for the free gatorade. Then there are a whole bunch of people in the middle, who are not couch potatoes or athletes, but honestly hope to be able to compete and do well in the race. Now.... logically speaking, who is going to likely lead this race and extend their lead as the race progresses? Is there ever going to be a time where the couch potatoes are gaining more ground on the athletes and catching up, or are the athletes always going to be pulling away?

The point of the analogy is, the wealthy naturally become wealthier at a faster rate than the poor. So, this "gap" is normal in a free capitalist system and it's normal for the "gap" to continue to grow. Now, what can be done about this? Well, one thing that doesn't ever work is to hobble the athlete so the couch potatoes can catch up, because the couch potato is only interested in free gatorade, they had just as soon not race at all. The best alternative to deal with this growing disparity is to motivate the couch potato. Get them into the race. They may not ever win, they may not ever catch the athlete, but if they are at least competing, they are improving the situation and limiting the growing disparity. At the same time, you encourage the athletes to mentor the competitors in the middle who earnestly want to learn to be a better athlete. There are any number of free market ways to do this, we just need to explore those possibilities. But we first need to take the ball and chain off the legs of the athletes and admit this is a stupid idea.

Or now.... We CAN do as Chairman Mao tried to do in China... Gather all the rich greedy capitalists in front of an open ditch and put a bullet in their head, confiscate their assets and try to implement anti-capitalism as a legitimate form of government. Last time, it resulted in 70 million deaths and still didn't work.

I guess the dopey OP didn't get the memo --

Sorry, Folks, Rich People Don't Create The Jobs

So, if rich people don't create the jobs, what does?

A healthy economic ecosystem — one in which most participants (especially the middle class) have plenty of money to spend. This ecosystem starts with the company's customers.

The company's customers buy the company's products. This, in turn, channels money to the company and allows the company to hire employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If the company's customers and potential customers go broke, the demand for the company's products will collapse. And the company's jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneurs or investors do.

Yes, entrepreneurs are an important part of the company-creation process. And, yes, so are investors, who risk capital in the hope of earning returns. But, ultimately, whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of the company's customers' ability to pay for the company's products, not the entrepreneur's vision or risk-tolerance or the investor's capital.

Saying "rich people create the jobs" is like saying that seeds create trees. Seeds do not create trees. Seeds start trees. But what actually grows and sustains trees is the combination of the DNA in the seed and the soil, sunshine, water, atmosphere, nutrients, and other factors in the environment that nurture them. If you think seeds create trees, try planting seeds in an inhospitable environment. Plant a seed in a desert or on Mars, and the seed won't create anything. It will die.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No need in chronicling the various left-wing memes, we see them daily being presented as "arguments" for justifying this insidious war against the wealthy. Form the anti-capitalists bemoaning "multi-national corporations" to the Occutards who seem to think "Wall Street" is this lumbering out-of-control monster that is gobbling up everyone's wealth except for the wealthiest. Oh... and those evil "bankers" who simply have all this unlimited supply of money and won't willingly hand it out to deadbeat liberals because they are just mean and greedy.

On and on, these people have convinced themselves that it's a great idea and 'noble cause' to wage all-out war on the rich. It is arguably the most stupid political idea ever in the history of mankind, and I am here to tell you why.

The first and foremost reason is, it's a losing strategy. In fact, it is worse of a boondoggle than Vietnam ever could have hoped to be. It's literally a war that cannot ever be won. Rich people, it just so happens, are very smart when it comes to their wealth. This fact of the matter has prompted the formation of such sayings as... "A fool and his money are soon parted." Their ability to be one step ahead of you is astonishing and impressive to say the least. No matter how much you may believe that we can use the forces of government to confiscate the wealth of the rich, it ain't ever going to happen. The more you try, the more you fail.

What you manage to do in the process is bomb your own facilities and resources. You plant land mines for unsuspecting middle-income people trying to obtain wealth through small business. You rig booby-traps for poor people who are struggling to get to middle-income with better jobs. The so-called "rich" are rarely ever affected by your actions. They simply remain a few moves ahead of you, and we never touch their wealth.

Okay, so we're going to "punish" these wealthy people and corporations by burdening them with high income taxes and corporate tax, more regulations and fines, more penalties and fees... but it never works. Tax the rich person's earned income more and they stop earning income, because they are rich and don't have to earn income anymore. Make it harder for a corporation and they close the doors or move someplace else. More regulations, mandates, burdens... they simply eliminate jobs. Obamacare alone is responsible for trillions of dollars in potential raises and bonuses for the middle-income that will never be realized now. You see, you gifted to them the ultimate excuse... "no pay raise this year... Obamacare!"

Wall Street is a location in New York City, it's where capitalists go to trade public stocks with each other in our free market capitalist system. All the crap we hear about Wall Street would lead one to believe a silver stake is needed to kill this horrible evil creature who is destroying us all. If we don't have this location in NYC where capitalists can freely trade their public stocks, what do you think will take the place of it? Because, capitalists are still going to be capitalists, it's what they do. So think about that for a moment, and explain to me what you envision the alternative would be to a Wall Street?

Okay, so we're going to "punish" all these greedy capitalists on Wall Street by implementing all sorts of trade restrictions and penalties, heap more hassle and burden on them to prevent them capitalizing TOO much... Wrong! What you are going to do is force capitalists away from your market and allow foreign markets to obtain a portion of their wealth instead. *You see, as much as you may hate the rich, other countries seem to really LIKE the rich. (*I mention this for the sheeple out there who like to follow what other countries do.)

For the past 8 years of this de facto "war against the rich" being waged by the left, we've managed to keep the economy floating by borrowing and printing more money. We've infused trillions of dollars so far, and will continue to do this as long as Obama and the Democrats are in charge politically. Now this is all money we will have to repay at some point, but for now, it's keeping the economy of America from going tits up. As this has happened, the screws have been tightened on the 'rich greedy capitalists' but the results are not forthcoming. In fact, they are moving in the opposite direction rather rapidly. Wealthy capitalists are at least two moves ahead at all times. It's how they got to be rich, for the most part.

So, ostensibly, you are waging a war you can't win against an enemy who cannot be defeated. In the process, you are destroying yourself and your only remaining resources. You will only be able to borrow and print for so long to float the economy. The only proven thing in the history of man to ever recover any failing economy is free market capitalism. Some will brazenly claim "Keynesianism" has worked, but the only times where Keynes policies ever were successful, were under a ripe and ready capitalist economy. You can't have Keynesianism without Capitalism, the numbers simply don't work.

Oh, but what about the terrible growing disparity in wealth? Well, what about that? Okay, imagine a marathon race... this represents the acquisition of wealth. In the marathon are competitors who are well-trained athletes, who know how to win, who have trained hard to win, and will ultimately be in a position to win. Also, we have some couch potatoes who have never had much interest in the race, they are just there for the free gatorade. Then there are a whole bunch of people in the middle, who are not couch potatoes or athletes, but honestly hope to be able to compete and do well in the race. Now.... logically speaking, who is going to likely lead this race and extend their lead as the race progresses? Is there ever going to be a time where the couch potatoes are gaining more ground on the athletes and catching up, or are the athletes always going to be pulling away?

The point of the analogy is, the wealthy naturally become wealthier at a faster rate than the poor. So, this "gap" is normal in a free capitalist system and it's normal for the "gap" to continue to grow. Now, what can be done about this? Well, one thing that doesn't ever work is to hobble the athlete so the couch potatoes can catch up, because the couch potato is only interested in free gatorade, they had just as soon not race at all. The best alternative to deal with this growing disparity is to motivate the couch potato. Get them into the race. They may not ever win, they may not ever catch the athlete, but if they are at least competing, they are improving the situation and limiting the growing disparity. At the same time, you encourage the athletes to mentor the competitors in the middle who earnestly want to learn to be a better athlete. There are any number of free market ways to do this, we just need to explore those possibilities. But we first need to take the ball and chain off the legs of the athletes and admit this is a stupid idea.

Or now.... We CAN do as Chairman Mao tried to do in China... Gather all the rich greedy capitalists in front of an open ditch and put a bullet in their head, confiscate their assets and try to implement anti-capitalism as a legitimate form of government. Last time, it resulted in 70 million deaths and still didn't work.

I guess the dopey OP didn't get the memo --

Sorry, Folks, Rich People Don't Create The Jobs

So, if rich people don't create the jobs, what does?

A healthy economic ecosystem — one in which most participants (especially the middle class) have plenty of money to spend. This ecosystem starts with the company's customers.

The company's customers buy the company's products. This, in turn, channels money to the company and allows the company to hire employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If the company's customers and potential customers go broke, the demand for the company's products will collapse. And the company's jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneurs or investors do.

Yes, entrepreneurs are an important part of the company-creation process. And, yes, so are investors, who risk capital in the hope of earning returns. But, ultimately, whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of the company's customers' ability to pay for the company's products, not the entrepreneur's vision or risk-tolerance or the investor's capital.

Saying "rich people create the jobs" is like saying that seeds create trees. Seeds do not create trees. Seeds start trees. But what actually grows and sustains trees is the combination of the DNA in the seed and the soil, sunshine, water, atmosphere, nutrients, and other factors in the environment that nurture them. If you think seeds create trees, try planting seeds in an inhospitable environment. Plant a seed in a desert or on Mars, and the seed won't create anything. It will die.

HMM a poor person never gave me a job

 

[The Rabbi]

No need in chronicling the various left-wing memes, we see them daily being presented as "arguments" for justifying this insidious war against the wealthy. Form the anti-capitalists bemoaning "multi-national corporations" to the Occutards who seem to think "Wall Street" is this lumbering out-of-control monster that is gobbling up everyone's wealth except for the wealthiest. Oh... and those evil "bankers" who simply have all this unlimited supply of money and won't willingly hand it out to deadbeat liberals because they are just mean and greedy.

On and on, these people have convinced themselves that it's a great idea and 'noble cause' to wage all-out war on the rich. It is arguably the most stupid political idea ever in the history of mankind, and I am here to tell you why.

The first and foremost reason is, it's a losing strategy. In fact, it is worse of a boondoggle than Vietnam ever could have hoped to be. It's literally a war that cannot ever be won. Rich people, it just so happens, are very smart when it comes to their wealth. This fact of the matter has prompted the formation of such sayings as... "A fool and his money are soon parted." Their ability to be one step ahead of you is astonishing and impressive to say the least. No matter how much you may believe that we can use the forces of government to confiscate the wealth of the rich, it ain't ever going to happen. The more you try, the more you fail.

What you manage to do in the process is bomb your own facilities and resources. You plant land mines for unsuspecting middle-income people trying to obtain wealth through small business. You rig booby-traps for poor people who are struggling to get to middle-income with better jobs. The so-called "rich" are rarely ever affected by your actions. They simply remain a few moves ahead of you, and we never touch their wealth.

Okay, so we're going to "punish" these wealthy people and corporations by burdening them with high income taxes and corporate tax, more regulations and fines, more penalties and fees... but it never works. Tax the rich person's earned income more and they stop earning income, because they are rich and don't have to earn income anymore. Make it harder for a corporation and they close the doors or move someplace else. More regulations, mandates, burdens... they simply eliminate jobs. Obamacare alone is responsible for trillions of dollars in potential raises and bonuses for the middle-income that will never be realized now. You see, you gifted to them the ultimate excuse... "no pay raise this year... Obamacare!"

Wall Street is a location in New York City, it's where capitalists go to trade public stocks with each other in our free market capitalist system. All the crap we hear about Wall Street would lead one to believe a silver stake is needed to kill this horrible evil creature who is destroying us all. If we don't have this location in NYC where capitalists can freely trade their public stocks, what do you think will take the place of it? Because, capitalists are still going to be capitalists, it's what they do. So think about that for a moment, and explain to me what you envision the alternative would be to a Wall Street?

Okay, so we're going to "punish" all these greedy capitalists on Wall Street by implementing all sorts of trade restrictions and penalties, heap more hassle and burden on them to prevent them capitalizing TOO much... Wrong! What you are going to do is force capitalists away from your market and allow foreign markets to obtain a portion of their wealth instead. *You see, as much as you may hate the rich, other countries seem to really LIKE the rich. (*I mention this for the sheeple out there who like to follow what other countries do.)

For the past 8 years of this de facto "war against the rich" being waged by the left, we've managed to keep the economy floating by borrowing and printing more money. We've infused trillions of dollars so far, and will continue to do this as long as Obama and the Democrats are in charge politically. Now this is all money we will have to repay at some point, but for now, it's keeping the economy of America from going tits up. As this has happened, the screws have been tightened on the 'rich greedy capitalists' but the results are not forthcoming. In fact, they are moving in the opposite direction rather rapidly. Wealthy capitalists are at least two moves ahead at all times. It's how they got to be rich, for the most part.

So, ostensibly, you are waging a war you can't win against an enemy who cannot be defeated. In the process, you are destroying yourself and your only remaining resources. You will only be able to borrow and print for so long to float the economy. The only proven thing in the history of man to ever recover any failing economy is free market capitalism. Some will brazenly claim "Keynesianism" has worked, but the only times where Keynes policies ever were successful, were under a ripe and ready capitalist economy. You can't have Keynesianism without Capitalism, the numbers simply don't work.

Oh, but what about the terrible growing disparity in wealth? Well, what about that? Okay, imagine a marathon race... this represents the acquisition of wealth. In the marathon are competitors who are well-trained athletes, who know how to win, who have trained hard to win, and will ultimately be in a position to win. Also, we have some couch potatoes who have never had much interest in the race, they are just there for the free gatorade. Then there are a whole bunch of people in the middle, who are not couch potatoes or athletes, but honestly hope to be able to compete and do well in the race. Now.... logically speaking, who is going to likely lead this race and extend their lead as the race progresses? Is there ever going to be a time where the couch potatoes are gaining more ground on the athletes and catching up, or are the athletes always going to be pulling away?

The point of the analogy is, the wealthy naturally become wealthier at a faster rate than the poor. So, this "gap" is normal in a free capitalist system and it's normal for the "gap" to continue to grow. Now, what can be done about this? Well, one thing that doesn't ever work is to hobble the athlete so the couch potatoes can catch up, because the couch potato is only interested in free gatorade, they had just as soon not race at all. The best alternative to deal with this growing disparity is to motivate the couch potato. Get them into the race. They may not ever win, they may not ever catch the athlete, but if they are at least competing, they are improving the situation and limiting the growing disparity. At the same time, you encourage the athletes to mentor the competitors in the middle who earnestly want to learn to be a better athlete. There are any number of free market ways to do this, we just need to explore those possibilities. But we first need to take the ball and chain off the legs of the athletes and admit this is a stupid idea.

Or now.... We CAN do as Chairman Mao tried to do in China... Gather all the rich greedy capitalists in front of an open ditch and put a bullet in their head, confiscate their assets and try to implement anti-capitalism as a legitimate form of government. Last time, it resulted in 70 million deaths and still didn't work.

I guess the dopey OP didn't get the memo --

Sorry, Folks, Rich People Don't Create The Jobs

So, if rich people don't create the jobs, what does?

A healthy economic ecosystem — one in which most participants (especially the middle class) have plenty of money to spend. This ecosystem starts with the company's customers.

The company's customers buy the company's products. This, in turn, channels money to the company and allows the company to hire employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If the company's customers and potential customers go broke, the demand for the company's products will collapse. And the company's jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneurs or investors do.

Yes, entrepreneurs are an important part of the company-creation process. And, yes, so are investors, who risk capital in the hope of earning returns. But, ultimately, whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of the company's customers' ability to pay for the company's products, not the entrepreneur's vision or risk-tolerance or the investor's capital.

Saying "rich people create the jobs" is like saying that seeds create trees. Seeds do not create trees. Seeds start trees. But what actually grows and sustains trees is the combination of the DNA in the seed and the soil, sunshine, water, atmosphere, nutrients, and other factors in the environment that nurture them. If you think seeds create trees, try planting seeds in an inhospitable environment. Plant a seed in a desert or on Mars, and the seed won't create anything. It will die.

Only people never involved in business beyond being a customer could think that makes sense.
How did the business get their to begin with? How did the product get on the shelf?

 

[The Rabbi]

False....

every two bit banana republic has a concentration of wealth in the top percentage of society.

so yes, what you're saying is a proven lie.

So you think wealth is finite, then?

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Yeah that works if you only live for one year but most people live a lot longer than that.

There is no limit to how high your net worth can be and no one is stopping you from increasing yours.

To bad most credible economists agree with me and think you are full of it!

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

What does my statement about net worth have to do with any of the drivel you just posted?

Now tell me who is stopping you from increasing your net worth?

You must be. If you have more money, someone else must have less. Right? And if you have more then you must have exploited someone or fucked them over to get it.
Libecon 101.

 

[Dad2three]

This thread is like an argument about book smarts and street smarts. We all know that some folks who collect government benefits don't deserve them, just as we know some folks who have wealth didn't earn it. The practical solution to both of these situations are not complicated, but we have made them political issues and the main objective is not to solve problems, but rather to collect support from both sides for the purpose of gaining or retaining political power. Our politicians pay for their power by bribing their constituents with either more benefits on one side, or more tax breaks and loopholes on the other. The pendulum swings from one side to the other and each time it swings the pie gets cut into different size pieces. In the end, not matter how many graphs and numbers are thrown around, it always ends up being a fight over pie slices.

Andrew Mellon had a few distinctly progressive ideas. Of particular note, he suggested taxing "earned" income from wages and salaries more lightly that "unearned" income from investments. As he argued:


The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it; in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man's life and it descends to his heirs.

Surely we can afford to make a distinction between the people whose only capital is their mental and physical energy and the people whose income is derived from investments. Such a distinction would mean much to millions of American workers and would be an added inspiration to the man who must provide a competence during his few productive years to care for himself and his family when his earnings capacity is at an end.



Tax History Project -- The Republican Roots of New Deal Tax Policy

 

[Dad2three]

So you think wealth is finite, then?

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Yeah that works if you only live for one year but most people live a lot longer than that.

There is no limit to how high your net worth can be and no one is stopping you from increasing yours.

To bad most credible economists agree with me and think you are full of it!

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

What does my statement about net worth have to do with any of the drivel you just posted?

Now tell me who is stopping you from increasing your net worth?

You must be. If you have more money, someone else must have less. Right? And if you have more then you must have exploited someone or fucked them over to get it.
Libecon 101.

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Yeah that works if you only live for one year but most people live a lot longer than that.

There is no limit to how high your net worth can be and no one is stopping you from increasing yours.

To bad most credible economists agree with me and think you are full of it!

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

What does my statement about net worth have to do with any of the drivel you just posted?

Now tell me who is stopping you from increasing your net worth?

You must be. If you have more money, someone else must have less. Right? And if you have more then you must have exploited someone or fucked them over to get it.
Libecon 101.

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

How did you make a million?

Did you just take it by force?
Did people just give it to you for nothing in return?

If a guy you don't know gets a million dollar raise next year that means you will make less?

If a guy you don't know sells his house and increases his net worth by a quarter million your net worth goes down?

If you pay off all your credit cards next year and your net worth goes up whose goes down?