War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[rightwinger]

So you want to listen to the Rich, I posted a quote from Andrew Carnegie.

Hey, I can appreciate Carnegie and what he's saying, money isn't everything. I personally know very wealthy people who benevolently give massive amounts of their fortunes to various philanthropic causes. That's the great thing about having lots of really wealthy people around, the money flows generously.

What I can't figure out is why your stupid ass wants to make this the enemy?

It's the Rich who made the not-rich the enemy.

It wasn't the working class who moved the work to China, was it?

They have made working class Americans the enemy. It is not the rich who are being portrayed as greedy and selfish....it is the workers
We have the GOP to thank

Starting with unions. It's greed if the workers want a bigger share of the wealth produced by an industry, and yet,

it's somehow good, according to these apologists for the wealthy, if the rich owners of the industry get to keep as big a share as they can.

In fact, these apologists are all for taking away every bit possible of the ability of the workers to fight for a bigger share.

You confuse share with ownership.

Do the employees own the business? No. Do the Employees share the risk of lost wages if the economy turns down? Do the employees pay back the costs they incur to business through their theft of material goods and time?

Employees have a dog in the fight. During an economic downturn, it is the employees who first feel the pinch with lower wages and layoffs

 

[occupied]

A proven lie.

It's mathematically impossible to divide a pie into pieces that then add up to a sum bigger than the original pie.

I know the argument that he is making and the flaw is that liquid assets are the essential part of wealth that grows the economy. Theoretically there is no end of wealth but there is a definite limit to economic activity and it is all based on how much wealth is allowed to flow through the economy and how much personal debt is dragging it down.

Its more complicated than that, but in essence, as long as no entity interferes with or hampers growth, wealth is grown and infinite.

What I was talking about is liquidity, huge piles of wealth are of no benefit to society until it is spent or invested in something that creates jobs. I could have a hundred trillion dollars but the relatively small amount I would spend is all that matters to the economy.

which is no ones business but the owner of the liquidity.

I thought you people were talking about income inequality, not how much assets someone had.

When wealth has become concentrated and not allowed to circulate it is the same as a loss to the economy. One guy or one company is better for it (I guess) but the money supply becomes smaller. The economy is measured not by how much money there is but how much is moving around.

 

[Camp]

We should continue to subsidize the Walton's who inherited their wealth and don't have enough billions stashed away. Without our help they will take a half a decade to reach a 200 billion dollar stash of cash.

The Waltons are subsidizing government by providing employment and a career path to low, low end workers who otherwise could not support themselves at all.

That ain't a subsidy and the workers would have jobs at all the small business's Walmart put out of business by selling cheap Chinese products that were produced here in America. The only country the Walton's subsidize is China.
Do you have some lame excuse for Trump who routinely uses bankruptcy to shaft small business's and foolish investors who don't realize they have to get in and out of his scam early or be one of the ones getting robbed. He's another guy who inherited his wealth.

 

[kaz]

What I was talking about is liquidity, huge piles of wealth are of no benefit to society until it is spent or invested in something that creates jobs. I could have a hundred trillion dollars but the relatively small amount I would spend is all that matters to the economy.

Every investment creates jobs

Nope, there are a whole class of investments that are no more than casino bets on worthless paper and have no positive effect on the economy.

Such as...

Ask AIG, they foolishly insured enough worthless shit with no real value to crash the economy. It's the stuff bubbles are made of.

AIG didn't make the claim, you did. So I'm asking you Stop deflecting. You made a claim, man up to backing it up.

 

[kaz]

Employees have a dog in the fight. During an economic downturn, it is the employees who first feel the pinch with lower wages and layoffs

Says a career button pusher. You have obviously never dealt with making payroll. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[kaz]

When wealth has become concentrated and not allowed to circulate it is the same as a loss to the economy. One guy or one company is better for it (I guess) but the money supply becomes smaller. The economy is measured not by how much money there is but how much is moving around.

Wow, in this country and all it's wealth, you can't make anything of yourself? Damn there's a lot of money out there to be made by anyone willing to put forth any effort at all. You are a Loser with a capital L.

 

[Darkwind]

It's mathematically impossible to divide a pie into pieces that then add up to a sum bigger than the original pie.

I know the argument that he is making and the flaw is that liquid assets are the essential part of wealth that grows the economy. Theoretically there is no end of wealth but there is a definite limit to economic activity and it is all based on how much wealth is allowed to flow through the economy and how much personal debt is dragging it down.

Its more complicated than that, but in essence, as long as no entity interferes with or hampers growth, wealth is grown and infinite.

What I was talking about is liquidity, huge piles of wealth are of no benefit to society until it is spent or invested in something that creates jobs. I could have a hundred trillion dollars but the relatively small amount I would spend is all that matters to the economy.

which is no ones business but the owner of the liquidity.

I thought you people were talking about income inequality, not how much assets someone had.

When wealth has become concentrated and not allowed to circulate it is the same as a loss to the economy. One guy or one company is better for it (I guess) but the money supply becomes smaller. The economy is measured not by how much money there is but how much is moving around.

That much is true, to an extent. However, when you people speak of the wealthy, we are not talking about people who have liquid assets in the trillions of dollars....Even Bill Gates wealth is not measured in liquid assets. All the wealth is tied up in the economy in the form of businesses and projects.

People who have a billion dollars in liquid assets do no harm to an economy that is measured in 10's of trillions of dollars.

This all amounts to greed and the willingness to use government as a means of harming people the left do not like.

There are other ways to improve life other than theft.

 

[kaz]

It's not the only double standard they labor under, they blow huge holes in budgets giving hand-outs to the wealthy with no demonstrable economic benefit while trying to destroy social programs that have solid stabilizing benefits to society.

There are no hand-outs to the wealthy.

You in fact, cannot show any case in which the government has given money to the rich. None.

You people like to call them tax cuts and "tax incentives to promote growth". They have a negative effect on revenue and are no different than spending.

So when 1% pay 40% of taxes and 5% pay 60% and 50% pay zero, how is that "giving hand-outs to the wealthy?"

Dude?

 

[Darkwind]

What I was talking about is liquidity, huge piles of wealth are of no benefit to society until it is spent or invested in something that creates jobs. I could have a hundred trillion dollars but the relatively small amount I would spend is all that matters to the economy.

Every investment creates jobs

And if a retailer invests in automated cash registers to replace human cashiers?

Sounds like the cashier who thought they could go on forever just ringing in sales is out of luck. Do you even care if they have found or acquired new skills? Or do you believe a job should just go on forever?

The other idiot said every investment creates jobs. Go argue with him, fuckwit.

Every investment does create jobs. You simply don't know the difference between investment, income, assets and liquidity.

 

[Bill Angel]

It's mathematically impossible to divide a pie into pieces that then add up to a sum bigger than the original pie.

I know the argument that he is making and the flaw is that liquid assets are the essential part of wealth that grows the economy. Theoretically there is no end of wealth but there is a definite limit to economic activity and it is all based on how much wealth is allowed to flow through the economy and how much personal debt is dragging it down.

Its more complicated than that, but in essence, as long as no entity interferes with or hampers growth, wealth is grown and infinite.

What I was talking about is liquidity, huge piles of wealth are of no benefit to society until it is spent or invested in something that creates jobs. I could have a hundred trillion dollars but the relatively small amount I would spend is all that matters to the economy.

which is no ones business but the owner of the liquidity.

I thought you people were talking about income inequality, not how much assets someone had.

When wealth has become concentrated and not allowed to circulate it is the same as a loss to the economy. One guy or one company is better for it (I guess) but the money supply becomes smaller. The economy is measured not by how much money there is but how much is moving around.

I believe that this fellow is discussing the same issue, and thinks that the current low "velocity" of money is indicative of a problem in the economy: The Velocity Of Money In The U.S. Falls To An All-Time Record Low

 

[Moonglow]

The rich certainly take no ethical or moral relativity when they declare war on other businesses or individuals...So I have no problem with a war against the rich....

 

[georgephillip]

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.

How many of those greedy capitalists collaborated with the Japanese occupation of China? What would you have done in Mao's case, offered to buy some equity?

 

[kaz]

We should continue to subsidize the Walton's who inherited their wealth and don't have enough billions stashed away. Without our help they will take a half a decade to reach a 200 billion dollar stash of cash.

The Waltons are subsidizing government by providing employment and a career path to low, low end workers who otherwise could not support themselves at all.

That ain't a subsidy and the workers would have jobs at all the small business's Walmart put out of business by selling cheap Chinese products that were produced here in America. The only country the Walton's subsidize is China.
Do you have some lame excuse for Trump who routinely uses bankruptcy to shaft small business's and foolish investors who don't realize they have to get in and out of his scam early or be one of the ones getting robbed. He's another guy who inherited his wealth.

I don't know what I can say to someone who knows nothing about economics. The idea that lowering prices for the same thing harms the economy and kills jobs is something you would learn why that's impossible in your first, introductory econ course.

Here's a question to ask yourself. Why do people shop at Walmart? The prices are lower, for the same thing. They only resell basic stuff, they don't add value. Why does a customer like saving money? What does that do for them?

 

[kaz]

The rich certainly take no ethical or moral relativity when they declare war on other businesses or individuals...So I have no problem with a war against the rich....

The rich think we are all the same. They're all like that. I hate people who make such sweeping generalizations, don't you Moonbat?

 

[occupied]

What I was talking about is liquidity, huge piles of wealth are of no benefit to society until it is spent or invested in something that creates jobs. I could have a hundred trillion dollars but the relatively small amount I would spend is all that matters to the economy.

Every investment creates jobs

Nope, there are a whole class of investments that are no more than casino bets on worthless paper and have no positive effect on the economy.

Such as...

Ask AIG, they foolishly insured enough worthless shit with no real value to crash the economy. It's the stuff bubbles are made of.

AIG didn't make the claim, you did. So I'm asking you Stop deflecting. You made a claim, man up to backing it up.

I did, you just didn't pay attention. All those worthless derivatives and CDOs that nearly made paupers of us all were investments in paper that was worthless except that ratings agencies and AIG made them worth something, until the house of cards fell apart and billions of dollars evaporated into nothingness. Entire sectors of the real economy do not become worthless overnight, just flim-flam investments that are nothing but bubble builders.

 

[kaz]

How many of those greedy capitalists collaborated with the Japanese occupation of China? What would you have done in Mao's case, offered to buy some equity?

How many poor people committed crimes in the 1930s? Let's punish them all for that now.

BTW, crony capitalism is a form of socialism, it has nothing to do with capitalism.

 

[kaz]

Every investment creates jobs

Nope, there are a whole class of investments that are no more than casino bets on worthless paper and have no positive effect on the economy.

Such as...

Ask AIG, they foolishly insured enough worthless shit with no real value to crash the economy. It's the stuff bubbles are made of.

AIG didn't make the claim, you did. So I'm asking you Stop deflecting. You made a claim, man up to backing it up.

I did, you just didn't pay attention. All those worthless derivatives and CDOs that nearly made paupers of us all were investments in paper that was worthless except that ratings agencies and AIG made them worth something, until the house of cards fell apart and billions of dollars evaporated into nothingness. Entire sectors of the real economy do not become worthless overnight, just flim-flam investments that are nothing but bubble builders.

You don't know what a derivative is or how it's used, do you?

CDOs were driven under by government policy starting with Clinton and continued by Bush.

 

[Darkwind]

The rich certainly take no ethical or moral relativity when they declare war on other businesses or individuals...So I have no problem with a war against the rich....

So you have no problem with the middle class taking no ethical or moral relativity when it comes to the poor needing their wealth. After all, its just a war on the middle class.....


So tell Me, where does it end? My bet is that it ends when we are all equally destitute.

 

[rightwinger]

Employees have a dog in the fight. During an economic downturn, it is the employees who first feel the pinch with lower wages and layoffs

Says a career button pusher. You have obviously never dealt with making payroll. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe you can explain employee layoffs to the nice people on this board?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hey, I can appreciate Carnegie and what he's saying, money isn't everything. I personally know very wealthy people who benevolently give massive amounts of their fortunes to various philanthropic causes. That's the great thing about having lots of really wealthy people around, the money flows generously.

What I can't figure out is why your stupid ass wants to make this the enemy?

It's the Rich who made the not-rich the enemy.

It wasn't the working class who moved the work to China, was it?

They have made working class Americans the enemy. It is not the rich who are being portrayed as greedy and selfish....it is the workers
We have the GOP to thank

Starting with unions. It's greed if the workers want a bigger share of the wealth produced by an industry, and yet,

it's somehow good, according to these apologists for the wealthy, if the rich owners of the industry get to keep as big a share as they can.

In fact, these apologists are all for taking away every bit possible of the ability of the workers to fight for a bigger share.

You confuse share with ownership.

Do the employees own the business? No. Do the Employees share the risk of lost wages if the economy turns down? Do the employees pay back the costs they incur to business through their theft of material goods and time?

Employees have a dog in the fight. During an economic downturn, it is the employees who first feel the pinch with lower wages and layoffs

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

Again... This is the kind of propaganda you believe when you think wealth is finite.

Propaganda? If decrying the sorry state of wealth distribution is propaganda then what is your cheerleading for a flawed system that clearly leaves so many in want? Look at the reality of things, sure there is wealth being generated but not by wage earners. We do not have a perfect system, it is not a class war to examine the flaws and attempt to address them.

The propaganda is the belief that wealth should be equally distributed in society.

It is class warfare to deliberately seek to harm one group of people out of greed and envy. People who are in want are people who are striving to be more than they are. Or they used to be. Until the mentality such as yours comes along and eliminates the need for people to strive to be better.

Rather they have it handed to them through false prophecy of compassion than to hunger to be better.

That's a strawman because there are very very very very very few people who demand that wealth be equally distributed.

It's class warfare to seek to harm one group out of greed?

So if a big corporation is viable and profitable as is, but seeks for example to move jobs overseas to make the corporation even more profitable,

which in the process will harm a great number of Americans currently holding those jobs,

that is class warfare, correct?

absolute fallacy. Seeking to minimize expenditures cannot in any way be equated with envious targeting of one class of people for greed and expansion of power of another.

This is not a equation of which benefits the most people.but a function of using a government to intentionally harm people. Last time I looked, that was illegal.

Let us not pretend that support of taking from the richest of of stems from any altruistic motivation. It stems from hate and greed of power and yes, the enrichment of those who promote such nonsense.

You can delude yourself any way you want. The Rich are a 'group' but workers are not? lol, imbecility.