What's Better? Greed? Giving? Or Government?

[Impenitent]

Okay guys, let's keep this civil okay? It does not need to be a contentious issue or a pissing match and I would appreciate that it not be turned into one. There are lots of other threads out there to attack individuals or groups.

Also this thread is not about Wall Street.

Let's refocus shall we?

BBD opts for the charity route if HE had $100 million to disburse. And who can say that would not be a generous and judicious use of the money? I wouldn't fault him.

But would he benefit society more using his $100 million that way than would a businessman who used $100 million to expand his business and hire more people?

"Give a man a fish..." etc.

That's why I'd do both. I'd "give some fish" to those who were truly desperate for fish right now...and with the rest, I'd "teach people to fish" by creating jobs.

Win/win.

I think that old Republican proverb goes like this; Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. But drop him stranded and alone in the desert, never have to feed him again.

 

[BlackSand]

Okay guys, let's keep this civil okay? It does not need to be a contentious issue or a pissing match and I would appreciate that it not be turned into one. There are lots of other threads out there to attack individuals or groups.

Also this thread is not about Wall Street.

Let's refocus shall we?

BBD opts for the charity route if HE had $100 million to disburse. And who can say that would not be a generous and judicious use of the money? I wouldn't fault him.

But would he benefit society more using his $100 million that way than would a businessman who used $100 million to expand his business and hire more people?

"Give a man a fish..." etc.

That's why I'd do both. I'd "give some fish" to those who were truly desperate for fish right now...and with the rest, I'd "teach people to fish" by creating jobs.

Win/win.

I think that old Republican proverb goes like this; Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. But drop him stranded and alone in the desert, never have to feed him again.

And Whalla ... Now we have Las Vegas.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

And still there are some on this thread with the intelligence to speak coherently, to not make it personal, and to not make it partisan, and not make it hateful.

It still comes down to what is most likely to result in the most benefit to society as a whole:

That $100 million paid to the government in taxes where the lion's share of it will be swallowed up by the bureaucracy and what is distributed will most likely be tempered by the politician's desire to increase their own power, prestige, and personal fortunes?

Or that $100 million given to a good charity who will take far less of the principle and will do their best to distribute the rest to those truly in need?

Or that $100 million used by a greedy, selfish bastard who uses it to start a new business or expand an existing one providing hundreds or thousands of new jobs as wel as provides a powerful economic boost to the community who in turn pays more taxes and gives more to charity again and again and again while the need for charity of any kind is greatly reduced?

It is a very simple concept for some. And seems to be terribly difficult for others.

 

[RKMBrown]

And still there are some on this thread with the intelligence to speak coherently, to not make it personal, and to not make it partisan, and not make it hateful.

It still comes down to what is most likely to result in the most benefit to society as a whole:

That $100 million paid to the government in taxes where the lion's share of it will be swallowed up by the bureaucracy and what is distributed will most likely be tempered by the politician's desire to increase their own power, prestige, and personal fortunes?

Or that $100 million given to a good charity who will take far less of the principle and will do their best to distribute the rest to those truly in need?

Or that $100 million used by a greedy, selfish bastard who uses it to start a new business or expand an existing one providing hundreds or thousands of new jobs as wel as provides a powerful economic boost to the community who in turn pays more taxes and gives more to charity again and again and again while the need for charity of any kind is greatly reduced?

It is a very simple concept for some. And seems to be terribly difficult for others.

Clearly it's to difficult for you. For the umpteenth time all of the above are necessary evils and/or generous benefits of society depending on your particular point of view. All investments are a gamble, whether they be in the form of payment to governments, to charities, or for starting a business. Thus, your question simply points out your ignorance of the subject matter.

 

[Impenitent]

"Give a man a fish..." etc.

That's why I'd do both. I'd "give some fish" to those who were truly desperate for fish right now...and with the rest, I'd "teach people to fish" by creating jobs.

Win/win.

I think that old Republican proverb goes like this; Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. But drop him stranded and alone in the desert, never have to feed him again.

And Whalla ... Now we have Las Vegas.

.

We're talkin' about fracking an old thread to get it flowing' again. Now who would be better at that - William F Buckley?... or Bill Murray?

 

[BlackSand]

I think that old Republican proverb goes like this; Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. But drop him stranded and alone in the desert, never have to feed him again.

And Whalla ... Now we have Las Vegas.

.

We're talkin' about fracking an old thread to get it flowing' again. Now who would be better at that - William F Buckley?... or Bill Murray?

Hunter S Thompson

 

[RKMBrown]

I think that old Republican proverb goes like this; Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. But drop him stranded and alone in the desert, never have to feed him again.

And Whalla ... Now we have Las Vegas.

.

We're talkin' about fracking an old thread to get it flowing' again. Now who would be better at that - William F Buckley?... or Bill Murray?

It just doesn't matter!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

And still there are some on this thread with the intelligence to speak coherently, to not make it personal, and to not make it partisan, and not make it hateful.

It still comes down to what is most likely to result in the most benefit to society as a whole:

That $100 million paid to the government in taxes where the lion's share of it will be swallowed up by the bureaucracy and what is distributed will most likely be tempered by the politician's desire to increase their own power, prestige, and personal fortunes?

Or that $100 million given to a good charity who will take far less of the principle and will do their best to distribute the rest to those truly in need?

Or that $100 million used by a greedy, selfish bastard who uses it to start a new business or expand an existing one providing hundreds or thousands of new jobs as wel as provides a powerful economic boost to the community who in turn pays more taxes and gives more to charity again and again and again while the need for charity of any kind is greatly reduced?

It is a very simple concept for some. And seems to be terribly difficult for others.

Clearly it's to difficult for you. For the umpteenth time all of the above are necessary evils and/or generous benefits of society depending on your particular point of view. All investments are a gamble, whether they be in the form of payment to governments, to charities, or for starting a business. Thus, your question simply points out your ignorance of the subject matter.

The question however was not which is the most necessary. I was pretty clear that all can be necessary. The question is, if you choose between the three, which is more likely to be the most beneficial to society overall.

You see those on the left.....with the exception of one whom I roundly applaud for his honesty....refuse to answer the question because it screws up the liberal mentality. If they admit that the 'rich' actually benefit society more by using their money in the private sector than they benefit society in any other way, they can't so easily stick with their demands that the rich be limited in what they are allowed to earn and they can't defend confiscatory tax policy for the rich.

And the more dishonest pretenders--present company included--prefer to mock and demonize and criticize those who ask honest questions rather than provide a comprehensive answer or enter into a discussion about it.

 

[G.T.]

The question is trite. It's a stupid attempt to categorize little facets of life into little meaningless boxes for.....what? Fun?

Each can be better under differing circumstances. The question is not a black and white "bingo!" it's an exercise in circle jerk.

 

[RKMBrown]

And still there are some on this thread with the intelligence to speak coherently, to not make it personal, and to not make it partisan, and not make it hateful.

It still comes down to what is most likely to result in the most benefit to society as a whole:

That $100 million paid to the government in taxes where the lion's share of it will be swallowed up by the bureaucracy and what is distributed will most likely be tempered by the politician's desire to increase their own power, prestige, and personal fortunes?

Or that $100 million given to a good charity who will take far less of the principle and will do their best to distribute the rest to those truly in need?

Or that $100 million used by a greedy, selfish bastard who uses it to start a new business or expand an existing one providing hundreds or thousands of new jobs as wel as provides a powerful economic boost to the community who in turn pays more taxes and gives more to charity again and again and again while the need for charity of any kind is greatly reduced?

It is a very simple concept for some. And seems to be terribly difficult for others.

Clearly it's to difficult for you. For the umpteenth time all of the above are necessary evils and/or generous benefits of society depending on your particular point of view. All investments are a gamble, whether they be in the form of payment to governments, to charities, or for starting a business. Thus, your question simply points out your ignorance of the subject matter.

The question however was not which is the most necessary. I was pretty clear that all can be necessary. The question is, if you choose between the three, which is more likely to be the most beneficial to society overall.

You see those on the left.....with the exception of one whom I roundly applaud for his honesty....refuse to answer the question because it screws up the liberal mentality. If they admit that the 'rich' actually benefit society more by using their money in the private sector than they benefit society in any other way, they can't so easily stick with their demands that the rich be limited in what they are allowed to earn and they can't defend confiscatory tax policy for the rich.

And the more dishonest pretenders--present company included--prefer to mock and demonize and criticize those who ask honest questions rather than provide a comprehensive answer or enter into a discussion about it.

No, no, no...

You are making the false assumption that all investments in business are beneficial to the investor. This is not even remotely the case. Every single investment is a gamble. And you can not even define what the term "beneficial" means. You've been asked dozens of times in this thread to define what you mean by "beneficial." How the hell can you generate odds for undefined investments generating undefined returns on investments?

Calling your questions out as a request for a circle jerk is being kind.

 

[Impenitent]

And Whalla ... Now we have Las Vegas.

.

We're talkin' about fracking an old thread to get it flowing' again. Now who would be better at that - William F Buckley?... or Bill Murray?

Hunter S Thompson

Ok, he was cool! And not nearly as sophomoric as ...uh ...Buckley.

 

[G.T.]

bill murray

 

[Foxfyre]

Clearly it's to difficult for you. For the umpteenth time all of the above are necessary evils and/or generous benefits of society depending on your particular point of view. All investments are a gamble, whether they be in the form of payment to governments, to charities, or for starting a business. Thus, your question simply points out your ignorance of the subject matter.

The question however was not which is the most necessary. I was pretty clear that all can be necessary. The question is, if you choose between the three, which is more likely to be the most beneficial to society overall.

You see those on the left.....with the exception of one whom I roundly applaud for his honesty....refuse to answer the question because it screws up the liberal mentality. If they admit that the 'rich' actually benefit society more by using their money in the private sector than they benefit society in any other way, they can't so easily stick with their demands that the rich be limited in what they are allowed to earn and they can't defend confiscatory tax policy for the rich.

And the more dishonest pretenders--present company included--prefer to mock and demonize and criticize those who ask honest questions rather than provide a comprehensive answer or enter into a discussion about it.

No, no, no...

You are making the false assumption that all investments in business are beneficial to the investor. This is not even remotely the case. Every single investment is a gamble. And you can not even define what the term "beneficial" means. You've been asked dozens of times in this thread to define what you mean by "beneficial." How the hell can you generate odds for undefined investments generating undefined returns on investments?

Calling your questions out as a request for a circle jerk is being kind.

Yes, yes, yes, since I specified a 'successful' business. And what successful $100 million dollar business is not going to include spending, building, and hiring as well as paying taxes? And your consistent obtuseness, refusal to address the intent of any thread, and your general mean spiritedness does not change that in the least.

 

[RKMBrown]

The question however was not which is the most necessary. I was pretty clear that all can be necessary. The question is, if you choose between the three, which is more likely to be the most beneficial to society overall.

You see those on the left.....with the exception of one whom I roundly applaud for his honesty....refuse to answer the question because it screws up the liberal mentality. If they admit that the 'rich' actually benefit society more by using their money in the private sector than they benefit society in any other way, they can't so easily stick with their demands that the rich be limited in what they are allowed to earn and they can't defend confiscatory tax policy for the rich.

And the more dishonest pretenders--present company included--prefer to mock and demonize and criticize those who ask honest questions rather than provide a comprehensive answer or enter into a discussion about it.

No, no, no...

You are making the false assumption that all investments in business are beneficial to the investor. This is not even remotely the case. Every single investment is a gamble. And you can not even define what the term "beneficial" means. You've been asked dozens of times in this thread to define what you mean by "beneficial." How the hell can you generate odds for undefined investments generating undefined returns on investments?

Calling your questions out as a request for a circle jerk is being kind.

Yes, yes, yes, since I specified a 'successful' business. And what successful $100 million dollar business is not going to include spending, building, and hiring as well as paying taxes? And your consistent obtuseness, refusal to address the intent of any thread, and your general mean spiritedness does not change that in the least.

No no no...

Define successful?

Successful for Hollywood is never having made a dime of profit while paying everyone in the circle. Successful for a non-profit is specified by the type of non-profit and whatever it's goals were. How the hell can you define success without defining basis for success?

And for the hundredth time how can you define overall benefit for society, without defining what benefit is?

>> And your consistent obtuseness, refusal to address the intent of any thread, and your general mean spiritedness does not change that in the least.

None of my statements have been obtuse or mean. I'm just giving you basic facts, explaining as others have, why your questions are silly at best and meaningless because of the words you continue to use. Words like fair, success, benefit, change you can believe in are all meaningless catch phrases. If you don't define what you mean in some basic way the statements and/or questions are entirely meaningless. Worse, this is exactly how people divide this country. By making baseless statements that the other group drives for spending that will not be as successful or benefit society in meaningful ways you are making blind assumptions. By asking people to choose one over the other you are asking to divide the country. Without defining how you measure success or benefit, you are just spitting in the wind.

 

[daveman]

Okay guys, let's keep this civil okay? It does not need to be a contentious issue or a pissing match and I would appreciate that it not be turned into one. There are lots of other threads out there to attack individuals or groups.

Also this thread is not about Wall Street.

Let's refocus shall we?

BBD opts for the charity route if HE had $100 million to disburse. And who can say that would not be a generous and judicious use of the money? I wouldn't fault him.

But would he benefit society more using his $100 million that way than would a businessman who used $100 million to expand his business and hire more people?

"Give a man a fish..." etc.

That's why I'd do both. I'd "give some fish" to those who were truly desperate for fish right now...and with the rest, I'd "teach people to fish" by creating jobs.

Win/win.

I think that old Republican proverb goes like this; Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. But drop him stranded and alone in the desert, never have to feed him again.

Pointing to your bigotry as proof of a claim against someone else proves only that you're a bigot.

 

[Impenitent]

"Give a man a fish..." etc.

That's why I'd do both. I'd "give some fish" to those who were truly desperate for fish right now...and with the rest, I'd "teach people to fish" by creating jobs.

Win/win.

I think that old Republican proverb goes like this; Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. But drop him stranded and alone in the desert, never have to feed him again.

Pointing to your bigotry as proof of a claim against someone else proves only that you're a bigot.

And yours is proof that while truisms are true, they can be misapplied.

 

[BlackSand]

Yes, yes, yes, since I specified a 'successful' business. And what successful $100 million dollar business is not going to include spending, building, and hiring as well as paying taxes? And your consistent obtuseness, refusal to address the intent of any thread, and your general mean spiritedness does not change that in the least.

Number 3 ...

To sit around and argue about the relevance of the question is why number 3 is the best answer.
It requires the person who hold the cash to make a good decision and manage things to ensure success and benefit ... While at the same time ... Doesn't require anyone else to supply anything or agree with the person who holds the money.

If someone else has a better idea ... Doesn't like the answer you have ... Or wants to waste a lot of time talking about how screwed up your ideas are ...
Well, tell them to get their own $100 million and they can do whatever the hell they want to with it.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, yes, yes, since I specified a 'successful' business. And what successful $100 million dollar business is not going to include spending, building, and hiring as well as paying taxes? And your consistent obtuseness, refusal to address the intent of any thread, and your general mean spiritedness does not change that in the least.

Number 3 ...

To sit around and argue about the relevance of the question is why number 3 is the best answer.
It requires the person who hold the cash to make a good decision and manage things to ensure success and benefit ... While at the same time ... Doesn't require anyone else to supply anything or agree with the person who holds the money.

If someone else has a better idea ... Doesn't like the answer you have ... Or wants to waste a lot of time talking about how screwed up your ideas are ...
Well, tell them to get their own $100 million and they can do whatever the hell they want to with it.
.

Thank you, Black Sand. The trolls, numbnuts, and other exercises in futility we sometimes deal with at USMB don't WANT to see the big picture here. And even the intelligent leftists capable of rational thought have refused to even consider the disclaimers and qualifications in the discussion. I have long postulated that liberals/leftists/progressives/statists/political class types are incapable of focusing on and comprehending a big picture concept which is why they are liberals/leftists/progressives/statists/political class.

Yes there is good government and bad government. Some government functions are necessary to a free people, and some government functions are more destructive than they are useful. But government, good or bad, has to remove assets from the economy before it can deliver those same assets. So even in the best case scenario, if something can be done as efficiently and effectively by the private sector, we will get more bang for the buck if the private sector does it instead of the government.

Yes there are good charities and bad charities. And even though we were focused on good charities for the purpose of this discussion, the fact is that a charity can only accomplish so much with the resources it has. And because it is charity, even though it does very good work and accomplishes wonderfully noble things, it too must remove the resource from the economy in order to have it to use, and the high probability is that most benefit of any distribution will be mostly limited to those receiving it.

Yes there are successful, prosperous, ethical businesses and there is scum. For the purpose of this exercise, we are focused on a private person or entity that will risk/use its own resources to start, grow, or expand a successful business. That business will be a customer in the private sector and it will also pay taxes to the government and provide many jobs for people who in turn will be consumers driving the economy, will pay taxes, and most likely some will contribute to charity while making charity less necessary, all while adding to a more robust economy multiplying the dollars invested many times over.

And it really doesn't matter if the business owner is the most selfish, self-centered, greedy, unlikable bastard on earth. The net benefit to society overall of a successful private sector business will still most likely be superior to anything that government or charitable organizations can do with the same amount of money.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, yes, yes, since I specified a 'successful' business. And what successful $100 million dollar business is not going to include spending, building, and hiring as well as paying taxes? And your consistent obtuseness, refusal to address the intent of any thread, and your general mean spiritedness does not change that in the least.

Number 3 ...

To sit around and argue about the relevance of the question is why number 3 is the best answer.
It requires the person who hold the cash to make a good decision and manage things to ensure success and benefit ... While at the same time ... Doesn't require anyone else to supply anything or agree with the person who holds the money.

If someone else has a better idea ... Doesn't like the answer you have ... Or wants to waste a lot of time talking about how screwed up your ideas are ...
Well, tell them to get their own $100 million and they can do whatever the hell they want to with it.
.

Thank you, Black Sand. The trolls, numbnuts, and other exercises in futility we sometimes deal with at USMB don't WANT to see the big picture here. And even the intelligent leftists capable of rational thought have refused to even consider the disclaimers and qualifications in the discussion. I have long postulated that liberals/leftists/progressives/statists/political class types are incapable of focusing on and comprehending a big picture concept which is why they are liberals/leftists/progressives/statists/political class.

Yes there is good government and bad government. Some government functions are necessary to a free people, and some government functions are more destructive than they are useful. But government, good or bad, has to remove assets from the economy before it can deliver those same assets. So even in the best case scenario, if something can be done as efficiently and effectively by the private sector, we will get more bang for the buck if the private sector does it instead of the government.

Yes there are good charities and bad charities. And even though we were focused on good charities for the purpose of this discussion, the fact is that a charity can only accomplish so much with the resources it has. And because it is charity, even though it does very good work and accomplishes wonderfully noble things, it too must remove the resource from the economy in order to have it to use, and the high probability is that most benefit of any distribution will be mostly limited to those receiving it.

Yes there are successful, prosperous, ethical businesses and there is scum. For the purpose of this exercise, we are focused on a private person or entity that will risk/use its own resources to start, grow, or expand a successful business. That business will be a customer in the private sector and it will also pay taxes to the government and provide many jobs for people who in turn will be consumers driving the economy, will pay taxes, and most likely some will contribute to charity while making charity less necessary, all while adding to a more robust economy multiplying the dollars invested many times over.

And it really doesn't matter if the business owner is the most selfish, self-centered, greedy, unlikable bastard on earth. The net benefit to society overall of a successful private sector business will still most likely be superior to anything that government or charitable organizations can do with the same amount of money.

ROFL... You might want to stop posting now, you are making yourself out to be a raving lunatic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Number 3 ...

To sit around and argue about the relevance of the question is why number 3 is the best answer.
It requires the person who hold the cash to make a good decision and manage things to ensure success and benefit ... While at the same time ... Doesn't require anyone else to supply anything or agree with the person who holds the money.

If someone else has a better idea ... Doesn't like the answer you have ... Or wants to waste a lot of time talking about how screwed up your ideas are ...
Well, tell them to get their own $100 million and they can do whatever the hell they want to with it.
.

Thank you, Black Sand. The trolls, numbnuts, and other exercises in futility we sometimes deal with at USMB don't WANT to see the big picture here. And even the intelligent leftists capable of rational thought have refused to even consider the disclaimers and qualifications in the discussion. I have long postulated that liberals/leftists/progressives/statists/political class types are incapable of focusing on and comprehending a big picture concept which is why they are liberals/leftists/progressives/statists/political class.

Yes there is good government and bad government. Some government functions are necessary to a free people, and some government functions are more destructive than they are useful. But government, good or bad, has to remove assets from the economy before it can deliver those same assets. So even in the best case scenario, if something can be done as efficiently and effectively by the private sector, we will get more bang for the buck if the private sector does it instead of the government.

Yes there are good charities and bad charities. And even though we were focused on good charities for the purpose of this discussion, the fact is that a charity can only accomplish so much with the resources it has. And because it is charity, even though it does very good work and accomplishes wonderfully noble things, it too must remove the resource from the economy in order to have it to use, and the high probability is that most benefit of any distribution will be mostly limited to those receiving it.

Yes there are successful, prosperous, ethical businesses and there is scum. For the purpose of this exercise, we are focused on a private person or entity that will risk/use its own resources to start, grow, or expand a successful business. That business will be a customer in the private sector and it will also pay taxes to the government and provide many jobs for people who in turn will be consumers driving the economy, will pay taxes, and most likely some will contribute to charity while making charity less necessary, all while adding to a more robust economy multiplying the dollars invested many times over.

And it really doesn't matter if the business owner is the most selfish, self-centered, greedy, unlikable bastard on earth. The net benefit to society overall of a successful private sector business will still most likely be superior to anything that government or charitable organizations can do with the same amount of money.

ROFL... You might want to stop posting now, you are making yourself out to be a raving lunatic.

I may be a raving lunatic. There may be some here who can provide a reasoned rebuttal for my argument. But you are certainly not qualified to be my judge. And you sure as hell have provided no reasoned rebuttal for my argument. So far you've had nothing all all except ad homnem, non sequitur, and personal insults.