Spread the wealth - one boat, a few boats, or many boats?

[PaintMyHouse]

If an infinite amount of monkeys work for an infinite amount of time in a shipyard, they can build an infinite amount of boats!

Free boats for EVERYONE, except for the monkeys as they are sentenced to building boats for eternity and will have no time for leisure pursuits.

Famous software development maxim:

If one woman can have a baby in nine months, then 9 women can have a baby in one month.​

It's the opposite, dumbass. Just because a woman can make a baby in nine months doesn't mean nine women can make one in a month. It means you can't hurry the development schedule just by hiring more coders. God you're a idiot.

I know that, dumbass. I'm ridiculing your idiotic theory that dividing up money to make more numerous but smaller purchases produces more growth. It does precisely the opposite.

As usual, you are dead wrong. When the money stops flowing so does the economy. If I make widgets I want to sell a million of them, not 100.

Actually, no. Given that the total amount of revenue generated by selling the wi

A 1 million dollar boat does not create more activity than 10 100k boats.

Lover, that's correct, it creates less economic activity and we need more, so we need more boats not fewer more expensive ones.

This would be the 'Let's generate a lot of heat, but not much light' school of economics. It is the Chinese model. They do ok with it, but they have a billion people generating the same amount of light that 100 million Americans generate.

Correct, and the 100 million Americans get paid more than the billion Chinese. High priced goods drive good paying jobs. When Wal-Mart comes into town, the local mom and pop stores freak out. Why? Precisely because their higher priced goods and better paying jobs are wiped out by the low cost good and low paying jobs Wal-Mart brings. We need the wealthy buying their luxuries. Go for it, Paris.

Unrelated issues. Luxury buying helps very few. And Wal-Mart uses its economy of scale to undercut the locals, but that's capitalism for you. The consumers get a break but it's a race to the bottom however if the choice is Hilton buys a Tiffany necklace or the same amount of cash is spent that the Wal-Mart, go with the Wal-Mart since that creates much more economic activity.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So we'd be a lot better off if we all lived in tin shacks with no plumbing. Think of all that shovel readiness!

Nope. We'd all be better off if we all owned houses and still had the money to fill them with things, things that we made here.

So you favor reformation of our failed educational system

It hasn't failed. That's dogma. It has problems, which can be fixed. And it's unrelated to the issue at hand.

 

[hadit]

So we'd be a lot better off if we all lived in tin shacks with no plumbing. Think of all that shovel readiness!

Nope. We'd all be better off if we all owned houses and still had the money to fill them with things, things that we made here.

And had rainbow farting unicorns in the barn.

You, like most Americans, are as dumb as dog shit.

And yet I keep destroying your arguments. Must suck to be you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So we'd be a lot better off if we all lived in tin shacks with no plumbing. Think of all that shovel readiness!

Nope. We'd all be better off if we all owned houses and still had the money to fill them with things, things that we made here.

And had rainbow farting unicorns in the barn.

You, like most Americans, are as dumb as dog shit.

And yet I keep destroying your arguments. Must suck to be you.

LOL. No Sweetheart, you don't, but you believe that you do. It's rather painful to watch but I still have to laugh at your total lack of even basic common sense and economic knowledge. Still, that's why I started this thread.

 

[hadit]

Famous software development maxim:

If one woman can have a baby in nine months, then 9 women can have a baby in one month.​

It's the opposite, dumbass. Just because a woman can make a baby in nine months doesn't mean nine women can make one in a month. It means you can't hurry the development schedule just by hiring more coders. God you're a idiot.

I know that, dumbass. I'm ridiculing your idiotic theory that dividing up money to make more numerous but smaller purchases produces more growth. It does precisely the opposite.

As usual, you are dead wrong. When the money stops flowing so does the economy. If I make widgets I want to sell a million of them, not 100.

Actually, no. Given that the total amount of revenue generated by selling the wi

A 1 million dollar boat does not create more activity than 10 100k boats.

Lover, that's correct, it creates less economic activity and we need more, so we need more boats not fewer more expensive ones.

This would be the 'Let's generate a lot of heat, but not much light' school of economics. It is the Chinese model. They do ok with it, but they have a billion people generating the same amount of light that 100 million Americans generate.

Correct, and the 100 million Americans get paid more than the billion Chinese. High priced goods drive good paying jobs. When Wal-Mart comes into town, the local mom and pop stores freak out. Why? Precisely because their higher priced goods and better paying jobs are wiped out by the low cost good and low paying jobs Wal-Mart brings. We need the wealthy buying their luxuries. Go for it, Paris.

Unrelated issues. Luxury buying helps very few. And Wal-Mart uses its economy of scale to undercut the locals, but that's capitalism for you. The consumers get a break but it's a race to the bottom however if the choice is Hilton buys a Tiffany necklace or the same amount of cash is spent that the Wal-Mart, go with the Wal-Mart since that creates much more economic activity.

Luxury items generate good paying jobs. Low end carp generates low paying jobs. It's just that simple.

 

[hadit]

So we'd be a lot better off if we all lived in tin shacks with no plumbing. Think of all that shovel readiness!

Nope. We'd all be better off if we all owned houses and still had the money to fill them with things, things that we made here.

And had rainbow farting unicorns in the barn.

You, like most Americans, are as dumb as dog shit.

And yet I keep destroying your arguments. Must suck to be you.

LOL. No Sweetheart, you don't, but you believe that you do. It's rather painful to watch but I still have to laugh at your total lack of even basic common sense and economic knowledge. Still, that's why I started this thread.

I'm sure your reality insulated bubble is very comfortable.

 

[hadit]

So we'd be a lot better off if we all lived in tin shacks with no plumbing. Think of all that shovel readiness!

Nope. We'd all be better off if we all owned houses and still had the money to fill them with things, things that we made here.

So you favor reformation of our failed educational system

It hasn't failed. That's dogma. It has problems, which can be fixed. And it's unrelated to the issue at hand.

Let me guess. If we just spend more on education, it will fix the problems.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's the opposite, dumbass. Just because a woman can make a baby in nine months doesn't mean nine women can make one in a month. It means you can't hurry the development schedule just by hiring more coders. God you're a idiot.

I know that, dumbass. I'm ridiculing your idiotic theory that dividing up money to make more numerous but smaller purchases produces more growth. It does precisely the opposite.

As usual, you are dead wrong. When the money stops flowing so does the economy. If I make widgets I want to sell a million of them, not 100.

Actually, no. Given that the total amount of revenue generated by selling the wi

A 1 million dollar boat does not create more activity than 10 100k boats.

Lover, that's correct, it creates less economic activity and we need more, so we need more boats not fewer more expensive ones.

This would be the 'Let's generate a lot of heat, but not much light' school of economics. It is the Chinese model. They do ok with it, but they have a billion people generating the same amount of light that 100 million Americans generate.

Correct, and the 100 million Americans get paid more than the billion Chinese. High priced goods drive good paying jobs. When Wal-Mart comes into town, the local mom and pop stores freak out. Why? Precisely because their higher priced goods and better paying jobs are wiped out by the low cost good and low paying jobs Wal-Mart brings. We need the wealthy buying their luxuries. Go for it, Paris.

Unrelated issues. Luxury buying helps very few. And Wal-Mart uses its economy of scale to undercut the locals, but that's capitalism for you. The consumers get a break but it's a race to the bottom however if the choice is Hilton buys a Tiffany necklace or the same amount of cash is spent that the Wal-Mart, go with the Wal-Mart since that creates much more economic activity.

Luxury items generate good paying jobs. Low end carp generates low paying jobs. It's just that simple.

It pays the same to make life jackets either way. If I make life jackets for a living I want many people to buy many boats, not Hilton to buy just one. Now if she buys 1,000 boats and two life jackets for each boat, I'm her biggest fan. That's how I get rich.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope. We'd all be better off if we all owned houses and still had the money to fill them with things, things that we made here.

And had rainbow farting unicorns in the barn.

You, like most Americans, are as dumb as dog shit.

And yet I keep destroying your arguments. Must suck to be you.

LOL. No Sweetheart, you don't, but you believe that you do. It's rather painful to watch but I still have to laugh at your total lack of even basic common sense and economic knowledge. Still, that's why I started this thread.

I'm sure your reality insulated bubble is very comfortable.

Little man I live in reality. God only knows what fantasyworld you live in. It's not one of knowledge that's for sure.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So we'd be a lot better off if we all lived in tin shacks with no plumbing. Think of all that shovel readiness!

Nope. We'd all be better off if we all owned houses and still had the money to fill them with things, things that we made here.

So you favor reformation of our failed educational system

It hasn't failed. That's dogma. It has problems, which can be fixed. And it's unrelated to the issue at hand.

It's designed to fail and it's been a spectacular failure! It keeps dragging our kids further and further down the Progressive rathole every year

 

[BlackSand]

It has a lot to do with it if you sell boating courses, air horns, life jackets, lines, ropes, anchors, fishing gear, trailers and the like. That's the point, you want tons of low-level economic activity. The high-end shit helps almost no one. Home Deport doesn't need Mitt Romney buying houses, it needs the average Joe.

A $100,000 boat has everything you mentioned and a ton of more stuff.
More high-end stuff that takes educated manufactures to build ... Supplying more specialized and better jobs.

Of course if you would rather keep folks sewing life-jackets in sweatshops ... You would make a pretty good candidate for a Progressive Liberal.
Think small, bottom of the barrel and backwards ... Remain small, bottom of the barrel and backwards.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Econ 101 Are you smarter than a 12th grader - CNNMoney

Go for it boys: Econ 101 Are you smarter than a 12th grader - CNNMoney

I took your little test. I got 10 out of 10.

So where does it mention your theory that rain creates umbrellas?

Good for you. And rain doesn't create umbrellas, it sells them.

How many did it sell in 500 BCE?

 

[bripat9643]

That has nothing to do with your theory. No one has claimed that selling 1,000,000 X is not as good as selling 100 X

You seem to be, moron. If you weren't then you'd understand why you want lots of people making and selling lots of things, all day long.

What we want is people producing something of value. What you want is for them to produce stuff whether anyone wants it or not.

Furthermore $1,000,000 of economic activity is $1,000,000 of economic activity, no matter how you slice it up.

You desperately need to learn economics. 1 mil spent at Tiffany & Co. by one person produces nothing like economic activity of 1,000 people spending $1,000 each at Wal-Mart. Come on people, you have to think, and you desperate need to learn how spreading the wealth, which results in more spending, produces more wealth : Articles The OWS Zero-Sum Game Fallacy

$1,000,000 of economic activity is $1,000,000 of economic activity. That proposition is irrefutable. It's a tautology.

No, your position is nonsense. 1,000 $1,000 necklaces create much more economic activity than one one million dollar necklace.

No, it's not nonsense. Of course, your necklace example couldn't possibly worse for elucidating the point because most of the value in the $1,000,000 necklace is died up in the stones. The boat was a better example. A $1,000,000 yacht might employ as many people as making 1000 $1,0000. The later can be stamped out by machines and might only require the labor of 5 people for 10 days. Building a yacht requires the custom craftsmanship of dozens of people for 6 months to a year.

 

[hadit]

And had rainbow farting unicorns in the barn.

You, like most Americans, are as dumb as dog shit.

And yet I keep destroying your arguments. Must suck to be you.

LOL. No Sweetheart, you don't, but you believe that you do. It's rather painful to watch but I still have to laugh at your total lack of even basic common sense and economic knowledge. Still, that's why I started this thread.

I'm sure your reality insulated bubble is very comfortable.

Little man I live in reality. God only knows what fantasyworld you live in. It's not one of knowledge that's for sure.

Whatever you need to tell yourself so you can sleep at night.

 

[hadit]

I know that, dumbass. I'm ridiculing your idiotic theory that dividing up money to make more numerous but smaller purchases produces more growth. It does precisely the opposite.

As usual, you are dead wrong. When the money stops flowing so does the economy. If I make widgets I want to sell a million of them, not 100.

Actually, no. Given that the total amount of revenue generated by selling the wi

Lover, that's correct, it creates less economic activity and we need more, so we need more boats not fewer more expensive ones.

This would be the 'Let's generate a lot of heat, but not much light' school of economics. It is the Chinese model. They do ok with it, but they have a billion people generating the same amount of light that 100 million Americans generate.

Correct, and the 100 million Americans get paid more than the billion Chinese. High priced goods drive good paying jobs. When Wal-Mart comes into town, the local mom and pop stores freak out. Why? Precisely because their higher priced goods and better paying jobs are wiped out by the low cost good and low paying jobs Wal-Mart brings. We need the wealthy buying their luxuries. Go for it, Paris.

Unrelated issues. Luxury buying helps very few. And Wal-Mart uses its economy of scale to undercut the locals, but that's capitalism for you. The consumers get a break but it's a race to the bottom however if the choice is Hilton buys a Tiffany necklace or the same amount of cash is spent that the Wal-Mart, go with the Wal-Mart since that creates much more economic activity.

Luxury items generate good paying jobs. Low end carp generates low paying jobs. It's just that simple.

It pays the same to make life jackets either way. If I make life jackets for a living I want many people to buy many boats, not Hilton to buy just one. Now if she buys 1,000 boats and two life jackets for each boat, I'm her biggest fan. That's how I get rich.

Or you make custom built furniture by hand out of the best hardwood you can lay your hands on. You pay the craftsmen you hire very well, because they are skilled at what they do, and because you can charge $20,000 to furnish a dining room. You are thrilled beyond measure when Paris shows up to furnish the house she just bought.

The factory down the road that churns out $100 tables made of pressed particle board pays workers minimum wage to take the boxed tables to the truck. I prefer being a craftsman, because at the factory, no matter how many boxes I load in the truck, I don't make any more than minimum wage.

High priced luxury goods purchased by the wealthy drive good paying jobs. Keep it up, Paris Hilton, you're providing a valuable service.

 

[hadit]

You seem to be, moron. If you weren't then you'd understand why you want lots of people making and selling lots of things, all day long.

What we want is people producing something of value. What you want is for them to produce stuff whether anyone wants it or not.

Furthermore $1,000,000 of economic activity is $1,000,000 of economic activity, no matter how you slice it up.

You desperately need to learn economics. 1 mil spent at Tiffany & Co. by one person produces nothing like economic activity of 1,000 people spending $1,000 each at Wal-Mart. Come on people, you have to think, and you desperate need to learn how spreading the wealth, which results in more spending, produces more wealth : Articles The OWS Zero-Sum Game Fallacy

$1,000,000 of economic activity is $1,000,000 of economic activity. That proposition is irrefutable. It's a tautology.

No, your position is nonsense. 1,000 $1,000 necklaces create much more economic activity than one one million dollar necklace.

No, it's not nonsense. Of course, your necklace example couldn't possibly worse for elucidating the point because most of the value in the $1,000,000 necklace is died up in the stones. The boat was a better example. A $1,000,000 yacht might employ as many people as making 1000 $1,0000. The later can be stamped out by machines and might only require the labor of 5 people for 10 days. Building a yacht requires the custom craftsmanship of dozens of people for 6 months to a year.

That is true.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It has a lot to do with it if you sell boating courses, air horns, life jackets, lines, ropes, anchors, fishing gear, trailers and the like. That's the point, you want tons of low-level economic activity. The high-end shit helps almost no one. Home Deport doesn't need Mitt Romney buying houses, it needs the average Joe.

A $100,000 boat has everything you mentioned and a ton of more stuff.
More high-end stuff that takes educated manufactures to build ... Supplying more specialized and better jobs.

Of course if you would rather keep folks sewing life-jackets in sweatshops ... You would make a pretty good candidate for a Progressive Liberal.
Think small, bottom of the barrel and backwards ... Remain small, bottom of the barrel and backwards.

He sounds like the people who put a "luxury tax" on yachts in 1990. Predictably, the result was the implosion of the market (down by a third in the first year) for US boat builders!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You seem to be, moron. If you weren't then you'd understand why you want lots of people making and selling lots of things, all day long.

What we want is people producing something of value. What you want is for them to produce stuff whether anyone wants it or not.

Furthermore $1,000,000 of economic activity is $1,000,000 of economic activity, no matter how you slice it up.

You desperately need to learn economics. 1 mil spent at Tiffany & Co. by one person produces nothing like economic activity of 1,000 people spending $1,000 each at Wal-Mart. Come on people, you have to think, and you desperate need to learn how spreading the wealth, which results in more spending, produces more wealth : Articles The OWS Zero-Sum Game Fallacy

$1,000,000 of economic activity is $1,000,000 of economic activity. That proposition is irrefutable. It's a tautology.

No, your position is nonsense. 1,000 $1,000 necklaces create much more economic activity than one one million dollar necklace.

No, it's not nonsense. Of course, your necklace example couldn't possibly worse for elucidating the point because most of the value in the $1,000,000 necklace is died up in the stones. The boat was a better example. A $1,000,000 yacht might employ as many people as making 1000 $1,0000. The later can be stamped out by machines and might only require the labor of 5 people for 10 days. Building a yacht requires the custom craftsmanship of dozens of people for 6 months to a year.

My kind of factory, and it's what goes into boats that really matters. That's what creates jobs.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It has a lot to do with it if you sell boating courses, air horns, life jackets, lines, ropes, anchors, fishing gear, trailers and the like. That's the point, you want tons of low-level economic activity. The high-end shit helps almost no one. Home Deport doesn't need Mitt Romney buying houses, it needs the average Joe.

A $100,000 boat has everything you mentioned and a ton of more stuff.
More high-end stuff that takes educated manufactures to build ... Supplying more specialized and better jobs.

Of course if you would rather keep folks sewing life-jackets in sweatshops ... You would make a pretty good candidate for a Progressive Liberal.
Think small, bottom of the barrel and backwards ... Remain small, bottom of the barrel and backwards.

He sounds like the people who put a "luxury tax" on yachts in 1990. Predictably, the result was the implosion of the market (down by a third in the first year) for US boat builders!

Adam Smith was fine with luxury taxes and so are most people.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

As usual, you are dead wrong. When the money stops flowing so does the economy. If I make widgets I want to sell a million of them, not 100.

Actually, no. Given that the total amount of revenue generated by selling the wi

This would be the 'Let's generate a lot of heat, but not much light' school of economics. It is the Chinese model. They do ok with it, but they have a billion people generating the same amount of light that 100 million Americans generate.

Correct, and the 100 million Americans get paid more than the billion Chinese. High priced goods drive good paying jobs. When Wal-Mart comes into town, the local mom and pop stores freak out. Why? Precisely because their higher priced goods and better paying jobs are wiped out by the low cost good and low paying jobs Wal-Mart brings. We need the wealthy buying their luxuries. Go for it, Paris.

Unrelated issues. Luxury buying helps very few. And Wal-Mart uses its economy of scale to undercut the locals, but that's capitalism for you. The consumers get a break but it's a race to the bottom however if the choice is Hilton buys a Tiffany necklace or the same amount of cash is spent that the Wal-Mart, go with the Wal-Mart since that creates much more economic activity.

Luxury items generate good paying jobs. Low end carp generates low paying jobs. It's just that simple.

It pays the same to make life jackets either way. If I make life jackets for a living I want many people to buy many boats, not Hilton to buy just one. Now if she buys 1,000 boats and two life jackets for each boat, I'm her biggest fan. That's how I get rich.

Or you make custom built furniture by hand out of the best hardwood you can lay your hands on. You pay the craftsmen you hire very well, because they are skilled at what they do, and because you can charge $20,000 to furnish a dining room. You are thrilled beyond measure when Paris shows up to furnish the house she just bought.

The factory down the road that churns out $100 tables made of pressed particle board pays workers minimum wage to take the boxed tables to the truck. I prefer being a craftsman, because at the factory, no matter how many boxes I load in the truck, I don't make any more than minimum wage.

High priced luxury goods purchased by the wealthy drive good paying jobs. Keep it up, Paris Hilton, you're providing a valuable service.

Get a room...