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

[CrusaderFrank]

Exporting our Progressives would be the best thing ever for our economy

 

[PaintMyHouse]

1000 millionaires is better for the overall economy than one billionaire, they all know it but would never admit it.

1000 billionaires are better than 1 billionaire too.

Really? Do you really believe such incredible concentrations of wealth benefit the wider economy? You can talk of investment and such but they are only going to buy so many houses, cars, boats and other assorted durable goods. It's fucking ridiculous to get so wealthy that you can't even give it all away in your lifetime.

Wa wa wa .socialist puke.

AF is a total moron, starting with his Hitler-youth nickname.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A simple notion that so many still reject. Why is a million dollar boat not as good as ten $100,000 boats, and 100 $10,000 boats is even better, and 1,000 $1,000 boats is much, much better still. Now, why is that? It has to do with the economic activity created by such a thing.

.
Depends on what you are planning on doing with the boats. For many uses, bigger boats are more efficient and less polluting than a bunch of smaller boats.

.

I am unconcerned with the efficiency. In this case I am concerned only with what spreads the wealth and creates even more wealth, which is many boats bought by many people. When the money flows we all do better.

Riiiiiiiiiiight. It only fails every times it's been tried.

I say we spread our Progressives to poorer countries

 

[bripat9643]

1000 millionaires is better for the overall economy than one billionaire, they all know it but would never admit it.

1000 billionaires are better than 1 billionaire too.

Really? Do you really believe such incredible concentrations of wealth benefit the wider economy? You can talk of investment and such but they are only going to buy so many houses, cars, boats and other assorted durable goods. It's fucking ridiculous to get so wealthy that you can't even give it all away in your lifetime.

Wa wa wa .socialist puke.

Looting doesn't create wealth. It destroys wealth. You obviously don't give a damn about whether your agenda encourages economic growth. You're only concerned with catering to envy.

 

[percysunshine]

A simple notion that so many still reject. Why is a million dollar boat not as good as ten $100,000 boats, and 100 $10,000 boats is even better, and 1,000 $1,000 boats is much, much better still. Now, why is that? It has to do with the economic activity created by such a thing.

.
Depends on what you are planning on doing with the boats. For many uses, bigger boats are more efficient and less polluting than a bunch of smaller boats.

.

I am unconcerned with the efficiency. In this case I am concerned only with what spreads the wealth and creates even more wealth, which is many boats bought by many people. When the money flows we all do better.

Sure, in a hypothetical construct. In the real world, inefficiency destroys wealth. For everyone.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A simple notion that so many still reject. Why is a million dollar boat not as good as ten $100,000 boats, and 100 $10,000 boats is even better, and 1,000 $1,000 boats is much, much better still. Now, why is that? It has to do with the economic activity created by such a thing.

.
Depends on what you are planning on doing with the boats. For many uses, bigger boats are more efficient and less polluting than a bunch of smaller boats.

.

I am unconcerned with the efficiency. In this case I am concerned only with what spreads the wealth and creates even more wealth, which is many boats bought by many people. When the money flows we all do better.

Riiiiiiiiiiight. It only fails every times it's been tried.

I say we spread our Progressives to poorer countries

It's a Liberal nation, founded by Liberals. You are welcome to get the fuck out ASAP. We neither need you nor want you here.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A simple notion that so many still reject. Why is a million dollar boat not as good as ten $100,000 boats, and 100 $10,000 boats is even better, and 1,000 $1,000 boats is much, much better still. Now, why is that? It has to do with the economic activity created by such a thing.

.
Depends on what you are planning on doing with the boats. For many uses, bigger boats are more efficient and less polluting than a bunch of smaller boats.

.

I am unconcerned with the efficiency. In this case I am concerned only with what spreads the wealth and creates even more wealth, which is many boats bought by many people. When the money flows we all do better.

Sure, in a hypothetical construct. In the real world, inefficiency destroys wealth. For everyone.

Not at all. In a house of cards there is no reason not to play the hand to the advantage of everyone.

 

[percysunshine]

A simple notion that so many still reject. Why is a million dollar boat not as good as ten $100,000 boats, and 100 $10,000 boats is even better, and 1,000 $1,000 boats is much, much better still. Now, why is that? It has to do with the economic activity created by such a thing.

.
Depends on what you are planning on doing with the boats. For many uses, bigger boats are more efficient and less polluting than a bunch of smaller boats.

.

I am unconcerned with the efficiency. In this case I am concerned only with what spreads the wealth and creates even more wealth, which is many boats bought by many people. When the money flows we all do better.

Sure, in a hypothetical construct. In the real world, inefficiency destroys wealth. For everyone.

Not at all. In a house of cards there is no reason not to play the hand to the advantage of everyone.

I thought we were sailing boats? Now we are building houses?

The same principle applies. What are we going to use the house for? Maybe 1000 tin shacks would work just fine...maybe not.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

1000 millionaires is better for the overall economy than one billionaire, they all know it but would never admit it.

1000 billionaires are better than 1 billionaire too.

Really? Do you really believe such incredible concentrations of wealth benefit the wider economy? You can talk of investment and such but they are only going to buy so many houses, cars, boats and other assorted durable goods. It's fucking ridiculous to get so wealthy that you can't even give it all away in your lifetime.

Wa wa wa .socialist puke.

Looting doesn't create wealth. It destroys wealth. You obviously don't give a damn about whether your agenda encourages economic growth. You're only concerned with catering to envy.

A simple notion that so many still reject. Why is a million dollar boat not as good as ten $100,000 boats, and 100 $10,000 boats is even better, and 1,000 $1,000 boats is much, much better still. Now, why is that? It has to do with the economic activity created by such a thing.

.
Depends on what you are planning on doing with the boats. For many uses, bigger boats are more efficient and less polluting than a bunch of smaller boats.

.

I am unconcerned with the efficiency. In this case I am concerned only with what spreads the wealth and creates even more wealth, which is many boats bought by many people. When the money flows we all do better.

Sure, in a hypothetical construct. In the real world, inefficiency destroys wealth. For everyone.

Not at all. In a house of cards there is no reason not to play the hand to the advantage of everyone.

I thought we were sailing boats? Now we are building houses?

The same principle applies. What are we going to use the house for? Maybe 1000 tin shacks would work just fine...maybe not.

If 1,000 tin shacks means 1,000 TVs, a 1,000 stoves, and 1,000 beds, build away. See how it works now? Keep the money and goods flowing.

 

[westwall]

A simple notion that so many still reject. Why is a million dollar boat not as good as ten $100,000 boats, and 100 $10,000 boats is even better, and 1,000 $1,000 boats is much, much better still. Now, why is that? It has to do with the economic activity created by such a thing.

What economic activity are you talking about? Mass produced boats, the cheap ones, employ few people, make money for the factory owners but do a good serviceable job.

Expensive boats on the other hand, employ trained craftsmen, who make good wages for their work and are works of art in some cases.

 

[percysunshine]

1000 millionaires is better for the overall economy than one billionaire, they all know it but would never admit it.

1000 billionaires are better than 1 billionaire too.

Really? Do you really believe such incredible concentrations of wealth benefit the wider economy? You can talk of investment and such but they are only going to buy so many houses, cars, boats and other assorted durable goods. It's fucking ridiculous to get so wealthy that you can't even give it all away in your lifetime.

Wa wa wa .socialist puke.

Looting doesn't create wealth. It destroys wealth. You obviously don't give a damn about whether your agenda encourages economic growth. You're only concerned with catering to envy.

.
Depends on what you are planning on doing with the boats. For many uses, bigger boats are more efficient and less polluting than a bunch of smaller boats.

.

I am unconcerned with the efficiency. In this case I am concerned only with what spreads the wealth and creates even more wealth, which is many boats bought by many people. When the money flows we all do better.

Sure, in a hypothetical construct. In the real world, inefficiency destroys wealth. For everyone.

Not at all. In a house of cards there is no reason not to play the hand to the advantage of everyone.

I thought we were sailing boats? Now we are building houses?

The same principle applies. What are we going to use the house for? Maybe 1000 tin shacks would work just fine...maybe not.

If 1,000 tin shacks means 1,000 TVs, a 1,000 stoves, and 1,000 beds, build away. See how it works now? Keep the money and goods flowing.

But what if these 1000 shacks are all in Haiti, and a hurricane hits the island? Then what?
.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

1000 billionaires are better than 1 billionaire too.

Really? Do you really believe such incredible concentrations of wealth benefit the wider economy? You can talk of investment and such but they are only going to buy so many houses, cars, boats and other assorted durable goods. It's fucking ridiculous to get so wealthy that you can't even give it all away in your lifetime.

Wa wa wa .socialist puke.

Looting doesn't create wealth. It destroys wealth. You obviously don't give a damn about whether your agenda encourages economic growth. You're only concerned with catering to envy.

I am unconcerned with the efficiency. In this case I am concerned only with what spreads the wealth and creates even more wealth, which is many boats bought by many people. When the money flows we all do better.

Sure, in a hypothetical construct. In the real world, inefficiency destroys wealth. For everyone.

Not at all. In a house of cards there is no reason not to play the hand to the advantage of everyone.

I thought we were sailing boats? Now we are building houses?

The same principle applies. What are we going to use the house for? Maybe 1000 tin shacks would work just fine...maybe not.

If 1,000 tin shacks means 1,000 TVs, a 1,000 stoves, and 1,000 beds, build away. See how it works now? Keep the money and goods flowing.

But what if these 1000 shacks are all in Haiti, and a hurricane hits the island? Then what?
.

Then you sell them another 1,000 TVs, and beds, and stoves. Ca-ching! It's a game, learn the rules.

 

[percysunshine]

Really? Do you really believe such incredible concentrations of wealth benefit the wider economy? You can talk of investment and such but they are only going to buy so many houses, cars, boats and other assorted durable goods. It's fucking ridiculous to get so wealthy that you can't even give it all away in your lifetime.

Wa wa wa .socialist puke.

Looting doesn't create wealth. It destroys wealth. You obviously don't give a damn about whether your agenda encourages economic growth. You're only concerned with catering to envy.

Sure, in a hypothetical construct. In the real world, inefficiency destroys wealth. For everyone.

Not at all. In a house of cards there is no reason not to play the hand to the advantage of everyone.

I thought we were sailing boats? Now we are building houses?

The same principle applies. What are we going to use the house for? Maybe 1000 tin shacks would work just fine...maybe not.

If 1,000 tin shacks means 1,000 TVs, a 1,000 stoves, and 1,000 beds, build away. See how it works now? Keep the money and goods flowing.

But what if these 1000 shacks are all in Haiti, and a hurricane hits the island? Then what?
.

Then you sell them another 1,000 TVs, and beds, and stoves. Ca-ching! It's a game, learn the rules.

They do not have any money left. Who is going to pay for the stuff?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wa wa wa .socialist puke.

Looting doesn't create wealth. It destroys wealth. You obviously don't give a damn about whether your agenda encourages economic growth. You're only concerned with catering to envy.

Not at all. In a house of cards there is no reason not to play the hand to the advantage of everyone.

I thought we were sailing boats? Now we are building houses?

The same principle applies. What are we going to use the house for? Maybe 1000 tin shacks would work just fine...maybe not.

If 1,000 tin shacks means 1,000 TVs, a 1,000 stoves, and 1,000 beds, build away. See how it works now? Keep the money and goods flowing.

But what if these 1000 shacks are all in Haiti, and a hurricane hits the island? Then what?
.

Then you sell them another 1,000 TVs, and beds, and stoves. Ca-ching! It's a game, learn the rules.

They do not have any money left. Who is going to pay for the stuff?

That is not that the concern of the capitalist. The point is to sell, sell, sell, and we all eat well...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wa wa wa .socialist puke.

Looting doesn't create wealth. It destroys wealth. You obviously don't give a damn about whether your agenda encourages economic growth. You're only concerned with catering to envy.

Not at all. In a house of cards there is no reason not to play the hand to the advantage of everyone.

I thought we were sailing boats? Now we are building houses?

The same principle applies. What are we going to use the house for? Maybe 1000 tin shacks would work just fine...maybe not.

If 1,000 tin shacks means 1,000 TVs, a 1,000 stoves, and 1,000 beds, build away. See how it works now? Keep the money and goods flowing.

But what if these 1000 shacks are all in Haiti, and a hurricane hits the island? Then what?
.

Then you sell them another 1,000 TVs, and beds, and stoves. Ca-ching! It's a game, learn the rules.

They do not have any money left. Who is going to pay for the stuff?

Well, maybe they can start growing what we call a economy.
1. Educate their children
2. Find something to trade
3. Build infrastructure to haul stuff you're trading on
4. Invest more into education for more advance skills
5. Regulate fairly your new economy
6. winning

Pretty soon, Haiti would be making this shit for themselves!

 

[percysunshine]

Looting doesn't create wealth. It destroys wealth. You obviously don't give a damn about whether your agenda encourages economic growth. You're only concerned with catering to envy.

I thought we were sailing boats? Now we are building houses?

The same principle applies. What are we going to use the house for? Maybe 1000 tin shacks would work just fine...maybe not.

If 1,000 tin shacks means 1,000 TVs, a 1,000 stoves, and 1,000 beds, build away. See how it works now? Keep the money and goods flowing.

But what if these 1000 shacks are all in Haiti, and a hurricane hits the island? Then what?
.

Then you sell them another 1,000 TVs, and beds, and stoves. Ca-ching! It's a game, learn the rules.

They do not have any money left. Who is going to pay for the stuff?

That is not that the concern of the capitalist. The point is to sell, sell, sell, and we all eat well...

This isn't a very smart capitalist. Selling plasma TVs to people with no money. Your imaginary capitalist is going out of business.

 

[percysunshine]

Looting doesn't create wealth. It destroys wealth. You obviously don't give a damn about whether your agenda encourages economic growth. You're only concerned with catering to envy.

I thought we were sailing boats? Now we are building houses?

The same principle applies. What are we going to use the house for? Maybe 1000 tin shacks would work just fine...maybe not.

If 1,000 tin shacks means 1,000 TVs, a 1,000 stoves, and 1,000 beds, build away. See how it works now? Keep the money and goods flowing.

But what if these 1000 shacks are all in Haiti, and a hurricane hits the island? Then what?
.

Then you sell them another 1,000 TVs, and beds, and stoves. Ca-ching! It's a game, learn the rules.

They do not have any money left. Who is going to pay for the stuff?

Well, maybe they can start growing what we call a economy.
1. Educate their children
2. Find something to trade
3. Build infrastructure to haul stuff you're trading on
4. Invest more into education for more advance skills
5. Regulate fairly your new economy
6. winning

Pretty soon, Haiti would be making this shit for themselves!

Is Jimmy Carter going to butt in and insist that all the shacks be painted pink?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If 1,000 tin shacks means 1,000 TVs, a 1,000 stoves, and 1,000 beds, build away. See how it works now? Keep the money and goods flowing.

But what if these 1000 shacks are all in Haiti, and a hurricane hits the island? Then what?
.

Then you sell them another 1,000 TVs, and beds, and stoves. Ca-ching! It's a game, learn the rules.

They do not have any money left. Who is going to pay for the stuff?

That is not that the concern of the capitalist. The point is to sell, sell, sell, and we all eat well...

This isn't a very smart capitalist. Selling plasma TVs to people with no money. Your imaginary capitalist is going out of business.

They have the money, but I don't give a damn where it's coming from, as long as they are buying.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Really? Do you really believe such incredible concentrations of wealth benefit the wider economy? You can talk of investment and such but they are only going to buy so many houses, cars, boats and other assorted durable goods. It's fucking ridiculous to get so wealthy that you can't even give it all away in your lifetime.

Wa wa wa .socialist puke.

Looting doesn't create wealth. It destroys wealth. You obviously don't give a damn about whether your agenda encourages economic growth. You're only concerned with catering to envy.

Sure, in a hypothetical construct. In the real world, inefficiency destroys wealth. For everyone.

Not at all. In a house of cards there is no reason not to play the hand to the advantage of everyone.

I thought we were sailing boats? Now we are building houses?

The same principle applies. What are we going to use the house for? Maybe 1000 tin shacks would work just fine...maybe not.

If 1,000 tin shacks means 1,000 TVs, a 1,000 stoves, and 1,000 beds, build away. See how it works now? Keep the money and goods flowing.

But what if these 1000 shacks are all in Haiti, and a hurricane hits the island? Then what?
.

Then you sell them another 1,000 TVs, and beds, and stoves. Ca-ching! It's a game, learn the rules.

You want to put limits on the size of everything people can buy and still think everyone will get a TV. You're an idiot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If 1,000 tin shacks means 1,000 TVs, a 1,000 stoves, and 1,000 beds, build away. See how it works now? Keep the money and goods flowing.

But what if these 1000 shacks are all in Haiti, and a hurricane hits the island? Then what?
.

Then you sell them another 1,000 TVs, and beds, and stoves. Ca-ching! It's a game, learn the rules.

They do not have any money left. Who is going to pay for the stuff?

That is not that the concern of the capitalist. The point is to sell, sell, sell, and we all eat well...

This isn't a very smart capitalist. Selling plasma TVs to people with no money. Your imaginary capitalist is going out of business.

Not when the government guarantees the loans