War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[The Rabbi]

Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.

Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.

The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.

I thought companies were going to go out of business if they had to raise the minimum wage, or provide health insurance, or otherwise provide their employees more?

How can that be if wealth available to companies is not unlimited?

Thats a clown question, bro.

It should say 'if wealth available to companies is unlimited'. that is your claim. my misprint.

You dont really understand the idea of limited resources right now vs unlimited resources in the future, do you? Silly me, you dont understand any of this shit.

 

[JoeNormal]

Did you actually even look at the link I provided or are you under the mistaken impression that you know what it says? The underlying limiting factor in wealth generation is resource depletion.

Then why is this country wealthier than it was 40 years ago despite using those resources?

Because we've outsourced our industrial base.

What? So according to you resource depletion is not a limit to wealth since a country can always outsource their industrial base instead.
Right?

I'm pretty sure that we've utilized all of the third world shit holes that the Earth has to offer. What next?

So we've exhausted all the world's resources at this point? Is that really your claim?

You can't be this stupid. I'll credit you with being disingenuous.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then why is this country wealthier than it was 40 years ago despite using those resources?

Because we've outsourced our industrial base.

What? So according to you resource depletion is not a limit to wealth since a country can always outsource their industrial base instead.
Right?

I'm pretty sure that we've utilized all of the third world shit holes that the Earth has to offer. What next?

So we've exhausted all the world's resources at this point? Is that really your claim?

You can't be this stupid. I'll credit you with being disingenuous.

I,m not the one claiming that
-resources determine wealth
-the US has become more wealthy despiute using up those resources because we outsourced our industrial base
-no one else can do that because we've exhausted all the earths resources.
That's you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.

The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.

I thought companies were going to go out of business if they had to raise the minimum wage, or provide health insurance, or otherwise provide their employees more?

How can that be if wealth available to companies is not unlimited?

Thats a clown question, bro.

It should say 'if wealth available to companies is unlimited'. that is your claim. my misprint.

You dont really understand the idea of limited resources right now vs unlimited resources in the future, do you? Silly me, you dont understand any of this shit.

No I understand that no resources are unlimited, and also, that's it's irrelevant to someone with a job today what might be here in the year 2525.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

You can't be this stupid. .

You must be new here.

 

[The Rabbi]

The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.

I thought companies were going to go out of business if they had to raise the minimum wage, or provide health insurance, or otherwise provide their employees more?

How can that be if wealth available to companies is not unlimited?

Thats a clown question, bro.

It should say 'if wealth available to companies is unlimited'. that is your claim. my misprint.

You dont really understand the idea of limited resources right now vs unlimited resources in the future, do you? Silly me, you dont understand any of this shit.

No I understand that no resources are unlimited, and also, that's it's irrelevant to someone with a job today what might be here in the year 2525.

No actually youv'e demonstrated conclusively you do not understand that. You dont have a ******* clue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

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

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

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

This paragraph from the report says it all—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darn. I posted that as a parody. But here is someone who actually believes it.
Yes, you are right. That is why the GDP in this country has not changed one bit since the American Revolution. It's everyone just trading money around, no wealth created.
The stupid just hurts around here.

We're talking about who gets what share of the wealth. For God's sake pay attention or go away.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

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

This paragraph from the report says it all—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darn. I posted that as a parody. But here is someone who actually believes it.
Yes, you are right. That is why the GDP in this country has not changed one bit since the American Revolution. It's everyone just trading money around, no wealth created.
The stupid just hurts around here.

We're talking about who gets what share of the wealth. For God's sake pay attention or go away.

No you're not. You're talking about how wealth is limited and therefore there is only so much to go around.
Please try to focus so you dont sound even dumber than I've already made you.

 

[JoeNormal]

Because we've outsourced our industrial base.

What? So according to you resource depletion is not a limit to wealth since a country can always outsource their industrial base instead.
Right?

I'm pretty sure that we've utilized all of the third world shit holes that the Earth has to offer. What next?

So we've exhausted all the world's resources at this point? Is that really your claim?

You can't be this stupid. I'll credit you with being disingenuous.

I,m not the one claiming that
-resources determine wealth
-the US has become more wealthy despiute using up those resources because we outsourced our industrial base
-no one else can do that because we've exhausted all the earths resources.
That's you.

Bottom line, resources do determine wealth. Just because we've been exploiting people and regions that were late coming to the industrial/capitalist table doesn't mean that we can continue to do that indefinitely.

Energy is the most likely and pressing limited resource. The oceans are being depleted faster than the rate of reproduction. Water is becoming an issue in the west as we speak. What do you think will happen when these limits are global?

 

[Boss]

Got it, you are an ignorant tool who wants to conflate things. Let me help you Bubba

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


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

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

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

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

Another devout Marxist spewing devoted Marxist claptrap!

There is never 'only so much corporate income in a given year' this is a 'bait and switch' which is designed to fool really stupid people, and it apparently works. The amount of any corporate income in any given year is unknown until the end of the year. If it were "only so much" then it would be finite and known ahead of time. If it could only be "so much" then you'd go to stores in December which would be closed, with a sign on the door... Closed due to reaching our limit on income for the year, please come back in January! This obviously never happens.

 

[jillian]

False....

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

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

So you think wealth is finite, then?

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


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

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

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

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

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

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

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

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

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

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

no. he relied on people who actually understand the subject.

unlike you.

 

[jillian]

Doesn't matter HOW I made it, the fact is money IS finite, like wealth


Try as you might, you can't get past basic math

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

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

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

So speaks the moron....

If wealth did not grow, we'd all still be fighting over the first pig to be traded for an ear of corn.

You're too stupid to understand the difference between wealth and money.

BTW....You Boi has been printing money like its going out of style for 6 years.

Now go bother your mother for some cookies.

even assuming wealth were not finite, what is finite is opportunity and the distribution of that wealth, vis a vis salaries, etc., that is available to workers.

and the more the top 1% is pandered to, the more they drive down wages to increase their own share.

there... i hope that helps.

 

[jillian]

Got it, you are an ignorant tool who wants to conflate things. Let me help you Bubba

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


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

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

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

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

Another devout Marxist spewing devoted Marxist claptrap!

There is never 'only so much corporate income in a given year' this is a 'bait and switch' which is designed to fool really stupid people, and it apparently works. The amount of any corporate income in any given year is unknown until the end of the year. If it were "only so much" then it would be finite and known ahead of time. If it could only be "so much" then you'd go to stores in December which would be closed, with a sign on the door... Closed due to reaching our limit on income for the year, please come back in January! This obviously never happens.

so anyone who isn't a randian idiot is a marxist?

lol

 

[Toro]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It's amazing that people believe this.

Wealth rises almost every year.

 

[Contumacious]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


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

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

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year.


The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Communists Retards and their parasitic supporters are always using neologisms as a subterfuge to steal from "A" to give to "B".

In the "Communists Manifesto "Their leader Karl Marx described the strategy as follows

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

.

 

[Contumacious]

Got it, you are an ignorant tool who wants to conflate things. Let me help you Bubba

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


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

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

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

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

Another devout Marxist spewing devoted Marxist claptrap!

There is never 'only so much corporate income in a given year' this is a 'bait and switch' which is designed to fool really stupid people, and it apparently works. The amount of any corporate income in any given year is unknown until the end of the year. If it were "only so much" then it would be finite and known ahead of time. If it could only be "so much" then you'd go to stores in December which would be closed, with a sign on the door... Closed due to reaching our limit on income for the year, please come back in January! This obviously never happens.

so anyone who isn't a randian idiot is a marxist?

lol

If it walks like a duck......................

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, you are an ignorant tool who wants to conflate things. Let me help you Bubba

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


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

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

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

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

Another devout Marxist spewing devoted Marxist claptrap!

There is never 'only so much corporate income in a given year' this is a 'bait and switch' which is designed to fool really stupid people, and it apparently works. The amount of any corporate income in any given year is unknown until the end of the year. If it were "only so much" then it would be finite and known ahead of time. If it could only be "so much" then you'd go to stores in December which would be closed, with a sign on the door... Closed due to reaching our limit on income for the year, please come back in January! This obviously never happens.

Ignorance


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

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

 

[Dad2three]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It's amazing that people believe this.

Wealth rises almost every year.

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


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

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


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

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

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

 

[Dad2three]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


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

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

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year.


The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Communists Retards and their parasitic supporters are always using neologisms as a subterfuge to steal from "A" to give to "B".

In the "Communists Manifesto "Their leader Karl Marx described the strategy as follows

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

.

The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.

 

[Judicial review]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It's amazing that people believe this.

Wealth rises almost every year.

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


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

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


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

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

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Don't you have anything better to post? Same old bullshit.