What's the "Conservative" Answer?

[AVG-JOE]

Which market would be best for the USA and the world?

A) 6,000 Chinese Aristocrats with $7 Billion each to spend or

B) 7 Billion Chinese middle class with $60,000 each to spend?

What are the implications of the thought you just had there?!?

 

[Intense]

That would depend on what you were selling, now wouldn't it.

 

[kaz]

Which market would be best for the USA and the world?

A) 6,000 Chinese Aristocrats with $7 Billion each to spend or

B) 7 Billion Chinese middle class with $60,000 each to spend?

What are the implications of the thought you just had there?!?

(A) is the correct answer because they would build companies and hire the 7 billion who need jobs and create an engine. If you chose (B) they would spend it and that would be that.

 

[Toronado3800]

I believe the world benefits more from "B". Supply of housing does not create demand.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Which market would be best for the USA and the world?

A) 6,000 Chinese Aristocrats with $7 Billion each to spend or

B) 7 Billion Chinese middle class with $60,000 each to spend?

What are the implications of the thought you just had there?!?

(A) is the correct answer because they would build companies and hire the 7 billion who need jobs and create an engine. If you chose (B) they would spend it and that would be that.

do the rich ever put money into their own pockets and just blow it? It always seems to be the thought that when rich people get money they run out and create jobs as an auto-function. But the average joes will be irresponsible with their money always.

where does this come from?

 

[gekaap]

The answer is: tax cuts.

 

[bucs90]

Whichever you answer...........the most talented, innovative people will end up with more money and property anyway.

Give 1 billion people $60,000 each. I bet in 5 years, 10% of that 7 billion will create products or services that are in such demand that they end up getting a lot of the other's money.

It's life folks. Some people are more talented and innovative than others. The true evil is the ones who want a government to use threat of violence to then take by force the fruits of those people's labor.

 

[Toronado3800]

Rich folks create jobs.

Billy earns a billion dollars in a year. Billy, his wife and two kids create enough supermarket jobs to feed themselves. They also create enough pool and lawn service jobs to keep their mansion's looking nice.

If that billion dollars earned is split more or less evenly between 20,000 ppl into $50,000 per year you get 20,000 folks who need transportation and personal computers and the like.

Now honestly folks need the fear of starvation to keep them working. Folks also will work harder if we feel there is a probability of reward. So I AM a capitalist. Just one who believes countries with a middle class are better off.

 

[rdean]

End taxes for corporations.

Give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.

Defund education.

Defund Social Security.

End Medicare.

Stop any building on America's infrastructure.

Bring Jesus into public schools.

Conservatives haven't changed their message since the publication of the "Wedge Document". They are looking to create a "pure" America.

Wedge Document

 

[AVG-JOE]

That would depend on what you were selling, now wouldn't it.

Market. As in EVERYTHING we make and distribute. Cars, Trucks, Electronic Gizmos, Beef, Tourism back here.... EVERYTHING.

This isn't rocket science, although we have rocket science for sale...

 

[AVG-JOE]

The answer is: tax cuts.

That's not even part of the question. The question boils down to which is better: A small aristocracy with all the money or a huge middle class with all the money?

It's a simple question. If you own stock in or are working at a manufacturing plant that depends on selling X number of units per month to keep the lights and machines on, which would you rather have as a market, 6000 Aristocrats with a few billion in the bank each or 7 billion people with middle class incomes?

Should that answer be different for Europe? For India? For America?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Whichever you answer...........the most talented, innovative people will end up with more money and property anyway.

Give 1 billion people $60,000 each. I bet in 5 years, 10% of that 7 billion will create products or services that are in such demand that they end up getting a lot of the other's money.

It's life folks. Some people are more talented and innovative than others. The true evil is the ones who want a government to use threat of violence to then take by force the fruits of those people's labor.

Nobody is saying 'give' anyone anything - I'm just asking which is the prettier looking market place... which would it be an easier market to sell enough goods from your manufacturing operation to keep the lights on?

Which would you rather try to sell to, a market of 7 billion dirt-poor peasants and 6,000 aristocrats with the ability to buy anything they want, or a market of 7 billion humans with middle class disposable income?

It's a simple question.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Rich folks create jobs.

Billy earns a billion dollars in a year. Billy, his wife and two kids create enough supermarket jobs to feed themselves. They also create enough pool and lawn service jobs to keep their mansion's looking nice.

If that billion dollars earned is split more or less evenly between 20,000 ppl into $50,000 per year you get 20,000 folks who need transportation and personal computers and the like.

Now honestly folks need the fear of starvation to keep them working. Folks also will work harder if we feel there is a probability of reward. So I AM a capitalist. Just one who believes countries with a middle class are better off.

Why would a rich folk bother creating a job for Billy unless he had a market place with disposable income to present the final product to?

Rich people do NOT create jobs. People with disposable income to spend create jobs.

Rich people just bankroll the building of the infrastructure of production - and they usually borrow the money for those projects rather than use their own.



It's time to let the religion of Trickle Down go the way of The Volcano God.

 

[editec]

Which market would be best for the USA and the world?

A) 6,000 Chinese Aristocrats with $7 Billion each to spend or

B) 7 Billion Chinese middle class with $60,000 each to spend?

What are the implications of the thought you just had there?!?

Obviously from the perspective of potential sellers INTO that market, B is the preferred outcome.

But if you're a Chinese nationalist and believer in the capitalist system of economics, too, the argument might be made (using slightly different numbers, of course) that CAPITALISM requires CAPITAL FORMATION.

Ergo, it would be better if the workers got slightly less money each, such that the capitalists could amass the capital necessary for future invesment.

The thing about capitalism is that we cannot ALL be capitalists.

Capitalism requires workers (to create wealth and to consum part of that wealth, too) as well as capitalists (to amass excess capital for future needs) to function.

 

[rdean]

Rich folks create jobs.

Billy earns a billion dollars in a year. Billy, his wife and two kids create enough supermarket jobs to feed themselves. They also create enough pool and lawn service jobs to keep their mansion's looking nice.

If that billion dollars earned is split more or less evenly between 20,000 ppl into $50,000 per year you get 20,000 folks who need transportation and personal computers and the like.

Now honestly folks need the fear of starvation to keep them working. Folks also will work harder if we feel there is a probability of reward. So I AM a capitalist. Just one who believes countries with a middle class are better off.

Why would a rich folk bother creating a job for Billy unless he had a market place with disposable income to present the final product to?

Rich people do NOT create jobs. People with disposable income to spend create jobs.

Rich people just bankroll the building of the infrastructure of production - and they usually borrow the money for those projects rather than use their own.



It's time to let the religion of Trickle Down go the way of The Volcano God.

Perfectly worded.

 

[kaz]

Which market would be best for the USA and the world?

A) 6,000 Chinese Aristocrats with $7 Billion each to spend or

B) 7 Billion Chinese middle class with $60,000 each to spend?

What are the implications of the thought you just had there?!?

(A) is the correct answer because they would build companies and hire the 7 billion who need jobs and create an engine. If you chose (B) they would spend it and that would be that.

do the rich ever put money into their own pockets and just blow it?

Yes, what is the relevance of the question?

It always seems to be the thought that when rich people get money they run out and create jobs as an auto-function

It's not auto-function, it's how they got rich in the first place. It's not coincidence, there is a direct cause and effect relationship.

But the average joes will be irresponsible with their money always.

where does this come from?

It came out of your ass, I didn't say that. You did. Jobs come from the rich, not the middle class. That is basic economics. If you can prove the field of economics is wrong, then go for it.

 

[johnrocks]

c. Let the free market decide.

Why does it have to be one of the two; "bottom up" or "trickle down", why can't it be both; it takes all of us spending,saving and producing things to have a vibrant economy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There exists no absolute 'economic' answer though it seems many believe one and only one exists. The rich put their pants on one leg at a time; some are rich because daddy gave them wealth, some are rich because they had an idea whose time had come (Bill Gates), others because they had a great product and a creative talent (Steve Jobs) and others because they lack a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience (Insurance Tycoons).

 

[kaz]

Which market would be best for the USA and the world?

A) 6,000 Chinese Aristocrats with $7 Billion each to spend or

B) 7 Billion Chinese middle class with $60,000 each to spend?

What are the implications of the thought you just had there?!?

Obviously from the perspective of potential sellers INTO that market, B is the preferred outcome.

B would not have been created and is not sustainable without A. In Michigan, "A" happened and created a major economic engine. The workers moved here and eventually succumbed to socialist lies and wealth envy and voted for government to destroy A. They did, but it destroyed B as well. The Democrats are now trying to do that nationally.

The thing about capitalism is that we cannot ALL be capitalists.

Capitalism requires workers (to create wealth and to consum part of that wealth, too) as well as capitalists (to amass excess capital for future needs) to function.

Oh bull shit. Workers take the best jobs, buy the best products for the money and make their own choices. It is in fact capitalism that includes everyone. Socialism divides into the central decisionmakers and the powerless workers and consumers and sustain themselves through fear and lies.

 

[rdean]

(A) is the correct answer because they would build companies and hire the 7 billion who need jobs and create an engine. If you chose (B) they would spend it and that would be that.

do the rich ever put money into their own pockets and just blow it?

Yes, what is the relevance of the question?

It always seems to be the thought that when rich people get money they run out and create jobs as an auto-function

It's not auto-function, it's how they got rich in the first place. It's not coincidence, there is a direct cause and effect relationship.

But the average joes will be irresponsible with their money always.

where does this come from?

It came out of your ass, I didn't say that. You did. Jobs come from the rich, not the middle class. That is basic economics. If you can prove the field of economics is wrong, then go for it.

Jobs come from "supply and demand". If people don't have money to buy anything, no jobs will be created because there will be no demand. THAT is "basic economics".

You can't slant every bit of the economy towards the rich and screw everyone else.

Unless you feel "rich people" make jobs to give the middle class "something to do" out of the goodness of their hearts. Rich people are the "source of all that is good" and, because they are so good, they create jobs for no other reason than to trickle down a few crumbs for those desperate and undeserving "middle class". I guess in that reality, jobs do come from the "rich".