|
9082365 wrote: It takes money out of the economy.
Nothing compared to how much money the nanny state takes out of the economy. Don't be ridiculous. 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: Nothing compared to how much money the nanny state takes out of the economy
The state spends that money again within a short timeframe. Most rich peoples' billions just sit there on a bank account.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Sascha Lefèvre wrote: Most rich peoples' billions just sit there on a bank account.
Wrong. Most rich people's money is invested in various securities - shares, bonds, etc. Their money therefore stimulates the economy, just like anyone else's
Even if they were to keep all of their money in a checking account, the bank would lend that money out, and again - it would stimulate the economy.
Very few (if any) rich people bury their money in their back yard...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you're right there, of course. Except that banks don't even need your money to give someone else a loan. Kind of forgot my economy lessons.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Regulations require the banks to maintain a certain ratio of deposits to loans, so having more deposits enables them to make more loans.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK that ratio is own funds to loans (or deposits of own funds to loans), not deposits of customers money to loans (?)
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: Nothing compared to
There is now a substantial number of people whose wealth exceeds the GDP of a large portion of the world's sovereign states so it's kinda hard to view that as 'nothing' even if the rest of your statement made sense - it doesn't, obviously. Governments are probably the single biggest contributors to keeping money 'alive' within their own economies. I trust you've not been drawn in by Tony Blair's ridiculous portrayal of those receiving welfare as 'economically' inactive because it's a patent untruth. A far greater proportion of the income of those on welfare is returned immediately into circulation than that of any other group. They literally cannot afford savings!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, are you suggesting poverty is good for a healthy economy? What about the amount of debt the state incurs? Or when these same folks can't afford a 4k TV but borrow money and default on their loans? At least with being rich, you always buy what you can afford.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that's such a leap that I'm not sure I can I can even see how you got there.
As for national debt, it would be considerably reduced if one of the major routes to wealth was not tax avoidance. The state of the UK's coffers will certainly be helped by the agreement of Google this very weekend to pay 130 million great British pounds in back taxes. Whether the USA will ever get its farcical system by which a man with a billion dollars in the bank can pay less tax than one with just a thousand sorted out I'm inclined to doubt.
Buying stuff? The rich, ironically, are those who receive by far the greatest amount of stuff for free as 'gifts'. The value of the goody bag at the Oscars next month alone will be around 3 times the UK national average annual wage and not one of the red carpet dresses will have been paid for!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to assume that the bulk of the wealth exists as cash. I'd bet it doesn't, I'd think it is represented by ownership of things, companies, real estate etc. All of which contribute to the economy.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: the bulk of the wealth exists as cash
I'm not that naive (I hope) and I did avoid using the term. In economics 'money' is a more fluid term.
I can't agree that real estate necessarily contributes to the economy especially if purchased outright. You either live in it in which case it is essentially economically inactive or rent it in which case it is a net drain. Although I'm not particularly in favour of inheritance taxes, it is the economic status of land ownership which they are meant to address.
Equally there is a danger that for-profit companies in de facto monopolies (MS, Google in Europe, etc.) become money sinks taking far more out of the economy than they put in. Add to that that the degree to which your trade becomes money itself is proportional to personal wealth so that money is siphoned off into an exclusive club trading it between themselves (much in the manner of a giant ultra high-stakes poker game).
I am not arguing for equal distribution of wealth per se. I'm certainly no socialist. But there is no question that the existence of the super rich, whose personal wealth is so extreme that by 2014 the richest 67 people in the world commanded assets equivalent to those of the poorest half of the world's entire population (then 3.4 billion people) is a real problem for the economies both of the nations they inhabit and the world in general.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
9082365 wrote: "...excessive saving..."
Never heard that phrase before; looked it up; found two places on the internet..
- The first, some guy in Australia on a Libertarian site, whose writing was so,,,,,, uhm,,,,, uhhhh,,,,,,,,,, I was not smart enough to grasp the concepts.
- The second was Wikipedia (where the neutral point of view is absolute and non-negotiable). I was not smart enough to understand the words I read there, either.
I wish I didn't have such a Stupid Mind ! Stupid ! Stupid ![^]
Anyway, the concept of Excessive Savings, for either the individual, and particularly for a nation as a society, is quite beyond my knowledge, education, and thinking.
It always seemed to me (like obvious, but I am ready to learn) that the absence of a strong solid savings base is generally a significant weakness for a society's economy, and about 100% true for the individual.
I'm pretty certain that most nations in the world today don't have an adequate savings base to promote a healthy economy, and that that is a significantly contributing factor in our current world's state of mess.
Then again, I am ready to learn about excessive savings, as it appears to be a central tenet of Keynesian theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming, of course, that they pile up their cash and gold bars in a vault like Scrooge McDuck. The truth is a little more complicated, I think.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on how you became rich.
One example, Saddam Hussein.
Your second sentence can be banished to the soapbox.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: However, Socialist pigs and bleeding heart liberals think there is something
wrong with being rich and they play the poor card, every time.
Doesn't look like the poor-card is played, but the tax-evasion-card.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, I posted a message to this forum simply to mention an article I published and it was marked as SPAM, yet this drivel continues to be displayed on the CP front page?
Honestly, CP should do a better job of this.
And, I know, someone is going to say I'm spamming by mentioning that mine is spam so I can spam mention my article spam and all the other spam things that spam people are going to spam say.
I spam the truth!!! 
Am I funny yet?
if not...spam...
Am I right yet?
Spam spam SPam sPAm spam spamming with spam and spam on the side of spam Spamaliciously spamariness with spam spam spam spam.
|
|
|
|
|
If you feel your post was incorrectly marked as such, then I suggest you take it to the appropriate forum.
raddevus wrote: I spam the truth!!!
It is a non-commercial, tech-relevant link.
You might not like the content, but I could hardly care about that 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
If you ain't adding, then you are taking away.
Can you help me transfer large shipment of gold out of my small country, comrade?
I have here vast levels of bullion I need to get out of under my kingship.
The rebels have taken over and with your help we can transfer these thousands of kilograms of bullion to a safe place. I look to the future of your great reply.
Sincerly, with hope of a new day,
King Angulam of Shizzilar,
Most honorable Sir of the Royal Hifflebothom,
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: If you ain't adding, then you are taking away.
That's a fancy way of saying you are too special to pay taxes
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I mostly wans't talking about your drivel. I was mostly talking about the anonymous numbered user who is obviously a SJW who keeps on posting. S(he)'s quite a spammy lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I used to have a lot of respect for Bill Gates, but lately he's been worried about 'global warming' and artificial intelligence[^]...
Really? I think he's losing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Johnson, brash Olympic downhill champion, dies at 55[^]
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Well he was at his best in the early 80s. It was all downhill from there.
What? Too soon?
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
I hope he clears the pearly gates.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
