I can tell you why that is flawed. First of all Alcohol isn't the only thing that poor guy is going to buy. He may spend that money on crack, or heroin, which will go to his dealer who will spend that money with his supplier who will spend it with his contacts in South America... That does NOT grow our economy at all.
No as far as the second half goes, exotic import cars aren't the only things rich people buy and it is very narrow minded to think that. They also purchase houses, which stimulates our economy, they host dinner parties where they serve liqour, wine, beer, and a lot of food. They have to buy those things as well. Most of which are bought in this country. Also business owners want to invest into their companies to improve their products or services. If they do this right then their company growns and that helps.
Now if you don't give any of us anything, and just let us keep more of our own money, then we can all spend more money. I am a member of the middle class, and if you let me keep more of my money I'm not spending it out of the country. I'm spending it on foor for me and my family. Clothes, bills, movies, things that do spur our economy. Your idea of how things work is totally flawed.
Give a poor slob $20.. where does the money go?
It goes to the liquor store.
What does he buy?
Cheap (domestic) beverages
How much of that money was saved (in other words, removed from the economy)?
Zero
How much of that money leaves our economy to go to a different economy (via imports)?
Zero
----
Give a rich man $20.. where does the money go?
Into his bank account
Why?
Because he's saving so he can help stimulate the economy later
Where does it eventually go when he gets around to saving up what he feels is sufficient?
It goes toward the purchase of a luxury (imported) vehicle
How much of that money had to sit around inactive for a period of time?
All of it
How much of that money subsequently left our economy?
All of it
---
Now, I bid you all to employ your cognitive dissonance and micro-economic principles to explain why the above scenarios are flawed. My argument is simple -- taxing and spending makes money move. The only thing keeping our economy from dissolving entirely is the amount of money being thrown around by the federal government.
because 100% of it is conjecture.
rich people buy houses in the US. they buy Cadillacs (US made), rich people pay others in the US as house maids, the rich still buy food, clothing, rich people got rich by having companies that pay people (i never got a job from a poor person), rich people go to clubs with friends, they buy beer and liquer at those establishments, they pay people to wash/drive their cars, rich people own restaurants and pay the people that work there, rich people go to movies, rich people buy computers. rich people are rich... but they are people. they still spend money. not only that, but they have more money that they can spend so they do spend more. just because they have a large amount of money that they have in a bank somewhere does not mean that they dont spend $20 on a bottle of whiskey.
who is running that economy in your examlpe? the poor guy or the rich guy?
and you even said "Where does it eventually go when he gets around to saving up what he feels is sufficient?" that statement says that if they had more money they would spend more.
i save money I am not rich. why? so i can have wealth later. am i part of the problem? no. I am being responsible. I am not rich and i dont fit your argument. am I enough proof?
but youa re right about one thing. taxing and spending does make money move.... out of the pocket of the people and into the pocket of the government. this spending of money we dont have will only lead to mass inflation.
Give a rich man $20.. where does the money go?
Into his bank account
What does the bank do with the money while the rich man has saved it? They are loaning that money to somebody else. Assuming that the banks lends it to someone who pays it back (big assumption, I know), then the bank has made money and the rich man can still spend his money when he wishes. This has begun the cycle of creating wealth for multiple people.
Give a poor slob $20.. where does the money go?
It goes to the liquor store.
What does he buy?
Cheap (domestic) beverages
How much of that money was saved (in other words, removed from the economy)?
Zero
How much of that money leaves our economy to go to a different economy (via imports)?
Zero
----
Give a rich man $20.. where does the money go?
Into his bank account
Why?
Because he's saving so he can help stimulate the economy later
Where does it eventually go when he gets around to saving up what he feels is sufficient?
It goes toward the purchase of a luxury (imported) vehicle
How much of that money had to sit around inactive for a period of time?
All of it
How much of that money subsequently left our economy?
All of it
---
Now, I bid you all to employ your cognitive dissonance and micro-economic principles to explain why the above scenarios are flawed. My argument is simple -- taxing and spending makes money move. The only thing keeping our economy from dissolving entirely is the amount of money being thrown around by the federal government.
because 100% of it is conjecture.
rich people buy houses in the US. they buy Cadillacs (US made), rich people pay others in the US as house maids, the rich still buy food, clothing, rich people got rich by having companies that pay people (i never got a job from a poor person), rich people go to clubs with friends, they buy beer and liquer at those establishments, they pay people to wash/drive their cars, rich people own restaurants and pay the people that work there, rich people go to movies, rich people buy computers. rich people are rich... but they are people. they still spend money. not only that, but they have more money that they can spend so they do spend more. just because they have a large amount of money that they have in a bank somewhere does not mean that they dont spend $20 on a bottle of whiskey.
who is running that economy in your examlpe? the poor guy or the rich guy?
and you even said "Where does it eventually go when he gets around to saving up what he feels is sufficient?" that statement says that if they had more money they would spend more.
i save money I am not rich. why? so i can have wealth later. am i part of the problem? no. I am being responsible. I am not rich and i dont fit your argument. am I enough proof?
but youa re right about one thing. taxing and spending does make money move.... out of the pocket of the people and into the pocket of the government. this spending of money we dont have will only lead to mass inflation.
The next question is how many rich people are in this "government" thing
Give a poor slob $20.. where does the money go?
It goes to the liquor store.
What does he buy?
Cheap (domestic) beverages
How much of that money was saved (in other words, removed from the economy)?
Zero
How much of that money leaves our economy to go to a different economy (via imports)?
Zero
----
Give a rich man $20.. where does the money go?
Into his bank account
Why?
Because he's saving so he can help stimulate the economy later
Where does it eventually go when he gets around to saving up what he feels is sufficient?
It goes toward the purchase of a luxury (imported) vehicle
How much of that money had to sit around inactive for a period of time?
All of it
How much of that money subsequently left our economy?
All of it
---
Now, I bid you all to employ your cognitive dissonance and micro-economic principles to explain why the above scenarios are flawed. My argument is simple -- taxing and spending makes money move. The only thing keeping our economy from dissolving entirely is the amount of money being thrown around by the federal government.
because 100% of it is conjecture.
rich people buy houses in the US. they buy Cadillacs (US made), rich people pay others in the US as house maids, the rich still buy food, clothing, rich people got rich by having companies that pay people (i never got a job from a poor person), rich people go to clubs with friends, they buy beer and liquer at those establishments, they pay people to wash/drive their cars, rich people own restaurants and pay the people that work there, rich people go to movies, rich people buy computers. rich people are rich... but they are people. they still spend money. not only that, but they have more money that they can spend so they do spend more. just because they have a large amount of money that they have in a bank somewhere does not mean that they dont spend $20 on a bottle of whiskey.
who is running that economy in your examlpe? the poor guy or the rich guy?
and you even said "Where does it eventually go when he gets around to saving up what he feels is sufficient?" that statement says that if they had more money they would spend more.
i save money I am not rich. why? so i can have wealth later. am i part of the problem? no. I am being responsible. I am not rich and i dont fit your argument. am I enough proof?
but youa re right about one thing. taxing and spending does make money move.... out of the pocket of the people and into the pocket of the government. this spending of money we dont have will only lead to mass inflation.
The next question is how many rich people are in this "government" thing
a few but at least some of them (if not most) got rich through private sector business.
Give a rich man $20.. where does the money go?
Into his bank account
What does the bank do with the money while the rich man has saved it? They are loaning that money to somebody else. Assuming that the banks lends it to someone who pays it back (big assumption, I know), then the bank has made money and the rich man can still spend his money when he wishes. This has begun the cycle of creating wealth for multiple people.
And credit, in general, creates a false economy that runs smoothly up until the point somebody elects not to recycle the pretend money.
Give a poor slob $20.. where does the money go?
It goes to the liquor store.
What does he buy?
Cheap (domestic) beverages
How much of that money was saved (in other words, removed from the economy)?
Zero
How much of that money leaves our economy to go to a different economy (via imports)?
Zero
----
Give a rich man $20.. where does the money go?
Into his bank account
Why?
Because he's saving so he can help stimulate the economy later
Where does it eventually go when he gets around to saving up what he feels is sufficient?
It goes toward the purchase of a luxury (imported) vehicle
How much of that money had to sit around inactive for a period of time?
All of it
How much of that money subsequently left our economy?
All of it
---
Now, I bid you all to employ your cognitive dissonance and micro-economic principles to explain why the above scenarios are flawed. My argument is simple -- taxing and spending makes money move. The only thing keeping our economy from dissolving entirely is the amount of money being thrown around by the federal government.
because 100% of it is conjecture.
rich people buy houses in the US. they buy Cadillacs (US made), rich people pay others in the US as house maids, the rich still buy food, clothing, rich people got rich by having companies that pay people (i never got a job from a poor person), rich people go to clubs with friends, they buy beer and liquer at those establishments, they pay people to wash/drive their cars, rich people own restaurants and pay the people that work there, rich people go to movies, rich people buy computers. rich people are rich... but they are people. they still spend money. not only that, but they have more money that they can spend so they do spend more. just because they have a large amount of money that they have in a bank somewhere does not mean that they dont spend $20 on a bottle of whiskey.
who is running that economy in your examlpe? the poor guy or the rich guy?
and you even said "Where does it eventually go when he gets around to saving up what he feels is sufficient?" that statement says that if they had more money they would spend more.
i save money I am not rich. why? so i can have wealth later. am i part of the problem? no. I am being responsible. I am not rich and i dont fit your argument. am I enough proof?
but youa re right about one thing. taxing and spending does make money move.... out of the pocket of the people and into the pocket of the government. this spending of money we dont have will only lead to mass inflation.
The next question is how many rich people are in this "government" thing
a few but at least some of them (if not most) got rich through private sector business.
some of which were contracted through the government
but there is always someone willing to continue it. even now there is. Last month 4 million homes were sold in the US. Last year less than 3million were foreclosed on
Give a rich man $20.. where does the money go?
Into his bank account
What does the bank do with the money while the rich man has saved it? They are loaning that money to somebody else. Assuming that the banks lends it to someone who pays it back (big assumption, I know), then the bank has made money and the rich man can still spend his money when he wishes. This has begun the cycle of creating wealth for multiple people.
And credit, in general, creates a false economy that runs smoothly up until the point somebody elects not to recycle the pretend money.
How does someone buy a house without credit? I know that I couldn't save that kind of money to pay cash. Plus saving the money takes it out of the economy which stops spending?
so, in a way what you are saying is that the economy as one big entity needs to be good even if the individual suffers? ...thats compassion
how is everyone having less money good for the economy? how is anyone having less money good for the economy? how does taxing the rich help you? it cant. it just hurts them.
we have been throwing money at poor people since the advent of money. there are still poor people. forcing the rich to give up more money will not help the poor. there will still be poor people. why punish the productive people?
Capitalism IS the unequal distribution of wealth, and socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.
so, in a way what you are saying is that the economy as one big entity needs to be good even if the individual suffers? ...thats compassion
how is everyone having less money good for the economy? how is anyone having less money good for the economy? how does taxing the rich help you? it cant. it just hurts them.
we have been throwing money at poor people since the advent of money. there are still poor people. forcing the rich to give up more money will not help the poor. there will still be poor people. why punish the productive people?
Capitalism IS the unequal distribution of wealth, and socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.
No.. again you're misunderstanding me. You're taking a narrow viewpoint which makes things look like socialism and redistribution.
Your first question: so, in a way what you are saying is that the economy as one big entity needs to be good even if the individual suffers?
No.. this is not what I'm saying. You need to understand that, if you want your money to grow and return to you greater, you need to set it free. If money stops moving, it becomes worthless. Failure to understand that by releasing your money into the economy, you are rewarded with even greater money is what is preventing you from understanding this logic.
Failure to understand that by releasing your money into the economy, you are rewarded with even greater money is what is preventing you from understanding this logic.
and if i have more money in my pocket due to lower taxes i will be able to set more money free ... stimulating the economy and getting me even more.
so, in a way what you are saying is that the economy as one big entity needs to be good even if the individual suffers? ...thats compassion
how is everyone having less money good for the economy? how is anyone having less money good for the economy? how does taxing the rich help you? it cant. it just hurts them.
we have been throwing money at poor people since the advent of money. there are still poor people. forcing the rich to give up more money will not help the poor. there will still be poor people. why punish the productive people?
Capitalism IS the unequal distribution of wealth, and socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.
No.. again you're misunderstanding me. You're taking a narrow viewpoint which makes things look like socialism and redistribution.
Your first question: so, in a way what you are saying is that the economy as one big entity needs to be good even if the individual suffers?
No.. this is not what I'm saying. You need to understand that, if you want your money to grow and return to you greater, you need to set it free. If money stops moving, it becomes worthless. Failure to understand that by releasing your money into the economy, you are rewarded with even greater money is what is preventing you from understanding this logic.
I understand that concept, what I don't get is why do you think Government has to be the one to get money moving and stimulating the economy? If consumer confidence is high, then there will be more money spent, leave more money in peoples pockets, they will be more easily willing to spend it. It's a pretty simple idea.
That seemed to work pretty well when consumer confidence was high. What am I doing with my tax refund this year? Sitting on it in case I lose my job. Just one example. I'm not rich either.
Which brings me back to my point earlier about the government: at least someone's spending money.
That seemed to work pretty well when consumer confidence was high. What am I doing with my tax refund this year? Sitting on it in case I lose my job. Just one example. I'm not rich either.
Which brings me back to my point earlier about the government: at least someone's spending money.
once the market corrects itself (it always does) the money people save now, will turn into spending later. it just takes time. taxing more will make people spend less longer. if i dont have the $200+ a month that i got with the bush tax cuts i cant spend it on a new car, and neither can anyone else.
and i was against republican spending as well, generally speaking. there are some things the government needs to spend money on, but almost all of the spending bill is a waste in my mind.
id did correct itself. It sure as heck wast the government that did. If the governemnt hasdone it we would have gotten out of the drpression faster than the rest of the world that just let the market correct itself and then move on with life.
people say the industrialization of WWII got us out. I dont think that is the case. so what got us out of that? at the end of the war, we had thousands (if not millions) of people comming home and looking for a place to live, food and cars to buy, and the income saved up while serving in the war to do it. so, they get back and there is a demand for products. the demand is filled by more production; that leads to more jobs.
so yes the market corrected itself, not the government.
people as a race, want things. the economy will not ever stop because people will, if they have to, go back to bartering. there will always be an exchange of goods. in the WWII example, the world happenings were helping hold down the economy. one the war was over, a major factor was taken away. people felt good. they had needs. people filled those needs.
Wow.. that's as shocking of a headline as "company lowers price on hats and sells more hats"... they cut the vehicle tax, so people chose to seize that opportunity. The auto manufacturers made more money, and the government made less. Naturally... but the buck doesn't stop there.
Wow.. that's as shocking of a headline as "company lowers price on hats and sells more hats"... they cut the vehicle tax, so people chose to seize that opportunity. The auto manufacturers made more money, and the government made less. Naturally... but the buck doesn't stop there.
Just goes to show that Obama can't tax himself out of the recession.
Comments
No as far as the second half goes, exotic import cars aren't the only things rich people buy and it is very narrow minded to think that. They also purchase houses, which stimulates our economy, they host dinner parties where they serve liqour, wine, beer, and a lot of food. They have to buy those things as well. Most of which are bought in this country. Also business owners want to invest into their companies to improve their products or services. If they do this right then their company growns and that helps.
Now if you don't give any of us anything, and just let us keep more of our own money, then we can all spend more money. I am a member of the middle class, and if you let me keep more of my money I'm not spending it out of the country. I'm spending it on foor for me and my family. Clothes, bills, movies, things that do spur our economy. Your idea of how things work is totally flawed.
rich people buy houses in the US. they buy Cadillacs (US made), rich people pay others in the US as house maids, the rich still buy food, clothing, rich people got rich by having companies that pay people (i never got a job from a poor person), rich people go to clubs with friends, they buy beer and liquer at those establishments, they pay people to wash/drive their cars, rich people own restaurants and pay the people that work there, rich people go to movies, rich people buy computers. rich people are rich... but they are people. they still spend money. not only that, but they have more money that they can spend so they do spend more. just because they have a large amount of money that they have in a bank somewhere does not mean that they dont spend $20 on a bottle of whiskey.
who is running that economy in your examlpe? the poor guy or the rich guy?
and you even said "Where does it eventually go when he gets around to saving up what he feels is sufficient?" that statement says that if they had more money they would spend more.
i save money I am not rich. why? so i can have wealth later. am i part of the problem? no. I am being responsible. I am not rich and i dont fit your argument. am I enough proof?
but youa re right about one thing. taxing and spending does make money move.... out of the pocket of the people and into the pocket of the government. this spending of money we dont have will only lead to mass inflation.
What does the bank do with the money while the rich man has saved it? They are loaning that money to somebody else. Assuming that the banks lends it to someone who pays it back (big assumption, I know), then the bank has made money and the rich man can still spend his money when he wishes. This has begun the cycle of creating wealth for multiple people.
im sorry your model didnt work out at all.
How does someone buy a house without credit? I know that I couldn't save that kind of money to pay cash. Plus saving the money takes it out of the economy which stops spending?
btw my suabaru was put together in the US.
...thats compassion
how is everyone having less money good for the economy? how is anyone having less money good for the economy?
how does taxing the rich help you? it cant. it just hurts them.
we have been throwing money at poor people since the advent of money. there are still poor people. forcing the rich to give up more money will not help the poor. there will still be poor people. why punish the productive people?
Capitalism IS the unequal distribution of wealth, and socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.
Your first question: so, in a way what you are saying is that the economy as one big entity needs to be good even if the individual suffers?
No.. this is not what I'm saying. You need to understand that, if you want your money to grow and return to you greater, you need to set it free. If money stops moving, it becomes worthless. Failure to understand that by releasing your money into the economy, you are rewarded with even greater money is what is preventing you from understanding this logic.
Which brings me back to my point earlier about the government: at least someone's spending money.
and i was against republican spending as well, generally speaking. there are some things the government needs to spend money on, but almost all of the spending bill is a waste in my mind.
people say the industrialization of WWII got us out. I dont think that is the case.
so what got us out of that?
at the end of the war, we had thousands (if not millions) of people comming home and looking for a place to live, food and cars to buy, and the income saved up while serving in the war to do it. so, they get back and there is a demand for products. the demand is filled by more production; that leads to more jobs.
so yes the market corrected itself, not the government.
people as a race, want things. the economy will not ever stop because people will, if they have to, go back to bartering. there will always be an exchange of goods. in the WWII example, the world happenings were helping hold down the economy. one the war was over, a major factor was taken away. people felt good. they had needs. people filled those needs.
China February Auto Sales Rise 25% After Tax Cuts
"Long ashes my friends."