My backside is just fine, thank you.
The Perfect Bailout Plan
- Thread starter Johnny
- Start date
- Status
Glad to hear it....I think.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I've often tried to dispel the myth of the "creation of wealth" by inserting it too high in the economy by giving the example of throwing a million dollars in the street and having absolutely nothing productive done with it. I would suggest that each $ buy but one McDonald's double cheese burger.
It would:
Employ burger flippers and burger flipper managers
Employ meat packers ...delivery truck drivers.
Equipment manufacturers
Accountants..clerical workers ..executives that administer/manage
and then, if everything works out ..show a profit to the guy who took the risk at investing in the enterprise.
OTOH,
You can just hand it to them higher up in the economy and hope that they do something productive with it. Remember, wealth needs assistance.
Watch this space.
Oz did exactly that by throwing $11B (It's a lot of money down here) at the bottom of the market in a trickle up package.
First home buyers get $14k, $21K if you build a new home versus buy an established home. $1,000 per child to parents, $1,400 to a pensioner ($2,100 to a retired couple).
They are doing it from a position of $20B budget surplus, so it's not a debt spending thing.
My family doesn't get a cent, which considering is probably right.
Interesting experiment, wonder if you can develop hyperinflation from a surplus position, or it's a plan to be the last lot down the plug-hole.
I've often tried to dispel the myth of the "creation of wealth" by inserting it too high in the economy by giving the example of throwing a million dollars in the street and having absolutely nothing productive done with it. I would suggest that each $ buy but one McDonald's double cheese burger.
It would:
Employ burger flippers and burger flipper managers
Employ meat packers ...delivery truck drivers.
Equipment manufacturers
Accountants..clerical workers ..executives that administer/manage
and then, if everything works out ..show a profit to the guy who took the risk at investing in the enterprise.
OTOH,
You can just hand it to them higher up in the economy and hope that they do something productive with it. Remember, wealth needs assistance.
Watch this space.
Oz did exactly that by throwing $11B (It's a lot of money down here) at the bottom of the market in a trickle up package.
First home buyers get $14k, $21K if you build a new home versus buy an established home. $1,000 per child to parents, $1,400 to a pensioner ($2,100 to a retired couple).
They are doing it from a position of $20B budget surplus, so it's not a debt spending thing.
My family doesn't get a cent, which considering is probably right.
Interesting experiment, wonder if you can develop hyperinflation from a surplus position, or it's a plan to be the last lot down the plug-hole.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Interesting experiment, wonder if you can develop hyperinflation from a surplus position, or it's a plan to be the last lot down the plug-hole.
What is up (or down) with the Ausie Dollar? I owned a couple thousand of fxa and finally had to sell out for a loss. I'm thinking of getting back in..I mean with all of the hyperinflation that the two Assclowns Paulson/Volker iare going to bring on us here..seems like a good move.
Interesting experiment, wonder if you can develop hyperinflation from a surplus position, or it's a plan to be the last lot down the plug-hole.
What is up (or down) with the Ausie Dollar? I owned a couple thousand of fxa and finally had to sell out for a loss. I'm thinking of getting back in..I mean with all of the hyperinflation that the two Assclowns Paulson/Volker iare going to bring on us here..seems like a good move.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I've often tried to dispel the myth of the "creation of wealth" by inserting it too high in the economy by giving the example of throwing a million dollars in the street and having absolutely nothing productive done with it. I would suggest that each $ buy but one McDonald's double cheese burger.
It would:
Employ burger flippers and burger flipper managers
Employ meat packers ...delivery truck drivers.
Equipment manufacturers
Accountants..clerical workers ..executives that administer/manage
and then, if everything works out ..show a profit to the guy who took the risk at investing in the enterprise.
OTOH,
You can just hand it to them higher up in the economy and hope that they do something productive with it. Remember, wealth needs assistance.
Still have yet to explain how the owner of the burger joint got the funding to open the doors (not to mention the equipment manufacturer, the truck manufacturer, the meat packing equipment, the electricity for all of it, etc.) in the first place and how the people in the streets will automatically do something "productive" with it.
I've often tried to dispel the myth of the "creation of wealth" by inserting it too high in the economy by giving the example of throwing a million dollars in the street and having absolutely nothing productive done with it. I would suggest that each $ buy but one McDonald's double cheese burger.
It would:
Employ burger flippers and burger flipper managers
Employ meat packers ...delivery truck drivers.
Equipment manufacturers
Accountants..clerical workers ..executives that administer/manage
and then, if everything works out ..show a profit to the guy who took the risk at investing in the enterprise.
OTOH,
You can just hand it to them higher up in the economy and hope that they do something productive with it. Remember, wealth needs assistance.
Still have yet to explain how the owner of the burger joint got the funding to open the doors (not to mention the equipment manufacturer, the truck manufacturer, the meat packing equipment, the electricity for all of it, etc.) in the first place and how the people in the streets will automatically do something "productive" with it.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
Still have yet to explain how the owner of the burger joint got the funding to open the doors (not to mention the equipment manufacturer, the truck manufacturer, the meat packing equipment, the electricity for all of it, etc.) in the first place and how the people in the streets will automatically do something "productive" with it.
That's their problem and if they're truly DESERVING of the rewards ..they should be able to figure it out without an upscale entitlement handout at the socialized expense of the society.
Welfare comes in many forms, my friend.
Still have yet to explain how the owner of the burger joint got the funding to open the doors (not to mention the equipment manufacturer, the truck manufacturer, the meat packing equipment, the electricity for all of it, etc.) in the first place and how the people in the streets will automatically do something "productive" with it.
That's their problem and if they're truly DESERVING of the rewards ..they should be able to figure it out without an upscale entitlement handout at the socialized expense of the society.
Welfare comes in many forms, my friend.
Originally Posted By: Al
What is up (or down) with the Ausie Dollar?
Dunno, what snippets that I've seen are that
a) there's not many $Oz on the market (most of our ore sales are in $US, and most of our big industrial pruchases are in $US).
b) there are a lot of foreign investors in the Oz stock exchange. When they saw share prices drop and tried to get out they were selling both stocks and $Oz at the same time (i.e. they were getting flogged twice on the same thing).
Basically dunno.
What is up (or down) with the Ausie Dollar?
Dunno, what snippets that I've seen are that
a) there's not many $Oz on the market (most of our ore sales are in $US, and most of our big industrial pruchases are in $US).
b) there are a lot of foreign investors in the Oz stock exchange. When they saw share prices drop and tried to get out they were selling both stocks and $Oz at the same time (i.e. they were getting flogged twice on the same thing).
Basically dunno.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
in the first place and how the people in the streets will automatically do something "productive" with it.
Ooops ..
I just showed you what happens when they do absolutely nothing productive with it. It goes into the economy JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DOLLAR DOES. It employs. The notion that you're going to "create jobs" by handing it to people who already have money ..who may have ABSOLUTELY NO INFLUENCE IN JOB CREATION, having more impact is just plain false. It's a "belief" for those of the faith based "wealth needs help" religion.
in the first place and how the people in the streets will automatically do something "productive" with it.
Ooops ..
I just showed you what happens when they do absolutely nothing productive with it. It goes into the economy JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DOLLAR DOES. It employs. The notion that you're going to "create jobs" by handing it to people who already have money ..who may have ABSOLUTELY NO INFLUENCE IN JOB CREATION, having more impact is just plain false. It's a "belief" for those of the faith based "wealth needs help" religion.
Quote:
That's their problem and if they're truly DESERVING of the rewards ..they should be able to figure it out without an upscale entitlement handout at the socialized expense of the society.
I'm sorry, but that is a completely meaningless statement. Can someone translate Allanese?
Quote:
It goes into the economy JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DOLLAR DOES.
So why is the money of poor people productive, and money of rich people not?
Quote:
The notion that you're going to "create jobs" by handing it to people who already have money ..who may have ABSOLUTELY NO INFLUENCE IN JOB CREATION, having more impact is just plain false.
That is a starkly different economic theory than what you posted here:
Quote:
Debt is fine if you do something productive with it. Educating your people ...etc..etc. When you create it merely for the sake of commerce ..that is, consumption merely for the sake of commerce ..then it's not such a good idea ..especially if the commerce has no inherent value beyond the point of consumption.
So, if you have the money, it makes no difference how you spend it. If you are borrowing the money, you have to invest it in useful things in order for it to pay.
And who is "handing" money to the rich?
That's their problem and if they're truly DESERVING of the rewards ..they should be able to figure it out without an upscale entitlement handout at the socialized expense of the society.
I'm sorry, but that is a completely meaningless statement. Can someone translate Allanese?
Quote:
It goes into the economy JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DOLLAR DOES.
So why is the money of poor people productive, and money of rich people not?
Quote:
The notion that you're going to "create jobs" by handing it to people who already have money ..who may have ABSOLUTELY NO INFLUENCE IN JOB CREATION, having more impact is just plain false.
That is a starkly different economic theory than what you posted here:
Quote:
Debt is fine if you do something productive with it. Educating your people ...etc..etc. When you create it merely for the sake of commerce ..that is, consumption merely for the sake of commerce ..then it's not such a good idea ..especially if the commerce has no inherent value beyond the point of consumption.
So, if you have the money, it makes no difference how you spend it. If you are borrowing the money, you have to invest it in useful things in order for it to pay.
And who is "handing" money to the rich?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
Quote:
That's their problem and if they're truly DESERVING of the rewards ..they should be able to figure it out without an upscale entitlement handout at the socialized expense of the society.
I'm sorry, but that is a completely meaningless statement. Can someone translate Allanese?
Okay, we'll do this pony style
If you're so smart ...and have the ingenuity ..you too can be your own boss and the leader of men. You shouldn't need nanny government to "help you" become more successful. In the case of tax cuts, those who are the most (already) successful are receiving the most extracted "future tax revenue" that has yet to be collected.
You're mixing questions and the points that they made. I just showed you how throwing money in the street benefited the entrepreneur ..even if not ONE residual productive thing was done with it. You have yet to show how handing an upper wage earner does anything more productive.
Let's say I give Palblo a $10k tax break. Suppose, instead of making motorized bikes, he goes and takes a $10k vacation. Sure, he's employed ..just like the money I threw in the street.
Now tell me how you make every Pablo produce bikes (or whatever) JUST by giving them tax breaks? ...and regardless, if you're in a city that's losing money, in a state that's losing money, in a nation that's losing money ...just what "stimulus" is being applied here and why ...especially with "future revenue" that you haven't collected yet?
Quote:
Quote:
It goes into the economy JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DOLLAR DOES.
So why is the money of poor people productive, and money of rich people not?
I never asserted that. You've been the one to assert that they are more productive. You've yet to assure that it's so. I, otoh, show how the least productive use of money filters up to your revered elite. THEY EARN IT ..whether those who spent it did ..or not. They compete with others for every dollar in the exact same economy.
OTOH, you can just hand it to them and bill the lower earners for it in the future. I suppose that works if you have some specific social desires.
Quote:
That is a starkly different economic theory than what you posted here:
Quote:
Debt is fine if you do something productive with it. Educating your people ...etc..etc. When you create it merely for the sake of commerce ..that is, consumption merely for the sake of commerce ..then it's not such a good idea ..especially if the commerce has no inherent value beyond the point of consumption.
So, if you have the money, it makes no difference how you spend it. If you are borrowing the money, you have to invest it in useful things in order for it to pay.
More switch hitting. You're cheery picking and misplacing the pieces.
PUBLIC DEBT is fine if you BENEFIT ALL OF YOUR PEOPLE. If we wanted a nation of Einsteins, at whatever cost, fine.
If, otoh, we want to spin some tires and wring the nation's inherent wealth and squander it for the benefit if VERY FEW ..then it's absolutely CRIMINAL.
Quote:
That's their problem and if they're truly DESERVING of the rewards ..they should be able to figure it out without an upscale entitlement handout at the socialized expense of the society.
I'm sorry, but that is a completely meaningless statement. Can someone translate Allanese?
Okay, we'll do this pony style
If you're so smart ...and have the ingenuity ..you too can be your own boss and the leader of men. You shouldn't need nanny government to "help you" become more successful. In the case of tax cuts, those who are the most (already) successful are receiving the most extracted "future tax revenue" that has yet to be collected.
You're mixing questions and the points that they made. I just showed you how throwing money in the street benefited the entrepreneur ..even if not ONE residual productive thing was done with it. You have yet to show how handing an upper wage earner does anything more productive.
Let's say I give Palblo a $10k tax break. Suppose, instead of making motorized bikes, he goes and takes a $10k vacation. Sure, he's employed ..just like the money I threw in the street.
Now tell me how you make every Pablo produce bikes (or whatever) JUST by giving them tax breaks? ...and regardless, if you're in a city that's losing money, in a state that's losing money, in a nation that's losing money ...just what "stimulus" is being applied here and why ...especially with "future revenue" that you haven't collected yet?
Quote:
Quote:
It goes into the economy JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DOLLAR DOES.
So why is the money of poor people productive, and money of rich people not?
I never asserted that. You've been the one to assert that they are more productive. You've yet to assure that it's so. I, otoh, show how the least productive use of money filters up to your revered elite. THEY EARN IT ..whether those who spent it did ..or not. They compete with others for every dollar in the exact same economy.
OTOH, you can just hand it to them and bill the lower earners for it in the future. I suppose that works if you have some specific social desires.
Quote:
That is a starkly different economic theory than what you posted here:
Quote:
Debt is fine if you do something productive with it. Educating your people ...etc..etc. When you create it merely for the sake of commerce ..that is, consumption merely for the sake of commerce ..then it's not such a good idea ..especially if the commerce has no inherent value beyond the point of consumption.
So, if you have the money, it makes no difference how you spend it. If you are borrowing the money, you have to invest it in useful things in order for it to pay.
More switch hitting. You're cheery picking and misplacing the pieces.
PUBLIC DEBT is fine if you BENEFIT ALL OF YOUR PEOPLE. If we wanted a nation of Einsteins, at whatever cost, fine.
If, otoh, we want to spin some tires and wring the nation's inherent wealth and squander it for the benefit if VERY FEW ..then it's absolutely CRIMINAL.
Here's the ultimate in Newspeak:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081014/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown
"putting the world's bastion of capitalism and free markets squarely in the banking business."
Government takeover of private business is now called capitalism.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081014/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown
"putting the world's bastion of capitalism and free markets squarely in the banking business."
Government takeover of private business is now called capitalism.
Government takeover of private business is now called capitalism. In todays new speak it is patriotic.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
I'd say it's more a merger and acquisition.
It's sorta like the
you feel when one company allegedly buys the other. In some cases you can't really see whom bought whom. Neither identity really changes and there's, more or less, just some trading of numbers on some electronic paper.
It's sorta like the
I'm waiting for the posters of the bearded dark skinned charismatic leader to start appearing.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
No ..I need to find this guy and his associates ...
You didn't answer my most important question:
And who is "handing" money to the rich?
Quote:
In the case of tax cuts, those who are the most (already) successful are receiving the most extracted "future tax revenue" that has yet to be collected.
That makes absolutely no sense. Allowing people to keep more of the money that they actually earn is considered "handing" them more money?
That is a very communal idea.
Quote:
just like the money I threw in the street.
Now who DESERVES the money? Where did this mystery money come from? Doesn't matter in your hypothetical, it does matter in the real world.
Quote:
You've been the one to assert that they are more productive. You've yet to assure that it's so.
How many poor people own businesses? How many poor people have employees that support an economy? Sure, they buy stuff, but without large chucks of venture capital to set up factories and pay employees to make the stuff to buy, you have major problems.
The poor do not have the resources (generally) to set up or invest in companies. This is the flaw in your argument.
You failed to answer my question as to where the burger place, truck factory, etc. came from in your example?
And who is "handing" money to the rich?
Quote:
In the case of tax cuts, those who are the most (already) successful are receiving the most extracted "future tax revenue" that has yet to be collected.
That makes absolutely no sense. Allowing people to keep more of the money that they actually earn is considered "handing" them more money?
That is a very communal idea.
Quote:
just like the money I threw in the street.
Now who DESERVES the money? Where did this mystery money come from? Doesn't matter in your hypothetical, it does matter in the real world.
Quote:
You've been the one to assert that they are more productive. You've yet to assure that it's so.
How many poor people own businesses? How many poor people have employees that support an economy? Sure, they buy stuff, but without large chucks of venture capital to set up factories and pay employees to make the stuff to buy, you have major problems.
The poor do not have the resources (generally) to set up or invest in companies. This is the flaw in your argument.
You failed to answer my question as to where the burger place, truck factory, etc. came from in your example?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
You didn't answer my most important question:
And who is "handing" money to the rich?
Quote:
In the case of tax cuts, those who are the most (already) successful are receiving the most extracted "future tax revenue" that has yet to be collected.
That makes absolutely no sense. Allowing people to keep more of the money that they actually earn is considered "handing" them more money?
That is a very communal idea.
It only makes no sense if you choose not to understand it. It's simple, the society costs a certain amount of money to maintain and be viable. The amount of money available is, although varied at any one moment, somewhat fixed in the integrated environment. In an inventory of $$ ..there's no difference where you inject it into the economy. What does differ is who lands paying for the discount that was delivered in terms of debt ..and who benefits from the cash TODAY. Buy "*" today ..and stick the bill to someone else later.
You're not allowing them to keep more of the money that they earn. You're exempting them from their bill for the running of the nation that they reside in and extract their livelihood from. If you interpret that taxes are "stealing" ..then EVERYONE is being robbed ..not just the upper tier.
If you want to lower the cost of government and maintaining things ..fine ..but don't pretend that discounting the bill is the same thing with just underfunding it with debt and sticking the bill to the eventual lower rung dwellers ..which many of the cut recipients will be in the future.
Quote:
Quote:
just like the money I threw in the street.
Now who DESERVES the money? Where did this mystery money come from? Doesn't matter in your hypothetical, it does matter in the real world.
Wrong question. Who deserves the discount on the bill due?? The higher earners? They are surely suffering and struggling, right?
Quote:
How many poor people own businesses?
None that I know of. How many people that own a business are so pathetic and weak that they need "help"? What makes them "deserve" to stay in business if they can't stand on their own two feet? Just what purpose do they serve if they're nothing but a glorified freeloader?? The way you describe them, they need to be subsidized ...get welfare ..a hand out. You just don't want to hurt their self esteem and say that they "earn it" ..but you hand it to them under the table so they can save face.
Oh ..I understand, you look at them as a privatized jobs program with rewards for helping out the little people. Leona Helmsley was one of such belief.
Quote:
but without large chucks of venture capital to set up factories
Where, in China or the rest of the 3rd world??
You show me one domestic enterprise that produces ONE bit of "added value" to the nation....JUST ONE.
YOU ARE IN A NATION THAT LOSES MONEY DAILY, PAL. ANY WEALTH CONCENTRATION IS AN ASSURED MASS DEGRADATION OF THE WHOLE NATION THAT WILL FALL ON THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION.
It's simple math.
In an nation freedom is most often equated to economic clout ..you assert that you're advancing freedom by putting it in fewer hands.
Let me show you how selfish and greedy I am. I want MORE people that can afford Amsoil products ...not have to assassinate Pablo to get the ever shrinking viable pool of potential customers.
You didn't answer my most important question:
And who is "handing" money to the rich?
Quote:
In the case of tax cuts, those who are the most (already) successful are receiving the most extracted "future tax revenue" that has yet to be collected.
That makes absolutely no sense. Allowing people to keep more of the money that they actually earn is considered "handing" them more money?
That is a very communal idea.
It only makes no sense if you choose not to understand it. It's simple, the society costs a certain amount of money to maintain and be viable. The amount of money available is, although varied at any one moment, somewhat fixed in the integrated environment. In an inventory of $$ ..there's no difference where you inject it into the economy. What does differ is who lands paying for the discount that was delivered in terms of debt ..and who benefits from the cash TODAY. Buy "*" today ..and stick the bill to someone else later.
You're not allowing them to keep more of the money that they earn. You're exempting them from their bill for the running of the nation that they reside in and extract their livelihood from. If you interpret that taxes are "stealing" ..then EVERYONE is being robbed ..not just the upper tier.
If you want to lower the cost of government and maintaining things ..fine ..but don't pretend that discounting the bill is the same thing with just underfunding it with debt and sticking the bill to the eventual lower rung dwellers ..which many of the cut recipients will be in the future.
Quote:
Quote:
just like the money I threw in the street.
Now who DESERVES the money? Where did this mystery money come from? Doesn't matter in your hypothetical, it does matter in the real world.
Wrong question. Who deserves the discount on the bill due?? The higher earners? They are surely suffering and struggling, right?
Quote:
How many poor people own businesses?
None that I know of. How many people that own a business are so pathetic and weak that they need "help"? What makes them "deserve" to stay in business if they can't stand on their own two feet? Just what purpose do they serve if they're nothing but a glorified freeloader?? The way you describe them, they need to be subsidized ...get welfare ..a hand out. You just don't want to hurt their self esteem and say that they "earn it" ..but you hand it to them under the table so they can save face.
Oh ..I understand, you look at them as a privatized jobs program with rewards for helping out the little people. Leona Helmsley was one of such belief.
Quote:
but without large chucks of venture capital to set up factories
You show me one domestic enterprise that produces ONE bit of "added value" to the nation....JUST ONE.
It's simple math.
In an nation freedom is most often equated to economic clout ..you assert that you're advancing freedom by putting it in fewer hands.
Let me show you how selfish and greedy I am. I want MORE people that can afford Amsoil products ...not have to assassinate Pablo to get the ever shrinking viable pool of potential customers.
You didn't answer my most important question:
And who is "handing" money to the rich?
You failed to answer my question as to where the burger place, truck factory, etc. came from in your example?
Please answer the questions.
"Wrong question."
It is the right question. People that get money for free, do not deserve it, and have done nothing to earn it.
And who is "handing" money to the rich?
You failed to answer my question as to where the burger place, truck factory, etc. came from in your example?
Please answer the questions.
"Wrong question."
It is the right question. People that get money for free, do not deserve it, and have done nothing to earn it.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Well, let's have you answer a few first. You've dodged quite a few there, pal
You can look them up.
You can look them up.
I have asked those questions in my first response. Please answer.
- Status
