Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Doove · 03-07-2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

And the problem with American style capitalism is you have 400 people with as much wealth as 155 million people combined.

Your "problem" is little more than rhetorical gibberish. My "problem" is a very real one.

Mazomaniac · 03-07-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Maz; please tell your governor to cave into the union thugs.....it only strengthens the Texas economy when businesses flee to right-to-work states like the Lone Star state.

I tried to tell him Whirl, but he was already on a call with one of the Koch brothers so I couldn't get through.

Cheers,
Mazo.

pjorourke · 03-07-2011, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doove

And the problem with American style capitalism is you have 400 people with as much wealth as 155 million people combined.

And how exactly is that a "problem". Please use little words, I'm a simple sort. For example, explain to me how the country would be better off if Bill Gates didn't have about $50B?

Doove · 03-07-2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

But its not really "your" problem is it?

Actually, it's the country's problem.....so yeah, it is.

Doove · 03-07-2011, 05:42 PM

Ahh, so you edited your post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

And how exactly is that a "problem". Please use little words, I'm a simple sort. For example, explain to me how the country would be better off if Bill Gates didn't have about $50B?

As soon as you tell me how the country (or Bill Gates, for that matter) would be worse off if $1.5B of that $50B were paid out by him in additional taxes.

pjorourke · 03-07-2011, 05:47 PM

Thanks for the non-answer. I still don't understand how Gates having only $48.5 billion would hurt or help the country

You realize of course that even if you confiscated all the wealth of those 400 it wouldn't make a dent in this year's deficit.

Doove · 03-07-2011, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Thanks for the non-answer. I still don't understand how Gates having only $48.5 billion would hurt or help the country

The problem isn't how much Bill Gates or the top 400 people have. The problem is more the fact that 155 million people have the wealth of 400 people.

80% of this country is fighting over 15-20% of it's wealth, and we've got people making $50,000/yr sending letters to the editor to complain about people making $45,000/yr - while the 20% hoarding the 75-80% of the wealth in this country are laughing their asses off. And frankly, if i was one of the 20%, i'd be laughing my ass off too. It's absurd.

pjorourke · 03-07-2011, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doove

The problem isn't how much Bill Gates or the top 400 people have. The problem is more the fact that 155 million people have the wealth of 400 people.

You still haven't explained to me why thats a problem.

discreetgent · 03-07-2011, 06:23 PM

The vast difference of wealth between rich and poor has often been a contributor to the demise of a society. Ancient Rome is the classic example where it was a contributing, though clearly not the sole, factor. Although the US is rightly thought of as a land of opportunity we have also seen that economic status significantly affects quality of education and from there quality of life later. (I concede that I am stating the problem here but not offering a solution

)

If that is not of concern then you are correct that there is no reason to care that so few have so much.

I'm not suggesting the US is in danger of extreme civil unrest due to such inequality but it would be foolish to ignore the growing difference between the haves and have nots.

pjorourke · 03-07-2011, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discreetgent

The vast difference of wealth between rich and poor has often been a contributor to the demise of a society. Ancient Rome is the classic example where it was a contributing, though clearly not the sole, factor. Although the US is rightly thought of as a land of opportunity we have also seen that economic status significantly affects quality of education and from there quality of life later. (I concede that I am stating the problem here but not offering a solution

)

If that is not of concern then you are correct that there is no reason to care that so few have so much.

I'm not suggesting the US is in danger of extreme civil unrest due to such inequality but it would be foolish to ignore the growing difference between the haves and have nots.

Well lets see. Skimming the Forbes 400, it looks like the swells (i.e., the top .0001%) have an average of $2B each. So that implies that the 155 million (or the bottom half of the wealth curve) have an average of about $5,000 each. I'm guessing the top half of the wealth curve that are below the top .0001% are doing much better.

So if the 155 million each had $1million, would that still be a problem if the top 400 had an average of say $400 billion each? (Assuming that the dollar has the same purchasing power)

What about if it was $100,000 for each of the 155 million and the swells had $40 billion. Would that be a problem?

Mazomaniac · 03-07-2011, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

You still haven't explained to me why thats a problem.

One of the problems is that concentration of capital to that extent can result in that capital becoming unusable.

Just take the Bill Gates example. The rise of Microsoft - and Bill's enormous pile of cash - came through sales generated primarily in the US tech sector. But is that capital helping the US today?

Not really.

Gates is heavily invested in foreign corporations. He owns huge chunks of companies like Canadian National Railways, FEMSA (a Mexican brewery), a Central American silver producer, a Mexican broadcaster, etc, etc, etc. The money Bill made here in the US now goes to developing the economies of other nations.

If you spread that money out to the American people they'd use here at home. They'd buy cars with it, fix up their house with it, put it in the local bank which would lend it to local small businesses, etc, etc, etc. Right now it's the citizens of Mexico and Canada who are getting the big bang out of Bill Gates' bucks instead.

Concentration of capital is good to a certain extent but not if that capital is going to aid your competitor next door.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Doove · 03-07-2011, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

You still haven't explained to me why thats a problem.

And another problem is the fact that so many fail to view it as a problem.

pjorourke · 03-07-2011, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Gates is heavily invested in foreign corporations. He owns huge chunks of companies like Canadian National Railways, FEMSA (a Mexican brewery), a Central American silver producer, a Mexican broadcaster, etc, etc, etc. The money Bill made here in the US now goes to developing the economies of other nations.

How is that a problem? Isn't Gates a citizen of the world (as we all are

)? Don't his overseas investments improve the standard of living in those countries so that they are less likely to invade us?

pjorourke · 03-07-2011, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doove

And another problem is the fact that so many fail to view it as a problem.

Again, I don't get how that's a problem either.

Doove · 03-07-2011, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Again, I don't get how that's a problem either.

Because you've got your head in the sand with all your trickle down mumbo jumbo that you attempt to rationalize by pointing out how 155 million people each own the equivalent of a 6 year old car.

But that's not a problem. Ok. If you say so PJ.