Should the 1%...

1. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   Really, the 0.1%...
   
   Anyway, should the 0.1% be spending their money, or saving it?
   
   I've seen people criticize the wealthy for not spending their money...
   
   I've seen people criticize Mitt Romney for:
   
   Buying a dressage horse
   Having multiple cars
   Having multiple houses
   Buying a car elevator
   
   So I'm just wondering, should the wealthy spend their money, or not?
   
   Or are they only allowed to spend their money on certain things?

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Buying status trinkets hardly matters, it is a question of who has wealth and power.
      
      Trickle down economics (the creed for the last thirty or so years) is really a belief that the people most qualified to have control of a nations wealth and destiny are those who are successful in business (or more often than not, the wealthy descendants of someone who was once successful in business).
      
      Since the super wealthy dynasties, the few self-made billionaires and even many major corporations are no longer investing in anything, period, just hoarding cash you have to ask if wealth is currently in the right hands.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         So, I take it you don't think the wealthy should 'hoard' their money?
         
         When does it become 'hoarding', instead of saving?
         
         What should the wealthy be spending their money on?

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            There are a few recent studies on the sheer scale of hoarding. Here is one report on Forbes, that fine bastion of wealth worship:
            
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickal … tudy-says/
            
            Invest some of that in infra structure and new technologies (say a sustainable energy policy) and it would make a significant difference.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               When does it become hoarding?
               
               What specifically should these people be doing with their money?
               
               What makes it a 'should'?
               
               If a wealthy person buys another house, they are helping to finance the jobs of the electricians, framers, lumber mills, contractors, architects, plumbers, painters, flooring people, cabinet people, etc etc etc. 100% of that money goes directly into businesses and peoples' paychecks.
               
               I'm not getting any sense of actual, definable answers from you. I ask the questions, but you don't really answer. Is this like your feeling about guns... you would like it if we didn't need them, but have no ideas on how to accomplish it?

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Well if you want talk about the inane sold-to-the-voters notion of trickle down economics, ask yourself how many haircuts the 0.1% have in a year, how many pairs of socks they buy, how many cars they drive etc etc.
                  
                  Wouldn't you be better off handing this money to 0.2 % of any other social group? You would get twice the spending.
                  
                  But as I pointed out before it is not about the rich having money to spend and it trickling through the economy, it as about who gives direction to an economy and who has the most power.
                  
                  And the present situation is a great example of the pitfalls of leaving it to individuals. Long term thinking, investing now to get a return years down the line is something you can't expect.
                  
                  As for specifics, well, that money currently languishing, offshore, or in low risk bank accounts (or safety deposit boxes) could be used for any number of projects that give jobs in the short term and wealth down the line.
                  
                  Think mass transit in congested cities, irrigation in drought prone areas, refurbishment of brownfield sites in blighted areas etc etc.
                  
                  You could even start tackling some of those social issues that leave your streets awash with desperate individuals (apparently).
                  
                  As for hand guns and assault rifles, just ban sales. Given the obscene number around it will be a few decades before you are safe in your homes, but civilization wasn't built in a day,
                  
                  Anyway, nice talking to you but dinner and a beer is waiting somewhere.

                  replyreport
            2. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               How do you propose wealthy people invest in infrastructure?
               
               How do they invest in 'green' technologies? Are you aware that green companies are riskier?

               replyreport
   2. 94

      Amanda Severnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      Trickle down economics is a lie that has been pedalled to a gullible electorate for far too long;
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJAbEmyZ … ults_video
      
      The only real way for a country and it's people to prosper is for those at the bottom to be out there spending. Money doesn't trickle down. It is sucked up through the roots. If those at the bottom of the pile have insufficient for their needs, they will not be out spending, and their little local neighbourhood businesses will fail. When those small businesses fail, their suppliers take a hit, and so on up the tree. Reagonomics is proven not to work. History is the proof. Why are people still so sold on this myth?

      replyreport
   3. 61

      twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      In Robert Reich's book Aftershock, he argues that the weatlhy hoarding money is bad for the economy, and ultimately bad for rich people. His point is that a hundred people with 10,000 dollars will stimulate the economy more than one person with a million dollars. He further argues that our political system has violated the "basic contract," where paying workers well allows them to buy the products they (and other workers) produce, and recirculate that money into the economy, and ensure prosperity for everyone, including the wealthy.
      
      A very interesting book. I think it made a lot of sense.

      replyreport
   4. 89

      adjkp25posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      For me they can spend their money anyway they choose to.
      
      The problem that gets exposed is with the philosophy that we need to give them more money to "create" jobs.  If they elect to not use the money to create the jobs doesn't the money trail stop at that point and it now cannot serve the purpose as it was initially intended for?
      
      I too believe the money trickles up not down.  Giving someone who makes 250K an extra few hundred bucks means nothing to them and they might just sit on it.  Give a single mom with three kids who makes 25K a year an extra few hundred bucks and it is probably going into the economy as soon as she can spend it.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly. And cutting the personal income taxes of, say, the CEO of a bank isn't going to make him hire more tellers.

         replyreport
   5. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Spend it on starving people, rather than a new jet.

      replyreport
2. 54

   ftclickposted 11 years ago

   I am not sold on trickle-down economics. I am not a bear s much but I do pay attention to mathematics and social trends. And Harry Dent has some excellent points albeit they are gloomy and not looking good at all for the next decade unless you bet the markets will go down.

   replyreport
3. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   Well, this really wasn't about trickle down economics... oh well.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No, you were trying to make it about envy and class war. lol.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Well, only about the 'class warfare' that some people engage in here, I was trying to see how people can justify simultaneously criticize the wealthy for 'hoarding' their money, and criticize them for spending their money.
         
         There was a very specific topic in the OP, with specific questions. Only one person here actually answered it. Hence the 'oh well'.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No offense, but its a loaded and misleading question and you know it.
            
            C'mon man!
            
            The issue isn't with Romney having stuff.

            replyreport
4. 87

   Will Apseposted 11 years ago

   You can lead the fish to a hook but you can't make them bite.
   
   Actually, I'm not even sure you can lead a fish to a hook.

   replyreport