BF2S Forums "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"

CapnNismo wrote:

max wrote:

Vilham wrote:

The loss from inflation < the tax that will be charged on it. Hence why offshore accounts exist.

I see a lot of these offshore accounts. The money there is never idle. It's always invested into something.

Exactly - why should it? You can certainly leave this stuff in large interest savings accounts, but a large portion will always stay in the system moving around and a reserve sitting in a savings account. Like John and Max said, this stuff moves around A LOT.

Yeah coz Americans are renowned for only investing in US markets.... You guys are mental if you think all the money rich people earn stays within your economy.

Vilham wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Not at all, but rich people will play people to launder their money, saying all the money rich people earns goes back into the system is plain fucking retarded.

Putting pressure on rich people with taxes just because they're rich isn't going to help the job base expand.

Where did I say it did? All I have said is that suggesting the money rich people earn goes back into your own economy is such a retarded statement.

Perhaps not directly, but economics is in no way a zero-sum venture. Taking money from X country and depositing it in Y country has no net negative effect on country X. Why? Because all markets are interconnected and the money placed in Y country will eventually flow back into X. This is why trade deficits don't matter. In the long run it will balance itself out (unless of course countries like China forcibly tie their currency to another currency instead of letting it float, different topic).

Money is not static, nor is money supply. Even if half of the money currently in the US supply suddenly was deposited for good in a closed market like North Korea, all it would do is double the value of the dollar for everyone else. Sure, deflation like this has it's own consequences but this deflation is the primary reason that money is constantly printed. It counteracts any money sitting idle in savings accounts and makes it worthless over time.

Varegg wrote:

Money isn't everything ... there is also gold and diamonds

Diamonds are rather worthless. Their price is only propped up by the DeBeers cartel. If DeBeers ever opened up its vaults, diamonds would be worth pennies on the dollar compared to what they go for now.

BLdw wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Money isn't everything ... there is also gold and diamonds

Diamonds are rather worthless. Their price is only propped up by the DeBeers cartel. If DeBeers ever opened up its vaults, diamonds would be worth pennies on the dollar compared to what they go for now.

...
So -- diamonds aren't worthless after all?

mined with blood that's for sure.

ban diamonds tbh.

JohnG@lt wrote:

BLdw wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diamonds are rather worthless. Their price is only propped up by the DeBeers cartel. If DeBeers ever opened up its vaults, diamonds would be worth pennies on the dollar compared to what they go for now.

...
So -- diamonds aren't worthless after all?

Perhaps my English is different than your English. When the word 'worthless' is used in expression, it does not automatically mean the thing has zero value.

bullion > diamonds

JohnG@lt wrote:

BLdw wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diamonds are rather worthless. Their price is only propped up by the DeBeers cartel. If DeBeers ever opened up its vaults, diamonds would be worth pennies on the dollar compared to what they go for now.

...
So -- diamonds aren't worthless after all?

Perhaps my English is different than your English. When the word 'worthless' is used in expression, it does not automatically mean the thing has zero value.

Or maybe diamonds aren't rather worthless after all because something needs to be done for them to become worthless.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Perhaps my English is different than your English. When the word 'worthless' is used in expression, it does not automatically mean the thing has zero value.

wtf does worthless mean if not zero value?

You can never make enough money.

oh and ITT: people who do not understand basic principles of economics or globalization gg.

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Perhaps my English is different than your English. When the word 'worthless' is used in expression, it does not automatically mean the thing has zero value.

wtf does worthless mean if not zero value?

yeah i'm wondering this as well... i always took worthless <=> without worth <=> without value

Cybargs wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

You can never make enough money.

oh and ITT: people who do not understand basic principles of economics or globalization gg.

You keep putting people down by claiming that they don't understand economics, but I never see you substantiate why you think that is. What are your qualifications anyway?

Planning to graduate from Stern school of business.

I'm planning on going to the moon. Does that make me a qualified astronaut?

Spark wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

mikkel wrote:

You keep putting people down by claiming that they don't understand economics, but I never see you substantiate why you think that is. What are your qualifications anyway?

Planning to graduate from Stern school of business.

I'm not saying EVERYONE in the thread doesn't understand concepts of econ, but most don't. As John has said, money is always circulated. If you invest money in another country, the wealth created benefits the local populace at first, but trickles down to the global community.

And you can never make enough money. Why have we as a society demonized the rich and successful? Making money and stealing is not the same thing (Maddof lelz).

curious - what does economics say about the relative, er, "efficiencies" of the rich compared to the poor in recycling money into the economy? I.e. as a proportion of their income how effective are they comparatively putting money back into the economy?

(probably makes no sense, but anyway)

You have to take into the account of the creation of wealth as well. The rich usually invest in business', buying stocks, commodities etc, making productions cheaper, which passes down to the savings of the consumer.

The lower classes earn money from jobs, then spend it on consumer goods and invest a lot less compared to the upper classes.

The rich usually are the ones who drive the economy more. Investing circulates the money and most of the time has a trickle down effect (employment, production, profits etc).

personally i reckon there is a point where one could say "yeah i've made enough money" but that's an entirely personal decision, and there would have to be very good reason for anyone else to dictate otherwise.