BF2S Forums Letter to Employees

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

DonFck wrote:

lowing, do you seriously believe that 100% employment would a) be possible and b) be at all good for any economy?

If you lived in lowingland, where you can keep what you make, in a case of unemployment, you'd.. ..die. If at any point you will be unemployed IN THE REAL WORLD, you'll gladly take any money you can get before you end up as a rotting carcass who used to live in a cardboard box and tell stories of when he was wealthy (as heard by people passing by, referring to you as "the crazy street hobo").

If you don't know shit about this matter, I suggest you read up, learn, and then come back with some actual knowledge.

We've all already established that what you lack in empathy for others, you compensate in complete and utter ignorance.

Yer right, I am stupid, I decided to earn a living instead of mooching one from someone elses efforts. I think in order for me to get ahead, I need to quit my job, and default on my mortage so I can take advantage of all of these neat programs that I will be ENTITLED to, once I force someone else to burden themselves with taking care of me.

I'm amazed ...

Not as amazed as I am reading, how poor non productive people is the key to economic success.

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

I see, so a person who built wealth does not spend more than someone who did not?

I guess yachts, planes, fancy cars, fancy homes,and all the jobs that are created to maintain them is not spending enough for you to stimulate an economy, giving money to the poor who did not earn it so they can buy beer and smokes is what needs to happen. Who circulates money in the economy more, those that have it or those that don't. YOu, as a liberal, want to take money from those that earn it and give it to those that do not so the poor can spend it? The rich spends waaaaaaaayyyyyyy more money than the poor does.

Yes... thats exactly what I'm saying.

http://seekingalpha.com/wp-content/seek … erspen.jpg
Services and non durable goods make up 60% of GDP compared to only 10% for the goods you listed.

The rich also invest in stocks, bonds and cash non of which contribute to the supply chain and removes cash flow from the economy.

So investors, that invest in a company, which in turns GROWS a company, which in turn provided JOBS for a family to EARN money to spend thus providing a long term and more permanent solution, is not the way to go.

Have those that work pay for those that don't and pretty much make it so they will never have to, this is your grand solution?


ANy chance you would consider that those that earn a living might wanna keep what they have earned for themselves and their own families? Oh wait I remember that is greed. I forgot my own sig.

1. 99% of stock trading is done on the secondary markets which is just one investor buying from another. It helps the business in no way and just a transfer of ownership.

2. The grand solution for an economic crisis (aka now) is to stimulate the economy to create jobs. To do this you must increase demand for the goods and services and to do that you need people to spend. It is a known fact that the rich save a much higher proportion of their wealth then the poor and middle class.

3. Is Bill Gates worth the amount he is? Can you seriously say he has worked millions times harder then say an accountant or a Doctor? Do CEOs who get payed millions of dollars a year really work that much harder then the other people in the same organisation? Do football players, actors, singers etc deserve the millions of dollars they get paid? Does someone who was born into wealth and just live off interest from the bank really deserve that kind of lifestyle?

Do not the thousands (or even millions) of people who were previously employed but lost there jobs deserve some kind of help until they are able to find a new job?

You can name call all you want, but I'm mostly looking at this from a purely economic stand point and judging from your responses something you know very little about.

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Yes... thats exactly what I'm saying.

http://seekingalpha.com/wp-content/seek … erspen.jpg
Services and non durable goods make up 60% of GDP compared to only 10% for the goods you listed.

The rich also invest in stocks, bonds and cash non of which contribute to the supply chain and removes cash flow from the economy.

So investors, that invest in a company, which in turns GROWS a company, which in turn provided JOBS for a family to EARN money to spend thus providing a long term and more permanent solution, is not the way to go.

Have those that work pay for those that don't and pretty much make it so they will never have to, this is your grand solution?


ANy chance you would consider that those that earn a living might wanna keep what they have earned for themselves and their own families? Oh wait I remember that is greed. I forgot my own sig.

1. 99% of stock trading is done on the secondary markets which is just one investor buying from another. It helps the business in no way and just a transfer of ownership.

2. The grand solution for an economic crisis (aka now) is to stimulate the economy to create jobs. To do this you must increase demand for the goods and services and to do that you need people to spend. It is a known fact that the rich save a much higher proportion of their wealth then the poor and middle class.

3. Is Bill Gates worth the amount he is? Can you seriously say he has worked millions times harder then say an accountant or a Doctor? Do CEOs who get payed millions of dollars a year really work that much harder then the other people in the same organisation? Do football players, actors, singers etc deserve the millions of dollars they get paid? Does someone who was born into wealth and just live off interest from the bank really deserve that kind of lifestyle?

Do not the thousands (or even millions) of people who were previously employed but lost there jobs deserve some kind of help until they are able to find a new job?

You can name call all you want, but I'm mostly looking at this from a purely economic stand point and judging from your responses something you know very little about.

1. got it, so buying stock into a company does nothing, has anyone told wallstreet this? They might wanna know.

2. To stimulate growth, you need to give incentives for that to happen, and stealing more from the risk takers, making the risk even greater, will not do shit. It is the rich thatmake the difference not the poor.

3. A person like Bill Gates, has RISKED MORE than anyone you have mentioned. As for the rest, it is none of our business how much these people make, if you do not like it, then do not buy tickets to see them.

4. People that WERE employed are getting help. Help that is long established, it is called unemployment and job retraining. WHEN they were employed they paid into this program. They are entilted to it.

5. I am smart enough to know that in order to prosper you need to work, in order to work you need to make yourself into a resource employers want. I have no problems understasnding this. How about you?

1. whose going to buy the stock when no one has money? That's why the stock market has been crashing

2.  The rich that make what difference?

3 and 5.  What has Bill Gates risked? He risks nothing more then the average person out there, Most people want to work. But when you have job training in a field where they're a million other people going for the same job you're not going to get a liveable wage..

4. You're not entilted to unemployment, sure it's there but you actually have to qualify for it..

Well in order to stimulate the economy the people who have the money have to make sacrifices in order for money to be worth something..

If I had a million rocks and you had one, why the fuck would you pick rocks as a monetary system?

sorry guys, love to talk but I gotta get to work. You know what work is right? That is the place where I gotta go, in order to keep up with my bills and yours. See ya in about 12 hours or so. Enjoy your time off. I got yer back

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

So investors, that invest in a company, which in turns GROWS a company, which in turn provided JOBS for a family to EARN money to spend thus providing a long term and more permanent solution, is not the way to go.

Have those that work pay for those that don't and pretty much make it so they will never have to, this is your grand solution?


ANy chance you would consider that those that earn a living might wanna keep what they have earned for themselves and their own families? Oh wait I remember that is greed. I forgot my own sig.

1. 99% of stock trading is done on the secondary markets which is just one investor buying from another. It helps the business in no way and just a transfer of ownership.

2. The grand solution for an economic crisis (aka now) is to stimulate the economy to create jobs. To do this you must increase demand for the goods and services and to do that you need people to spend. It is a known fact that the rich save a much higher proportion of their wealth then the poor and middle class.

3. Is Bill Gates worth the amount he is? Can you seriously say he has worked millions times harder then say an accountant or a Doctor? Do CEOs who get payed millions of dollars a year really work that much harder then the other people in the same organisation? Do football players, actors, singers etc deserve the millions of dollars they get paid? Does someone who was born into wealth and just live off interest from the bank really deserve that kind of lifestyle?

Do not the thousands (or even millions) of people who were previously employed but lost there jobs deserve some kind of help until they are able to find a new job?

You can name call all you want, but I'm mostly looking at this from a purely economic stand point and judging from your responses something you know very little about.

1. got it, so buying stock into a company does nothing, has anyone told wallstreet this? They might wanna know.

2. To stimulate growth, you need to give incentives for that to happen, and stealing more from the risk takers, making the risk even greater, will not do shit. It is the rich thatmake the difference not the poor.

3. A person like Bill Gates, has RISKED MORE than anyone you have mentioned. As for the rest, it is none of our business how much these people make, if you do not like it, then do not buy tickets to see them.

4. People that WERE employed are getting help. Help that is long established, it is called unemployment and job retraining. WHEN they were employed they paid into this program. They are entilted to it.

5. I am smart enough to know that in order to prosper you need to work, in order to work you need to make yourself into a resource employers want. I have no problems understasnding this. How about you?

1. yes. It's like buying a second hand car. The car manufacture gets no more money, it's just a transfer of ownership. The exception is the primary release of shares by companies to increase funds, but these are very rare.

2. The incentive needs to increase spending. Companies will not expand or take any risks if there are no potential consumers. They will continue to downsize and consolidate, the same as whats been happening over the past year. All the extra money is going to do is sit in a bank earning interest.

3. Bill Gates risked fuck all he bought DOS for like $600(0), stole the idea for windows off Apple and then marketed in a way to produce a practical monopoly in that industry and has been raking in the profits ever since. CEOs are not worth the money they pay themselves, either are performers or sports people. Forget this point, it's looking too much into the individual, as apposed to the 'whole'.

4. Job retraining is all well and good if there were any jobs to go back into. The fact is, companies are not hiring anyone because they don't have the sales figures to justify it.

5. There also needs to be jobs available, and for this there needs to be people spending money.

lowing wrote:

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.

poor you, i lose about 45% of my paycheck every week and im not dead.

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yer right, I am stupid, I decided to earn a living instead of mooching one from someone elses efforts. I think in order for me to get ahead, I need to quit my job, and default on my mortage so I can take advantage of all of these neat programs that I will be ENTITLED to, once I force someone else to burden themselves with taking care of me.

You really think being on welfare is like going on some great big holiday?

Nope, I think not paying your mortgage and letting the tax payers pay it frees up whatever money you do have, for the things you really like to do.  Don't worry though, I guess I will manage covering my expenses as well as yours. remember it is only fair that you should not have to pay your fuckin bills when you are too stupid not to create them.

The tax payers don't pay for my mortgage when I default. The bank seizes the home\assets after foreclosure to cover their own costs as best they can. If they fail to recover the costs, due to their own stupidity in lending to someone "like me" to start with, they also must partly share the blame. In this case, financially.

The current mortgage crisis came about when too many banks accepted too many risky mortgage plans, and then had the nerve to pass the majority of risk on to business investors.

Your not covering my expenses, in any of this. And I laugh at the fact you believe you are. The only way you could cover any of "my expenses", by any amount of money, would be when the businesses that took up these risky bank investments start to lose so much money, the Govt. decides to bail them out, with tax payer money. But then this doesn't go towards the banks, only the falling business.

The separate payments in the bailout plan that went towards propping up a few of the major banks, not all I might add, while most smaller banks were not given any financial help. Why? Because banks, as usual, lend money to each other to recoup losses by taking out loans between the banking groups.

You only covered the cost of foreclosures when the bailout money was handed out, nothing at all to do with my bills. Go on believing though that the fault of this mess lies solely on the part of me, taking out my mortgage that the bank agreed to.

here's a chart... since everyone is putting up charts...lol...
When the business owner finally gives up because taxes are too high and not worth it... we all can sit at home and wait for a check...
http://moneytipcentral.com/you-are-what … t-you-make
..........
The article makes an interesting point and the chart they attached is even more interesting. Some of the most interesting observations from the chart are:

The rich spend much more on education than the poor do. The poor don’t even register on the chart for their educational spending.
The rich spend a considerable amount of their income on taxes and savings. The poor actually have negative savings.
New products are only taking 15 years to hit 80% market saturation instead of 50-70 years required in the past.
Multiple items per household is much more common. Multiple cars, televisions, computers would be unheard of 50 years ago.
The rich donate more of their income to charities than the poor or middle class. Each class donated poor 5.8%, middle class 6.3%, and the rich 10%.


and i am far from rich... working on it though... and i would like it to remain possible...

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-01-21 18:56:04)

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

sorry guys, love to talk but I gotta get to work. You know what work is right? That is the place where I gotta go, in order to keep up with my bills and yours. See ya in about 12 hours or so. Enjoy your time off. I got yer back

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know ego-stroking was a full time job.

Or maybe you're deliberately just being an arrogant ass. Whatever.

i think its the latter. honestly, no one can be this ignorant. not even lowing. there are a LOT of ppl here who understand this more than i do (dayarath,Fancy, AR, Scorp,cam) so how could i argue with em?

lowing i do commend u for sticking to your guns tho, even if that means looking dumber as u do it

TheAussieReaper wrote:

So let me get this straight catbox, your saying the rich spend more?

Have a look at the percentages here, then work out what it really represents.

I've made it a bit clearer so you can read it without squinting.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/r … income.png

So the poor are spending 182% of what they are earning...

The middle class are spending 76% of what they are earning...

And the rich class are spending 46% of what they are earning...

And your trying to argue the rich spend more? I'm sure I don't have to tell you there are more middle class than rich class Americans, too.

I must admit though, showing us a graph which proves the opposite is certainly a unique way to argue your point.

Rich people are careful with their money... they don't waste it like poor people...  So in essence... we take money from wealthy people in the form of taxes... like they did last spring...they give a stimulus check to the the poor folks who go out and blow the 600 bucks... pffft...   there is a small bump in spending... then the next month back to usual spending...   
  My big problem is giving money to an inefficient govt(they continue to tell us what they think we need and are usually wrong)...

I am not rich myself... but i understand how jobs and wealth are created...   The govt hopes by getting poor people hooked on handouts that they will have votes for life and nobody will question what they do... as long as the check shows up... thats all...

social darwinism ALWAYS fails.