humour*
humor
Tu Stultus Es
1. True, was waiting for Lowing to come up with that one, but as usual he missed my entire point and went on a rant about his personal choices. They are still a negative cash flow in the economy, with borrowings being the equivalent input. But without increases in demand, capital growth and therefore borrowings are pointless.burnzz wrote:
1. saving money does not take money out of the economy, unless it's physically put in a jar and buried in the yard. whatever instrument you use to save money (savings account, long/short term CD, IRA, 401k, etc) is used as capital for investment.DrunkFace wrote:
1. I'm talking about the economy, not your irrelevant spending patterns. Just pointing out a FACT that savings is taking money out of the economy.
2. No, but it's more then obvious people who earn more money don't go out and buy 3 Camrys, but one Mercedes.
3. Yes, but you are only shifty demand from other things, not creating any extra demand.
4. Demand goes down when people can't afford stuff. Food is a good example, because millionaires and the poor still roughly consume the same amount of food. If the poor can't afford food, the fact the rich earn more isn't going to make them buy any more. Thus lowering demand.
That's your personal opinion and your morality. It has nothing to do with economics and how demand and supply works.
2. that's a very broad statement, and one you cannot defend. i can afford 1 mercedes, or 3 camrys, or even a corvette if i wanted to, but drive a corolla, and a pick up truck when i need to.
3. Inflation isn't dependent on supply and demand, i don't see how you made that connection.
4. a drop in demand does force pricing down, but doesn't lead to a whole economy tanking, it leads to those items not being bought. in a market economy, it's not the consumer who offers items for sale, it's the consumer that decides at which price items will be bought.
you have displayed a naive and simplistic view of a market economy, all trying to show how a welfare recipient is a vital and central part of an economy.
you have failed.
2. But you wouldn't buy 2 corollas? My point is people don't buy multiple things just because they can. They buy what they need.
3. "inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time". Higher demand = higher prices = inflation. How are they not connected? But I was speaking of the inflated prices of specific items rather then the general inflation rate.
4. I know, I never said it would "tank". I said some people (I'll continue my food analogy) such as farmers who would not be able to make a living if prices of food were to drop.
They're not vital. I'm just using exaggerated circumstances to show that there are some benefits to wealth redistribution.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2011-03-27 09:27:00)
harmor*
1. Vital, not really. Potentially beneficial, yes.lowing wrote:
1. Still not an excuse for you to justify an argument that welfare is vital to economic vitality. It isn'tDrunkFace wrote:
1. For you it is. For individuals it is. For Governments it is. For businesses, not so much, and definitely not for the economy on a macro scale.
2. Not paying taxes (or paying a little less tax) does not make you go from middle class to supper rich over night. The super rich can and do buy those things anyway. Most people do not and couldn't even with a 10% increase in income.
3. That demand is already there. You don't create anything new.
4. Supply is not effected by demand. The rest is correct... and exactly what I said anyway, well done on that.
I know, but your opinion is not "how shit works", nor are they the laws of supply and demand.
2. not true, when the economy went bad so did markets that cater to the rich. that is a fact.
3. wrong the demand is not always there, it is created by those that earn money to spend and a demand met by those that provide the supply, who get paid for supplying that demand see the circle?. So where does welfare fit in to all of this, when they do not earn money to spend, nor create anything in the form of supply? They are dead weight, anchors, hindering the recovery effort. Period
4. Supply is not affected by demand?vYou are not serious are you? When no one can afford a widget, the price goes down, when no one wants a widget, they stop supplying it. When the widget is in demand the price goes up and they make more.
Did you ever wonder how or why they stopped cranking out ( supplying) VCR's? Could be demand dropped? and the price drop to maintain a demand was too much to make it worth while to keep making them, maybe?
but you are right I am sure, supply is not affected by demand. and I don't know how shit works.
2. Do you think them paying a little less tax would have made much difference?
3. You don't earn any money without customers. The customer buys something which creates a job, who can then buy something and create another job. Do you see the circle? It all starts from spending not earning.
4. Not directly no. As demand drops, price drops and then so does supply. It's and indirect effect and can not always be simplified in reverse. You can't magically create more gold or oil, just because demand increases. If you could price would not change.
youre the dude that brought my name to this thread. I know I'm popular, but jeez...
Tu Stultus Es
1. gotta disagree sorry, if my money needs to be spent I am quite capable of spending it. thanks for the offer though.DrunkFace wrote:
1. Vital, not really. Potentially beneficial, yes.lowing wrote:
1. Still not an excuse for you to justify an argument that welfare is vital to economic vitality. It isn'tDrunkFace wrote:
1. For you it is. For individuals it is. For Governments it is. For businesses, not so much, and definitely not for the economy on a macro scale.
2. Not paying taxes (or paying a little less tax) does not make you go from middle class to supper rich over night. The super rich can and do buy those things anyway. Most people do not and couldn't even with a 10% increase in income.
3. That demand is already there. You don't create anything new.
4. Supply is not effected by demand. The rest is correct... and exactly what I said anyway, well done on that.
I know, but your opinion is not "how shit works", nor are they the laws of supply and demand.
2. not true, when the economy went bad so did markets that cater to the rich. that is a fact.
3. wrong the demand is not always there, it is created by those that earn money to spend and a demand met by those that provide the supply, who get paid for supplying that demand see the circle?. So where does welfare fit in to all of this, when they do not earn money to spend, nor create anything in the form of supply? They are dead weight, anchors, hindering the recovery effort. Period
4. Supply is not affected by demand?vYou are not serious are you? When no one can afford a widget, the price goes down, when no one wants a widget, they stop supplying it. When the widget is in demand the price goes up and they make more.
Did you ever wonder how or why they stopped cranking out ( supplying) VCR's? Could be demand dropped? and the price drop to maintain a demand was too much to make it worth while to keep making them, maybe?
but you are right I am sure, supply is not affected by demand. and I don't know how shit works.
2. Do you think them paying a little less tax would have made much difference?
3. You don't earn any money without customers. The customer buys something which creates a job, who can then buy something and create another job. Do you see the circle? It all starts from spending not earning.
4. Not directly no. As demand drops, price drops and then so does supply. It's and indirect effect and can not always be simplified in reverse. You can't magically create more gold or oil, just because demand increases. If you could price would not change.
2. Ask Maryland about the little tax they tried to force on the rich, ya know, just for being rich, and then tell me if it makes a difference or not.
3. ummm what is your definition of consumer, those that spend what they earn or those that spend what other people earn? Personally a consumer is someone that spends what they earn. Someone that spends what other people earn is a leech.
4. gold is priced by how much of it exists vs how much people want, just like everything else. Supply and demand. they are interlinked directly
they only difference is, we do not create gold, it is found and we are at the mercy of those discoveries.
Children. Back OT or it's closed.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
See, you bring up blame again. I have never "blamed" anyone for anything, so putting words in my mouth when they come from yours is a pretty low(ing) tactic.lowing wrote:
You mean you do not want to ask why a woman had not 1 but 3 kids with an abusive husband? HS is govt. funded, how is it she had no education?Jaekus wrote:
That is part of it. What about a single mother looking after 3 kids from an abusive relationship who had to live in a women's shelter, who came from a poor background and received no education as the result of an abusive upbringing and thus has no employable skills other than the most basic of society, and yet cannot do so when she has her children to look after? And does not know better because this is all she has grown up with and known? And can barely afford to properly educate her children and thus the cycle continues? And then have the stigma of being "on welfare" because she has "made these choices in life" and any money granted to her is a waste?lowing wrote:
Do you really think it should cost 702 billion dollars to take care of people who are physically or mentally disabled?
I believe that 100% of all homeless people are genuinely homeless. You simply got to accept that, most people live the lives they are in as a result of their choice in that life.
See, I thought the benefit of living in a first world country was the fact that our governments are rich enough to look after people like these, because those of us who are more advantaged have the luxury of saving up for a new car and overseas holidays, whilst the destitute can get some crumbs from our tax dollars to feed them and their kids for another week.
But, I guess if you want to go back to living life like in the 1950's...
We can play these what if games all day long, I will always be able to ultimately pin the responsibility back on the individual. Who were you wanting to blame other than her?
I'm just simply trying to help you understand what you cannot seem to see.
Your argument is based upon greed.
You are not assigning blame when you absolutely should be. There is a reason for her demise, and it most certainly is not the fault of society. You do not want to assign blame? Why not not only do you want to share all the wealth earned equally, you also want to share in everyones personal problems as well?Jaekus wrote:
See, you bring up blame again. I have never "blamed" anyone for anything, so putting words in my mouth when they come from yours is a pretty low(ing) tactic.lowing wrote:
You mean you do not want to ask why a woman had not 1 but 3 kids with an abusive husband? HS is govt. funded, how is it she had no education?Jaekus wrote:
That is part of it. What about a single mother looking after 3 kids from an abusive relationship who had to live in a women's shelter, who came from a poor background and received no education as the result of an abusive upbringing and thus has no employable skills other than the most basic of society, and yet cannot do so when she has her children to look after? And does not know better because this is all she has grown up with and known? And can barely afford to properly educate her children and thus the cycle continues? And then have the stigma of being "on welfare" because she has "made these choices in life" and any money granted to her is a waste?
See, I thought the benefit of living in a first world country was the fact that our governments are rich enough to look after people like these, because those of us who are more advantaged have the luxury of saving up for a new car and overseas holidays, whilst the destitute can get some crumbs from our tax dollars to feed them and their kids for another week.
But, I guess if you want to go back to living life like in the 1950's...
We can play these what if games all day long, I will always be able to ultimately pin the responsibility back on the individual. Who were you wanting to blame other than her?
I'm just simply trying to help you understand what you cannot seem to see.
Your argument is based upon greed.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 14:54:54)
Again, you are making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. That's a low tactic, so now I cbf wasting my time on this issue any more.
Troll less next time please.
Troll less next time please.
Jaekus you hit me with a "what if " scenario, like it or not, every one of your "what if's" finds its roots in a decision made by the person affected. How can you deny that peoples lives, more times than not, are a result of their own decisions in their lives? Then explain how society is supposed to accept responsibility for thatJaekus wrote:
Again, you are making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. That's a low tactic, so now I cbf wasting my time on this issue any more.
Troll less next time please.
To be honest I do not see how you call my queries tolling, if you don't want to address it fine, but there is no need to call me a troll over it.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 16:49:05)
Well, if it isn't clear:
I am not saying people are not responsible for their actions. But it is true some people simply do not know or understand how to get themselves out of the course their life has led to. In a third world society these people end up in squalor, with no hope, and that's a better case scenario. In a first world society we have the means to look after our fellow man when he is down. Not to make him dependant, but to support him to help himself. There are of course those that take advantage of this; likewise there are those who will never be able to be truly independent with the cards life has dealt them.
I just think complaining about paying a few tax dollars that help out those who are on the base level of society instead of pampering yourself some more is pretty shallow.
Also, the welfare system has created thousands upon thousands of jobs. Those people who work in that sector all pay their taxes like the rest of us.
This here is merely supposition, I have never alluded to distributing wealth evenly nor sharing personal problems. So the questions are null, irrelevant.lowing wrote:
You do not want to assign blame? Why not not only do you want to share all the wealth earned equally, you also want to share in everyones personal problems as well?
I am not saying people are not responsible for their actions. But it is true some people simply do not know or understand how to get themselves out of the course their life has led to. In a third world society these people end up in squalor, with no hope, and that's a better case scenario. In a first world society we have the means to look after our fellow man when he is down. Not to make him dependant, but to support him to help himself. There are of course those that take advantage of this; likewise there are those who will never be able to be truly independent with the cards life has dealt them.
I just think complaining about paying a few tax dollars that help out those who are on the base level of society instead of pampering yourself some more is pretty shallow.
Also, the welfare system has created thousands upon thousands of jobs. Those people who work in that sector all pay their taxes like the rest of us.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-03-27 17:02:01)
Ok first, 702 BILLION DOLLARS a year, is not "a few tax dollars". Second, If you want to entertain helping those that help themselves, I am with you.Jaekus wrote:
Well, if it isn't clear:This here is merely supposition, I have never alluded to distributing wealth evenly nor sharing personal problems. So the questions are null, irrelevant.lowing wrote:
You do not want to assign blame? Why not not only do you want to share all the wealth earned equally, you also want to share in everyones personal problems as well?
I am not saying people are not responsible for their actions. But it is true some people simply do not know or understand how to get themselves out of the course their life has led to. In a third world society these people end up in squalor, with no hope, and that's a better case scenario. In a first world society we have the means to look after our fellow man when he is down. Not to make him dependant, but to support him to help himself. There are of course those that take advantage of this; likewise there are those who will never be able to be truly independent with the cards life has dealt them.
I just think complaining about paying a few tax dollars that help out those who are on the base level of society instead of pampering yourself some more is pretty shallow.
Also, the welfare system has created thousands upon thousands of jobs. Those people who work in that sector all pay their taxes like the rest of us.
using your "what if" I, however ,am not interested in doling out money to a woman that decided to have 3 kids while in an abusive relationship, she has no job no education etc. That is her fault not mine. It does not take much effort to get at least a HS diploma in life. There are zero "what if" scenerios where blame for someones life can not be assigned to themselves. If they want help they should first help themselves.
Sometimes people don't know how to help themselves, or need support because they can't do it alone.
The scenario above is very real, it happens all the time. I know you're not interested, as you can't seem to understand what I'm saying here. Yes, $702B is a lot of money in anyone's language, huge amount. But a lot of that spending is very necessary to having the country that you have today - without it you would have higher unemployment, higher crime rate and divide that gap between rich and poor exponentially.
It's not about making the rich less rich, which is the angle you're coming from, it's raising the lowest common denominator up from the gutter.
The scenario above is very real, it happens all the time. I know you're not interested, as you can't seem to understand what I'm saying here. Yes, $702B is a lot of money in anyone's language, huge amount. But a lot of that spending is very necessary to having the country that you have today - without it you would have higher unemployment, higher crime rate and divide that gap between rich and poor exponentially.
It's not about making the rich less rich, which is the angle you're coming from, it's raising the lowest common denominator up from the gutter.
It happens all the time , you are correct, what kind of a genius does it really take to know what happens when you have kids you can not afford? As often as it happens, do you think one should expect others to learn from the multiple examples of stupidity? How could you not know your life is going to be shit with at least a HS diploma, as if they are mystified how dropping out of school, turning to drugs and alcohol and getting knocked up was not the way to a quality of life? So much for that idiot.Jaekus wrote:
Sometimes people don't know how to help themselves, or need support because they can't do it alone.
The scenario above is very real, it happens all the time. I know you're not interested, as you can't seem to understand what I'm saying here. Yes, $702B is a lot of money in anyone's language, huge amount. But a lot of that spending is very necessary to having the country that you have today - without it you would have higher unemployment, higher crime rate and divide that gap between rich and poor exponentially.
It's not about making the rich less rich, which is the angle you're coming from, it's raising the lowest common denominator up from the gutter.
We would have lower unemployment and lower crime if we lowered taxes and raised incentive for companies to move back to the states. How is putting people to work and stop paying them to stay home and do dick as an approach to solving unemployment and crime?
Not even sure where to start with your attitude that the leeches are actually doing us all a favor and employing others by their sitting on their dead asses and letting social workers run circles around them.
As much as your armchair logic makes sense on a level, this is not how it happens in the real world.lowing wrote:
It happens all the time , you are correct, what kind of a genius does it really take to know what happens when you have kids you can not afford? As often as it happens, do you think one should expect others to learn from the multiple examples of stupidity? How could you not know your life is going to be shit with at least a HS diploma, as if they are mystified how dropping out of school, turning to drugs and alcohol and getting knocked up was not the way to a quality of life? So much for that idiot.Jaekus wrote:
Sometimes people don't know how to help themselves, or need support because they can't do it alone.
The scenario above is very real, it happens all the time. I know you're not interested, as you can't seem to understand what I'm saying here. Yes, $702B is a lot of money in anyone's language, huge amount. But a lot of that spending is very necessary to having the country that you have today - without it you would have higher unemployment, higher crime rate and divide that gap between rich and poor exponentially.
It's not about making the rich less rich, which is the angle you're coming from, it's raising the lowest common denominator up from the gutter.
We would have lower unemployment and lower crime if we lowered taxes and raised incentive for companies to move back to the states. How is putting people to work and stop paying them to stay home and do dick as an approach to solving unemployment and crime?
Not even sure where to start with your attitude that the leeches are actually doing us all a favor and employing others by their sitting on their dead asses and letting social workers run circles around them.
I've tried to help you remove those blinkers you've got firmly fixed to your vision of the world, but hey, like we agreed upon, you have to want to help yourself.
armchair logic? contrary to popular belief, I work for a living, and was not born with a silver spoon. I was raised as an army brat, hardly a life of luxury. Everything I have I worked for and earned. Everything I do not have, is not any one elses fault or problem except mine. I have faced lay offs, divorce, separations. however, because of my decisions, I over came all of it.Jaekus wrote:
As much as your armchair logic makes sense on a level, this is not how it happens in the real world.lowing wrote:
It happens all the time , you are correct, what kind of a genius does it really take to know what happens when you have kids you can not afford? As often as it happens, do you think one should expect others to learn from the multiple examples of stupidity? How could you not know your life is going to be shit with at least a HS diploma, as if they are mystified how dropping out of school, turning to drugs and alcohol and getting knocked up was not the way to a quality of life? So much for that idiot.Jaekus wrote:
Sometimes people don't know how to help themselves, or need support because they can't do it alone.
The scenario above is very real, it happens all the time. I know you're not interested, as you can't seem to understand what I'm saying here. Yes, $702B is a lot of money in anyone's language, huge amount. But a lot of that spending is very necessary to having the country that you have today - without it you would have higher unemployment, higher crime rate and divide that gap between rich and poor exponentially.
It's not about making the rich less rich, which is the angle you're coming from, it's raising the lowest common denominator up from the gutter.
We would have lower unemployment and lower crime if we lowered taxes and raised incentive for companies to move back to the states. How is putting people to work and stop paying them to stay home and do dick as an approach to solving unemployment and crime?
Not even sure where to start with your attitude that the leeches are actually doing us all a favor and employing others by their sitting on their dead asses and letting social workers run circles around them.
I've tried to help you remove those blinkers you've got firmly fixed to your vision of the world, but hey, like we agreed upon, you have to want to help yourself.
Logically, if you make shit decisions your life will turn out like shit. It is the same logic I use to NOT turn into a leech, I helped myself. and it is applied logic in the real world.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 17:57:07)
Last chance. The "delete multiple posts" function is flaky, and I'm getting tired of deleting one at a time.
Cut the gradeschool shit out or it gets closed.
Cut the gradeschool shit out or it gets closed.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
whats wrong with saying "sorry you feel that way" I genuinely feel sorry. I know its lowings catchphrase when he has no other way of responding but Im sincere when I post it.
Tu Stultus Es
not my fault lowing feels the need to respond with insults
Tu Stultus Es
It's not pertinent to the topic at hand. If you're sorry, that's fine. Keep your feelings to yourself. Sharing them just causes me asspain.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I would love it if this was the consistently kept standardFEOS wrote:
Keep your feelings to yourself.
Last edited by eleven bravo (2011-03-27 18:49:35)
Tu Stultus Es
It's a complete fallacy though. What wealth redistribution does at its heart is create more poor people. If you have a normal income stratification you'll generally have people at the very bottom, a large number of people just above them, and a balloon further up the chain. Well, what happens when you decide to arbitrarily set a 'poverty line' and then redistribute wealth from above to those below the line? Because we don't live in societies with draconian price controls (which lead to black markets, declines in production etc on their own; different topic) we suddenly have a bunch of new people with money to spend so the prices rise to meet not only their demand, but what their possible outlays are. Prices are not just determined by supply and demand, they are also determined by just how much can be charged on an item among a certain segment of society (example: Apple products). The end result is that you've now brought people up to that artificial poverty line and in turn created more people living in poverty as the bottom of the curve rose to include more people.Jaekus wrote:
Sometimes people don't know how to help themselves, or need support because they can't do it alone.
The scenario above is very real, it happens all the time. I know you're not interested, as you can't seem to understand what I'm saying here. Yes, $702B is a lot of money in anyone's language, huge amount. But a lot of that spending is very necessary to having the country that you have today - without it you would have higher unemployment, higher crime rate and divide that gap between rich and poor exponentially.
It's not about making the rich less rich, which is the angle you're coming from, it's raising the lowest common denominator up from the gutter.
No one wants to see people dying in the streets, but there are much better ways to go about it than simply throwing money at people. It doesn't work in a capitalistic society. It's like oil and water. There's an old joke "Everyone is equal in Communism: equally poor." and it's completely true because of what I described above. Unless you have rigid price controls in place, the prices will always rise to their highest possible level.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Divide what we spend on welfare by the number of people who use it.lowing wrote:
if you really wanna be disgusted
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usg … 702.701601
at least people are employed at GE, and technology is being developed. What has this welfare budget produced?
but nooo, can't have any outrage for the nanny state.
702,000,000,000 for nothing, compared to 3,000,000,000 that goes to Research and development of new technologies. Yes folks, even if the project is cancelled , what is learned from it does go toward other projects and technologies.
We actually spend relatively little per person on welfare, especially compared to the systems of many of our peers.