U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2019, 11:52 AM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
4,414 posts, read 1,997,370 times
Reputation: 15218

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
I think we should always strive for an optimal outcome for all. I don't have a problem with Billionnaires but it does seem like concentrating wealth in the hands of the few is not optimal but on the other hand, billionaires striving through investing is a driver for our economy that benefits us all.

On the whole, I would be in favor of a wealth tax on billionaires as long as wasn't extremely high and the revenues go to pay down debt.
Oh, they would just hire a new army of lawyer minions & find a loophole. The laws are never simply stated; “For each $1 Billion; you are taxed: $ whatever ...”

There will be loopholes.

There is something different about the thought process of the wealthy elite. David Rockefeller was a good example with his inherited overpopulation paranoia. I mean; I get it:

The majority of untapped reservoirs of natural resources & fertile agricultural-ready land are underneath the many feet of third world country citizens (high-fertility rates). He advocated for a globalized economy & masses of youth primed for civil unrest do threaten the potential of ageing populous, first-world country incorporations of entire nations & continents into their domain.

Rather than start WWIII & acquire by force; “Equality” was the plan & it was dependent on population control. Rockefeller’s thoughts on Equality:

Quote:
How does one make the nations of the world more nearly equal? ... The goal is not to bankrupt the United States. Rather, it is to reduce our productive might, and therefore our standard of living, to the meager subsistence level of the socialized nations of the world. The plan is not to bring the standard of living in less developed countries up to our level, but to bring ours down to meet theirs coming up...

It is your standard of living which must be sacrificed on the altar of the New World Order.
THIRD WORLD TRAVELER - THIRD WORLD, FOREIGN POLICY, FRIENDLY DICTATORS, WAR CRIMES, HUMAN RIGHTS, COUPS, FALSE FLAGS, RULING ELITE, GLOBAL OLIGARCHY, FINANCIAL OLIGARCHY, GLOBALISM, CORPORATE OLIGARCHY, PROPAGANDA, CORPORATE MEDIA, INTERNATIONAL TRAV

Well; that sure does explain a lot. But anyway; Rockefeller had scores of analysts & researchers working on this & their findings can be read in multiple archived government document sites ... He KNEW this could not be achieved in his lifetime.

What was the point? He’s not the only one, either. There were many players influencing decades of administrations & their heirs are continuing their Kleptocratic fantasies. I don’t know. It doesn’t make sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2019, 12:02 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,039 posts, read 22,389,385 times
Reputation: 46444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
https://outline.com/xGfLGm

Key paragraph relevant to the Economics forum:

"[there is] evidence that extreme wealth has a corrosive effect on the economy. Wealth inequality places immense resources in the hands of people unable to spend it productively, and keeps it out of the hands of those who would put it to use instantly..."

This is exactly what I posted earlier... that the global savings glut, where ultra-wealthy individuals and institutions have mountains of excess cash sitting idle and doing nothing, is grossly unproductive. We need a wealth tax to siphon up dead cash to put it to productive use.

Why not tax a billionaire? If someone has $2 billion, and taxes knocks it down to $1.5 billion, will he or she even notice? Their lifestyle won't change, they can still buy whatever they want and have every need fulfilled.
Let's hope so. This infatuation with the super rich is regressive and counter to the self interests of average people.

The worship of wealth is a sentiment that is devoid of values.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
5,302 posts, read 1,772,436 times
Reputation: 8027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
I swear that half of of this forum is full of economic nut jobs.
Starting with the ones who keep their econ textbooks open on the desk for arguments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
5,302 posts, read 1,772,436 times
Reputation: 8027
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
Let's hope so. This infatuation with the super rich is regressive and counter to the self interests of average people.

The worship of wealth is a sentiment that is devoid of values.
I may frame your second comment and hang it on the wall.
Celebrity: a person famous for being famous. Most celebrities are famous, in the end, solely because of their wealth.
However, I'd modify your first statement as being too... class-driven. Worship of the wealthy is counter to the interests of pretty much everyone and everything, not just some ill-defined 'average person.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Midwest
3,987 posts, read 6,912,898 times
Reputation: 6564
"By POLINA MARINOVA June 18, 2018
Today is the day that the new owner of The Los Angeles Times takes the helm.

Biotech billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong first announced he would buy the newspaper, along with The San Diego Union-Tribune, for $500 million in February. His ownership officially begins today.

Over the years, The L.A. Times has undergone layoffs, staff cuts, and internal turmoil. Today, the embattled paper published a banner headline that reads, “A new era of Times ownership.” "
http://fortune.com/2018/06/18/los-angeles-times-owner/

Last edited by Dwatted Wabbit; 02-03-2019 at 01:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 12:55 PM
 
2,657 posts, read 638,892 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanLB View Post
No, it isnít, and youíre completely misunderstanding the point of taxation. It isnít and hasnít ever been to confiscate wealth - in fact, direct taxation is unconstitutional despite Warrenís ďplan,Ē the same amendment you cited ironically says exactly that! You can tax transactions and movements of money, you canít confiscate money just because someone has more than you think they should. Taxes are for paying for government services and our defense, theyíre not to ďequalizeĒ things so we can punish the winners of society. I donít know where you got that idea but itís not correct at all.

Optimizing economic activity isnít punishing wealth creation, by the way, so your point is moot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
5,302 posts, read 1,772,436 times
Reputation: 8027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwatted Wabbit View Post
Over the years, The L.A. Times has undergone layoffs, staff cuts, and internal turmoil. Today, the embattled paper published a banner headline that reads, ďA new era of Times ownership.Ē "
Anyone else have the image of a spoiled widdle kid going "zoom, Zoom, ZOOM!" with his new toy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 01:19 PM
 
2,412 posts, read 1,535,290 times
Reputation: 5215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Starting with the ones who keep their econ textbooks open on the desk for arguments.
Yeah, we know. Youíre very impressed with yourself and say everyone is in college economics and youíre on a next level. Iíve heard it the other 25 times that youíve said it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
5,302 posts, read 1,772,436 times
Reputation: 8027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
Yeah, we know. You’re very impressed with yourself and say everyone is in college economics and you’re on a next level. I’ve heard it the other 25 times that you’ve said it.
Good. You're paying attention, then.

The ones who keep trying to trap me with the box-text definitions in the book aren't. Acolytes just spitting mad that I won't argue their theology with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 01:55 PM
 
1,368 posts, read 618,251 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
The only time buying stocks helps to "drive the economy" is when purchasing an IPO. That's the only time buying stocks results in actual capital investment. Buying stocks on the open market is just a title transfer of existing stock from person A to B.
The buying and selling of stocks set the price the companies can expect to receive if they sell more shares to finance the company. In that sense, they do help drive the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top