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.
Money is money. As long as someone acquires it legally, it's really none of my business whether they "earn" it "productively" or not. If someone spends money, they are creating jobs regardless of how they got the money.
Then you must agree with Pelosi that handing out massive amounts of welfare money is good way to create jobs. No wonder this country is in the crapper.
Then you must agree with Pelosi that handing out massive amounts of welfare money is good way to create jobs. No wonder this country is in the crapper.
Government spending does create jobs, in much the same manner as tax cuts. However, it's utterly unsustainable and terribly inefficient.
Transfer of wealth is not a productive process. Sure, we might get a little bump in employment, but if everyone went around simply transferring wealth, then society would eventually grind to a halt.
Given your sentiments, you must think that people on welfare are productive jobs creators since most of "their" money also goes to the private sector.
I don't see how you took investing in the private sector as transferring wealth. If I invest in $5 million worth of bonds of a company, that's $5 million that the company has for R&D, operations and overhead. This results in products being developed, manufactured, and marketing.... along with salaries being paid. That's not transferring wealth. That's producing products. That's creating jobs.
Welfare money is not being invested. It's [ideally] being used to purchase goods.
Government spending is good for the economy. It's utterly unsustainable, but that's a different issue entirely.
We are talking about transferring of wealth, not government spending for the sake of spending.
If you believe that walking away from a divorce with millions of dollars is good for the economy and makes people productive job creators, then you must also agree that massive welfare benefits to the poor makes them productive job creators.
We are talking about transferring of wealth, not government spending for the sake of spending.
If you believe that walking away from a divorce with millions of dollars is good for the economy and makes people productive job creators, then you must also agree that massive welfare benefits to the poor makes them productive job creators.
She may not be a "productive" job creators, but that's not the point. She is a job creator.
Massive welfare benefits shouldn't happen for different reasons but, yes, technically people on welfare are job creators as well.
I don't see how you took investing in the private sector as transferring wealth. If I invest in $5 million worth of bonds of a company, that's $5 million that the company has for R&D, operations and overhead. This results in products being developed, manufactured, and marketing.... along with salaries being paid. That's not transferring wealth. That's producing products. That's creating jobs.
I understand clearly that economic growth comes from new capital formation and investment plays a significant role in that. However, simply being bestowed with millions via a divorce is not productive activity. If people's wealth simply came from divorce, then nothing new would be created and the economy would eventually grind to a halt.
Claiming that Elin Nordegren is some sort of job creating guru simply because because Tiger couldn't keep his dick in his pants is completely ludicrous.
You aren't reading my posts. She indeed is a productive job creator.
I put productive in quotes to make an attempt to partially satisfy that poster. I find debating over whether she's productive or not is, well, rather unproductive and not furthering the discussion. It's merely semantical.
I understand clearly that economic growth comes from new capital formation and investment plays a significant role in that. However, simply being bestowed with millions via a divorce is not productive activity. If people's wealth simply came from divorce, then nothing new would be created and the economy would eventually grind to a halt.
Claiming that Elin Nordegren is some sort of job creating guru simply because because Tiger couldn't keep his dick in his pants is completely ludicrous.
The process in which she received the money is not productive. That's true, but not that important either. She is NOW a productive job creator AFTER having the money. And that is more important. She now has the ability to do great things and hopefully she does. She is no lesser person just because she got money through a divorce. A divorce is a one time thing, that has little or no impact on the economy. But her actions after the divorce surely can.
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.
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.
