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.
Where do you think their wealth is placed, instead?
Since I made very clear I follow classical economic models you should already know, unless that is you know jack about economic theory in general which would mean one is babbling about things they know nothing about.
The rich often put their money in things that make them money, but is parasitic. Some of these things are illegal like drugs. Others are legal but generally parasitic which are very profitable monopolistic practices which almost always take advantage of da guberment coercion. Reals estate speculation and then having your boy in da guberment change zoning laws is corrupt rentierism, which rich people do put their money in. The more common blurred line is to buy beachfront property, lobby to keep real estate taxes down , encourage immigration and relax credit standards. This was all very clear in the mind of Adam Smith so why don't ya just come out and say you think he is an idiot.
You mean like... muni bonds, etc., that fund schools', park districts', cities, counties', etc., capital improvement projects that... wait for it... create additional jobs first for the construction, etc., workers, and then for the additional staff hired to support larger facilities.
Total debt. Personal government and corporate.
1981 started the biggest debt bubble we've ever had.
Personal debt was a substitute for personal wages. Not sustainable long term and the bill is due.
Government and corporate debt enable expansion, which provides more jobs.
Too much personal debt was extended, especially to those who were poor credit risks (but that was the result of federal government intervention and an ill-advised politically expedient "fairness" policy that clearly wasn't thought through completely). That's what nearly collapsed the entire financial system.
Government and corporate debt enable expansion, which provides more jobs.
Too much personal debt was extended, especially to those who were poor credit risks (but that was the result of federal government intervention and an ill-advised politically expedient "fairness" policy that clearly wasn't thought through completely). That's what nearly collapsed the entire financial system.
Not necessarily. Corporate expansion was outside of the country not in it. And government debt was used to line the pockets of those connected to power.
Announcing the completion of the sale the domain name Sex.com for $13 Million Dollars cash.
The value of the domain is an inherent monopoly, based completely on an artifact of the English language. It is not a product of human labor anymore than a spectacular view. Thus any capital appreciation from owning it is entirely due to the exclusive use which is legally protected by da guberment. One just like it cannot be manufactured. Sadly this is the sort of thing that most easily secures loans. Would want to finance real capital now would we because thay might actually go down in price with better efficiency.
Now, how does the rich pouring their money into domains "trickle down" to capitalists? If anything a rising price might make it worse since there is uneven competition....
However the point is not that I really care about someone's free ride of $13 million. What does irritate the crap out of me is we just have to have direct taxes on labor , and by that virtue industrial capital, but apparently taxing an asset like this is just so wrong, even though its entirely created by da guberment. A jar of pickles is a jar of pickles without da guberment. A hammer is a hammer without da guberment. A domain name , copyright , deed, title or patent is worthless without da guberment. Seems to me that those sorts of things enjoyed so often by the rich should have users fees, just like everyone else. But that would only be consistent with the kind of economics that founded this country.....
Government and corporate debt enable expansion, which provides more jobs.
Too much personal debt was extended, especially to those who were poor credit risks (but that was the result of federal government intervention and an ill-advised politically expedient "fairness" policy that clearly wasn't thought through completely). That's what nearly collapsed the entire financial system.
Government chose to impose mandates on lenders, rather than extend economic liberty to builders to provide affordable homes. Rent-seeking homeowners have used government to cripple the private sector's ability to deliver affordable homes to the market.
Not necessarily. Corporate expansion was outside of the country not in it. And government debt was used to line the pockets of those connected to power.
Not all of it. Otherwise, the unemployment rate wouldn't have been so low during the run-up to the mortgage meltdown.
Government debt isn't used to fund capital improvements projects in school districts, park districts, cities, counties, etc.? That's news to me.
Not all of it. Otherwise, the unemployment rate wouldn't have been so low during the run-up to the mortgage meltdown.
Government debt isn't used to fund capital improvements projects in school districts, park districts, cities, counties, etc.? That's news to me.
In 1999 we had an employment peek, then again in 2007, and again now. All three approximately the same number of jobs in the economy. The unemployment rate is fiction. It is just the number of people looking for work divided by the number of people working plus the number looking for work. Then you get into arguing over who is looking for work. And who is employed etc.
In 1999 we had an employment peek, then again in 2007, and again now. All three approximately the same number of jobs in the economy. The unemployment rate is fiction. It is just the number of people looking for work divided by the number of people working plus the number looking for work.
If corporate debt-fueled corporate expansion wasn't taking place in the US, as you assert, we wouldn't have had the employment peak in 2007.
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.
