“an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all repub

[piezoe]

Quote from SomeYoungGuy:

Where exactly does the other 90% go?

I will accept that a poor person spends all the money they get. By spend I mean precisely that they trade their dollars for goods or services which they consume that never yield a monetary return. Food, utility bills, car payments, clothes, booze and other vice, I won't make moral judgments. No savings, no investments.

I also accept that rich people might only "spend" 10% of a gov't stimulus check. But what of the other 90%? If it's not spent, it must be invested. Someone tell me where it goes, and how that is "worse" (or even different!) than the poor person who spends it.

I think the real problem lies in the ratio of compensation to productivity. The ratio depends, obviously, on how productivity is measured. When this ratio gets out of kilter a serious threat to societal stability arises. Human nature is such that the ratio, will spontaneously move from a reasonable balance across society to an imbalance, unless some external force is imposed to keep the balance, or to bring the ratio back into balance. The most important force tending to keep the ratio in balance is free, unfettered competition. Because of human nature, Monopolies, Cartels, and capitalism (please see the dictionary definition) provide a counter force that tends to unbalance the ratio. In the the US, as in some other nations, the ratio is becoming unbalanced. A sufficient imbalance can result in societal chaos or revolution.

The British satirist and amateur philosopher, Malcolm Mugggeridge, gave perhaps the most succinct summary of Human Nature when he said: All human endeavors can be attributed to Vanity, Greed, or Instinct.

 

[Bolts]

If the rich were stuffing the money under their matresses, it might be a good argument, but they're investing it. Even if they're making a completely stupid investment, the money isn't disappearing. Someone is on the other side of the trade. The money is circulating.

I should add, reading the whole article, it does make a good case against a VAT. Although in a very roundabout way.

 

[IanMacQuaide]

Quote from FightTheFuture:

Exactly. A severely outdated concept is that there is a finite amount of wealth and the only way of obtaining any wealth is to take it from someone else. All that does is concentrate the wealth to far fewer people, mostly to those that redistribute that wealth, and resulting in more poverty. A few hundred years ago most were subsistence farmers with only a few holding the gold and silver. Now anyone can git edjerkated and make some gold, start a business, make your own job. The greatest obstacle is applying oneself, the next obstacle is the government as it slowly cuts off opportunity.

Good Heavens, someone gets it!
Thank you for posting that.

 

[failed_trad3r]

Quote from Bolts:

If the rich were stuffing the money under their matresses, it might be a good argument, but they're investing it. Even if they're making a completely stupid investment, the money isn't disappearing. Someone is on the other side of the trade. The money is circulating.

I should add, reading the whole article, it does make a good case against a VAT. Although in a very roundabout way.

but by their very nature the rich will "invest" if for example housing rises 50% a year they will go all in on housing. Why? The yield-chasing. Rich chase yield, unlike the plebs who are dumb and just consume. But yield-chasing is not always a good thing you must understand.