You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rich people dont create jobs.
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Quote from futurecurrents:
These small business start-ups are not started by rich people. They're started by middle-income people, often using less than six figures to do so. The tax rates on the top 1% are never even the most remote consideration in their endeavor.
Do I have proof of this? No.
who do you think invests in these smaller ventures.
if you are in any of the cities with wealthy neighborhoods... around the neighborhoods you find the headquarters for... angel investors, vultures, 2nd trust deed guys, investment bankers and every other type of broker you can find.
Those brokers are buddies with the money guys and you go through those brokers to fund your ventures. And those guys look at the risk and calculate the after tax returns.
You guys are nuts for suggesting taxes don't matter, really, you absolutely clueless about money if you think taxes don't matter.
Quote from Ricter:
Private ownership of large pools of capital is not, strictly speaking, necessary for job creation.
If "rich people" was a sufficient condition for job creation, we'd have more job creation now than we have ever had.
This is a novel theory. by changing the topic we have now have an argument which looks like there was no need for the invention of money, because there was no need to store capital and gain leverage over ones time.
Is this marx or is it obama's unibomer buddy?
Rich in this country as defined by our politicians is $200K.
Non sequitur.Quote from jem:
This is a novel theory. by changing the topic we have now have an argument which looks like there was no need for the invention of money, because there was no need to store capital and gain leverage over ones time.
Is this marx or is it obama's unibomer buddy?
Quote from Ricter:
Non sequitur.
not at all if you studied money and why it was invented.
Money allowed the storage of value (capital) and money allowed economic growth beyond barter.
So when you said pools of capital were not needed. You were basically saying money was not needed.
Which is probably left of marx
You (ricter) wrote
"Private ownership of large pools of capital is not, strictly speaking, necessary for job creation."
lets break this sentence down.
Large is all relative so it means nothing.
strictly speaking means nothing
necessary for job creation - is the point.
pools of capital... yes.
Private ownership... implies a versus no pools or govt pools.
So you are either suggesting a marxist economy or no capital can also create jobs.
So yes that is what you said.
Money is either not necessary because pools of capital are not necessary or ...
Or a Ricter style Marxist Utopia makes private pools of capital unnecessary.
"Private ownership of large pools of capital is not, strictly speaking, necessary for job creation."
lets break this sentence down.
Large is all relative so it means nothing.
strictly speaking means nothing
necessary for job creation - is the point.
pools of capital... yes.
Private ownership... implies a versus no pools or govt pools.
So you are either suggesting a marxist economy or no capital can also create jobs.
So yes that is what you said.
Money is either not necessary because pools of capital are not necessary or ...
Or a Ricter style Marxist Utopia makes private pools of capital unnecessary.