Save us Bill Gates!
-
If you ain't adding, then you are taking away. Can you help me transfer large shipment of gold out of my small country, comrade? I have here vast levels of bullion I need to get out of under my kingship. The rebels have taken over and with your help we can transfer these thousands of kilograms of bullion to a safe place. I look to the future of your great reply. Sincerly, with hope of a new day, King Angulam of Shizzilar, Most honorable Sir of the Royal Hifflebothom, Fred
-
-
Slacker007 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being rich.
Yeah, there is! It takes money out of the economy. Economics 101 - the health of any economy depends on the free and continual circulation of money from consumer to producer to employee. Any long term diminishment of the money supply, from excessive imports to excessive saving, is damaging to the economy. Any damage to the economy will, by definition, affect the poorest first and most enduringly. If by 'rich' we mean those that hoard wealth, and we surely do since nobody gets on the rich list by having outgoings commensurate with their income, then there is absolutely no doubt that they are damaging the economy to which they are in a parasitical relationship. One does not need to be a socialist or a liberal to simply do the math!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
You seem to assume that the bulk of the wealth exists as cash. I'd bet it doesn't, I'd think it is represented by ownership of things, companies, real estate etc. All of which contribute to the economy.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Slacker007 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being rich.
Yeah, there is! It takes money out of the economy. Economics 101 - the health of any economy depends on the free and continual circulation of money from consumer to producer to employee. Any long term diminishment of the money supply, from excessive imports to excessive saving, is damaging to the economy. Any damage to the economy will, by definition, affect the poorest first and most enduringly. If by 'rich' we mean those that hoard wealth, and we surely do since nobody gets on the rich list by having outgoings commensurate with their income, then there is absolutely no doubt that they are damaging the economy to which they are in a parasitical relationship. One does not need to be a socialist or a liberal to simply do the math!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
9082365 wrote:
"...excessive saving..."
Never heard that phrase before; looked it up; found two places on the internet.. - The first, some guy in Australia on a Libertarian site, whose writing was so,,,,,, uhm,,,,, uhhhh,,,,,,,,,, I was not smart enough to grasp the concepts. - The second was Wikipedia (where the neutral point of view is absolute and non-negotiable). I was not smart enough to understand the words I read there, either. I wish I didn't have such a Stupid Mind ! Stupid ! Stupid ![^] Anyway, the concept of *Excessive Savings*, for either the individual, and particularly for a nation as a society, is quite beyond my knowledge, education, and thinking. It always seemed to me (like obvious, but I am ready to learn) that the absence of a strong solid savings base is generally a significant weakness for a society's economy, and about 100% true for the individual. I'm pretty certain that most nations in the world today don't have an adequate savings base to promote a healthy economy, and that that is a significantly contributing factor in our current world's state of mess. Then again, I am ready to learn about *excessive savings*, as it appears to be a central tenet of Keynesian theory.
-
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
Nothing compared to how much money the nanny state takes out of the economy
The state spends that money again within a short timeframe. Most rich peoples' billions just sit there on a bank account.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
Sascha Lefèvre wrote:
Most rich peoples' billions just sit there on a bank account.
Wrong. Most rich people's money is invested in various securities - shares, bonds, etc. Their money therefore stimulates the economy, just like anyone else's Even if they were to keep all of their money in a checking account, the bank would lend that money out, and again - it would stimulate the economy. Very few (if any) rich people bury their money in their back yard... :)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Sascha Lefèvre wrote:
Most rich peoples' billions just sit there on a bank account.
Wrong. Most rich people's money is invested in various securities - shares, bonds, etc. Their money therefore stimulates the economy, just like anyone else's Even if they were to keep all of their money in a checking account, the bank would lend that money out, and again - it would stimulate the economy. Very few (if any) rich people bury their money in their back yard... :)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Yes, you're right there, of course. Except that banks don't even need your money to give someone else a loan. Kind of forgot my economy lessons.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
-
Slacker007 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being rich.
Yeah, there is! It takes money out of the economy. Economics 101 - the health of any economy depends on the free and continual circulation of money from consumer to producer to employee. Any long term diminishment of the money supply, from excessive imports to excessive saving, is damaging to the economy. Any damage to the economy will, by definition, affect the poorest first and most enduringly. If by 'rich' we mean those that hoard wealth, and we surely do since nobody gets on the rich list by having outgoings commensurate with their income, then there is absolutely no doubt that they are damaging the economy to which they are in a parasitical relationship. One does not need to be a socialist or a liberal to simply do the math!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
Assuming, of course, that they pile up their cash and gold bars in a vault like Scrooge McDuck. :-) The truth is a little more complicated, I think.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
Yes, you're right there, of course. Except that banks don't even need your money to give someone else a loan. Kind of forgot my economy lessons.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
Regulations require the banks to maintain a certain ratio of deposits to loans, so having more deposits enables them to make more loans.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Regulations require the banks to maintain a certain ratio of deposits to loans, so having more deposits enables them to make more loans.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
AFAIK that ratio is own funds to loans (or deposits of own funds to loans), not deposits of customers money to loans (?)
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
-
You seem to assume that the bulk of the wealth exists as cash. I'd bet it doesn't, I'd think it is represented by ownership of things, companies, real estate etc. All of which contribute to the economy.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
the bulk of the wealth exists as cash
I'm not that naive (I hope) and I did avoid using the term. In economics 'money' is a more fluid term. I can't agree that real estate necessarily contributes to the economy especially if purchased outright. You either live in it in which case it is essentially economically inactive or rent it in which case it is a net drain. Although I'm not particularly in favour of inheritance taxes, it is the economic status of land ownership which they are meant to address. Equally there is a danger that for-profit companies in de facto monopolies (MS, Google in Europe, etc.) become money sinks taking far more out of the economy than they put in. Add to that that the degree to which your trade becomes money itself is proportional to personal wealth so that money is siphoned off into an exclusive club trading it between themselves (much in the manner of a giant ultra high-stakes poker game). I am not arguing for equal distribution of wealth per se. I'm certainly no socialist. But there is no question that the existence of the super rich, whose personal wealth is so extreme that by 2014 the richest 67 people in the world commanded assets equivalent to those of the poorest half of the world's entire population (then 3.4 billion people) is a real problem for the economies both of the nations they inhabit and the world in general.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
-
I mostly wans't talking about your drivel. I was mostly talking about the anonymous numbered user who is obviously a SJW who keeps on posting. S(he)'s quite a spammy lot.
-
Why we created the Save Us Bill Gates computer game | Global Justice Now[^]
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
I used to have a lot of respect for Bill Gates, but lately he's been worried about 'global warming' and artificial intelligence[^]... Really? I think he's losing it.
