NYT: The Purpose of Spectacular Wealth, According to a Spectacularly Wealthy Guy

[Mad Mike]

I blame public education for the reason why most people do not understand that people like the man in this article are exactly why we are able to enjoy many capital goods and services and the cheap prices that we do. I'm sure that this thread will most likely turn into a huge flame war of how greedy entrepreneurs are and how they don't deserve their profits without realizing that without these people, our cost of living would be high and standard of living very low.

Oh dear lord.

Have you ever been exposed to the concept of "too much of a good thing"? Because that's why this guy is dead wrong.

It's obvious that some things can only be accomplished with great wealth. If you want to start a large company that will employ a lot of people, you need a lot of money. But in case you haven't noticed, we aren't lacking large companies and most of them are struggling. What we need are consumers who can spend the money to keep those big businesses alive and our economy on track. The problem is that there is only so much money and we all agree that printing a bunch of paper isn't going to help. So if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, who is going to buy all of the neat products that wealth produces?




15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/15-ch...#ixzz1tlfHTvQ2

[Darth Tater]

Well, without such people, Clinton's plan would have failed spectacularly. Speculators and ultra rich people who had the ability to bring resources forward in time are a requirement for the implementations of such plans.

[Barney B]

I blame public education for the reason why most people do not understand that people like the man in this article are exactly why we are able to enjoy many capital goods and services and the cheap prices that we do.

Exactly. Let's get rid of public education, because history shows that the lack of it will lead to great general prosperity.

[Willy Wonka]

It's obvious that some things can only be accomplished with great wealth. If you want to start a large company that will employ a lot of people, you need a lot of money.

Going by your logic, countries like Zimbabwe should be employing lots of people.

But in case you haven't noticed, we aren't lacking large companies and most of them are struggling. What we need are consumers who can spend the money to keep those big businesses alive and our economy on track.

This economic thinking was just debunked (again) during the last economic downturn. Consumer preferences should be in line with what businesses are producing in order for an economy to stay healthy. Simply dumping lots of money through cheap lending and low interest rates and then having people spend that money on things takes more out of an economy while producing less or putting back into the economy, thus inflating a major bubble that will eventually bust. This JUST happened and already people are forgetting.

The problem is that there is only so much money and we all agree that printing a bunch of paper isn't going to help. So if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, who is going to buy all of the neat products that wealth produces?

If it weren't for the printing problem you bring up, many "neat products" wouldn't be produced, simply because real savings was never used in order to create them.

I only agree with most of the logic being used in the article to explain how an economy works and what gives people the many options that they have when it comes to making their purchases and also why we are able to enjoy these goods at lower prices and in such abundance. It is no secret, though, that a lot of the things created in our current economy wouldn't have been created at all if it weren't for things like the "printing press" and fractional reserve banking, which only reinforces money creation out of thin air and the over consumption and production that puts an economy out of whack.

[deejaydana]

So when will Senators be included in the "1 percenters" ?

[Enter Apotheosis]

So when will Senators be included in the "1 percenters" ?

Most of them already are.

[Mad Mike]

A bunch of stuff...

You like to hear yourself talk don't you. Because you just went off on three different tangents and 90% of it was arguing with things I never said.

A year ago I would have tried to lead you into the light of reality with endless debates. But I'm over that ****. Believe what you want.

[Willy Wonka]

You like to hear yourself talk don't you. Because you just went off on three different tangents and 90% of it was arguing with things I never said.

A year ago I would have tried to lead you into the light of reality with endless debates. But I'm over that ****. Believe what you want.

I quoted and responded to everything you said and was on topic with all of it. It's all good though.

[PeterMP]

I'd love to see if he looked at this graph and still thinks that the banks were doing a good job and mortgage backed securities weren't an issue:

http://sophismata.files.wordpress.co...ome_ration.jpg

Even w/o the dip, anybody want to argue that in 2005 mortagages were a good investment.

Also, anybody that puts money in the bank is an investor.