This entry was posted
on Monday, May 19th, 2008 at 11:26 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Hey wait a minute, they were implying that if they made enough money they would say ‘Fuck You’ and quit their jobs- doesn’t that mean we’d better tax them enough to make sure they never have enough to quit? Otherwise we’ll lose all their brilliant talent…
As per your second point, they are trying to determine how much money they need, of which gets invested, so that the returns allow them a wealthy lifestyle. In this way, they have a great deal of money that they invest in projects that they think are going to be profitable. Given that they have been able to accumulate so much wealth implies they are able to discriminate between good and bad business models. This only to say they are very good at using wealth efficiently to generate more wealth. Taxing their resources makes their wealth more inefficient. If more wealth for all is what you are about, then one could make the argument this is the only class of people that should not be taxed. There contribution to helping the poor is in discriminating between good and bad business plans which will lead to cheaper prices for all.
An ‘expert’ in economics might tell that that’s how it works, but I’d need to see some real proof of trickle-down economics before I’d accept that it will always work that way without and regulatiosn or safeguards. While it’s true that they’ll generate wealth, there’s no reason that wealth shouldn’t be exclusively super-expensive luxury goods, like private jets or $10,000 designer gowns or whatever. I doubt that the invetments they were talking about were companies researching solar energy or cures for aids. When they’re talking about yearly returns on investments, maybe a few of them would be talking about finding and funding inventors or entrepenuers, but most of them are probably just talking about dumping their money into index funds and never having to worry about it personally. Which kills the argument that they know best how to invest their money, if they just give it to someone else to invest for them.
but I’d need to see some real proof of trickle-down economics before I’d accept that it will always work that way without and regulatiosn or safeguards.
China or wait India! I will let you pick.
What’s with you coming down on luxurious items. Those things require master craftsmen who have spent an entire lifetime to develop a mastery of that skill. By coming down hard on the ultra rich you are effectively telling the most skillful artist that they should not be paid for their work simply because you find no utility in their skill. Personally I think its neat that our economy supports master craftsmen and artists.
“There contribution to helping the poor is in discriminating between good and bad business plans which will lead to cheaper prices for all.’
I’m trying to reject your argument that give rich people more money helps poor people. Unless the people designing the $10,000 designer gowns are below the poverty line, I don’t see how that business helps the poor.
Explain how China or India proves that trickle-down eeconomics works? I thought they showed how globalization works, since their economies picked up when they started selling their super-cheap labor to America and other industrialized nations.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Yeah, we really shouldn’t be taxing those guys, obviously they’ll donate as much to charity as we would have been taxing anyway.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Hey wait a minute, they were implying that if they made enough money they would say ‘Fuck You’ and quit their jobs- doesn’t that mean we’d better tax them enough to make sure they never have enough to quit? Otherwise we’ll lose all their brilliant talent…
May 24th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
As per your second point, they are trying to determine how much money they need, of which gets invested, so that the returns allow them a wealthy lifestyle. In this way, they have a great deal of money that they invest in projects that they think are going to be profitable. Given that they have been able to accumulate so much wealth implies they are able to discriminate between good and bad business models. This only to say they are very good at using wealth efficiently to generate more wealth. Taxing their resources makes their wealth more inefficient. If more wealth for all is what you are about, then one could make the argument this is the only class of people that should not be taxed. There contribution to helping the poor is in discriminating between good and bad business plans which will lead to cheaper prices for all.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:33 am
An ‘expert’ in economics might tell that that’s how it works, but I’d need to see some real proof of trickle-down economics before I’d accept that it will always work that way without and regulatiosn or safeguards. While it’s true that they’ll generate wealth, there’s no reason that wealth shouldn’t be exclusively super-expensive luxury goods, like private jets or $10,000 designer gowns or whatever. I doubt that the invetments they were talking about were companies researching solar energy or cures for aids. When they’re talking about yearly returns on investments, maybe a few of them would be talking about finding and funding inventors or entrepenuers, but most of them are probably just talking about dumping their money into index funds and never having to worry about it personally. Which kills the argument that they know best how to invest their money, if they just give it to someone else to invest for them.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:41 am
China or wait India! I will let you pick.
What’s with you coming down on luxurious items. Those things require master craftsmen who have spent an entire lifetime to develop a mastery of that skill. By coming down hard on the ultra rich you are effectively telling the most skillful artist that they should not be paid for their work simply because you find no utility in their skill. Personally I think its neat that our economy supports master craftsmen and artists.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:55 am
“There contribution to helping the poor is in discriminating between good and bad business plans which will lead to cheaper prices for all.’
I’m trying to reject your argument that give rich people more money helps poor people. Unless the people designing the $10,000 designer gowns are below the poverty line, I don’t see how that business helps the poor.
Explain how China or India proves that trickle-down eeconomics works? I thought they showed how globalization works, since their economies picked up when they started selling their super-cheap labor to America and other industrialized nations.