11 Things The Wealthiest 400 Americans Could Buy Their Country

[sangha]

This is untrue, or at least deceptive. I did a little analysis last month: if you liquidated all the wealth of the Forbes 400 (leaving them broke and destitute) and distributed it equally among the presumed 300 million inhabitants of the USA, each person would receive...



Forbes 400 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1.37 trillion / 300 million = a WHOPPING $4,566 each.

Your refutation is very misleading. The claim is not what that money could buy for each PERSON so your attempts to refute it by calculating PER PERSON is, at the very last, misleading

 

[UtahBill]

See, if this were 3 or 4 months ago, I might of had some sympathetic feelings towards that but seeing as how my company is hiring and so far 50% of the new hires have quit because they're lazy, my level of caring has dropped to near 0.

It's sad that 50 and 60 year old men are willing to work but under 40's aren't.

Those that quit, or won't start, need to go in a deadbeat database so public assistance can be denied to them...

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Those that quit, or won't start, need to go in a deadbeat database so public assistance can be denied to them...

Unlikely to happen because they're "poor" and for some reason, the "poor" are "poor" at no fault of their own.

Poor is a state of mind, not an income level.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Your refutation is very misleading. The claim is not what that money could buy for each PERSON so your attempts to refute it by calculating PER PERSON is, at the very last, misleading

Maybe you should reread the list.
It clearly points of what that money could by each person, family, etc.

 

[sangha]

Maybe you should reread the list.
It clearly points of what that money could by each person, family, etc.

Maybe you should re-read that list. The only place it mentions "persons" is when it comes to credit card debt. I could be wrong, but I really doubt that every baby (or even every person) has some credit card debt

 

[UtahBill]

Unlikely to happen because they're "poor" and for some reason, the "poor" are "poor" at no fault of their own.

Poor is a state of mind, not an income level.

I agree that many of our poor are just poor at prioritizing their needs vs their wants....
Education to make them employable, and jobs here instead of overseas is the only answer...

 

[Mach]

Okay, so you acknowledge that hoarding wealth isn't doing our nation any good.
We've at least taken a step here.

Hoarding...you mean investing. Investing does a nation good, FYI.
Also, markets pay more if you do more value for the market, i.e. most of society. So the best way to do good, is go out and earn more, so you can spend and invest more.

 

[sangha]

Hoarding...you mean investing. Investing does a nation good, FYI.
Also, markets pay more if you do more value for the market, i.e. most of society. So the best way to do good, is go out and earn more, so you can spend and invest more.

They aren't investing. That's the problem.

And in bubbles, markets pay more even if they do no value for the market or society. The best way to restore investment is to tax the high earners

 

[TurtleDude]

They aren't investing. That's the problem.

And in bubbles, markets pay more even if they do no value for the market or society. The best way to restore investment is to tax the high earners

does anyone who actually understands investing back up your claim? the best way to restore investment is to have economic certainty and predictability. I believe one poster cited a letter from some expert CEO on this. A guy who actually is a major league investor

 

[sangha]

does anyone who actually understands investing back up your claim? the best way to restore investment is to have economic certainty and predictability. I believe one poster cited a letter from some expert CEO on this. A guy who actually is a major league investor

Yes, and the best way to restore investments is to make the highest earners pay their fair share. I KNOW that one posted cited a statement by some expert CEO on this. A guy who actually is a major league investor

 

[Mach]

Where do you think rich people make their money? By selling stuff to poor people mostly or by getting them into debt.

Getting people into debt? Hows that work? Oh yes, they take money on the promise the will pay it back. How absurd.
And selling to the poor, all depends on the business. I sell to fortune 500 companies. I don't think they are poor.

A patriot would care about the plight of the American people. Rich people aren't patriotic. The only country they serve is called money.

I serve my own interests primarily, and those often include family, friends, co-workers, and others. The only plight you're facing is the requirement that you work hard for a living. Hey college kids, time to work. Oh don't make that sad face, stop grumbling, time to grow the **** up!!

Guess what, you go live off the land any time you like, let me know which you prefer. I'll hold your job for you, I'm just that cool.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, and the best way to restore investments is to make the highest earners pay their fair share. I KNOW that one posted cited a statement by some expert CEO on this. A guy who actually is a major league investor

I want to see some proof of your claim. No one with any credibility has ever said higher taxes will increase investments. Only that raising taxes on some sorts of income will alter investments

 

[sangha]

Getting people into debt? Hows that work? Oh yes, they take money on the promise the will pay it back. How absurd.

No, by commiting fraud when they lie about the terms of the loan.

 

[sangha]

I want to see some proof of your claim. No one with any credibility has ever said higher taxes will increase investments. Only that raising taxes on some sorts of income will alter investments

It has already been posted, and rejected by you.

 

[TurtleDude]

It has already been posted, and rejected by you.

That is wrong. I would like some proof-conclusory statements are not sufficient

 

[Mach]

Yes, and the best way to restore investments is to make the highest earners pay their fair share. I KNOW that one posted cited a statement by some expert CEO on this. A guy who actually is a major league investor

True, it doesnt matter that he knows someone personally who agrees, because it's common knowledge that a healthy market involves a good dose of certainty and predictability. Try an argument that doesn't contradict basic financing. U.S. isn't alone with having dumb instability, the EU is having it's own fun with socialist irrational spenders who borrow too much, and think they are entitled to a cushy life.

Although, keep ****ing up the economy and they will adapt to that too, but that's even WORSE for you, and better for them. Look at Paulson. He predicted the catastrophuck of a mortgage meltdown, unfortunately because he knew government was incapable of doing its job. And he earned so much on the recession it's mind boggling. You should be investing in him, instead of government, apparently. He doesn't suffer foolishness.

 

[sangha]

That is wrong. I would like some proof-conclusory statements are not sufficient

No, it is right, and the proof has been posted, and you rejected it.

But if you ask nicely, I'll give you a hint

 

[Mach]

No, by commiting fraud when they lie about the terms of the loan.

Intersting. Who precisely was charged with regulating and enforcing this (aside from the lender and the borrower who are both also responsible)? Government?
Are you opposing government regulation, or at least wanting government to clean up it's act?

Because it looks like you're harassing people who don't have debt problems, and who are not failing at their jobs. Seems irrational.

Now, aside from that, it's fraud, it's a crime, and it was a drop in the bucket compared to the overall losses.
The mortgage crisis was not primarily about fraud on loan terms.

Should consumer protection be continually improved? Of course. Is this a priority issue in terms of taxation, the debt, or the mortgage crisis? No.
Why aren't you hammering on government failure instead of essentially, the opposite?

 

[Goshin]

Your refutation is very misleading. The claim is not what that money could buy for each PERSON so your attempts to refute it by calculating PER PERSON is, at the very last, misleading

Mmmkay, I'll grant you that many of those items weren't referring to EACH individual American... but it is still deceptive and of dubious accuracy. Buy every household a NEW car? Well... maybe. If you're a household of at least three people, and the car is one of the cheapest NEW cars, maybe.

But the way in which it is misleading is more than simply about mathmatics. I'll be charitable and assume all their points are within reasonable margins of error and assumption... but again, you can only plunder the Forbes 400 ONCE and then they're gone... and you could only do ONE of the listed items, not ALL of them... and that is NOT going to "make or break anyone" (other than destroying the Forbes 400, for no justification other than "they're richer than everybody else".)

It is pure class envy. It doesn't address how many people are employed by companies owned by the 400. It doesn't look at their charitable giving. It doesn't consider that at least some of them came by their great wealth honestly: they earned it by doing things no one else did/could, or doing it better.

 

[Mach]

Here's what a post about loan fraud looks like:

"I think the people who lied about loan terms should be found, and punished. We should devote resource to this, given that it was at least minimally involved in the mortgage crisis. I also think we should find out why they **** governmetn continues to fail at reg/enforcement, despite repeatedly claiming they are responsible for it, and repeatedly failing at it miserably (S&L, dot com, mortgage bust, all post other crisis where they similarly failed!)

Strangely it wouldn't look like the OP harassing the top 400 wealthiest americans. Would it.

 

[sangha]

Intersting. Who precisely was charged with regulating and enforcing this (aside from the lender and the borrower who are both also responsible)? Government?
Are you opposing government regulation, or at least wanting government to clean up it's act?

Because it looks like you're harassing people who don't have debt problems, and who are not failing at their jobs. Seems irrational.

Taxing people is not harrassment

Now, aside from that, it's fraud, it's a crime, and it was a drop in the bucket compared to the overall losses.
The mortgage crisis was not primarily about fraud on loan terms.

So? We werent talking about "overall losses" or the mortgage crisis. Stop trying to change the subject.

Should consumer protection be continually improved? Of course. Is this a priority issue in terms of taxation, the debt, or the mortgage crisis? No.
Why aren't you hammering on government failure instead of essentially, the opposite?

For the same reason you aren't hammering on republican efforts to ban abortion...we weren't discussing the mortgage crisis or the other issues you mentioned. Try to stay on topic

 

[sangha]

Mmmkay, I'll grant you that many of those items weren't referring to EACH individual American... but it is still deceptive and of dubious accuracy. Buy every household a NEW car? Well... maybe. If you're a household of at least three people, and the car is one of the cheapest NEW cars, maybe.

The list didn't make any reference to each individual american, and it's based on the avg household size. It is accurate.

But the way in which it is misleading is more than simply about mathmatics. I'll be charitable and assume all their points are within reasonable margins of error and assumption... but again, you can only plunder the Forbes 400 ONCE and then they're gone... and you could only do ONE of the listed items, not ALL of them... and that is NOT going to "make or break anyone" (other than destroying the Forbes 400, for no justification other than "they're richer than everybody else".)

And your argument here is misleading because it gives the impression that they were advocating taking all that money away from the Forbes 400. They weren't

It is pure class envy. It doesn't address how many people are employed by companies owned by the 400. It doesn't look at their charitable giving. It doesn't consider that at least some of them came by their great wealth honestly: they earned it by doing things no one else did/could, or doing it better.

Their point has nothing to do with any of those points, so why should they address those points?

 

[sangha]

Here's what a post about loan fraud looks like:

"I think the people who lied about loan terms should be found, and punished. We should devote resource to this, given that it was at least minimally involved in the mortgage crisis. I also think we should find out why they **** governmetn continues to fail at reg/enforcement, despite repeatedly claiming they are responsible for it, and repeatedly failing at it miserably (S&L, dot com, mortgage bust, all post other crisis where they similarly failed!)

Strangely it wouldn't look like the OP harassing the top 400 wealthiest americans. Would it.

The OP does not call for any harrassment. It merely puts the wealth of the Fotune 400 into perspective.

 

[Catawba]

It has already been posted, and rejected by you.

Don't you know anything about credibility? The only credible proof is by numbered personal opinions. That is the only acceptable proof in the court of Turtledude. Just review his posts to see if I'm not right! :sun

 

[Goshin]

The list didn't make any reference to each individual american, and it's based on the avg household size. It is accurate.



And your argument here is misleading because it gives the impression that they were advocating taking all that money away from the Forbes 400. They weren't




Their point has nothing to do with any of those points, so why should they address those points?

Okay. So tell me... what was the point of the poster if not to incite class envy and resentment? It sure seemed designed to do exactly that....