:shrug: i'm giving the socratic method a try.
so they hoard their money by purchasing companies?
really?
color me curious; how are they going to hoarde this money? do they have a giant vault full of gold; a-la uncle scrooge mcduck?
I figured it was something like that.
A portion of their money is invested in stocks which they paid more for than could be justified in most any other economic market (other than the stock market)
This stock market has several times the amount of money in it than can be justified based upon the profitability of the companies represented by the stock market. The owners of these stocks rarely play any part in the managment of these companies, and only indirectly provide capital for these companies. Most stock investors choose to invest in stocks because we are taught that stocks are a good investment. Stock holders rarely exhibit any entrapranurial capability, but purchasing stocks makes them feel good. Most stock holders are simply gambling that the people who run the companies will make good decisions and will be productive. The typical stock holder knows very little about the company and really could care less - as long as the long term trend is that stock values rise. Over long periods of time most stocks rise in value because most stocks are "growth" stocks that never share their profits with the owners (no dividends), and thus the companies become larger and larger eventually choking out smaller businesses that have to give up profits to individual owners. Stocks also rise as more people have incomes that exceed their need to consume, so those people use that excess income to invest in stocks (as our society expects them to do) - resulting in stock price "inflation" - caused by too much money chasing too few goods (in this case the goods are the stocks themselves).
Sure why not?
because that would be immensely stupid and they didn't get to be wealthy by being that foolish.
the long point is this; even the richest of the rich do not have the ability to truly 'hoard' much of their wealth from aiding the rest of us. they can put it in a bank (where it is lent out to help the rest of us start businesses or purchase homes), they can invest in the American economy (where they create jobs, increase national productivity, and raise our standard of living), or they can buy stuff, which again means jobs and wages for others. outside of literally pulling the money out and burying it in their back yard (which, thanks to inflation, means they are guaranteed to lose wealth over time - and they didn't become rich by devising schemes to make themselves poorer); it's going to be extremely difficult for the wealthy to truly 'hoard' their money.
:shrug: i'm giving the socratic method a try.
so they hoard their money by purchasing companies?
hm. so who made the difference?
there aren't alternatives to the US stock market?
but okay. what do these companies that are raising money by selling stock do? do they hire people? do they increase overall standard of living by competing with other companies to provide a better product at a lower price to the consumer?
the long point is this; even the richest of the rich do not have the ability to truly 'hoard' much of their wealth from aiding the rest of us. they can put it in a bank (where it is lent out to help the rest of us start businesses or purchase homes), they can invest in the American economy (where they create jobs, increase national productivity, and raise our standard of living), or they can buy stuff, which again means jobs and wages for others. outside of literally pulling the money out and burying it in their back yard (which, thanks to inflation, means they are guaranteed to lose wealth over time - and they didn't become rich by devising schemes to make themselves poorer); it's going to be extremely difficult for the wealthy to truly 'hoard' their money.
Paris Hilton. Say no more. :doh
also cuts down on how much i have to type - don't underestimate laziness
hm. so who made the difference?
there aren't alternatives to the US stock market?
but okay. what do these companies that are raising money by selling stock do? do they hire people? do they increase overall standard of living by competing with other companies to provide a better product at a lower price to the consumer?
because that would be immensely stupid and they didn't get to be wealthy by being that foolish.
the long point is this; even the richest of the rich do not have the ability to truly 'hoard' much of their wealth from aiding the rest of us. they can put it in a bank (where it is lent out to help the rest of us start businesses or purchase homes), they can invest in the American economy (where they create jobs, increase national productivity, and raise our standard of living), or they can buy stuff, which again means jobs and wages for others. outside of literally pulling the money out and burying it in their back yard (which, thanks to inflation, means they are guaranteed to lose wealth over time - and they didn't become rich by devising schemes to make themselves poorer); it's going to be extremely difficult for the wealthy to truly 'hoard' their money.
Let me give you a few examples of why the rich get richer:
-If you have a lot of money in your bank account what does the bank do? They reward you! They give you all kinds of monies yaaaay! If you dip below the set amount you should have in your bank account what do they do? They punish you--they charge you $10+ SHAME ON YOU FOR NOT BEING RICH
-90% of stocks in United States are owned by people earning over 300k a year
-IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002. but...
IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.
-ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, the federal minimum wage has fallen 42% since its peak in 1968.
IF THE $5.15 HOURLY minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.
But hey let's shed a tear for the rich because they have to settle for the Mercades and can't get the Bentley.
So what is it man you can't have it both ways, a few post ago you were afraid the poor were raping the rich of their riches and now they got old money?
Let me give you a few examples of why the rich get richer:
-If you have a lot of money in your bank account what does the bank do? They reward you! They give you all kinds of monies yaaaay!
If you dip below the set amount you should have in your bank account what do they do? They punish you--they charge you $10+ SHAME ON YOU FOR NOT BEING RICH
-90% of stocks in United States are owned by people earning over 300k a year
-IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002. but... IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.
ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, the federal minimum wage has fallen 42% since its peak in 1968.
IF THE $5.15 HOURLY minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.
But hey let's shed a tear for the rich because they have to settle for the Mercades and can't get the Bentley.
nflation typically averages out at around 3%; which means that any account which isn't generating at least that is - in fact - losing money. but i would love to see any examples you have of savings accounts generating 3%? i will be opening an account with that institute forthwith
no, shame on you for being both irresponsible and stupid. if you live above your means that is nobody's fault but your own; and as the healthy number of 'wealthy bankruptcies' shows, it is a trend that cuts across all incomes.
Yeah they are outrageous. It's outrageous that football players and celebrities will charge insane fees to attend charities too.why don't people ever complain about sports stars salaries?
So are you suggesting if there was no minimum wage that employers that do pay min wage would pay more than min wage?get rid of the minimum wage.
the rich generally, over time, do get richer. of course, so do the poor.
and, of course, 'the rich' and 'the poor' aren't static class categories, but often functions of age. most folks don't stay in the same 'class' their entire lives; we begin working and our skills and experience are at such a level that we can only demand a low to moderate price on the market; over time we build those skills and experience and our compensation grows accordingly. income returns, for example, demonstrate that of those who file in the bottom quintile, the vast majority do not stay there; in fact you are as or a little more likely to move from the bottom quintile to the top quintile as you are to stay on the bottom; and of those who stay on the bottom the wide majority can be attributed to behavioral factors (ex: there is a very wide overlap between our 'static poor' and single-parent households).
so our people are moving into wealth at a faster rate than they are moving into poverty? that makes sense; but i like how you expand the years for food stamps in order to exaggerate the increase; got actual comparable numbers (millionaires since 2000, or food stamps since 2002)?
why don't people ever complain about sports stars salaries? care to compare the growth in minimum wage to the growth in the salaries of our top professional atheletes? those evil atheletes, stealing from the poor like that....
want to help the poor? free the economy up. get rid of the corporate and payroll tax. reduce regulation that makes it harder to start a business and hire people. reduce the uncertainty inherent in a market where the federal government plays at will. really want to help the poorest amongst us? this will blow your mind - get rid of the minimum wage.
Some of it maybe.
A lot of it is simply in various accounts. I keep hearing how companies are "hording" money, I assume that most of that money is in bank accounts. Since the rich own a disporportionate share of stocks, they indirectly own a very large share of this horded money. I also recently saw that a particular Ivy League college (think it was Princeton but I dont remember for sure) had an endowment in the billions of dollars. Who controls this endowment? I am sure it aint the Ivy League janitor.
I wonder what the fixation with Paris Hilton is?
the libs use her as a poor example of why there ought to be confiscatory estate taxes as if she represents most of those who have estates subject to the looting next year.