Save us, Wealth-Creator Man!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You might want to read the fucking thread, and lay off the sauce while you're at it.

[Drewish]

Stop cursing at me and insulting me or I'll say something that will cut you like a knife.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Stop cursing at me and insulting me or I'll say something that will cut you like a knife.

Feel free.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

While you're trying to think of something cutting, please note that I, at least, have been calling for the rich to give people jobs, not money.

[Jason]

I'm still waiting for a decent answer to my question. The one's given are crap.

http://www.upworthy.com/trickle-down-th ... g=2&c=upw1

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand the question. The question is:

How would rich people giving money to poor people help them become richer by having more customers?

If you believe I am mischaracterizing the question (ie statement that I asked to be explained) then I refer you to the last page.

The word "giving" is the fuck up you made here.

Oh, I was being generous, to avoid conflict. Alright:

How would rich people become richer through increased sales from money that was taken from them in the first place?

It's fairly simple: The number of consumers is finite therefore the more consumers that have money to buy your shit the more money you make. The less consumers employed, the less consumers that have money to buy your shit. Therefore, the more consumers that are employed the more consumers there are to buy your shit.

Unfortunately there are entrepreneurs who will see their path to easy wealth paved by the good sense of others. That is assholes will seek to min/max their business model at the expense of others who are working to achieve a symbiotic relationship (sustainable) with consumers rather than a parasitic relationship (unsustainable) with them. These assholes will succeed so long as the relationship is maintained by those who strive to work with consumers rather than against them. This is a losing game and will ultimately result in collapse. It is human nature and unavoidable. To quote the bibble - 'Man dominates man to his own injury."

[macdoc]

It's easy Drewish - Henry Ford "got it" - you don't.

You're just a fucking right wing ideologue that doesn't understand the "civi" in civilization or "soci" in society.

You "spin" your questions and answers in a classic Repuglican way.

I'm a sustainable capitalist. I pay my staff a decent wage - don't exploit them and detest speculators.

[Drewish]

It's fairly simple: The number of consumers is finite therefore the more consumers that have money to buy your shit the more money you make. The less consumers employed, the less consumers that have money to buy your shit. Therefore, the more consumers that are employed the more consumers there are to buy your shit.

Okay so let's say I own a store and am wealthy. Y dollars are taken from me to and given to other people. Those people then have more money to spend, and shop at my store. But there's no way they will end up spending more than the Y dollars they got originally. Or even if they do, that will be far less in profits as there will be the costs in incurred in supplying the goods for their purchase. I am still losing money.

Please try again.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Give people jobs and they have money to buy your products. What's so hard about this?

[Jason]

That's true Drewish. You will have to agree, though, that having Y- dollars to spend is more than 0.

You're also assuming you're the only game in town and that economics is not cyclical. In other words:

You pay employees Y, they buy your shit but also other peoples shit. Employees of W, X, and Z also buy your shit and other employers shit from the money they earn. This money gained by you and w, x, and z is then redistributed to the employees. It is a closed system and it is cyclical. If any one party ever only 'gains' then the system fails as the force driving it ceases.

[Drewish]

That's true Drewish. You will have to agree, though, that having Y- dollars to spend is more than 0.

You're also assuming you're the only game in town and that economics is not cyclical. In other words:

You pay employees Y, they buy your shit but also other peoples shit. Employees of W, X, and Z also buy your shit and other employers shit from the money they earn. This money gained by you and w, x, and z is then redistributed to the employees. It is a closed system and it is cyclical. If any one party ever only 'gains' then the system fails as the force driving it ceases.

Well sure if somebody else is forced to give up MORE money in wealth redistribution I could win, but only at his or her expense. Where as I could achieve the same result by buying things, rather than forcible wealth redistribution. Or I could invest it and make money if that investment pays off. Both approaches pump money back into the system. And then I'd have the added benefit of actually getting something I value out of the transaction so that I really WOULD gain more than I lose.

Still not seeing how forcibly having money taken from me results in me making more money. It's okay to admit that this approach isn't very good for the wealthy. The argument can then shift to whether it works for everyone else. But the argument here is falling flat.

[Jason]

That's true Drewish. You will have to agree, though, that having Y- dollars to spend is more than 0.

You're also assuming you're the only game in town and that economics is not cyclical. In other words:

You pay employees Y, they buy your shit but also other peoples shit. Employees of W, X, and Z also buy your shit and other employers shit from the money they earn. This money gained by you and w, x, and z is then redistributed to the employees. It is a closed system and it is cyclical. If any one party ever only 'gains' then the system fails as the force driving it ceases.

Well sure if somebody else is forced to give up MORE money in wealth redistribution I could win, but only at his or her expense. Where as I could achieve the same result by buying things, rather than forcible wealth redistribution. Or I could invest it and make money if that investment pays off. Both approaches pump money back into the system. And then I'd have the added benefit of actually getting something I value out of the transaction so that I really WOULD gain more than I lose.
Still not seeing how forcibly having money taken from me results in me making more money. It's okay to admit that this approach isn't very good for the wealthy. The argument can then shift to whether it works for everyone else. But the argument here is falling flat.

I don't think we're communicating here. Our points of reference are not the same.

It seems to me that when you say 'making more money' you mean to refer to an economic model wherein you will make more money than you would by minimising cost and maximising income (min/max economics resulting in the cessation of the transfer of wealth) but I think of 'making more money' as an economic model wherein you earn a living running your business while ensuring your consumers/employees will be able to continue to buy your product (that is the flow of money does not cease). My model is symbiotic - we do not kill our host (consumers/employees). It seems to me that your model is parasitic (absorb all the wealth you can from your consumers and move on). The problem with your model is that there is a finite number of consumers in the market place. Furthermore, these consumers are also your (referring to employers globally) employees. By always seeking your advantage you are effectively, in the long run, ensuring the demise of the entire system. Where it leads is to serfdom - a privileged few leading lives of luxury at the expense of an abject horde.

You're correct in saying this model is best for the wealthy. I'm correct in saying my model is best for civlization.

[macdoc]

The truly free market endgame...

[JimC]

Entrepreneurs that start a business, produce goods or services and employ people are wealth creators, true enough...

Trouble is, many of the extremely wealthy gain their wealth by financial manipulations which don't do anything productive at all, aside from employing a few lawyers and accountants...

[macdoc]

Exactly - 99% of the financial transactions world wide each day are speculative- on 1% wealth creating and in case one is mis-informed - money is NOT wealth.

[Seth]

Lack of demand is regularly cited as the #1 reason why business aren't hiring.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/0 ... -de/185857



And why is there such a lack of demand? The vast majority of our population holds a ridiculously small proportion of our country's wealth...



http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norto ... 0press.pdf (must read...everyone intuitively recognizes that our wealth distribution structure is extremely unfair, but few realize just how bad it is)

Who says what's listed is "ideal?" It looks to me like it's "ideal" only for Marxists. Fuck them.