New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[glatt]

Where, wolf?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Forgive me if I have you confused with someone else, but I think I remember that you, CF, and Lookout have defended Christianity. Think about loving your neighbor as you love yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Is there any consistency between these philosophies and your philosophy concerning wealth?

Yes, there is exact consistency. Because my philosophy concerning my wealth is completely separate from my philosophy concerning other people's decisions and lives. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is not the same as "Make sure everyone else follows your rules too."

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Yes, there is exact consistency. Because my philosophy concerning my wealth is completely separate from my philosophy concerning other people's decisions and lives. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is not the same as "Make sure everyone else follows your rules too."

You really get all hot and bothered when someone suggests you give something, don't you.

You're kidding yourself if you think Christianity is consistent with capitalism.

[Flint]

One time my brother was bashing Americans for eating big, gluttonous meals, while others in the world are starving. We happened to be eating out at the time, having just finished a big expensive meal (that my greedy, weath-accumulating dad was able to pay for).

Somebody asked my brother "Didn't you just eat a big, gluttonous meal?!" ...and he replied, self-righteously, "Well, I could have just had a salad."

He could have, but he didn't. It's easy to say that other people should have something taken from them, but nobody wants to give up their stuff.

Ok. You know what enough is.

And you will be ok with it if you disagree with what he decides, right?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

And you will be ok with it if you disagree with what he decides, right?

You don't think Lookout will do the right thing?

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

You don't think Lookout will do the right thing?

I agree with him, so I'm not the worried one.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

And you will be ok with it if you disagree with what he decides, right?

I can no more make someone be generous than I can make them be nice.

We are not talking about you making anyone do anything.

[Undertoad]

Spexx, your simplified illustration doesn't work in economics, because it only exists in a bubble, which is never *ever* the case in the real world. This is like physics teachers who simplify by saying "OK, if we don't have any gravity, we have no mass, and also we don't have any friction, NOW how would the items collide?" We could describe how the items would collide, but then put them back in a real world situation and they don't collide that way at all,... and in economics the real world is unavoidable.

I DO disagree, entirely, that "People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is." No, to suggest that shows a weak understanding of economics. (And that's not an insult. 99% of people don't understand economics.)

It is almost impossible to accumulate wealth without generating wealth. It is wealth generation that makes an economy powerful, to grow it so the rising tide lifts all boats. It is a faster and better road out of poverty to raise the standard of living so that the poor are in effect richer.

If you reinvest money into a venture, it is creating things. If you invest the money in the market, it is being used by other people to create things. Even if you put money into a simple index fund, that money is in turn being used in the market, in scores of ways that are invisible to the layman. This creation is what builds our modern society. And if you take money out of the economy and put it under a mattress? That would lower prices.

Believe me, or take Econ 101.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

....If you reinvest money into a venture, it is creating things. If you invest the money in the market, it is being used by other people to create things. Even if you put money into a simple index fund, that money is in turn being used in the market, in scores of ways that are invisible to the layman. This creation is what builds our modern society. And if you take money out of the economy and put it under a mattress? That would lower prices.

Believe me, or take Econ 101.

It was a long time ago, but I had good grades in two semesters of economics.

I don't dispute what you've said, above. I would offer that it doesn't matter whether one wealthy person does these things, or many less wealthy do them. One person can invest or spend $100,000, or 1000 people can invest or spend $100 each - the results will be the same.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't dispute what you've said, above. I would offer that it doesn't matter whether one wealthy person does these things, or many less wealthy do them. One person can invest or spend $100,000, or 1000 people can invest or spend $100 each - the results will be the same.

That's true, but irrelevant to the subpoint. You're so attached to your original incorrect point that you're giving up the subpoint. Cool, let's return to your original point.

We're still at our impasse, the mystical CEO who pays his/her people twice, or something, of what the market will bear. Bear in mind that the CEO does not set his/her own salary, the board typically does that. Now, this mystical CEO -- let's say it's a he, and he's running a supermarket chain. He could set the price of a can of peas to $5.00. Why doesn't he do that? He'd sure make a lot more money for salaries.

[lookout123]

wow, i never thought i would look forward to discussing anything with DLM until i tried to discuss something with spexxvet. At least tw is man enough to just walk away and ignore the questions rather than pretend he has answered the question in some cute intellectually lazy manner.

until spexx can come up with something more quantifiable than his warm fuzzy "you know" answers i'm done here. too bad, could have been an interesting discussion.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

A child only needs enough money to buy a piece of candy. A young man only needs enough money for a tank of gas and a bottle of whiskey. Then, he knocks up a girl, and now he needs enough money to buy a house; enough money to raise a child. Then he needs enough money to put that kid through college. Then he needs enough money to pay for his kid's wedding. Then he needs enough money to retire comfortably.

All along the way, he has strived to earn more and more money, to meet his increasing responsibilities. He has learned to be prepared for emergencies, and always have some savings set aside. There is no static amount that constitutes "enough" money.

If wolves were clawing at your door, how many bullets would you feel are "enough" to protect your family?

Originally Posted by lookout123

wow, i never thought i would look forward to discussing anything with DLM until i tried to discuss something with spexxvet. At least tw is man enough to just walk away and ignore the questions rather than pretend he has answered the question in some cute intellectually lazy manner.

until spexx can come up with something more quantifiable than his warm fuzzy "you know" answers i'm done here. too bad, could have been an interesting discussion.

As Flint said, there is no "one number". I'm sorry that you can't conceptualize it the way he has. And no matter what number I put out there, it won't be the right one as far as you're concerned. Then it will become a straw man. All of which means one thing: I won.

Speaking only for myself - I will not accept, over my entire lifetime, any more than $10,000,000, adjusted for inflation. That would represent an income, from all sources, of $200,000 /year, for a work-life of 50 years.YMMV

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That's true, but irrelevant to the subpoint. You're so attached to your original incorrect point that you're giving up the subpoint. Cool, let's return to your original point.

We're still at our impasse, the mystical CEO who pays his/her people twice, or something, of what the market will bear. Bear in mind that the CEO does not set his/her own salary, the board typically does that. Now, this mystical CEO -- let's say it's a he, and he's running a supermarket chain. He could set the price of a can of peas to $5.00. Why doesn't he do that? He'd sure make a lot more money for salaries.

Let's call him "the owner", so that we can say he has total power over his compnay. He could raise the price of peas. On the other hand, he could be satisfied with keeping 25% or 50% of his possible take. What's so wrong about making $100,000, if it means that you'll get better performance and loyalty from your employees, or sell more units, or whatever?

This is like the board game Risk. Have you ever played? Let's say you control Noth America. You could put 20 armies each on Greenland, Alaska, and Mexico, and 1 army on each of the other countries, or you could put 10 armies on Greenland, Alaska, and Mexico, and 2-4 armies on the rest of the coutries. Which makes for a more secure continent?