Simple. They're the ones that get tax breaks because they're the ones that make these decisions.

>The Republican line is that the wealthy are "job creators"

Maybe neo-cons at fox news, but that's a gross generalization.

The rest is just a big straw man.

Because the wealth trickles down.

Whether you believe it is up to you.

>>93302

An awful lot of their candidates have used that specific term with little to no criticism from within their own party, running on it as part of their platform.

To say it's a party line seems about right to me.

>>93303
Yeah...that's exactly how the 1% went from owning 46% of the cash to 85%. Sure shows how that wealth trickles down right there.

>-If the "rich" are in fact rich, then they probably don't have that much interest in making more money, correct? What's motivating them to reap the rewards of capitalism when they've already completed their harvest? (Obviously some do and become "super-rich" but they seem a relative rarity)

then why dont they all just retire? some enjoy their work, otherwise enjoy the prestige that comes with creating lots of wealth, some enjoy seeing how far they can succeed, etc.

>- Again, because they are "rich", why do they need these tax breaks? They should have all the financial capital they need... and if they don't, why can't they get a loan or seek out investors like everybody else? I mean, the rich almost by definition have great credit... they should be getting the best of the best loans-wise.

just b/c you are rich doesnt mean you have unlimited capital. the scales at which the rich are investing make the amount of capital they have seem small. we are talkin billions where only the top 0.5% are considered millionaires.

since the growth of wealth is exponential (has been since modern capitalism took off) even small taxes on capital will add up to huge deficits in wealth later on.

most importantly, what is so wrong with having wealth? if i earn a million dollars legitmately that doesnt steal money from you, you are no worse off by me being rich (and most likely much better off since i probably gave you a job).

>>93321
Well, then you're at the wrong place to get an answer, there are not party line republican except that one tripfag on here.

No, Ron Paul isn't a "party line" republican.

>-If the "rich" are in fact rich, then they probably don't have that much interest in making more money, correct?
This is so wrong it hurts me. Wealthy people live extravagant lives and any one hit wonder will demonstrate, without continued revenue, wealthy lifestyles are not very maintainable. If all the filthy rich lived in modest sized homes and horded their money, they could easily live on it, but they don't, they want to spend their money, so they need to earn more, which means they need to keep their business/source of income running.

Nearly every wealthy person contributes to society in someway or another. Even movie stars, simply because they act in a larger production that employs a lot of people.

>>93324

Jealousy: a core liberal principle

It's a psychology issue. Rich people often don't often see themselves as rich. Most people will continue to try to make more money no matter how much they already have.

>>93325

>then why dont they all just retire? some enjoy their work, otherwise enjoy the prestige that comes with creating lots of wealth, some enjoy seeing how far they can succeed, etc.

I accept your self-actualization argument, although I wish more would apply it in a non-profit role, a la the Gates Foundation.

>just b/c you are rich doesnt mean you have unlimited capital. the scales at which the rich are investing make the amount of capital they have seem small. we are talkin billions where only the top 0.5% are considered millionaires.

They could always invest in smaller venture.... or take out loans. I don't understand why they can't do that.


>since the growth of wealth is exponential (has been since modern capitalism took off) even small taxes on capital will add up to huge deficits in wealth later on.

Assuming that tax money won't go towards improving the conditions that generate wealth via entrepreneurship, infrastructure, and the education of skilled labor.

>most importantly, what is so wrong with having wealth?

Nothing, I never made that argument.

>if i earn a million dollars legitmately that doesnt steal money from you, you are no worse off by me being rich (and most likely much better off since i probably gave you a job).

No, no. I want you to be rich. I want to be rich too, but I also want to ensure a good standard of living for the lower class (to ensure they too have the chance to be rich) and support my country.

>>93261
Super successful people don't just "stop." For example, Beethoven continued to write music until the day that he died. He didn't have to because of money, but he wanted to. These wall street people are to money what beethoven was to music.

To answer your second question, the wealthy don't need the tax breaks. We actually give these to them to encourage them to create jobs in America instead of somewhere else where it is cheaper

for example, when steve jobs realized that it was cheaper to make ipods in china, he moved his factories there. OWS uses this to vilify him, but really it's their own fault for electing officials who promised to raise taxes on the rich

Ask any billionaire and he will tell you why they continue to seek wealth. There is only so much that this world offers that can be bought. After your 7th vacation mansion and 2 luxury yachts and private security force of ex secret service, your private jet and helicopters, there is not much else the world has to offer. After 500 million you start running out of luxury to buy that you don't already own.

But the luxury items aren't the driving factor so much as the competition with your fellow millionaires and billionaires to obtain more dollar value wealth than them. It is all a private club and a giant dick measuring contest after 500 million.

They will flaunt their wealth by purchasing rare and exotic antiques at chic auction houses. They will purchase entire buildings just to knock them down so they have a better view of the moon at night, and construct skyscrapers to block their adversaries view.

Many of them want to acquire more so their name lives on in legend, by giving it all to charity before they die, because they can't think of anything they really want that they don't already have.

This is the bubble world they live in.

People don't go into business and create jobs because they have extra cash lying around or out of good will. They go into business and create jobs because they see an unmet demand and think they can profit by supplying for that demand.

The wealthy they want to cut taxes on have no lack of access to capital. If they saw demand they'd meet it to make money, but they don't see it.

>If the "rich" are in fact rich, then they probably don't have that much interest in making more money, correct? What's motivating them to reap the rewards of capitalism when they've already completed their harvest? (Obviously some do and become "super-rich" but they seem a relative rarity)

Not a conservative, I'm the exact opposite actually, but to answer the question. That's not exactly how it goes. There's a phenomenon called "relative discontent" where the rich dont 'feel' rich.

As you move up the social ladder one naturally associates with wealthier and wealthier people. To do the things they do and, I guess fit in is the best phrase, they still have what they view as necessary expenses. For example, you probably view a TV as necessary in your life while a millionaire views a huge house and a Bugatti Veyron as necessary in the same way. Neither one of you are going to die without.

>>93261
>If the "rich" are in fact rich, then they probably don't have that much interest in making more money, correct?

Do you not have something that you are compassionate about and drives you to do something? Acquiring wealth is a goal for some people.

Having their business or product succeed makes some people happy and it drives them to keep going

Some people actually want to work to give their family an advantage for 10 generations down the line.

It's never about just hoarding wealth.

>why do they need these tax breaks?

If you've ever owned or managed a business, then you will eventually get tired of just how much the government feels they are entitled to.

Tax breaks and business loans are completely different things.

>>93261
because men want to be rich, and rich men want to be kings. You get rich by being a smart investor, so why would you stop making investments and building up power and wealth. It is a compulsion of men of ambition and greatness.

The entrepreneurs become rich because they rendered a great service to society. They provided a service to millions of people, which in return, entitles them to keep a share of their earned profits. They took great risks with their capital which may have cost them their entire wealth in order to organize land, labor and resources in a productive and meaningful way. The rich don't exist, contrary to the old washed up Marxist claim, because they exploit the working class out of their earnings, but because people are willing to buy their products and in doing so, making them wealthy.

Of course not all rich people are good. Some are corrupt and crooked and use government to further their means. They deserve the blame they get.

Suppose you raise the tax on the rich. Are they going to be necessarily burdened by it? No, their living standard won't decrease considerably because on the scale of values, personal comfort is probably going to be highest to them. But what will decrease is the amount of workers they will hire, the amount of money they invest in producing goods, and the amount of money they spend in general. All of this transfers into reduced productive output of the entire economy. Social inequality is not cured by wealth redistribution, but will only be made worse by more unemployed, underpaid workers that arise as a result of decreased private capital investment.

The state then gives these workers shovel ready jobs. Some of these are productive, others are motivated by political reasons. But the government has no way of knowing which programs work and which don't due to a lack of profit and loss feedback in their operation. If a program is unsustainable, then abolishing it has proven to be politically difficult as it involves laying off workers. So the rich will have to be taxed even more in a sort of self-feeding loop.

Here's my question: If tax breaks are supposed to create jobs and the wealthy pay less in taxes now than they have since WWII, where the hell are the jobs?

In the '50s, the top tax bracket paid over 90%, but the unemployment rate was low. pic related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates

Thanks to everybody explaining why the rich get richer, but this guy is one of the few getting at what I actually want to know:

>>93470

Also, like I said, nothing against the rich but apparently this is yfw reading this whole thread.

>>93470
Correllation is not causation bro.

The high rates of employment might have been as a result of some other factor. Such as for instance, a much lower ratio of government spending to GDP compared to today.

Also as Andrew Mellon noted, high tax rates are almost impossible to enforce collection upon. Even if the marginal tax rate was 90%, it remains in question how much of it was actually paid, as the IRS was nowhere as advanced as it is now.

>>93452
this is wrong. Entrepreneurs often have the least to lose relative to their wealth the the employees. Lets say mr moneybags starts a factory making his new invention, and invests half of his Billion dollars. He hires poor workers who have to relocate to work at his factory. The invention is a peice of shit and the company fails, mr moneybags walks away with his 1/2 billion+ whatever he can get from liquedating the company's assets and the workers, now jobless, are too poor to move, and dependent on the social saftey net to help them back on their feet. So who REALLY took the bigger risk?

>>93390
>They could always invest in smaller venture.... or take out loans. I don't understand why they can't do that.

loans require collateral which is capital and smaller ventures may not be competitive enough or may not produce enough profit

>Assuming that tax money won't go towards improving the conditions that generate wealth via entrepreneurship, infrastructure, and the education of skilled labor.

taxes cause deadweight losses by themselves and there is no mechanism that guarentees government will always be efficient with money.

> I also want to ensure a good standard of living for the lower class (to ensure they too have the chance to be rich) and support my country.

then you would have to justify using force to be generous with other people's money or give donations yourself.

>>93470
The rich are expecting our government to raise the income tax rate from 35% to 65%. They don't know how that will affect the economy, and the safest thing to do is just wait (which they can afford to do).

It's not high taxes that are preventing the wealthy from spending, it's the threat that the taxes are going to be raised

>>93470
This is where threads like these all seem to end. No one fucking knows.

It's that stopping moment where everyone, even the experts, are forced to take a look at these principles which we've based our society on, that are generally rather sound and consider: Someone's fucking with the system for it not to be working.

Naturally everyone gets pissed off at everyone else and starts pointing fingers "It's the poor's fault for not working hard enough" "It's the rich's fault for not making the money available enough to benefit the system" "It's the government's fault for failing to properly allocate everything" when really... It's all our fucking fault for failing to be vigilant and allowing shit to go on for so fucking long we've become entangled in a spiderweb of shit and we're not sure how to eat our way out of it.

>then they probably don't have that much interest in making more money, correct?

wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

How many jobs did the Bush tax-cuts for the rich create?

>>93470
because the super rich never paid their taxes.

loopholes, brother.

>>93542
well, now you can keep them going
>>93541

>>93552

Dan Ariely's research (your video) isnt conclusive about anything. Lab research where some MIT student is paid on a one time basis to do cross words (or whatever) might not not have any impact on how someone receiving a yearly salary behaves in their job.

>>93470
> If tax breaks are supposed to create jobs and the wealthy pay less in taxes now than they have since WWII, where the hell are the jobs?

They're not. That was stupid supply-sider bullshit from the second Kennedy started it. It is supremely naive to think cutting the taxes of narcissists pathologically driven to make money will make them reinvest their cash in something other than themselves.

>>93553
quite a few actually. The economy was looking as though it was back on track until Obama came into power. That's what's known as the 2008 economic crisis. The rich saw Obama coming to power and pulled out of the economy anticipating tax increases

>>93603
Even more reason to kill all of them

>-If the "rich" are in fact rich, then they probably don't have that much interest in making more money, correct? What's motivating them to reap the rewards of capitalism when they've already completed their harvest? (Obviously some do and become "super-rich" but they seem a relative rarity)

If they don't invest, their savings dwindle over time. But hell, even when they put their fortunes in a interest bearing investment, they are still helping out with the economy by providing a bigger reserve to the bank so the bank can loan out to more businesses.

>- Again, because they are "rich", why do they need these tax breaks? They should have all the financial capital they need... and if they don't, why can't they get a loan or seek out investors like everybody else? I mean, the rich almost by definition have great credit... they should be getting the best of the best loans-wise.

Because the tax could've been used for something productivie or consumption that the rich individual wishes to pursue (e.g. wants to buy some really expensive clothes), instead of the hands of government which will probably subsidize some industry that he won't support.

Let me put this way, who do you think understands the market more?

A) A select few individuals elected by the people

B) The millions and millions of individuals who produce and consume each day

If you answer A, congrats, you're a problem and shouldn't be talking about economic policies.

>>93522
Actually no. Your post underscores my point that the wealthy's highest valuation is their own personal living standard. So when they have to take a loss, they pass it down to someone else, usually the consumer, or their company's assets. Thus taxes are treated as business losses and they simply translate into decreased productive output of the enterprises they own.

Also the entrepreneur (Mr Moneybags McJeweykin in your case) does in fact take the greatest risk. He's the one who organized the entire affair, hired workers, planned modes of productions, raised money to build factories and bought equipment. So if all that fails then the whole investment on that enterprise will rein him in a huge net loss as capital depreciates over time even if he does manage to liquidate part of it. Such a risk could still potentially ruin him.

A state run company on the other hand, doesn't worry about profit and loss. It will never, unless under extreme political pressure, shut down. But if it's unsustainable, it's losses will be passed down onto the productive private economy.

>If the "rich" are in fact rich, then they probably don't have that much interest in making more money, correct?

How absolutely wrong this is!
There is NO end to greed. The rich are rich because the hording and making of money is basically there whole and sole purpose in life.

>- Again, because they are "rich", why do they need these tax breaks?

Again ... GREED.

>What's motivating them to reap the rewards of capitalism when they've already completed their harvest?

Actually this is a rather insightful statement. The great crash of '29 and the resulting depression is a very clear case of this.
At that time there was very little money circulating around because it "disappeared" into the home safes and account of the rich and the rich - being the one behind the supply side of the economy have very little motivation to make even secure investments since the demand side had little to no money.

>>93603
>someone actually believes this.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

>>93571
It always keeps going, it'll end in violence like it always does. Either the poor will kill the rich and simply take their shit in an explosive orgy of violence, or the rich will soothe the poor somehow and buy another few decades of general peace until the same issue rears its head again. Everyone will feel like it's new this next time around but really it's the same issue again.

It's a fucking pointless cycle we've locked ourselves into. The only way out of it is for people to genuinely re-evaluate their needs, what makes them happy, and by what they measure success.

>>93618
>they are still helping out with the economy by providing a bigger reserve to the bank so the bank can loan out to more businesses.
Unregulated fractional reserve banking makes this complete nonsense. Fuck you.

>>93618
>Because the tax could've been used for something productivie or consumption that the rich individual wishes to pursue (e.g. wants to buy some really expensive clothes)
The rich purchasing luxury goods cannot support an economy.

>>93529

Some of this I agree with, some of it I don't. I appreciate the straight answers though; you're one of the few in this thread actually contributing.

>>93541

This is interesting, though I have no conclusions that I would feel safe about drawing from it.

>>93553

I think I figured out what mask I'm gonna wear for Halloween. We haven't had a pol that comically misshapen since Nixon.

Anyway, if this thread still exists later, I'll check back in. For now, OP out.

>>93603

Bullshit. The economy was tanking before Obama was ever elected.

>>93628
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

in January 2008 Bush was creating 1,110 jobs. in September when it was clear that Obama would take the presidency it was -4,411

>>93261

Wealthy have capital to start business, but need labor. People have no capital, but can trade labor for capital. People who trade labor for cash build capital in cash and can invest and hopefully build their own personal wealth over time. If they are ambitious, they may be able to build up enough capital if their labor is valuable enough to the market to a start a business of their own using financing through our banks, which are funded by deposits made up of savings of both the wealthiest capitalists and the middle class who work for wages funding the expansion of new small businesses endeavoring in productive activity to produce for the rest of society in exchange for profits, which are distributed to the owners, which may include pension funds and even industrious wage-earners who invest in financial markets to increase their wealth.

This is the capitalistic system, the system that made America the greatest nation in the world and is now under a serious assault from our government and hippies like OP.

>>93622
except mr moneybags still has HALF A BILLION DOLLARS and is living cofortably, while the laid off workers have nothing. Even though mr moneybags lost much more capitol in dollars, his Personal risk was much lower(the value of a job to a person working paycheck to paycheck is higher than 1/2 a billion dollars to a person who has a billion.) All of market economics is rooted in the idea that different things have different value to different people(this is what makes mutual exchange possible), so why cant you understand that those peoples jobs are more valueable then a huge capital loss on a billionaire.

>>93649

Why not?

Not giving any opinions here. Just a question.

>>93603
>The rich are expecting our government to raise the income tax rate from 35% to 65%. They don't know how that will affect the economy, and the safest thing to do is just wait (which they can afford to do).

>It's not high taxes that are preventing the wealthy from spending, it's the threat that the taxes are going to be raised

What? Where the fuck are you seeing 65%?

>>93541
>quite a few actually. The economy was looking as though it was back on track until Obama came into power. That's what's known as the 2008 economic crisis. The rich saw Obama coming to power and pulled out of the economy anticipating tax increases

dirty little secret: demand from the upper, middle, and working class for products and services create jobs, not the ultra-wealthy having more wealthy

LISTEN UP DUDE

ALL YOU CONSERVAMANIACS ARE GONNA HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO ME IN ECONOMIC TERMS HOW THE RICH HAVING MORE CASH ON HAND THAN THEY ALREADY DO CREATES JOBS BROTHER

IF REGULAR FOLK DON'T HAVE DISCRETIONARY INCOME TO SPEND ON GOODS AND SERVICES, DUDE, THERES NO NEW GOODS AND SERVICES TO PROVIDE

BROTHER

>>93470
in the 50's the rest of the world was either recovering from war or still waging it on their land. In those places, manufacturing need time to retool back from wartime production, and people needed time to regather capital to expand production. The USA was the only world power not touched by war, and had the very advantageous position of being both a creditor, and in possession of huge technological capability from captured scientists and wartime initiatives. We also owned the exploding fields of plastics, transistors, and telecommunications. Our advanced technology, unscathed manufacturing capacity, and lack of market competition resulted in the largest increase in living standards, which meant we could afford expanded government programs.

Pegging increased taxation of that period as the cause of increased growth is doing it backwards.

>>93631
there is no reason to accept this as fact. The US, Rome, and many other countries thrived for centuries. This is liberal cynicism

my post provides a clear explanation as to what's going on, you're just unable to accept it because you're a liberal and they are fundamentally unable to change

>>93324
hint: massive expansions of the welfare and interventionist state has caused this. Also due to endless mass immigration destroying wages.

It's LIBERALS who are behind this despite all their worthless rhetoric about "those super rich 1%!!"

>>93671
See
>>93662

The American financial industry was regulated from 1940 to 1980, followed by a long period of deregulation. At the end of the 1980s, a savings and loan crisis cost taxpayers about $124 billion. In the late 1990s, the financial sector had consolidated into a few giant firms. In 2001, the Internet Stock Bubble burst because investment banks promoted Internet companies that they knew would fail, resulting in $5 trillion in investor losses. In the 1990s, derivatives became popular in the industry and added instability. Efforts to regulate derivatives were thwarted by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, backed by several key officials. In the 2000s, the industry was dominated by five investment banks (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Bear Stearns), two financial conglomerates (Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase), three securitized insurance companies (AIG, MBIA, AMBAC) and three rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poors, Fitch). Investment banks bundled mortgages with other loans and debts into collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which they sold to investors. Rating agencies gave many CDOs AAA ratings. Subprime loans led to predatory lending. Many home owners were given loans they could never repay.

>>93658
> in September when it was clear that Obama would take the presidency

Yeah, no.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110668/Gallup-Daily-Race-Back-Tie-46-Each.aspx

>>93671
>demand from the upper, middle, and working class for products and services
this is a fallacy. The wealthy have the money. That means that even if there is demand from the lower classes than those people still don't have enough money to pay for those demands. The only solution is make it appealing for the rich to spend money.

Quit using typical liberal rhetoric.

>>93668
Because luxury goods are purchased few in number. No matter how insane someone could be, they couldn't employ an entire textile industry by themselves, or an entire auto industry, or an entire agricultural economy. The rich make purchases infrequently on items that will never be of any use to the rest of the economy, luxury cars, boats, jewelry, houses. They cannot sustain enough people for a country to survive.

>>93682

LISTEN UP BROTHER

IM NOT POLITICAL EXPERT DUDE

BUT IM PRETTY SURE THE WELFARE STATE HAS SEEN A CONTRACTION IN BENEFITS PROVIDED IN THE PAST THIRTY YEARS DUDE

AND THAT COSTLY MILITARY INTERVENTION HAS BEEN A NEO-CON THING BROTHER

>>93707
that's one poll out of hundreds of thousands

HEY FUCKING RETARDS, CONSUMPTION DOESN'T DRIVE GROWTH, PRODUCTION DOES. EVERYTHING WE CONSUME HAS TO BE PRODUCED FAGGOTS.

>>93708
the rich do not spend money. they hoard it. if the rich spent money, they wouldn't be rich.

>>93649
What about food? Hydro? Heating? It isn't just luxery goods they pursue, but the basic necessities as well.

If they have a family, chances are they go to a private school...oh snap, suddenly teachers have jobs, same goes with the janitor, prinicipal, librarian, etc.

And if they are rich, they probably have a financial planner too. Ah snap...here comes the investment adviser, insurance broker, etc.

Rich people don't just buy expensive shit.

>>93713

Why is the number of purchases relevant?

I would think that, you could have one nation that specializes in something, such as, yachts or something, and they would have no capacity to feed themselves. They would just rely on selling yachts and buying food from someone else.

This seems plausible to me. Maybe not to an extreme.

>>93717
interesting. Using showmanship to distract from your lack of logic

WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT BROTHER?

>>93742
The rich only need so many yachts, so many cars, so many sets of clothes. They don't throw things away when they're done with them. They don't practice conspicuous consumption that drives an economy like the middle class and higher ranks of the working class can. There just aren't enough hours in the day.

>>93721

I've looked at several polls from late September 2008 and most of them showed a tie or McCain with a slight lead.

>>93735
that's ridiculous. you've obviously never met a rich person.

>"you need to spend money to earn money."
never heard this before? it's a rich person's motto

>>93735
>They dont' spend money
>Warren Buffet
>Bill Gates
>Steve Jobs
>Peter Schiff
>Kevin O'Leary
>Robert Herjavec

Fucking commies.

>>93756

Consumption graphs back this up. At some point your spending of discretionary income levels out and your savings just continue to increase.

>>93708

The wealthy have seen their wealth increase during this recession.

All else have seen it contract.

Why is our economy in the shitter? Oh because the rates in the highest tax bracket are lower than they've been for income and capital gains rates since 1932? And corporate rates are the lowest since 1949?

Sure.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011/04/14/top-marginal-tax-rates-1916-2010/?utm_source=feedburner&a
mp;utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+VisualizingEconomics+%28Visualizing+Economics%29

>>93705
Typical worthless lib babble.
A small amount of "Deregulation" doesn't automatically mean hur capitalism caused it! More like it's shitty government being typically shitty.
All these companies are big demoncrat supporters anyways, NO BIG COMPANY promotes the free market, yet all of them support regulation.

>>93713
Electricity, any food beyond grain and water, housing, etc are all luxuries and purchases of them cannot support the economy, yes?

>>93760
>hundreds of thousands
you don't know how a poll works, do you? not to mention a poll does not show us how the rich felt during that time

>>93761
They don't spend ENOUGH. That's the point of this. They hold on to most of it. What the fuck, how can you deny this? If it were not true, there would not BE rich people.

>>93622
>Also the entrepreneur (Mr Moneybags McJeweykin in your case) does in fact take the greatest risk.

Holy crap! Do you actually believe this! He is the one that probably takes the least risk because he will not venture his own money . . . that's what investors and the government are for.

>He's the one who organized the entire affair,

No.

>hired workers,

No.

>planned modes of productions,

No.

>raised money to build factories and bought equipment.

Yes, from "investors".

>So if all that fails then the whole investment on that enterprise will rein him in a huge net loss

So if all that fails then the whole investment on that enterprise will rein THE INVESTORS in a huge net loss ... Fixed.

>as capital depreciates over time ....

Capital? Do you mean the worthless fiat that is constantly depreciating?

>even if he does manage to liquidate part of it.

Liquidate the capital? I think what you meant is liquidate the real estate, equipment, etc INTO capital.

Such a risk could still potentially ruin him.

Completely the opposite from what I've seen.

>>93665

How do you know? You seemed to be rooted in the idea that Mr. Moneybag is the villian here and Average Joe the worker is an exploited hero. But you're focusing on an extreme example without considering all possible outcomes. Maybe the half a billion loss forced him into such a debt that he's now bankrupted by it. Maybe he suffers a nervous breakdown after losing so much money. How can you tell then that the subjective valuation is greater for the employer than for the employed? It's impossible to measure such a thing.

Moreover as I said before, entrepreneurship adds value to the private sector by directing resources and labor towards producing a good that is demanded by the consumers. Government spending only shifts existing wealth and labor into other ends which may or may not be useful and moreover, there's no way to tell whether they are or not. The fact that the entrepreneur takes a loss is what signals future entrepreneurs not to make the same mistakes, thus directing the overall activity of the markets towards more productive ends.

>>93261
On your first point, Humans are not logical creatures. Once one becomes well off, they are constantly trying to make more money, either because they are afraid that if they become complacent they may lose their fortune, or because it becomes more about status and power and they feel they need more and more of it.

tl;dr Rich are pathologically primed to earn more and more money.

>>93773
Or maybe it's because 2 million immigrants arrive every year?
Maybe it's because government makes it illegal to open new businesses and forces companies to outsource?

Baffles me how a liberal thinks low taxes causes bad economy....

Most of the rich arent doing much with their money. Theyre sitting on it in a bank while their existing and highly profitable assests continue to rake in money.

So yeah, they dont need the money, at all.

>>93818
All of those unfortunate circumstances combine to cause it, but the chief factor is definitely lower upper-class taxes.

>>93792

Capital =/= Money

Capital is the equipment used in production, that includes land or whatever else.

>I think what you meant is liquidate the real estate, equipment, etc INTO capital.

Made me laugh.

>>93792
>Holy crap! Do you actually believe this! He is the one that probably takes the least risk because he will not venture his own money . . . that's what investors and the government are for.

You think investors are going to hand out money to a single entrepreneur just like that? You think it's easy?

Holy shit you are on another level of retard if you think that's how it works. No investor is going to take that huge amount of risk unless the motherfucker has some divine flawless business plan.

>>93834
Do you remember the dot com bubble? It was that easy.

>>93773
If there's a trillion dollars in the economy and I print 9 trillion more, what percentage of the financial wealth do I have?

If I give that money to banks and corporations, what percentage of financial wealth do they have?

>>93834
What the hell do you think the dot com bubble was?

>>93671
I'll give it to you in simple terms: Nobody ever got a job from a poor person.

>>93844
This is not about money. The wealth they hold is material wealth, things people can touch, see, taste, and smell.

I DUNNO DADDY

MAYBE CUZ YOURE NOT PRESENTING FACTS THAT REFURE MY STATEMENT

MAYBE CUZ YOU'RE JEALOUS THAT YOU'RE NOT THE STYLIN' AND PROFILIN', LIMOUSINE RIDIN', JET RIDIN', KISS STEALIN', WHEELIN-DEALIN' SON OF A GUN THAT I AM?

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~!

>>93790
Spending money doesn't generate wealth.

>>93843
The dotcom bubble happened because a certain Alan Greenspan artificially lowered interest rates so people can take out loans to invest into these companies. In other words, these investments were nothing but debt-fueled speculation, not sound business decisions.

You can blame the government for that, not the rich individual.

>>93863
Right, but if people trade those things for money then money is like equity. Making more is like creating additional shares to the same pool of real wealth, so it only transfers more real stuff into the hands of the rich.

>>93866
Read that in his voice, even the woooooo

>>93843

That was mostly the ignorant masses fueled by the media.

>>93892
Fuuuuuck you. I made money on the dot com bubble, asshole, it was most definitely NOT smoke and mirrors.

>>93825
Incorrect, they increase the reserves of the bank therefore the bank can give out more loans (hopefully business loans to help increase capital in the economy)

>>93834
What the fuck was happening with that savings and loan fiasco?

>>93906
FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING DISPROVES THIS IDEA. SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT. THEY CAN LOAN AS MUCH THEY FUCKING WANT, AND DID.

>>93906

I have two bullets comrade. You shoot yourself, then I will shoot myself.

>>93790
they don't hold on to it, holy fuck
no intelligent person would put significant amounts of cash under their mattress
it's all invested either into banks, bonds, stocks, etc. and by putting their money into these places they are injecting money into the system where it does work.

holy fucking shit, you can't be this dumb

>>93873
it does when it pays worker salaries. seriously, get the fuck out of my face you're not even trying.

>>93918

No they cant loan out as much as they want because there are limits based off your reserves.

>>93918
If rich people don't matter to a bank....why do their more personal and specialized services then?

Don't get me wrong, fractional reserve system is full of shit, but they still need their reserves especially with the Basel 3 shit possibly hitting them in the future.

>>93792
The post I was responding to assumes that out of 1 billion of HIS OWN capital the entrepreneur spent half a billion on an enterprise. In practice, it is usually the investors who supply the capital. But in this case the entrepreneur still takes a risk, since he has to answer to his shareholders. Even in the specific case where, as you say the investors choose an executive, then it is the investors who play the role of entrepreneurs in this case, taking the risk in the business operation. The CEO is simply an employee hired to oversee business operations. If he fails then he is fired, and most likely never hired again.

>Capital? Do you mean the worthless fiat that is constantly depreciating?

You clearly don't know what capital is.

Also if the manager/entrepreneur isn't responsible for arranging labor, land, and capital to productive uses then who else is?

>>93932
The rich don't do things otherwise intelligent people would do.

>>93936

That's why the Fed lends trillions of dollars to banks at .25% interest. It isn't working, because it doesn't make people more productive and just devalues savings.

>>93948
Rich people don't matter to a bank as much as you would like to think they do, and especially not the overextended banks being run by people who want quick cash and to get out and then let everything collapse.

>>93934
No. That allows the worker to trade for other goods and services, but unless something exists for him to spend it on it's worthless. Spending the money doesn't produce anything.

>>93932

LISTEN UP DADDY

WITHOUT DEMAND FOR GOODS AND SERVICES VIA DISCRETIONARY INCOME FROM THE UPPER, MIDDLE, AND LOWER CLASSES; THERE'S NOTHING THAT CREATES JOBS IN THIS COUNTRY.

THOSE INVESTMENTS GO INTO FINANCIAL MARKETS THAT CREATE NO VALUE FOR THOSE THAT AREN'T ALREADY ENGAGED IN FINANCIAL MARKETS IN LARGE VOLUMES

WOOOOOOOO~!

>>93992
>Spending the money doesn't produce anything.
Yes it does. That's the economy.

>>93984
I work at a bank buddy, I know they do.

Want to know a fun fact? When you do telephone banking, depending on what type of customer you are, you will be sent to a different department. Rich as fuck? We get the best people on you. Costing us money? We will get the trainees on you so you will leave.

>>93967
>make up unsubstantiated stereotypes about "rich people"
>this is proof that the system doesn't work
okaywhateverdude.jpg

>>93963
Let's get this straight. There are two meanings of the word capital getting slung around here right now.

One is capital in the sense of economics. In the sense of land, labor, capital (i.e., means of production).

One is capital in the sense of finance. This means debt or equity.

Both are equally legitimate in their fields, and one could argue that financial capital could be capital in the economic sense in that it is transformed into those physical assets by the corporation once it is formed with these funds endowing it with a means to acquire "real" capital.

>>94001
Kenyensian retard detected.

So if I bought a loaf of bread for 10,000 dollars, I've improved the economy?

>>94027
No, you buying bread, period, IS the economy. That's all it is. Trading things for other things, sometimes through the cash nexus.

>>94021
My defination of capital is basically any asset that will provide some of revenue/income.

If I were a traveling salesperson, a car would be my capital since I use my car to take me to places to make money.

ITT: supply-side and Keynesian economists refuse to admit their policies have been followed since the 1980s.

>>93984
>>93980
>>93948
>>93936
>>93918
LIMITS ON FRACTIONAL RESERVES IS A MOOT CONCEPT. THE VERY FACT A BANK ALREADY LOANS MORE CREDIT THAN IT HAS ASSETS, IT IS ALREADY PLAYING WITH IMAGINARY MONEY. THE FOOT IS ALREADY IN THE DOOR, A LIE IS ALREADY HAPPENING, THERE IS NO STOPPING THE INFLATION TRAIN WHEN THERE IS ANY FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING.

>>94001
Spending the money allows you to acquire things that were already produced. Money just makes indirect barter exchanges possible; ultimately you're still exchanging actual goods and services.

>>94058
I know that. I'm against fractional reserve banking.

>>94045
So...basically what you are saying is consumption is all there is to it...no need for production.

So Canada would be an amazing economy right? For every one dollar of labor we produce, we consume a dollar fifty. According to your logic, Canada is motherfuckin' Utopia.

>>94054

Will you stop pussying out behind semantics and just debate the fucking guy. Christ.

>>94054

A company's capitalization is the sum of its debt (bonds, credit facilities, commercial paper, convertibles), and equity (preferred shares, minority interest, common stock included).

In economics, though, capital refers to the concept of the "means of production," like the car to which you are referring.

As a prospective investment banker, I think it's funny you think of capital in the economics sense instead of the finance sense if you work in finance.

>>94080
Someone has to make the bread smartass.

>>94119
But you just said here >>94001
that spending is the economy.

So wouldn't an economy where people spend more than they produce be considered a thriving economy?

>>94119
Before you say anything: in production, people are trading their time for resources, again, sometimes, through the cash nexus.

>>94073
Just reinforcing ya, bro
I get so mad about fractional reserve banking

Fractional Reserve Banking causes expansions of the money supply. This new money is in the hands of bankers who lend to business ventures and the government. Because this is new money in the supply, it reduces the value of each dollar already in circulation. Because a larger share of the the total money supply is held by the richest, when the money supply reduces, the percent of the global wealth in their possession skyrockets. This is the boom-bust cycle. The economy since the early 20th century has been nothing but waves and tides of the money supply that put more into the hands of the bankers. Banks can do this because the government sanctions them to do it, the very "regulation" people want allows a bank mafia to swindle the general public out of the wealth they own.

>>94165

Wouldn't this occur with no government regulation? I mean the banks take a calculated risk on their own that their investments will return more money than they invested. With no government regulation, what would prevent banks from doing this?

>>94091
>As a prospective investment banker, I think it's funny you think of capital in the economics sense instead of the finance sense if you work in finance.

That's because I'm nowhere near that level yet. Most of my education was extremely frontline level (although a huge head start over people who didn't) and this is how I was taught how capital is. I'm sure my definition will change when I reach higher.

>>94219
Not really. It's highly unstable and the only reason banks can get away with it now is because the government guarantees deposits and the Fed keeps the banks liquid.

Also if the government guarantees the liabilities of the banks, then they're basically the government's liabilities, which means the banks are already, informally, part of the government. Nationalizing the banks would be more like a recognition of reality than any structural change in the banking system.