|
|
#91
05-11-2007, 08:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is zero-sum the default economic position?
[ QUOTE ]
economy is positive sum righty? you seem billionaire friendly. the majority of the gains from their investments go to ibanks and themselves because most of the time they are transferrig ownership of existing shares with some other rich git and not actually generating increased investment in the company. [/ QUOTE ] I <3 billionaires. I'd easily throw a hundred random poor people off a cliff to save a billionaire's life (assuming that his money was made principally through free market principles). Billionaires do not consume all of their income. That's ridiculous. If they did not constantly reinvest in capital, they would not be billionaires in the first place. Seriously, if they wanted to consume their income, why is Bill Gates still in business? He made enough money to buy enough gold-covered airplanes loaded with hookers and blow for the next three generations; why did he stay in business? Do you really think he's sitting around wondering whether he's financially ready for retirement? Those are the priorities of the poor and middle class; not the rich. Billionaires want to be wealthy, acquire more wealth, and keep growing. They enjoy it. Look how long Warren Buffett stayed in business. When they make money, they reinvest most of it, and everyone else makes money too. 
|
|
#92
05-11-2007, 11:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is zero-sum the default economic position?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] economy is positive sum righty? you seem billionaire friendly. the majority of the gains from their investments go to ibanks and themselves because most of the time they are transferrig ownership of existing shares with some other rich git and not actually generating increased investment in the company. [/ QUOTE ] I <3 billionaires. I'd easily throw a hundred random poor people off a cliff to save a billionaire's life (assuming that his money was made principally through free market principles). Billionaires do not consume all of their income. That's ridiculous. If they did not constantly reinvest in capital, they would not be billionaires in the first place. Seriously, if they wanted to consume their income, why is Bill Gates still in business? He made enough money to buy enough gold-covered airplanes loaded with hookers and blow for the next three generations; why did he stay in business? Do you really think he's sitting around wondering whether he's financially ready for retirement? Those are the priorities of the poor and middle class; not the rich. Billionaires want to be wealthy, acquire more wealth, and keep growing. They enjoy it. Look how long Warren Buffett stayed in business. When they make money, they reinvest most of it, and everyone else makes money too. [/ QUOTE ] I dont think butso is saying they "consume" all of their income but that "most" of the money they make is just on a merry-go-round and not really adding anything to the economy. To a certain extent that is true. Every dollar that Bill Gates invests isnt in something new and innovative, in fact I bet he even owns some boring old utility stocks. Even that role, however, does serve to help the economy grow because it adds liquidity to the markets. If he was trying to answer the subject question as "yes", though, that is clearly an untenable position. "Somebody" out there pwns the total market capitilization, so for zero-sum to be the default position total market cap would have grown with inflation only. Wealth creation is an undeniable fact.
|
|
#93
05-12-2007, 11:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is zero-sum the default economic position?
[ QUOTE ]
If he was trying to answer the subject question as "yes", though, that is clearly an untenable position. [/ QUOTE ] as I said in my earlier post my position is that the economy is positive sum, not zero sum. having thought about it some more, it is likely that billionaires invest in more risky propositions than the average investor because they are more probably more able to take advantage of high risk-high return opportunities such as startups, emerging economies, etc and these investments definitely contribute substantially to economic growth.
|
|
#94
05-12-2007, 11:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is zero-sum the default economic position?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] economy is positive sum righty? you seem billionaire friendly. the majority of the gains from their investments go to ibanks and themselves because most of the time they are transferrig ownership of existing shares with some other rich git and not actually generating increased investment in the company. [/ QUOTE ] I <3 billionaires. I'd easily throw a hundred random poor people off a cliff to save a billionaire's life (assuming that his money was made principally through free market principles). Billionaires do not consume all of their income. That's ridiculous. If they did not constantly reinvest in capital, they would not be billionaires in the first place. Seriously, if they wanted to consume their income, why is Bill Gates still in business? He made enough money to buy enough gold-covered airplanes loaded with hookers and blow for the next three generations; why did he stay in business? Do you really think he's sitting around wondering whether he's financially ready for retirement? Those are the priorities of the poor and middle class; not the rich. Billionaires want to be wealthy, acquire more wealth, and keep growing. They enjoy it. Look how long Warren Buffett stayed in business. When they make money, they reinvest most of it, and everyone else makes money too. [/ QUOTE ] (re)read my post?
|
|
#95
05-12-2007, 11:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is zero-sum the default economic position?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] economy is positive sum righty? you seem billionaire friendly. the majority of the gains from their investments go to ibanks and themselves because most of the time they are transferrig ownership of existing shares with some other rich git and not actually generating increased investment in the company. [/ QUOTE ] I <3 billionaires. I'd easily throw a hundred random poor people off a cliff to save a billionaire's life (assuming that his money was made principally through free market principles). Billionaires do not consume all of their income. That's ridiculous. If they did not constantly reinvest in capital, they would not be billionaires in the first place. Seriously, if they wanted to consume their income, why is Bill Gates still in business? He made enough money to buy enough gold-covered airplanes loaded with hookers and blow for the next three generations; why did he stay in business? Do you really think he's sitting around wondering whether he's financially ready for retirement? Those are the priorities of the poor and middle class; not the rich. Billionaires want to be wealthy, acquire more wealth, and keep growing. They enjoy it. Look how long Warren Buffett stayed in business. When they make money, they reinvest most of it, and everyone else makes money too. [/ QUOTE ] (re)read my post? [/ QUOTE ] I did.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
