US Economics Simplified: 'Barstool Economics'

[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
Perhaps you should take a lesson from the “Civility in debating” thread. I’m not here to personally attack anyone. I was citing facts based on economic data, not making any normative statements. [/quote]

I have been here since 2003. If you don’t like the way I post, then don’t engage me.

But, something that was left off your comparison is the number of people who started small businesses, and are no longer “wage earners”. I am one of them.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Wait, if that is the American economy, where is the Chinese guy that lends them the money to consume Chinese beer?

And then some dipshit comes in, orders a beer, and wants to pay for it in gold. He promptly gets the shit kicked out him and his gold stolen.

Pretty shitty analogy but if the Chinese are invited, we might as well include the gold standard freaks. [/quote]

That does not really work because with a gold currency the Americans could not borrow so much from the Chinese.

It is either the Chinese or the gold guy.

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Wait, if that is the American economy, where is the Chinese guy that lends them the money to consume Chinese beer?

And then some dipshit comes in, orders a beer, and wants to pay for it in gold. He promptly gets the shit kicked out him and his gold stolen.

Pretty shitty analogy but if the Chinese are invited, we might as well include the gold standard freaks.

That does not really work because with a gold currency the Americans could not borrow so much from the Chinese.

It is either the Chinese or the gold guy.

[/quote]

You have to get back to the gold standard, first. You can’t just blink your eyes, or click your heels together three times and have us all back on valuing everything on a rock we dig out of the ground.

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
You guys are essentially saying the same thing in different ways.
[/quote]

Not really. I choose not to blame poor people for their own poverty especially when I can see an other cause.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:
You guys are essentially saying the same thing in different ways.

Not really. I choose not to blame poor people for their own poverty especially when I can see an other cause.[/quote]

Ignorance… laziness

Tomato… tomahto

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:
You guys are essentially saying the same thing in different ways.

Not really. I choose not to blame poor people for their own poverty especially when I can see an other cause.[/quote]

Poor people who remain poor are their own enemies. Call it laziness, ignorance, fear - whatever you want. The fact remains that the vast majority of people who remain poor do so by choice, not force.

Call him a socialist if you want, but Warren Buffett had this to say about his fellow billionaires:

"They have this idea that it?s ?their money? and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don?t factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do. Take me as an example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital.

But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I?d been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can?t run very fast. I?m not particularly strong.

I?d probably end up as some wild animal?s dinner. But I was lucky enough to be born into a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing?and make a lot of money doing it. The least I can do is help pay for all that."

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Call him a socialist if you want, but Warren Buffett had this to say about his fellow billionaires:

"They have this idea that it?s ?their money? and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don?t factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do. Take me as an example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital.

But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I?d been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can?t run very fast. I?m not particularly strong. I?d probably end up as some wild animal?s dinner.

But I was lucky enough to be born into a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing?and make a lot of money doing it. The least I can do is help pay for all that."[/quote]

Good for Warren. He makes over $45 million a year.

Those on the left, and those hands jutted out in expectation of a handout may think he is representative of the top quintile, but anyone with a functioning brain knows this is just not true.

If he feels he owes more than the taxes he pays, he is free to give whatever amount he wants to the government.

I am no Buffett, but if I were, I would think I knew better where to put my money to do the most good. I don’t think giving the crack whore of a bureaucracy we have in Washington a single dime is a very smart way to spend my money.

Are you suggesting we should all follow lock step behind a New Deal Democrat depression baby?

[quote]oneforship wrote:
Really simplified version ‘weightroom economics’:

You work hard 5 days a week to pack on lbs of muscle in order to achieve your ideal physique, and be satisfied when you look in the mirror.

Then, Obama gets elected.

Suddenly, you have to give away 1-2lbs of muscle a month to the rest of the skinny gym goers who just want “hawt abz,” because it would be unfair for you to have all of the muscle, and some people to not have as much or any muscle.

Who would continue to work hard 5 days a week in this situation?[/quote]

Lmao

[quote]oneforship wrote:
Really simplified version ‘weightroom economics’:

You work hard 5 days a week to pack on lbs of muscle in order to achieve your ideal physique, and be satisfied when you look in the mirror.

Then, Obama gets elected.

Suddenly, you have to give away 1-2lbs of muscle a month to the rest of the skinny gym goers who just want “hawt abz,” because it would be unfair for you to have all of the muscle, and some people to not have as much or any muscle.

Who would continue to work hard 5 days a week in this situation?[/quote]

If they can tax me 3% bf% then I’ll turn socialist in 3 seconds flat.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
According to this site, there are a lot (A LOT) of poor people who think that the money the rich guy is making should be theirs, and have no problem supporting a presidential candidate who will help them even things out.

The poor want to be rich without working for it. What can we do to help?[/quote]

It’s not that simple.

I’m not a big fan of taxes, nor of giving people money so they can sit on their asses.

But there are abuses at the other end of the scale too. Billionaires CEOs who do very little to improve - or sometimes just maintain - their company; “gaming” the system so they can dump their stock options and pad their coffers, then leave with a golden parachute after putting some company or another in jeopardy, endangering the livelyhood of all it’s workers (along with their pension and health care benefits).

Look at GM. How could no one in the company foresee the rising oil prices? Who thought it would be a good idea to bet the future on pick-ups and SUV? Why are they playing catch-up on hybrid technology when they had the EV1 years ago (before they went and killed it). I’m sure none of the CEOs or high-level executives will feel any pain if GM goes bankrupt (which it won’t, since the govt. will throw money at it to save it.)

How is it any better that your tax dollars go to reward incompetence and lazyness at the high financial level instead of directly to some single mom on welfare? If anything, it almost encourages large multinationals to be reckless and short-sighted (as long as profits roll in short-term) because they know that if some unexpected downturns hit them, the taxpayers will foot the bill of the rescue.

[quote]oneforship wrote:
Really simplified version ‘weightroom economics’:

You work hard 5 days a week to pack on lbs of muscle in order to achieve your ideal physique, and be satisfied when you look in the mirror.

Then, Obama gets elected.

Suddenly, you have to give away 1-2lbs of muscle a month to the rest of the skinny gym goers who just want “hawt abz,” because it would be unfair for you to have all of the muscle, and some people to not have as much or any muscle.

Who would continue to work hard 5 days a week in this situation?[/quote]

I love this website. I really don’t care if this makes any sense or not. Great post.

Everyone can come up with all kinds of scenerios to make big business look like the bad guy & im sure that there are lots of CEO’s & multi-millionaires who are ruthless and generally not the nicest people in the world. What people need to realize is that the basics of it is this, as long as its done within the confines of the law, they have the right to do with their money whatever the hell they want.

No one has the right to tell them the correct way to re-invest in or spend their money on. No one. QUIT HATING ON THE BIG DOGGS & DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO BECOME ONE OF THEM. THIS IS THE USA & STILL THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITIES SO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM. IF NOT STFU!!

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Call him a socialist if you want, but Warren Buffett had this to say about his fellow billionaires:

"They have this idea that it?s ?their money? and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don?t factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do. Take me as an example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital.

But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I?d been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can?t run very fast. I?m not particularly strong.

I?d probably end up as some wild animal?s dinner. But I was lucky enough to be born into a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing?and make a lot of money doing it. The least I can do is help pay for all that."[/quote]

Respect Buffett for what he is: a brilliant investor, master microeconomist, and dedicated businessmen; but recognize that he is not an expert on government, sociology, or even capitalism.

He has unbelievable skills at using capitalism to his personal advantage, but he has made clear multiple times that he does not understand that capitalism is intrinsic to human nature. For this reason he is no different than someone like Oprah. He is such an expert in his field that he has been put on a soapbox and deemed an expert on all things financial, whether they be on a micro or macro scale and whether they have deep sociological implications or not.

If Buffett wanted to give me advice as to where to invest my dollar, I would take it in a heartbeat, but when he starts to suggest where a government should invest its dollars and where it should get its dollars, he steps out of his realm of expertise.

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
According to this site, there are a lot (A LOT) of poor people who think that the money the rich guy is making should be theirs, and have no problem supporting a presidential candidate who will help them even things out.

The poor want to be rich without working for it. What can we do to help?

It’s not that simple.

I’m not a big fan of taxes, nor of giving people money so they can sit on their asses.

But there are abuses at the other end of the scale too. Billionaires CEOs who do very little to improve - or sometimes just maintain - their company; “gaming” the system so they can dump their stock options and pad their coffers, then leave with a golden parachute after putting some company or another in jeopardy, endangering the livelyhood of all it’s workers (along with their pension and health care benefits).

Look at GM. How could no one in the company foresee the rising oil prices? Who thought it would be a good idea to bet the future on pick-ups and SUV? Why are they playing catch-up on hybrid technology when they had the EV1 years ago (before they went and killed it). I’m sure none of the CEOs or high-level executives will feel any pain if GM goes bankrupt (which it won’t, since the govt. will throw money at it to save it.)

How is it any better that your tax dollars go to reward incompetence and lazyness at the high financial level instead of directly to some single mom on welfare? If anything, it almost encourages large multinationals to be reckless and short-sighted (as long as profits roll in short-term) because they know that if some unexpected downturns hit them, the taxpayers will foot the bill of the rescue.
[/quote]

Bad business is bad business.

GM has little place in this discussion. There are 10 honest, profitable businesses for every GM.

But - what does GM have to do with the notion that the government should take from the rich to reward the poor for being poor?

All the talk of golden parachutes, and ungodly exec salaries whould be in a separate discussion.

There will be a shit ton more honest hardworking people hurt by the punitive taxes than the corrupt rich ones you want to go after.

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
According to this site, there are a lot (A LOT) of poor people who think that the money the rich guy is making should be theirs, and have no problem supporting a presidential candidate who will help them even things out.

The poor want to be rich without working for it. What can we do to help?

It’s not that simple.

I’m not a big fan of taxes, nor of giving people money so they can sit on their asses.

But there are abuses at the other end of the scale too. Billionaires CEOs who do very little to improve - or sometimes just maintain - their company; “gaming” the system so they can dump their stock options and pad their coffers, then leave with a golden parachute after putting some company or another in jeopardy, endangering the livelyhood of all it’s workers (along with their pension and health care benefits).

Look at GM. How could no one in the company foresee the rising oil prices? Who thought it would be a good idea to bet the future on pick-ups and SUV? Why are they playing catch-up on hybrid technology when they had the EV1 years ago (before they went and killed it). I’m sure none of the CEOs or high-level executives will feel any pain if GM goes bankrupt (which it won’t, since the govt. will throw money at it to save it.)

How is it any better that your tax dollars go to reward incompetence and lazyness at the high financial level instead of directly to some single mom on welfare? If anything, it almost encourages large multinationals to be reckless and short-sighted (as long as profits roll in short-term) because they know that if some unexpected downturns hit them, the taxpayers will foot the bill of the rescue.
[/quote]

The system cannot be “gamed” without the active involvement of the government.

Yes, look at GM. Look at the American auto industry. It’s subsidized…by who? You guessed it.

There is NO such thing as “gaming the system” in a truly free market. Incompetence and short-sighted greed are PUNISHED by the free market, but rewarded by government.

End all government regulation and all subsidies to domestic industries. Then, and only then, will you solve the “corporate greed” problems.