reply to post by memarf1
I don't know what has angered you in such a way to cause your name calling, but let me clarify something in a friendly way, since I am neither angry
with you nor arrogant.
Do not mistake a firm rebuke of nonsensical predictions as anger. Let me put this to you in a friendly way, you have no idea what I, or others will
do with their money. Your presumptions are based upon the notion that their money is your business. My parents taught me such presumptions are
I don't doubt that you wish you could invest all of that money, but the reality is that if every millionaire invested $3million into business every
single year to create new businesses, there would be a lot of failed businesses out there.
Do you have any idea how much a modest feature film costs these days? You have no idea of what you are talking about, and it is past rude the
attitude you are taking. If you want to speak of economic factors in a third person way, feel free to, but as long as you keep talking to me as if it
is perfectly fine to tell me what I will do with my money, your rudeness will be responded to the way rude people should be responded to. Don't like
it? Stop telling me what I will do with my money. It is not up to you.
There is only so much money to go around and what you advocate is a perfectly perpetual, closed system, where every dollar is spent from consumer to
firm and back to the consumer where the consumer owns the firm.
You very clearly have no idea what you are saying. I do not - by any stretch of the imagination advocate a closed system. There are members in this
site who are past sick and tired of me constantly pointing out that all closed systems tend towards entropy. I, in fact, advocate a free and open
market, you know, that market system you were dismissing in an earlier post?
Virtually every start-up business fails, and economics models, while excellent guides, are inevitably incorrect on the whole.
First of all, define "virtually". Secondly, the oppressive closed market system the United States functions under today is created by local, state,
and federal governments, all colluding to regulate the market beyond belief. Agreeing to the licensing schemes, and regulatory schemes imposed by
local, state, and federal government is just plain stupid and begs for failure. The good news is that a recent Supreme Court ruling in Bond v United
States is a major game changer and if people are smart, they will use this ruling to tell government to get off their backs and start up businesses
without all this intrusive regulation. There is a reason the black market appeals to many, and that is because it is the closest example of a free
and unregulated market there is.
As for your claim about Rupert Murdoch, yes, he did start FOX successfully. To do it he hired morons like Glenn Beck, who brought an audience of
sheeple, and the network reports almost no news.
This is what I mean by you have no idea what you are talking about, and part of the reason you have no idea is you don't even bother to read the
posts you're responding to. I didn't mention FOX News, I spoke of the FOX Network which is not a cable network, of which my post made clear, but is
a part of the standard broadcast system. Glen Beck has nothing to do with it. You are merely deflecting.
Just for the record, the "Reganomics" is supply side economics, and yes it worked in the 1980's.
Just for the record, this is what I said. Pejoratives used such as "Reganomics" and "Voodoo economics" were terms invented by economists to turn
the public away from embracing supply side economics. You are the one advocating a closed system, not I. Supply side economics works in any era, not
just a single era.
Here's the deal. I made a simple two line response to your question of what a person could do with $10 million that they couldn't do with $6.5
million. In reply to that you wrote several paragraphs attempting to argue that economics is far more complex than simple math and presumed to tell
me what I would do with my money. This puts you firmly in the priest class sect with your mystical incantations that you believe will astound and
astonish the laity. However, even the simple minded understand simplicity, and know when they are being conned.
Trickle down doesn't work as intended now, however.
Trickle down is not supply side economics, and that is precisely the mystical incantation crap I am talking about. This was the bogus sleight of hand
economist pulled when Regan made the trickle down claim, and economists used that claim to link to supply side economics to discredit that which
works. Just goes to show the value of economists.
I have seen these models and they look great on paper, just like almost every other economics model, but when they are implemented problems are
observed that were never predicted b/c economics models cannot account for every variable. Also, it is not "demonstrably an effective method", as
shown by the trickle down policy of every failed stimulus since 2008.
There's that sleight of hand I am talking about, but like an even worse Doug Henning, you're not that good of a magician. It is demonstrably an
effective method, because "trickle down" has nothing to do with it.
Every model has problems and every model has strengths. Furthermore, every model has its day when it will probably work, just like "Reganomics"
worked for a short time and the study of Supply Side economics began and has recently been found to be not so good.
"Recently been found to be not so good" has it? Found by whom? Economists? For anyone else reading that actually might be dazzled by your bad
magic tricks, let me say this: Supply Side Economics means precisely what the name implies. It counters the standard belief that supply should match
demand and not be in excess of demand. To make that clearer, I will stay with the FOX broadcasting network.
When the NFL, a few years back raised their leasing rates, CBS was the primary carrier of the NFL, and had been for years and years. However, when
the NFL wanted more, Larry Tisch was then President of CBS, and his bean counters, (accountants who tend to think much like economists do), told Tisch
that they are not justifying the cost of the NFL at that time. The advertising revenue generated from the NFL games on Sunday was not really
profitable, and Tisch's accountants told him that if he paid the raise in fees he would lose money on the gambit.
So, Tisch passed on the NFL and Murdoch snatched it up. Of course, all the economic talking heads thought Murdoch was insane. The question was, if
CBS couldn't afford the price of the NFL, what made Murdoch who generated far less in advertising revenue than CBS did, think he could afford to pay
that price. Murdoch finally responded to this question and explained that he had what he believed were two really good television shows that were
airing on Sundays that nobody was watching. He gambled that if he bought the NFL contract that this would bring new viewers to his new upstart
network that everyone else kept insisting would fail. What he predicted was that if these new viewers did come, they would stay with the network
after the games and watch the two shows he was talking about.
Those two shows were The Simpsons, and The X-Files. Murdoch was right, and while there was demonstrably no demand for those shows, he created a
demand for them. That is supply side economics. Creating a demand for a product not in demand.
So, before you go spouting off about me being arrogant, please do your homework, and please refrain from name calling.
You're as arrogant as they come, my friend. Your biggest arrogance is your belief that you can dazzle people with bull puckey. Some can, you
aren't doing so well with that.