what would it be like if the Elite weren't hoarding money?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Prison







Single family home







Middle Class home







Upper Class home






What is the purpose of a financial penalty.
I suggest that it is to teach a lesson.

What are we learning, then, in these economic times?


David Grouchy




posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
There wouldn't be any starving people...
We'd only need to work 6 hours a day max.
The standard of living would sky rocket, just like your pictures depict.
A quote by Dostoevsky:
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
edit on 30-8-2011 by Ghost375 because: D. Quote



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 




uh.. economics says you are wrong...
Furthermore, the picture with the helicopter is of my friends uncle's house.. not that it matters but still



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaiuk

uh.. economics says you are wrong...


Hi,
I started the thread.
Could this sentence be unpacked a little bit.

I'm actually interested in what the implications are.

Thanks!


David Grouchy



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaiuk
 


And who writes the textbooks? Oh, that's right, it's the financial elite.
Don't fall for their BS.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
wymar republic
zimbabwe
im sure you can find more instances.

the bailouts alone would crush us if they put that money back into the system



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

And who writes the textbooks? Oh, that's right, it's the financial elite.
Don't fall for their BS.


Don't be too quick to condemn.

The poster may actually have a point to make.
Let's just hope they come back and make it,
and it wasn't a drive by comment.


David Grouchy
edit on 30-8-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Sigh... really now?

The elite so called hoarding money has the effect of improving the value that each dollar can buy. If they dumped all of their money into the system, it would effectively decrease the Purchasing Power Parrody of each dollar. I know this is fact, because i have seen "simulations" of it done before. This hoarding of wealth has happened in video games before. Usually unlike the real world, players in video games will quit eventually. Sometimes, the uber rich chose to delete their accounts with all money still in the bank if you will. This deflated the economy. However, when the players effectively gave away their massive sums of cash, it meant that it cost more to buy basic items in game while the "salaries" of players (money they got from directly interacting with the game) remained the same, making each dollar worth less.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Venomilk
wymar republic
zimbabwe
im sure you can find more instances.

the bailouts alone would crush us if they put that money back into the system



Wait ... what?

We're "sure we can find more instances" of what exactly?

The bailouts alone would crush _who_ if that money was put back into what _system_?


David Grouchy



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaiuk

The elite so called hoarding money has the effect of improving the value that each dollar can buy.



I see.
I was hoping that's what was being implied.
Yes, I agree.

Trillions of dollars, if never spent, in no way add to inflation.

Myself,
I am disappointed that the "system" was unable
to bring more people to a higher standard of living,
and now seems to be comming apart at the seams.


David Grouchy



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


My point was, hoarding money effectively takes it out of circulation.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaiuk
 


It's not that they're just hoarding money, it's that they are hoarding resources and other physical assets.
there's no reason someone needs 100 sports cars, or a dozen mansions. Not only does no one need that many things, no one deserves that much.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


What do you mean deserves? They earned their money they get to spend it. Thats how the game works.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
and my point was the same as his. if everyone has 5 billion dollars, its prolly 2.5 million for an egg. 10 million for a box of cereal.

its essentially being under the barrel of a gun that they can fire whenever they come together and decide to spend, but i think we are going the whole "global currency" route, personally



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaiuk
 


Ever played the game Monopoly. It's exactly how the real world works. Once you get lucky and get Boardwalk and Park Place, you just have to sit back and do nothing. You are no longer earning money. You're basically stealing it.
Those who do great things for society, no doubt deserve more. But they didn't do that much for society that they deserve THAT MUCH more.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
This thread looks familiar grouchy is it a repeat?

What happens when rich people stop hoarding money? What happens when a poor person wins the lottery...


People, buy, buy, buy....

Just because the money supply increases doesn't mean the resource supply increases. Economics is far more complicated than a few people holding onto money so other's don't have it.

People are lazy, unproductive and generally useless. Bureaucratic idiocies have potentially useful people spending a full work day signing papers or making peoples' lives more complicated.....

That is a bigger problem, IMO.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Venomilk
and my point was the same as his. if everyone has 5 billion dollars, its prolly 2.5 million for an egg. 10 million for a box of cereal.

its essentially being under the barrel of a gun that they can fire whenever they come together and decide to spend, but i think we are going the whole "global currency" route, personally


The more I read these four sentences,
the more disturbing they become.

As far as unvarnished truth goes,
this pill seems too big for me to swallow.

So much grinding poverty.


David Grouchy



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaiuk
 


Maybe the better question is would life be better if we didn't have to play the "game"? Or would it be better if everyone had to play "the game" by the same rules?

Grouchy(op) is dead on. There exist a definitive amount of wealth in this world. More wealth cannot be created without creating more money or inflating the value of assets. Since every unit of money created is accompanied by an offsetting unit of debt, there cannot mathematically be any real increase in wealth. Thus every dollar squirreled away by the elite means one less dollar of wealth that can be attained by the other 99.9% of the population.

The answer is a progressive tax on wealth which insures most of the wealth accumulated in a lifetime is returned back to the system over time. Done right this could eliminate the income tax alltogether.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

What happens when rich people stop hoarding money? What happens when a poor person wins the lottery...


People, buy, buy, buy....



Actually I think the lottery was invented to embarrass poor poeple in the eyes of the rich.

The stats are in, and it's conclusive.
90% (I think, can't remember) of poeple who win the lottery
are worse off in ten/twenty years than before they won it.

They have aquired expensive tastes, but are now broke.

As opposed to actually having a financial manager come with the winnings,
the money is just dumped on them.

This way the rich can say to each other,
"see! You see what happens when we give them money!?"

I find the example of the lottery to be disingenuous,
and a dangerous bit of propaganda.
It is designed to fail.


David Grouchy

edit on 30-8-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Just because the money supply increases doesn't mean the resource supply increases. Economics is far more complicated than a few people holding onto money so other's don't have it.

People are lazy, unproductive and generally useless. Bureaucratic idiocies have potentially useful people spending a full work day signing papers or making peoples' lives more complicated.....

That is a bigger problem, IMO.



I agree completely Boncho.

It almost seems like the lesson of big money is that
now they get to tell us what to do.
And the bureaucracy is there to help make sure the message is non-negotiable.


David Grouchy





top topics
 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join