im only a bit into this but, this is asserting that poor people are created by banks and the fed. Long before the concept of the fed, or even banks, there were poor people. there will always be poor peope if there is a central bank or not.
...now, like i said, im only a moment into this so i could be wrong on what they are pointing out... well see.
ok... so, they were saying htat money is a form of slavery. as in, we go into debt. to pay off that debt we have to work. therefore money is evil.
i look at it in a very different way. I work to get money because money can get me stuff. i do create debt of my own. this keeps me from quitting my job. I do great things at my job and it enriches lives of others. therefore, money is good because it promotes me to good things so i can get more of it. it promotes me and others to improve my own quality of life through hard work and create the things that make life more comfortable and better for those world wide. therefore money is good.
again, im only so far in... maybe i havent hit the point of the film yet
im sorry, i just cant agree with this conspiracy film. maybe some of the facts and theories are good but there are several points that are pure conjecture or are opinion. I dont want to get to far into it. im just not in the mood.
thanks for the link though. its good to make people think.
ok... so, they were saying htat money is a form of slavery. as in, we go into debt. to pay off that debt we have to work. therefore money is evil.
i look at it in a very different way. I work to get money because money can get me stuff. i do create debt of my own. this keeps me from quitting my job. I do great things at my job and it enriches lives of others. therefore, money is good because it promotes me to good things so i can get more of it. it promotes me and others to improve my own quality of life through hard work and create the things that make life more comfortable and better for those world wide. therefore money is good.
again, im only so far in... maybe i havent hit the point of the film yet
I think that money is a necessity in this way of life we are in, but I do think that are society pushes us into a pattern of debt. We are in a society that counts worth by how much you own and what you have, not on your character or what you do with your life. Money/power, witch are the same in are society, also creates a class dived witch is not a good thing.
When we look at a poor family in Guatemala we think that they have a bad life because they have no money, but I have stayed with poor family's Guatemala and they have more worth and substance to their life then 99% of the people in the USA. They live life for them self's and there family not for the people they don't know around them trying to tell them how to live.
Money/power, witch are the same in are society, also creates a class dived witch is not a good thing.
iduno... i mean those richer people buy food at my Applebees (also owned by rich people) this enables me to start gaining monetary value, and depending on how i use/invest/spend that money will eventually lead to real wealth. so in a way, i want more rich people because they will help me get rich myself by spending their money, thus giving it to me. ...two groups of people with money, one spending it, one owning my place of work, enable me to become more wealthy. I like those people with money.
iduno... i mean those richer people buy food at my Applebees (also owned by rich people) this enables me to start gaining monetary value, and depending on how i use/invest/spend that money will eventually lead to real wealth. so in a way, i want more rich people because they will help me get rich myself by spending their money, thus giving it to me. ...two groups of people with money, one spending it, one owning my place of work, enable me to become more wealthy. I like those people with money.
iduno... i mean those richer people buy food at my Applebees (also owned by rich people) this enables me to start gaining monetary value, and depending on how i use/invest/spend that money will eventually lead to real wealth. so in a way, i want more rich people because they will help me get rich myself by spending their money, thus giving it to me. ...two groups of people with money, one spending it, one owning my place of work, enable me to become more wealthy. I like those people with money.
If you want to be exact about it, its not trickle up or trickle down... It's a cycle, we pay money for goods and services, this money filters UP to the rich, the rich do take their cut, but then they have to pay utilities, salaries, pay for things they need to make their products or carry out their services and through that the money trickles back down to the workers. Then they go out and take the money the took and spend it on things they want and need like cars, airplanes, houses, and everything else. It's a cycle, like a big circle, it trickles down and shoots back up, so cutting taxes for anyone will help improve the economy. In return raising taxes on ANYONE will hurt EVERYONE.
That's not my understanding of trickle-down economics. My understand is that the theory is not about consumption by the rich, but investment. That is, tax cuts for the rich leads them to make bigger investments in the companies they own or hold stock in; those companies grow; this, then leads to a better economic picture for everyone else as jobs are created and pay rates go up.
What we've seen in recent decades, however, when this has been tried, is that the rich tend to take the money and invest it elsewhere, use it to move their companies overseas, or just keep the money (and/or use it to buy high-ticket goods, which provides only a very short and small benefit to anyone else).
That's why we've seen the wealth of the richest few percent of the population increase rapidly, while middle- and working-class wealth stagnates or even declines. It's why the gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else is larger now than it's been since the Gilded Age. The wealth hasn't trickled down, because the wealthy haven't used the extra money the way the trickle-down theory says they would.
If you want to be exact about it, its not trickle up or trickle down... It's a cycle, we pay money for goods and services, this money filters UP to the rich, the rich do take their cut, but then they have to pay utilities, salaries, pay for things they need to make their products or carry out their services and through that the money trickles back down to the workers. Then they go out and take the money the took and spend it on things they want and need like cars, airplanes, houses, and everything else. It's a cycle, like a big circle, it trickles down and shoots back up, so cutting taxes for anyone will help improve the economy. In return raising taxes on ANYONE will hurt EVERYONE.
yes. Taxes make the movement of money more expensive. when something is more expensive there is less of it. more taxes = less movement of money.
trickle down and trickle up... whatever. both exist. and it is not impossable to move up in the world. i already have. believe it or not, just a few short years ago i was unemployed, squatting at a friends crappy appartment living off of BB&J and canned pasta. that is hardly the high life. Now i own a house in a nice neighborhood, have a steady job, have two nice cars and i have a decent amount of savings. I dont want to go too in depth of what my household income is but, i am part of that small percentage that pays most of the taxes in the US.
I dont believe in the "class envy" BS. with a little hard work and some good investing/spending anyone can have wealth.
That's not my understanding of trickle-down economics. My understand is that the theory is not about consumption by the rich, but investment. That is, tax cuts for the rich leads them to make bigger investments in the companies they own or hold stock in; those companies grow; this, then leads to a better economic picture for everyone else as jobs are created and pay rates go up.
What we've seen in recent decades, however, when this has been tried, is that the rich tend to take the money and invest it elsewhere, use it to move their companies overseas, or just keep the money (and/or use it to buy high-ticket goods, which provides only a very short and small benefit to anyone else).
That's why we've seen the wealth of the richest few percent of the population increase rapidly, while middle- and working-class wealth stagnates or even declines. It's why the gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else is larger now than it's been since the Gilded Age. The wealth hasn't trickled down, because the wealthy haven't used the extra money the way the trickle-down theory says they would.
If you ever need to borrow $20... You'd be much better off asking a poor man... The rich man didn't get rich by handing out money...
That's not my understanding of trickle-down economics. My understand is that the theory is not about consumption by the rich, but investment. That is, tax cuts for the rich leads them to make bigger investments in the companies they own or hold stock in; those companies grow; this, then leads to a better economic picture for everyone else as jobs are created and pay rates go up.
What we've seen in recent decades, however, when this has been tried, is that the rich tend to take the money and invest it elsewhere, use it to move their companies overseas, or just keep the money (and/or use it to buy high-ticket goods, which provides only a very short and small benefit to anyone else).
That's why we've seen the wealth of the richest few percent of the population increase rapidly, while middle- and working-class wealth stagnates or even declines. It's why the gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else is larger now than it's been since the Gilded Age. The wealth hasn't trickled down, because the wealthy haven't used the extra money the way the trickle-down theory says they would.
I was trying to figure out how I was going to describe my feelings about what is wrong with the theory and then I read your post. That is almost the same way I see it and feel.
Somebody please drop a nuke on Capital Hill. Please.
And yet... Those same lawmakers who were so "pissed off" at AIG's carelessness are turning around and giving them yet another 37.8B on top of the 85B they already gave...
bailout schmailout...lower interest rates...ha...and the dow is down ANOTHER 675+. All the gov't said was that they don't trust our economy, the consumers, the markets or even the basic capital fundimentals. Although I'm sure a few of the pols wanted it to happen so they can make progress towards Socialism. And now they want to take over banks including the ones that are doing well. Mutiny, revolution, riots whatever has to happen to get us back on tract with our CONSTITUTION and be the Republic that we are supposed to be with a strong capitalist economy that we have always thrived in. Our econ is resilient as long as the GOV'T stays out of it. Vote out all the Pols that voted for this FAILOUT!
bailout schmailout...lower interest rates...ha...and the dow is down ANOTHER 675+. All the gov't said was that they don't trust our economy, the consumers, the markets or even the basic capital fundimentals. Although I'm sure a few of the pols wanted it to happen so they can make progress towards Socialism. And now they want to take over banks including the ones that are doing well. Mutiny, revolution, riots whatever has to happen to get us back on tract with our CONSTITUTION and be the Republic that we are supposed to be with a strong capitalist economy that we have always thrived in. Our econ is resilient as long as the GOV'T stays out of it. Vote out all the Pols that voted for this FAILOUT!
I'm always itching to talk about this type of stuff...so to be able to discuss it on here helps to get it off my chest b/c some people just don't want to talk this stuff at all.
So the headline on Foxnews.com is Paulson is releasing details on a New Bailout Plan. WTF...WTF! No really...WTF! Another one...for what...like the first one was so great. All it did was jock things up even more than it was. All these people with higher degrees are clueless. Let the market do what the market does. Another Failout bill would just add to the lack of confidence that this is showing. These people kill me...WTF...
yes. Taxes make the movement of money more expensive. when something is more expensive there is less of it. more taxes = less movement of money.
Very true...great way to explain it...great line.
kuzi16:
trickle down and trickle up... whatever. both exist. and it is not impossable to move up in the world. i already have. believe it or not, just a few short years ago i was unemployed, squatting at a friends crappy appartment living off of BB&J and canned pasta. that is hardly the high life. Now i own a house in a nice neighborhood, have a steady job, have two nice cars and i have a decent amount of savings. I dont want to go too in depth of what my household income is but, i am part of that small percentage that pays most of the taxes in the US.
I dont believe in the "class envy" BS. with a little hard work and some good investing/spending anyone can have wealth.
oh... and i dont have a degree either.
AND in OHIO. They say it is so bad there and it is to a point...but if you work hard enough you can get through tough times.
Alright, I've been silent on this for a while... now you're gonna have to get another dose.
There are still several things which need to be fixed with respect to wealth. For starters, our current system promotes the concept of "fiscal momentum" in such a way that it becomes very difficult to make money unless you have money. I know there are exceptions to this, but that's like making an argument that Major League Baseball is an equitable system.
When our nation was younger, there were many opportunities for small, start-up businesses. These opportunities still exist, but as time goes on, it is easy for large corporations to use their fiscal momentum to devour small competition. Also, the patent and copyright laws in this country have gotten out of hand. Copyrights are extended indefinitely by being assigned to corporations and subsequently renewed. Drug patents have actually created an environment of limited research rather than expanded research.
The tax system needs a major overhaul. Republicans like to point out the inherent unfairness of a progressive tax. I have no strong objections to a progressive tax, but I would consider a flat tax more fair. However, along the same lines, I think it's too easy for the extremely wealthy in our country to hide behind corporations and end up paying significantly less tax. This is what needs to be fixed.
For example, my wife set up a couple of businesses for herself, which don't make much money. But this has allowed us to reduce our personal travel expenses by finding business-related activities to take up a small portion of our trip. Also, we've been able to write off a home office, which includes full furnishings, a portion of our mortgage payment, utilities, etc. We sell ourselves business items for personal use. We purchase items at significant discounts through the business. We have been able to shave many thousands of dollars from our annual tax outlay just by setting up businesses.
My wife's parents have owned a much larger business for a much longer period of time. The extent of their tax savings, and their opportunities to save, are increased substantially. Take that even further to executives in large corporations, who put most of their travel on the company dime (AIG, anyone?). These vacations cut into the "profit" of these corporations, and reduce their taxes. They aren't reported as income to the executives, so they aren't taxed. You've got free meals, transportation, travel, lodging, entertainment (golf, shows, cigars, etc) all in addition to a large salary. There are even several instances where people with excessive income pay little to no tax, and far less than someone with a family income of $100K.
So the wealthy continue to complain about the fact that they are liable for a huge tax bill, but their real compensation far exceeds their taxable income. In my opinion, this is what needs to be fixed. If that can be done, the need for a progressive tax would be greatly reduced, if not completely eliminated.
Comments
Long before the concept of the fed, or even banks, there were poor people. there will always be poor peope if there is a central bank or not.
...now, like i said, im only a moment into this so i could be wrong on what they are pointing out... well see.
i look at it in a very different way. I work to get money because money can get me stuff. i do create debt of my own. this keeps me from quitting my job. I do great things at my job and it enriches lives of others. therefore, money is good because it promotes me to good things so i can get more of it. it promotes me and others to improve my own quality of life through hard work and create the things that make life more comfortable and better for those world wide. therefore money is good.
again, im only so far in... maybe i havent hit the point of the film yet
thanks for the link though. its good to make people think.
When we look at a poor family in Guatemala we think that they have a bad life because they have no money, but I have stayed with poor family's Guatemala and they have more worth and substance to their life then 99% of the people in the USA. They live life for them self's and there family not for the people they don't know around them trying to tell them how to live.
...two groups of people with money, one spending it, one owning my place of work, enable me to become more wealthy.
I like those people with money.
Somebody please drop a nuke on Capital Hill. Please.
What we've seen in recent decades, however, when this has been tried, is that the rich tend to take the money and invest it elsewhere, use it to move their companies overseas, or just keep the money (and/or use it to buy high-ticket goods, which provides only a very short and small benefit to anyone else).
That's why we've seen the wealth of the richest few percent of the population increase rapidly, while middle- and working-class wealth stagnates or even declines. It's why the gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else is larger now than it's been since the Gilded Age. The wealth hasn't trickled down, because the wealthy haven't used the extra money the way the trickle-down theory says they would.
trickle down and trickle up... whatever. both exist. and it is not impossable to move up in the world. i already have. believe it or not, just a few short years ago i was unemployed, squatting at a friends crappy appartment living off of BB&J and canned pasta. that is hardly the high life. Now i own a house in a nice neighborhood, have a steady job, have two nice cars and i have a decent amount of savings. I dont want to go too in depth of what my household income is but, i am part of that small percentage that pays most of the taxes in the US.
I dont believe in the "class envy" BS. with a little hard work and some good investing/spending anyone can have wealth.
oh... and i dont have a degree either.
yes
that is all.
I find that it is difficult even to discuss in the limited time I can talk to co-workers during the day.
only the strong will survive
economic Darwinism.
AND in OHIO. They say it is so bad there and it is to a point...but if you work hard enough you can get through tough times.
There are still several things which need to be fixed with respect to wealth. For starters, our current system promotes the concept of "fiscal momentum" in such a way that it becomes very difficult to make money unless you have money. I know there are exceptions to this, but that's like making an argument that Major League Baseball is an equitable system.
When our nation was younger, there were many opportunities for small, start-up businesses. These opportunities still exist, but as time goes on, it is easy for large corporations to use their fiscal momentum to devour small competition. Also, the patent and copyright laws in this country have gotten out of hand. Copyrights are extended indefinitely by being assigned to corporations and subsequently renewed. Drug patents have actually created an environment of limited research rather than expanded research.
The tax system needs a major overhaul. Republicans like to point out the inherent unfairness of a progressive tax. I have no strong objections to a progressive tax, but I would consider a flat tax more fair. However, along the same lines, I think it's too easy for the extremely wealthy in our country to hide behind corporations and end up paying significantly less tax. This is what needs to be fixed.
For example, my wife set up a couple of businesses for herself, which don't make much money. But this has allowed us to reduce our personal travel expenses by finding business-related activities to take up a small portion of our trip. Also, we've been able to write off a home office, which includes full furnishings, a portion of our mortgage payment, utilities, etc. We sell ourselves business items for personal use. We purchase items at significant discounts through the business. We have been able to shave many thousands of dollars from our annual tax outlay just by setting up businesses.
My wife's parents have owned a much larger business for a much longer period of time. The extent of their tax savings, and their opportunities to save, are increased substantially. Take that even further to executives in large corporations, who put most of their travel on the company dime (AIG, anyone?). These vacations cut into the "profit" of these corporations, and reduce their taxes. They aren't reported as income to the executives, so they aren't taxed. You've got free meals, transportation, travel, lodging, entertainment (golf, shows, cigars, etc) all in addition to a large salary. There are even several instances where people with excessive income pay little to no tax, and far less than someone with a family income of $100K.
So the wealthy continue to complain about the fact that they are liable for a huge tax bill, but their real compensation far exceeds their taxable income. In my opinion, this is what needs to be fixed. If that can be done, the need for a progressive tax would be greatly reduced, if not completely eliminated.