The fetishization of the rich ITT is, ah, remarkable.

I think DS is saying the super rich heard about the quote (from the late Chip Reese's father?) "you can shear a sheep many times, but skin it only once"



baaaaaaaa aa aaa aa a aaaaa

The super rich would invest an incredible amount of money but the current government has created an environment of uncertainty that offers at best a severe disincentive to invest. We could go into how the uncertainty is being created in detail but I'll start off with a few things that need to change:

1) The government is picking winners and losers. No reason to bail out Merril Lynch and say sayonara to Lehman as one example. Just look at the silliness going on with Citi right now. Who knows what the government is going to bailout and what it is not going to bailout. Who know how much money the bailouts will cost.

2) The government's threat to raise taxes especially capital gains taxes. Of course risk vs. reward is the main consideration in determining whether or not an investment is profitable. If taxes are raised otherwise marginally profitable investments become unprofitable. Impossible to determine for certain if investments are profitable given the threat to raise taxes.

3) The increased government spending will have little effect on GDP in the short term and a negative effect on GDP growth in the long term. With a seemingly unwavering determination to increase government spending, the private sector will find less reasons to make investments in the economy.


Prices are low and thus IMO the private sector would normally be willing to make plenty of investments in the economy given the low prices. Government intervention IMO is a disincentive to that investment.

As far as super rich collecting $1 trillion to hold off the lynch mobs. I'd be more willing to believe that the super rich would spend $1 trillion on a private army to defend themselves from the lynch mobs. Could hire a hell of a lot of people that way.

You're missing that DS is talking about the super-rich spending ~$100 BB, not $1T. That's less than 50 stealth bombers.

No I got it, thinking that since $1T wasn't that much pooled together it would be well worth it to hire an army in the long run but I'll change it to $100 BB to hire the army. Perhaps $50 billion for weapons and ammo and $50 billion for personel.

lol hasn't the government already spent nearly $1T? If that hasn't worked what is another $100B pissed down the moneyhole gonna do?

I have a new plan that I came up with while reading this thread: the government should just give a couple of trillion to the super-rich, and they will naturally "put it to productive use in the market". All our problems will be solved.

That's what they're already doing in the form of these financial bailouts. Any time you use force to reallocate money you distort incentives and screw things up, any time you don't money is used productively.

This would only work if they gave it to the CORRECT rich guys. Its kind of like electing the CORRECT rulers. Except different in that there is a very excellent system of selecting the correct ones in this case, a system with a fantastic track record.

Absolutely! Mittal, the Ambandis, Bettencourt, the Kwoks, the Waltons, David Thompson.....how could one argue with the reasons the "system" selected them??

You can mock the role of the private sector in the economy if you want but guess where tax revenues are going to come from. Yeah with the number of jobs in the private sector is declining guess what happens to tax revenues. We'll see how many jobs the Obama spending bill generates in the private sector.

Proof the system works amirite?

If you think I am doing this, you are wrong.

Then what are you doing besides trying to be clever without actually making an argument?

I am doing multiple things, but primarily exploring whether people are serious with this fetishization of the spending of the super-rich versus everyone else. Apparently, some are.

No. I myself am too rich for that. And I have a decent chance of attaining wealth just short of the figure where I think one should contribute. I do feel slightly annoyed at people who are rich solely because they are doubly lucky to be in a capitalist country and happen to have a specific, non mathematical talent, that parlays into undeserved wealth.

By the way, unlike Bill Maher, I was only predicting, not suggesting. Also Maher himself distinguished between those super wealthy who were contributing greatly and those who were mainly saving or spending extravagently. Furthermore, my prediction was partially based on the fact he utterred those words on TV. The idea might be picked up by the media.

Finally you are taking my guillotine remark too literally. Along with my trillion dollar figure. It might be a lessor amount. I just think that we very well may start hearing stories of super wealthy trying to nip things in the bud by appearing to be trying to help. In groups or indidually. Some guy might say he will pay 30% of the mortgage payment of everyone struggling in his small hometown (with the stipuilation he gets paid back with interest if they sell their house at a big enough profit). Stuff like that.

How do you determine who deserves to be wealthy? Presumably these people are providing/selling some service that society values? Especially when you compare them to professional gamblers who it would be easy to argue are providing no service to society unless there is value in "parting a fool from his money" or whatever the quote is.

Lol sweet coincidence.

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL x LOL = LOL²

wat

the discussion started by focusing only on the super-rich. The fact that the discussion stayed on-topic is not an indication that people are "fetishizing."

I assign approximately zero % chance David's idea, some organized movement of the megarich dipping into their own pockets to "save the world", happens.

I assign a 100% chance that there is an organized movement of the megarich dipping into the pockets of the public to save themselves, since this is what is actually currently occuring (openly, I might add).

Might depend on definitions. For example, David could conceivably consider Warren Buffet's investment in Goldman Sachs a "save the world" contribution, whereas I consider it more an element of your scenario.

"I have a decent chance of attaining wealth just short of the figure where I think one should contribute."

Boy, talk about movable goalposts . . . :-)

"Are you resentful of any super rich people?"

"No. I myself am too rich for that."

Might be a subject for another thread, but I'm not sure that those who are closest to being super rich are not the most resentful of their wealthier brethren.

I consider it a collosal blunder.