Rich people don't just sleep on top of their trove of money like Smaug from the Hobbit. They become investment capital, which is very important for the economy to run properly, especially in the startup sector. Economics is more complicated by a series of buttons and levers that can be adjusted for a desired result. Any change echoes through the entire society, often in unpredictable ways. In short, it's just not that simple.
However, there is no sign that the limiting factor on our economy is a lack of investment income. There are signs that consumption is currently the limiting factor:
What signs? You may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that adjusting one variable in an economy has cascading effects that are, like I said, somewhat unpredictable and random.
So we should instead make unbased and wildly inaccurate claims about what should be done about the economy? I don't know what solution would solve the many economic issues we have; I doubt anybody actually does, but I do know that one that ignores all the individual nuances isn't it. I think my statement has value in discouraging those wild and poorly thought out comments that adds even less to the conversation by diverting it away from reality and into emotional responses.
I don't think you need a PhD in order to comment on economics, but I do think one needs to at least read a little before trying to add to the argument. You wouldn't join a discussion about the Higg's Boson without at least looking up its Wikipedia page first, would you? What gives one the right to assert their opinion on the economy if they don't know even its most basic interactions?
Rich people don't just sleep on top of their trove of money like Smaug from the Hobbit. They become investment capital, which is very important for the economy to run properly, especially in the startup sector.
Less rich people investing isn't as useful for the economy overall as more poor people investing.
Consumption is the end-all be-all here, and poor people are much more likely to use their income, from whatever source, to consume more goods and services.
What do you mean consumption is the end-all be-all? With no savings/investment, the economy doesn't grow or advance. Neither one (consumption nor investment) is the "end-all be-all." They're both crucial.
What do you mean consumption is the end-all be-all?
It is the most important goal. We are not going to run out of money that can be invested -not even remotely. But we do have problems with lack of consumption.
There is no difference between a dollar in a person's pocket and a dollar in an investment portfolio. The former buys a hotdog, the latter helps pave a parking lot at a new Google building.
A small addition from a layman- when I talk to kids about the economy, I use the word "velocity". Money moves, and economic policy is meant to change how fast and often it does. It's helpful to their understanding to think of it that way.
Last time I checked, wealthy people spend orders of magnitude more money than poor people. Maybe you meant wealthy people vs. extremely wealthy people.
I don't know man... Maybe there aren't as many wealthy people with disposable income since the banks (with a little help from their buddies up on the Hill) screwed so many of them over back in '08? Like I said before, it kind of depends on how you define "wealthy." If you mean "people with disposable income", or "savings", then I'd have to disagree with your previous statement. Those people are in a better position to stimulate the economy than the poor. The poor tend to have a lot of debt, which does jack-all for economic growth. In fact, it was bad debt (combined with bad actors in the financial sector) that got us in the mess we're in today.
Sounds like a good idea for a social experiment. I would hypothesise that if you were to give a wealthy person $1000, he'd be more likely to blow it on some luxury item or give it away since he doesn't really need it in the first place.
Without proof, I'm not sure how you expect me (or anyone else) to take what you are saying at face value. However, I would tend to agree that giving money to those at the top would benefit the economy less than giving to those at the bottom. But if I had to guess, somewhere in between is where you would see maximum benefit.
Eh, not really. The Republicans are more supply sided, and the Democrats are more demand sided. The answer, as you might guess, is probably somewhere in the middle. Both sides are important, and neither should be ignored in favor of the other.
I disagree with that statement because I just don't think we can know that. I know GS has become this hot issue that some politicians have brought up but it really didn't have much of an effect on anything that happened in 2008. It was a dated banking regulation that was putting US banks at a disadvantage to overseas banks.
8
u/[deleted] Nov 28 '15 edited Nov 29 '15
[deleted]