RE: SS privatization back next term??

RE: SS privatization back next term?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: SS privatization back next term?? (8/27/2006 4:51:27 AM)
Archer, The wealth I deliberately mentioned was a) heriditary wealth and b) fat cat salaries. a) Heriditary wealth - the funding of our Monarchy is through tax-payers money. They take from the Exchequer and spend this money on ornaments, private jets, fancy parties and swanning round playing polo and chasing each other around in the woods with stockings on with Tarquin & co. It is a drain on the economy. b) Fat cat salaries - the yachts, jets, lavish parties that these salaries go on are a complete drain on the economy as it is taking wealth out of the economy and pissing it up against the wall. Again, a drain on the economy. Your last paragraph about two sides of the fence on opportunity and motivation - you can extend this to say the real disagreement is over whether you trust and have faith in people or are you suspicous and paranoid that people are trying to pull a fast one. Personally, I believe given equal opportunity we will all take the opportunity. In my opinion, the lack of moiation argument is Government spin and packaging. Regards

meatcleaver -> RE: SS privatization back next term?? (8/27/2006 8:30:23 AM)
NG. Surely you have learnt Thatcher's lesson by now. The rich need to be motivated by financial reward, the poor and the feckless need to be motivated with a good whipping!

Archer -> RE: SS privatization back next term?? (8/27/2006 10:53:21 AM)
Who builds the jets, who caters the parties, who builds the yatchets, how many are employed by the lavish lifestyles, if they are buying anything the money is injected back into the economy. trace the entire building cycle for any luxury item or service and you'll find many people depend on their lavish lifestyle continuing so that their job is secure. If that spending stoped then how many more would be out of work? The Hereditary wealth is a bit more complex to explain other than the majority of it is in banks or other investment items, wher it is used to finance your new home, my new car, the guy down the road's new car valet service which works the parties the rich throw. Being from the US I looked at hereditary wealth more along the lines of the Kennedy's or the Hiltons rather than Royal Hereditary.

Lordandmaster -> RE: SS privatization back next term?? (8/27/2006 11:04:45 AM)
Medicare maybe, but not Social Security. Paul Krugman wrote a good article about this last year. quote: ORIGINAL: Level Quick reply: Something better be done about Social Security and Medicare, or else your children and grandchildren are going to suffer for it.

NorthernGent -> RE: SS privatization back next term?? (8/27/2006 2:33:49 PM)
Archer, There is more to economic growth than buying a good or service as follows. Take the yacht as an example - the revenue from buying the yacht is gained by the producer but the yacht sits in the ocean earning no return whatsoever. If the money had been invested in machinery for business production then the revenue is still taken by the producer but the machinery earns a return for the buying company through increased and improved production - thus creating growth. The heriditary wealth of our Monarchy and landed classes tends to sit on the walls of their 300 roomed mansions. Regards

NorthernGent -> RE: SS privatization back next term?? (8/27/2006 2:39:03 PM)
Meatcleaver, Really impressive wasn't she. When she covered up the BA tailplane because they'd taken off the union jack - what a demented, old witch she is:-) Regards

Archer -> RE: SS privatization back next term?? (8/27/2006 2:40:13 PM)
And the yatch producer buys what nothing with the revenue? it cycles back through, he pays employees, those employees buy food shelter etc. The yatch like any other end user product provides nothing after it is built, processed. Point being money is never static unless it's in a matress somewhere. In stocks it goes to the Corporation (or the last holder of the stock), in the bank it's used for loans, in a new start up it is used for capital. Money no matter who is spending it or saving it or investing it so long as it is in the economy it is producing jobs for someone.

pahunkboy -> RE: SS privatization back next term?? (8/27/2006 2:54:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Medicare maybe, but not Social Security. Paul Krugman wrote a good article about this last year. quote: ORIGINAL: Level Quick reply: Something better be done about Social Security and Medicare, or else your children and grandchildren are going to suffer for it. hey that was a good read. thanks!!!

Level -> RE: SS privatization back next term?? (8/27/2006 3:06:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Medicare maybe, but not Social Security. Paul Krugman wrote a good article about this last year. quote: ORIGINAL: Level Quick reply: Something better be done about Social Security and Medicare, or else your children and grandchildren are going to suffer for it. hey that was a good read. thanks!!! *Yes, thanks for the links Lam. Haven't gotten to Krugman yet, but the one from The New Yorker* is fascinating stuff.**

NorthernGent -> RE: SS privatization back next term?? (8/27/2006 3:54:01 PM)
Archer, You're missing my point. If the wealth created by a business is spent on a yacht or new improved machinery then the selling company gains revenue. However, in the yacht scenario no return is earned from the yacht to further the cycle of economic growth as it is used for nothing more than luxury. Whereas the machinery earns a return because it increases output, revenue and consequently provides cash for further investment. Regards

Archer -> RE: SS privatization back next term?? (8/27/2006 3:57:48 PM)
Sooner or l,ater though you have to produce an end user consumer use product is my point Northern I see that investment in machinery is good for the economy but someone has to produce consummer goods at the end of the line. It matters not if it's a microwave or an oven or a yatch, no consumer good carries on the cycle of building further but they are the reason all the machinery for production exists. without consumer goods what's the point.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125