But again, none of the above is true because we have a limitless supply of currency. The only thing limiting the amount of currency in your hands is the value of what you can produce. How much money someone else has is meaningless. Since you can't quite grasp the concept of a dynamic system and are somehow tied to a static zero sum view of our economy, I don't see this conversation progressing.
What if you never do, are you still richer? The answer is yes, because you have something valued at more than $1. But value is subjective. What if it is something only you value more than $1, are you still richer? The answer is again yes. This is why in any voluntary transaction, both parties leave richer than before.
Lol, we definitely do not have a limitless supply of currency. Theoretically we do but at any given moment in time we have whatever amount of money is out there. Go read any economics book out there. You will get a better understanding of what I'm talking about. You are speaking out your ass and making things up on the fly. The wealth gap has been an economic problem for centuries bringing down many societies. We call them plutocracies. Understand the system, read some books, then let's talk. Until then I'm off to dinner!
There is a finite amount of money in circulation but an infinite supply of money. Money is created as needed, one individual having money does not create a shortage for another. While I find your appeal to authority fascinating, if you were well versed in economic theory I would not have to explain all this to you.
Well if you do in fact know more about the FED and the banking system than anyone else on this forum, I wish you wouldn't keep it to yourself. Your responses seem to indicate you are sitting on that knowledge and not sharing it. Now I think you are confusing two different issues. A good argument can be made that there is a large disparity in wealth, but your zero-sum view of economics assumes that the pie is fixed and we're just arguing over who gets how big a slice. Somehow, and I don't know how this happened, it must be that magic economics you were referring to; but in 1650 the GNP of the English colonies in North America was about 22 million dollars. Now, we are not still fighting over that same 22 million dollar economy. I wonder what happened to increase the pie so much since then? Must be that magic economics...
After one individual acquired all 22 million, the rest of the setlers were all like "dudes, I haz no moneys. How am I going to download songs from itunes?" But then one settler had a plan. "I no, i bets da indians haz a pot o gold". Well, you know the rest.
Greed is not necessarily negative. It is merely the incarnation of any human desire. The nature of man is greed, no matter in what way it is used. The desire to help others is just as greedy as the desire to make money or any other of the "evil" desires others want which we must stop.
It's impossible to start talking about Fed and banking interaction with out first understanding some basics of economics. I will gladly go in to any detail you want about what the Fed does and why it does. If you want to know why QE1 and QE2 were not inflationary than we can talk, or how TT&L accounts allow banks to hold Govt money on their balance sheets with out effecting reserve balances than we can. But this argument has nothing to do with anything but very basic economic issues. When people throw out crap like the Fed just prints money... it is 100% incorrect in how the system works. The Fed creates a form of money that represents another form of money. They never actually give you or I money. I'm not saying the pie is fixed as in there is "x" amount of dollars that can and do exist. I'm saying that when comparing year to year statistics you can tell how big the pie is and who has the share of that pie. And if the top 1% continues to get more and more of the pie on a relative basis to the bottom 99% than that simply means that for every $1 spent they are taking more and more of it... which by purely simple mathematics means the bottom 99% is taking less and less of it. I understand that the money supply can grow and the pie can grow. Fixed is the incorrect terminology for what I'm saying as the other guy pointed out.
If you give me $100 do you not have $100 less? So yes, every transaction creates a shortage of money for one person. When you add up all the transactions and more transactions are of the bottom 99% giving to the top 1% than the 1% giving to the bottom 99% than yes the bottom 99% does in fact have a shortage of money. This is very basic stuff that economists have talked about for centuries. You haven't explained anything relevant in economics. The fact that you don't even understand why disparity of wealth is hazardous to an economy is laughable!
The question is, if I have $100 does someone else have $100 less. The answer to that is no. Your little idea that the economy is zero sum is par with creationism. The fact that you are arguing that there is a fixed amount of money in the world, when clearly there is more money today than there was 100 years ago is just silly. It's the economic equivalent of stating that all life on earth was created 5000 years ago. You are a fundamentalist economic creationist. Please, open your brain up to reality.
Lol. Well if you keep your $100 than the bottom 99% has $100 more than the top 1%. Are you starting to get it? It's a balance between us giving the rich our money and the rich giving us their money and by rich I mean the top .01-1%. If we give the rich much more of our money than they give theirs... then we start to run out of money unless we go in to debt or the Govt spends more. It's a cycle. It literally has nothing to do with class warfare, it is just pure mathematics. The rich will only invest if they believe they could get more in return. If we don't have anything to give them in return they won't invest. You get the dilemma?
Give me a break, to get that money the 1% created something of greater or equal worth for society. Economic transactions are not zero sum, something is created in addition to a transfer of money. Ignoring that is just willfully stupid. Additionally, there is no shortage of money as more money is created as there is demand for it. No mater how much money someone acquires, there will be enough currency to go around. As the amount of money in circulation is ultimately tied to production and the size of the economy (assuming stability is a goal). You are spouting the most ignorant nonsense I have ever seen. You don't know anything about mathematics. You haven't been able to articulate a logical thought yet in this thread. My guess is, math isn't one of your strong suites.
Give me a break. To get that money they took that money from someone. How do you not understand this? They didn't get wealthy just by producing something. They got wealthy because there was people WITH money who can give them THEIR money in return for their product. Lol, you don't think people want money right now?? If people can walk in to a bank and get the money they wanted they would. But they can't because the banks won't lend it to them. Your ideology is that of a simpleton. This is just basic economics and math I'm talking about. It's actually how economics works. What's funny is it's the most ignorant nonsense you have ever seen. I wonder who you have been hanging out with your whole life, lol. Because this is what normal people are taught and this is what America actually does. I've shown you basic mathematical examples that you won't even accept. Why go to anything more complex if you won't even accept the simplest formulas representing the simplest economical concepts?
This is the simplest possible example to represent what is going on in America today. There are 5 people in your economy. The Govt gives each one $1. 1 of the 5 learns how to make food (represents the 1%). The other 4 need food (represents the 99%). So the other 4 give their $1 to the 1% for food. The 1% now has $5 and the 99% have $0. What are the 99% options to get more money to buy more food? 1) They can borrow from the bank 2) They can get more money from the Government 3) They can produce a good or service that the 1% want If they borrow from the bank and give the 1% money for food, then they won't be able to get any money to pay back the bank. If they get money from the Govt than the Govt has to go in to more debt If they can produce a good or service for the 1% than they can get some money back... which they in turn give back to the 1%. If none of this happens, then people starve and die. Basic example representing real life problems of what happens when the majority doesn't have enough money to get the minority (1%'s) to spend their money. So either they have to rely on going in debt or they have to rely on the Govt. It is really simple economics.
Make your comparison from the 50's and 60's to today and analyse according to social demographic and compare sizes of social demographics. 100 years ago is a useless comaprison. The guy you responded to is correct. If one individual owns a massive wealth, far less of that wealth will be recycled in an economy, than if thay wealth was spread amoungst a large number of people.
Are we talking about unions again? I think greed is defined by liberals as you having something, anything, that I want and you won't give it to me. That's greed and your greed justifies me taking what you have either by force or threats of force or by government demand.
None of this resembles greed in any way. Start with the dictionary definition and then have a think about it. You might be able to come up with some real examples. greed noun excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions. Synonyms avarice, avidity, cupidity, covetousness; voracity, ravenousness, rapacity. Greed, greediness denote an excessive, extreme desire for something, often more than one's proper share. Greed means avid desire for gain or wealth (unless some other application is indicated) and is definitely uncomplimentary in implication: His greed drove him to exploit his workers. Greediness, when unqualified, suggests a craving for food; it may, however, be applied to all avid desires, and need not be always uncomplimentary: greediness for knowledge, fame, praise.
Greed is when you fire all your American laborers to use sweatshop child labor in China. Greed is also when you make $300-500 million in bonuses and compensation after destroying your company and the country. Greed is also individuals continuing to make massive bonuses and compensation after having to be bailed out by the tax payer and the Fed.
