The American dream is dead. All we have left is a corrupt and immensely powerful central government that stealthily robs the people of their labor and liberty. Of course, the typical leftist solution to this problem is to give more power to our corrupt and inept central government, geniuses that they are.
That's a fairly narrow definition of greed. A quick google search turns up a definition as: selfish desire for something. I see no mention of deceit, nor any reason why desire for things cannot be a boon especially if one engages in productive behavior to achieve said things. If I work hard to acquire material goods. That may make me greedy, but that is beneficial to society.
Although I think I already have a good idea as to why QE1 and QE2 didn't produce inflation, that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this conversation. Your astounding zero-sum view of economics rather disqualifies you as any sort of economics instructor. Then you are backing out of your previous statements. Good!
My zero-sum economics is simply if I give you $100 I have $100 less you have $100 more. That is just simple mathematics. What I mean by this is that if there is $1 million in the economy and 1% of the economy owns $700,000 than by simple mathematics you can assume that the bottom 99% has $300,000. There is nothing you or I can do to create more money, all we can do is take from one another. No I am not, but nice try!
The American dream is dead for sure, but it's not a result of government, it's the result of GREED, in the aftermath of GREEDY people, sold out morality, and the modern day corporation. Of course, it's typical right wing lunacy to blame it on lawmakers, or poor people for their own corrupted and sold out behavior.
Greed is certainly a big problem in America today. But it is the people who accuse others of being greedy who are most often the greediest. Because their greed is coupled with envy. Which is a deadly pairing. Since they feel entitled, they can justify their greed to their conscience. Take a look at Occupy Wallstreet. That's all that movement is about; greed and envy. Envy of people with more and greed to take what those people have. But when a country has as much as America does today, I suppose such bratty mindsets are somewhat inevitable. The truth is that "poor" people today have more than rich people in this country had 50 years ago. That is a fact. The richest man in America did not have a cell phone or the internet 50 years ago. And yet today people living on welfare have these things. So clearly as the standard of living has gone up, feelings of entitlement have gone up too. So what we are left with is a growing number of greedy people who are never happy with what they have and are always demanding more. It's true that the more you have, the more you want.
Wealthy, greedy people are the height of the attitude you describe. They can find endless way to justify their strip mining of society (mostly by blaming others for their transgressions). Essentially, you are trying to do the same thing. You're trying to refocus the blame off of the true rapists in our society and excuse the greedy super wealthy. GREED by the super wealthy people and corporations are the bulk of the problem....not the group of people you're trying to shift the spotlight onto. Get rid of corporate greed, and the super wealthy, and you have the problem alleviated.
I get that a lot when I provide facts and there is no rebuttal! Nice cop out! That is almost the 6th feather I have in my hat!
You seem to have a consistent record of inaccuracies, and I've figured out it's not just ignorance. You're a troll. So cheers!
You are mistaken. Greed is a focus on ones own wants beyond necessities, perhaps without concern for the needs or wants of others. But that focus or lack of concern does not mean the desire is unfair, deceitful, or harmful. If you have a television, you have more than you need. Televisions are not necessities. If you desire a television you are, by definition, greedy. This does not mean everyone who owns a television is unfair, deceitful, or harmful. Only that they care more for their own want of that television than anothers need to eat. greed noun \ˈgrēd\ Definition of GREED : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed Fair means impartial, without prejudice or favoritism. It's important to note that in a fair world, it's entirely possible for some to have more than others. It's even fair for some to starve. If you want to see compassion offered to those in need, don't ask for fairness -- ask for charity.
Another feather in the hat. Can't bring anything of substance to the table so you resort to the "troll" excuse. It's funny how I refute every claim you make and I'm the troll, lol!! Carry on
No it's not. For proof, consider what happens if I burn that million dollars. If I did so, I would no longer own it and you would not have more. That demonstrates that my ownership is not the problem.
No, that would just mean we all have less including you. I can't believe you guys are even trying to argue against this rather simple mathematical fact.
You would only have less, if we shared ownership of that million dollars. If you owned none of it, what you owned would remain unchanged by my destroying it. This might be the source of our disagreement. You seem to believe that what I own is yours.
Money is the fuel that drives the economy. If you have $1 million the rest of us have $1 million less in which to transact. If you decide to burn the $1 million than you are included in the macroeconomy and the loss of $1 million. So you have $1 million less to spend. The economy literally revolves around the movement of it's money, you can play the class warfare "it's my money" bull crap all you want. But mathematically and economically speaking when too much money is in too few hands the rest of the people are playing ball with a lot less money, which means a lot less transactions. And no, you can't "own" the medium of exchange. It belongs to the state. If the Govt wants to take back what they gave to us they could. Money is not yours or mine, it is the country's.
No. What fuels the economy is the creation and consumption of value. Proof of this is, unlike firewood or coal, money is never consumed. What is consumed to drive the economy is the value produced by our neighbors. Further proof would be to ask if we would still have an economy if we got rid of money and instead traded service for service or traded using a medium of exchange not provided by the government (salt, gold, etc). Further proof would be to explore the opposite: if we continued to exchange money but did not produce value or consume it. We wouldn't have much of an economy. If we all offered and consumed equal value we would have a healthy economy (whether we traded services, salt, dollars, or IOUs). The problem we have is that so many folks in this economy consume more value than they return. The result is those who offer more value than the consume end up with a huge pile of IOUs (or salt, gold, dollars, whatever) while those who consume more than they return end up with debt. We charitably forgive much of that debt or tax the IOUs back into the hands of the spending masses but this doesn't solve the underlying and growing problem with our economy. That problem isn't lopsided wealth distribution, that is simply a result of the underlying problem that so many of us do not contribute as much as we consume. The guy asking if you want fries with that isn't contributing as much as he's taking out of the economy. Enough folks doing that and IOUs pile up. More continue to do it and the whole thing breaks down.
I own the value it represents. Private property does exist. And no, the government didn't give me the wealth I own. Not all of us survive on charity. Whether I burn a million dollars worth of currency or a million dollars worth of cell phones, you are not enriched by the process. My ownership of value does not impoverish you. Spending more than you produce does.
You can have an intelligent discussion about money with out getting all butt hurt. I didn't say the Govt gave you wealth, and I didn't say private property doesn't exist, and I didn't say I live on charity. You made all 3 of those things up. Great argument! You do not understand one bit of economics... and it's ridiculous to try to explain it to someone that is so far behind. Quit thinking of only yourself and maybe you can start understanding how economics works.
This a very simple debate. Wealth disparity has brought down many countries because the more the few have the less the majority have. Then the majority is left to fight for fewer and fewer dollars causing them to accept lower and lower wages and causing a full on plutocracy. Read some history books!
