Bar Stool Econ 101

B

Brahma

Guest
Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead o f $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outsidet he restaurant the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
 
Duh - did it really take a professor to tell us that? of course thats how it works, but was there really a surplus? so we had a reduced cost so we could give a tax break? the wealthy are getting more wealthy faster than ever before because our system rewards money more than hard work as a way to make money,and the wealthy didnt leave during the Clinton era they paid more taxes then, so why are they going to leave if their tax cuts expire? or should we borrow more money or should we tax the working class more? the problem is trickle down economics has some failings, the proof is in the pudding
 
>or should we
>borrow more money or should
>we tax the working class
>more?

piper,
None of the above.


WE SHOULD QUIT FRICKING SPENDING LIKE THERES NO TOMORROW!!


Gov't IS the problem. Republican OR Democrat!

Brahma
 
piped, can you give references/examples of where taxing the 'rich' in recessions/depressions has helped the economy? Then, can you cite/refer me to examples of where rewarding people who don't pay taxes with PAYMENTS like Obama wants under his redistribution of wealth has made the world 'better'? Obama wants to tax those who ADD to society, and give that money to those who CONSUME from society, how does that help improve the economy? Help me out.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
I really dont know what you mean about giving payments to those that dont pay taxes, unless its the earned income credit and we are doing that now. but I do know that concentrated wealth is not good in the long run as in the run up to 1929, I think the difference in how we think is I think that people that work hard and create things, build things, grow things, invent things are the people who ADD to society, you seem to think because the working class people have to eat and live in a home they only CONSUME from society, because I come from working class people it kind of upsets me that so many people think we just CONSUME and dont ADD to society, when wealth becomes too concentrated and we the blue collar workers give up it wont be good for your beloved rich people either
 
piper, how many of those people Obama says he will give a tax cut to don't pay taxes now? So, in order to 'give' them a tax cut that means they will get a PAYMENT for consuming MORE than they produce, thus being consumers! By definition a producer produces MORE than they consume. How hard one works has little to do with how productive one is. Working hard at doing nothing is still doing nothing.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Piper, you say concentration of wealth is a "bad" thing.

Why?

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
If someone does well in business and earns money is that a concentration of wealth or an increase in wealth?

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Or creation of wealth?

Why do we call it concentration. When Windows 95, the Cotton Gin, the Automobile, etc.....were invented it seems they created new efficiencies, new jobs, and new wealth. The world did not start out with paper money. It was created. Wealth was also created and is created by the business class each day. They do it with the sweat of your back but they are still the Picaso of the deal.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
surfdom and peons, or do you want another great depression? or do you like some of the third world countrys? the poker game analogy or the monopoly game analogy, wealth is not paper money, I cannot believe how some of you people think, maybe you should study up on the founding fathers and why they were wary of concentration of wealth, oh god now I get to hear from Pro
 
Could you put in bullet points why people getting wealthier is bad? Or do you need to study first?

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
one thing is a lot of real wealth is finite, like property,or government given grazing rights or water rights, another thing would be health care , say you go to the hospital for a few days, and the bill is 38,000$ you will be poor but you will help make some people rich, so its good for some but bad for others, now health care isnt free, but I dont think people should be raped for essential services just so some can be rich,too much of health care money goes to people that have nothing to do with making anyone better
 
"too much of health care money goes to people that have nothing to do with making anyone better"
Absolutely piper the trial lawyers.
 
The Founders set it up for EVERY American to acquire wealth, just not through the government taking from one and giving to another. Can mr piper show anything contrary to that?

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
the government takes from most everybody,was it right to borrow money in order to give tax cuts? young people should be really upset
 
Piper piper piper. The problem is and always will be the feds spend more than they take in. Vote in a president who will actually submitt a balanced budget and then pray the congress will go along with it. Both of these are long shots at best.
 
Overton thats true but as I have mentioned before, don't you think if we actually had to pay for government instead of borrowing there would be huge public pressure to cut wastfull spending? thats why I think many rightwingers are so crooked, they are the party that doesn't care, talk is cheap
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-01-08 AT 07:57PM (MST)[p]Piper neither party has even a decent record on balanced budgets. We are probably still paying the interest on the original Bonhomme Richard's outfitting.
But if you can give me examples of years when we didn't over spend. Just remember the budget is only what money they expect to spend, yeh right, but discretionary spending almost always puts the final spending into the red reguardless of what was projected.
 
Overton you have to admit though that Reagan and Bush#2 have the rest of them beat handily and those two promoted voodoo economics as the answer to everything, remember who coined that phrase?
 
Bush 2 is terrible but I won't agree with you about Reagan. The tax revenue nearly doubled under Reagan. Look this fact up. Each of Reagans budgets were ruled dead on arrival by the democrat congress so blame them for the ills.
 
seems I remember Reagan doing a lot of compromising, but the debt did explode under his watch
 
Food for thought.

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.



A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:


1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! ....









REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
 
Overton I looked it up and came up with about 33% increase during Clinton maybe I missed something, but during Reagan the increases were much more dramatic I got about 117% increase in the debt
 
>Overton I looked it up
>and came up with about
>33% increase during Clinton maybe
>I missed something, but during
>Reagan the increases were much
>more dramatic I got about
>117% increase in the debt
>


What lefty whacko site did you get 117% increase under Reagan????

Look.... quit trying to blame or release blame from one party or the other. The FACT is under both Reagan and Bush2 tax revenues increased dramatically. Both parties house and senate (congress) repub and demo used massive amounts of earmarks to drain the treasury under Bush2. Its the congress that spends the money not the president. About all the POTUS can do is veto it. Reagan had to deal with a democrat congress and he constantly moaned and groaned for a line item veto to cut spending.

Trickle down economics does work. It has NOTHING...NOT ONE DANM THING..... to do with how congress spends money. Both parties use of earmarks is what's causing the debt. Bush gets the blame for not vetoing the spending bill and rightly so. It doesn't matter how much more revenue the economy brings to the treasury if congress spends more than they take in its debt.

Now with that said if you think that the democrats are a responsible party..........you better open your eyes. They're going to spend even more and they're economic plan of tax increases will bring in less revenue.

Now I'm sure you're going to FEEL better because those rich guys just hav'nt paid enough taxes. But its not gonna help the economy.

One last note those of you who are always so concerned about how much tax the rich pay might want to check out the 10th commandment......you know the one about coveting thy neighbors goods. ENVY......... its eating you up.
 
Vichris it is the people in this country like you that cause the economy to be where its at, you can't even understand basic math, earmarks are a drop in the bucket, your head is so full of right wing drivel there is not a chance that you could think about anything but the idealistic BS that is spouted constantly by the talk radio heads, Whacko lefty site? right wing nut
 
"One last note those of you who are always so concerned about how much tax the rich pay might want to check out the 10th commandment......you know the one about coveting thy neighbors goods. ENVY......... its eating you up."

Great point vichris.
 
>Vichris it is the people
>in this country like you
>that cause the economy to
>be where its at, you
>can't even understand basic math,
>earmarks are a drop in
>the bucket, your head is
>so full of right wing
>drivel there is not a
>chance that you could think
>about anything but the idealistic
>BS that is spouted constantly
>by the talk radio heads,
> Whacko lefty site? right
>wing nut

Wow pooper,

Let see some of that basic math you're talking about. Explain to us all how the economy works. Let's hear more about your "basic math", and tell us all how Obamas or YOUR tax plan works. And keep it simple cause we might have a tough time understanding the big words.

So what's a bigger part of discertionary spending,... earmarks, or the war in Iraq?

And I guess I'll need to ask you directly.... where did you get that 117% number from. Post your sources. And pulling those numbers out of your a$$ doesn't count

I never listen to the radio but I do get alot of my economics from Invester Business Daily.

Oh and if you're getting your info from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NYT, LAT, etc........... they're a bunch of lefty whacko propaganda machines.
 
piped, please explain how Obama is going to get spending under 'control' with all the new programs he is wanting to implement. Name ONE economist who says Obama will reduce the National Debt, balance the budget, and/or increase revenue by taxing the 'rich' and giving welfare checks to the poor.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
I don't know, Health care is the only area that the government could probably save lots of money on, since there are no free market or supply and demand forces to keep costs down its totaly nuts, by far the most expensive in the world per person makes it hard for US businesses to compete, hard on familys too, maybe using the government to get companys to invest in energy technology, In the global economy we are going to have to use the government to help look ahead so we don't get left behind in the world, looking ahead one quarter to the next isn't going to cut it,
as long as we feel we need to spend so much more on the military compared to the rest of the world we are probably going to have to pay some fairly high taxes, if you think cutting earmarks is going to balance the budget, dream on, and do you think the working middle class can afford to pay more taxes?
 
Anyone find it odd that piped DUCKED my questions?

Why do we 'need' a balanced budget? Serious question, remember we are talking about the government, not a person.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
>I don't know, Health care is
>the only area that the
>government could probably save lots
>of money on, since there
>are no free market or
>supply and demand forces to
>keep costs down its totaly
>nuts, by far the most
>expensive in the world per
>person makes it hard for
>US businesses to compete, hard
>on familys too, maybe using
>the government to get companys
>to invest in energy technology,
>In the global economy we
>are going to have to
>use the government to help
>look ahead so we don't
>get left behind in the
>world, looking ahead one quarter
>to the next isn't going
>to cut it,
>as long as we feel we
>need to spend so much
>more on the military compared
>to the rest of the
>world we are probably going
>to have to pay some
>fairly high taxes,
>if you think cutting earmarks
>is going to balance the
>budget, dream on, and do
>you think the working middle
>class can afford to pay
>more taxes?

You should have stopped after " I DON'T KNOW".....because the rest of your post mostly makes no sense.

What the heck do you mean by there no free market and supply and demand forces in healthcare???????

Military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to just one of the latest new benifits....the perscrtion drug benifit of 2006...and I'll be the 1st to say that was Bush's idea BUT both sides of the isle went along with it.

And who said cutting earmarks would balance the budget.....don't put words in my mouth. Doing away with earmarks would go about 1/3 of the way towards meeting the spending bill so it is a major portion of over budget spending.

I notice you still didn't post your sources for the supposed 117% increase in debt under Reagan?????........ I wonder why
 
>Anyone find it odd that piped
>DUCKED my questions?
>
>Why do we 'need' a balanced
>budget? Serious question, remember we
>are talking about the government,
>not a person.
>
>PRO
>
>Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy
>and opportunity hunts throughout the
>state of Utah.

Pro,

I notice he dodges everyones questions. He makes exactly as much sense as Obama.

Let me be the first to say..........hold on america... 01/21/2013
 
All we need to know about Piper.

"For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."
 
I think this Bar Stool Econ was written back when there was an excess of federal revenues at the beginning of Bush's first term. That is where the $20.00 rebate plays in.

In reality Oboman's current plan would go beyond rolling those Bush cuts back. With his plan beer drinker 1 thru 5 would be getting paid to drink beer.

Don't try to argue anything that is mathematical or black and white with a liberal. It will drive you crazy, and they love that.
 
Virchis-I added up the percent increase in the deficit each year that president held office, it was neither a leftist or right wing site on the internet, and you don't really shop for health care very often like you shop for a car, emergency rooms, indigent care, lots of reasons, I don't think math is your favorite subject, the prescription drug benifit cost is over a ten year period and is about the same cost as one years military spending.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-02-08 AT 08:26PM (MST)[p]>Virchis-I added up the percent increase
>in the deficit each year
>that president held office, it
>was neither a leftist or
>right wing site on the
>internet, and you don't
>really shop for health care
>very often like you shop
>for a car, emergency
>rooms, indigent care, lots of
>reasons, I don't think math
>is your favorite subject, the
>prescription drug benifit cost is
>over a ten year period
>and is about the same
>cost as one years military
>spending.

Are you a stooge?????

Quote your sources.

What the he!! are you talking about the prescrition drug benefit being over a ten year period?????

Dude you are goofy to say the least.

& stop with the math crap. Show your (Math)work little school boy.

What kind of sense does THIS make???

I'm quoting YOU here...

"and you don't
>really shop for health care
>very often like you shop
>for a car, emergency
>rooms, indigent care, lots of
>reasons,"

It's like I'm listening to someone in psyche ward????
 
Ill try to explain more slowly " military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to one of the latest benefits, the prescription drug benefit of 2006" thats your quote,,, the military budget is around 700 billion a year not including war costs, the drug benefit is supposed to come around 600-800 billion over a ten year period, what do you mean by your quote? Im trying to explain why free market forces work to keep costs down, its because of competetion, shopping around, when thats gone there is little to keep costs down, except public service commissions, like with utilities, and the source for the 117% increase wwwpublicdebt.trea.gov/opd/opdhtm#history
 
All of the expenses will pale in comparison to the cost we will be paying over the next ten years for all the baby boomers who will be drawing social security (that is NOT there), medicare. What will the Messiah Obama do about that and still fund all his OTHER entitlement programs? He'll have to raise the taxes on the 'rich' even more, that will really get the economy going won't it?

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Its a mess, looks like were in for some tough times, somehow controlling the cost of health care would do the most good, tell me something Pro if a few percent increase in taxes is so unproductive, how can the residents in the state of Utah be at least as productive as in any other state and more so than many when so many residents pay 10% of their gross income in tithing? and its not been shown the residents in states with no state income tax are any more productive than those that pay state taxes, I hate taxes too but I dont buy some of the retoric that I hear
 
WTH does tithing have to do with taxing the rich and giving it to those who don't pay taxes?

I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me how taxing the 'rich' will boost the economy and what economists say it will. Your silence speaks volumes!

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Piper,

Are you really comparing voluntary tithing to something you believe in to government forced taxes?

JB
 
I constantly hear about how we are so much more productive when taxes are low, so much so that it increases tax revenue, thats all, I don't know what to tell you about the Robin Hood thing, one bad thing about deficit spending is it lowers the value of the dollar and that increases fuel costs and that has a chain reaction then some people can't afford the house payments and that effects the financial sector and then a recession, you know the story, so thats why the government should at least take in most of the revenue it spends and the working class can't afford more expenses, so the rich might have to pay a little more in taxes, its probably in their best interest anyway as we can see from the latest crisis
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-04-08 AT 07:48AM (MST)[p]Piper said in posting #12 above: "one thing is a lot of real wealth is finite, like property,or government given grazing rights or water rights, another thing would be health care , say you go to the hospital for a few days, and the bill is 38,000$ you will be poor but you will help make some people rich, so its good for some but bad for others, now health care isnt free, but I dont think people should be raped for essential services just so some can be rich,too much of health care money goes to people that have nothing to do with making anyone better"

If you have ever taken an english course, philosophy course, or the school of hard knocks you should understand deductive logic. Piper, here is a lesson on deductive logic and bullet points:

1. Saying "real wealth is finite" may be true but you fail to qualify your thesis. Instead you launch into the next unqualified or quantified thesis statement. Please qualify your statement with facts that back up your point and facts that shoot down those with another point.

2. Health care is expensive. Does that mean that health care can be done for cheaper? I would ask, if it can be done BETTER and or cheaper then who to do it better and cheaper than a Capitalist system. The socialist systems for health care have proven that they can barely offer assistance for everyone at a deficit to society monetarily and the quality is reduced dramatically. So much so that they save money to come to the USA to get major or sensative medical treatment. This is proven many times over in articles highlighting the health care systems in France, Canada, Cuba, the Netherlands, and many others.

3. Piper said,"but I dont think people should be raped for essential services just so some can be rich." GOOD! Then support capitalism! It is the tried and true method of reducing costs, increasing innovation, and basically delivering the best product for the best price. Perhaps too much government regulation is why the airlines, utilities, and our health care system are struggling.

4. Piper said,"too much of health care money goes to people that have nothing to do with making anyone better". REALLY! Proven by what!!!!! You say things and give nothing to back up your fantastic claims. I would argue that legal costs and regulation are causing the costs to soar. If we can reduce legal costs through Tort reform then the cost of insurance will reduce. If insurance costs are reduced then the cost of health care will reduce. Another cause of expensive health care, for example hospitals charging $4.00 per Tylenol pill, is the lack of competition. Increased competition will decrease costs and increase solutions. If increased competition will increase costs then explain why. If deregulation will cause increased costs then explain why.



"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Earmarks were 18 billion last year. The war in Iraq costs that every 2 months. The earned income tax credit which sends tax dollars to people who did not pay taxes was signed by Ronald Reagan. Remember "Read my lips no new taxes" by Bush 1 also Reagan raised taxes when the trickle down theory did not work.
 
Aspen if you believe that we have the best health care in the world then nothing will change your mind,I can tell you why competition isn't there and is hard to accomplish in the health care field you wouldn't listen,I could explain why no other country would copy the U.S. in that field,I could tell you about Enron ect. and decreased regulation nothing will change your mind, If you don't have an open mind and commen sense, If your stuck in your world of close minded ideology no one can help you, thats why the country will have to go on without you, whatever you were taught in Utah is going to have to be tempered with maturity or your going to be miserable for a long time, most any belief taken to the extreme can be destructive
 
Don't assume my mind is closed. Try to convince me with just a few bullet points. You say you know why concentration, creation, or accumulation of wealth is a bad thing. So, please do not hold out any longer.....please put down 3 bullet points that are backed by facts that prove your point of view. Otherwise we will have to assume your point of view is simply something you feel and nothing can be proven in regards to what you wrote.

Please give me three reasons creation of wealth is a bad thing.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Why is it so hard to get a real fact or bullet point out of you piper? Just try to put one down.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Aspen Iv'e tried to put some sources down in other posts and the usual response is their biased or something, go back into the #3 archives on this forum, I heard something different by Huntinaddict, sometimes people have to agree to disagree about things, in my opinion capitalism is great but its not the answer to everything, we have things like public lands that are socialized, maybe it would be more efficient to have all the land be private but is there other values involved? thats why its hard to argue sometimes, we all have different values
 
You are right piper. We will agree that you can not put a bullet point down to prove or even suggest why accumulation or creation of wealth is evil bad.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
did I ever say accumulation or creation of wealth is bad? you must have misunderstood me, I think I said concentration of wealth, thats different, that means its concentrated in the hands of a few with the majority having little, Mexico and some other countrys have some of that problem
 
>Gov't IS the problem. Republican OR Democrat!

That is the most profound statement I have heard during this election.
 
This may cause a brain cramp, but here goes.......

"The worst thing about capitalism is the UNEVEN distribution of wealth. The best thing about socialism is the EVEN distribution of misery."
Winston Churchill
 
The reason I said accumulation is because if someone who has a lot of wealth continues to get more of it he is accused of being part of concentration of wealth when in fact it is accumulation.

Using that wealth to creat new products and technologies with ownership through invesment is accumulation and creation.

Concentration of wealth huh? Why not call it what it is. INVESTING with a return. Then reinvesting again and again. Why is that bad? Bullet points please.


"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
>Earmarks were 18 billion last year.
> The war in Iraq
>costs that every 2 months.
> The earned income tax
>credit which sends tax dollars
>to people who did not
>pay taxes was signed by
>Ronald Reagan. Remember "Read
>my lips no new taxes"
> by Bush 1 also
>Reagan raised taxes when the
>trickle down theory did not
>work.


Trickle down does work dumbass. reagan years had the longest peace time economic growth in history. Unemployment was between 4.5 and 5%. A 6 yr old can understand it..company A makes money, which allows company A to hire people, which allow people to spend, purchase and save money. Or you tax the crap out of company A, and they dont make a profit so they say screw it and shut the doors.... You ever hear of a poor company or non-profitable company hire more workers.......... God your and Idiot.....
 
>The reason I said accumulation is
>because if someone who has
>a lot of wealth continues
>to get more of it
>he is accused of being
>part of concentration of wealth
>when in fact it is
>accumulation.
>
>Using that wealth to creat new
>products and technologies with ownership
>through invesment is accumulation and
>creation.
>
>Concentration of wealth huh? Why
>not call it what it
>is. INVESTING with a
>return. Then reinvesting again
>and again. Why is
>that bad? Bullet points
>please.
>
>
>"One nation, under God, indivisible, with
>liberty and justice for all."
>


YOur not going to get any bullet pts from Piper cause he doesnt have any. All he does is argue with emotion but cant give you and facts, typical liberal. Ask him 3 things that qualifies Obama to be pres or anything he as done to vote him in. Ask him how many broke, poor people create jobs? As opposed to Rich, creedy, wealthy people.. you cant talk to him, he is a fricking socialist that does not understand how capitalism works.. in which you will have a few people accumlate much cause they work there butts off for the most part, and create jobs for the rest of us. I think he is secretively on welfare or he is a panhandler on the corner by some walmart store......
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom