View Full Version : Forbes' 400 Wealthiest People!

09-30-2009, 10:16 PM

10-08-2009, 12:51 PM
What you forget it is that it is these same people that invest the capital required for job creation.

10-27-2009, 08:46 AM
True. The wealthy keep the economy moving. But what happens when the wealthiest people cut back on spending?

10-28-2009, 08:00 AM
Thats exactly the situation we are sitting in now. Those with money to invest are holding back right now to see what the next move of the government is going to be. If ObamaCare passes, the credit markets will crontract even farther then they already have.

10-30-2009, 12:49 PM
The wealthiest people are employed and spending money.

Those who aren't wealthy, aren't employed and aren't spending money.

Therefore, the economy isn't dependant upon those who are wealthy to keep it moving.
Those who are not wealthy do not have money to invest.

Without investment there is no capital creation.

Without capital investment, there is no industry.

Without industry there is no employment.

Therefore, yes, it is those with money that drive the economy.
If you want simplistic platitudes try MSNBC.

10-30-2009, 11:57 PM
LOL. I have, but thanks. As is typical in this forum, I think that you are looking for a simple answer to a complex question here. However, there are few easy answers in Economics. Read some Milton Friedman sometime. Anyway, to your assertation...yes, spending does have something to do with economic stability, but it is a trailing indicator at best.
The real problem we have right now is a confluence of poor decisions, poor fiscal policy, and poor oversight. For years the government has been putting increasing pressure on banks to lend money to people that were not qualified to assume such debt. Anybody ever hear of a moral hazard? Read Adam Smith? No? Ok, thanks. Banks did this, grudgingly at first, but then learned that all of this sub-prime debt created an after market secondary source of income in the form of Mortgage backed securities. So long as someone was willing to buy the debt, the banks didnt really care about the loans.
To make things even worse, companies began to sell derivitives on these MBS, adding one more layer to this Ponzi Scheme.Now that the banks have recieved their TARP funds they are doing exactly the most predictable thing they could(Moral hazard? Seriously...you guys have never heard of it? Ok, thanks). They are liquidating what bad debt they have left, and holding onto the money like grim death because they know that uber inflation is coming and they would loose their shirts again if they loaned it out the way they were.
Now here is the problem. Without affordable credit, innovation stalls. Expantion of existing business is made FAR more difficult, and bridge loans are nearly impossible to get. What is worse is the effect all this has had on private investment. Many of these would be investors lost a ton in the MBS game, and have tightened their belts (and purse strings ) because of it. Inflation also affects their decision making, because any return on investment will be reduced if their is substantial inflation. The government cant possibly sell enough t-bills to cover TARP, much less ObamaCare if it goes through, so the FED will monitize it, and inflation will ensue because of it. Doubly so since the velocity is so low right now.
In short, yes, the fact that all of us are not spending does not help the economy, it is really the issue of job creation and capital investment that is killing it.:rolleyes:

10-31-2009, 12:20 AM
Which, as I said, is only part of the answer and therefore incomplete. I take it from your reply that you are a Keynesian, demand side devotee? I am a bit more Austrian school and would not have given out the TARP money at all.

10-31-2009, 12:50 AM
LOL. For someone who claims to be an intellectual, you certainly post some silly stuff sometimes. From your earlier posting I got the impression that you could be a demand sider. Just trying to see where you sit. So, in that that vein, do you think that TARP or any of the other bailouts were a good idea? Also, I would be curious if you think the New Deal was?

10-31-2009, 01:19 AM
You obviously wont, or cant, answer my question though. Just more sillyness.

10-31-2009, 01:28 AM
No, you didnt, so I will say them again. Do you think the TARP was a good idea and what is your opinion of the New Deal? I realize they may seem unrelated, but I am trying to get a feel for your economic stance.

10-31-2009, 01:36 AM
Why? So you can take the opposite since you obviously dont know what they are lol. However, I think you can get a good idea from the long posting I put up, if you think about it.

Now....answer the question please.

10-31-2009, 01:43 AM
You do love your circular loops huh? You are so intellectually bankrupt that you cant even state an opinion about a program (TARP) which has been in the news daily. Yet you presume to pontificate about the state of the economy? Though I do love the typical liberal debating tactics you try to use. You crack me up.

10-31-2009, 02:01 AM
I can only assume you are googleing TARP as we speak. Let me know what you think once you are done educating yourself on those two topics and i will get back with you later.

10-31-2009, 02:06 AM
So...is that always how it works with you? Someone asks you your opinion and then you ask them to define theirs first? Answer the bloody question. That is the whole point of questions.:rolleyes:

10-31-2009, 02:20 AM
What a twit. I seriously doubt you will provide anything approaching the depth I could provide. Anyway, remember when I said that my philosophy comes from the Austrian school of economics (and before you get confused, no it is not an actual school that I attended, but a group of economic thinkers), so quite obviously I would be against TARP, the auto bailouts, and definitely against the Stimulus Package. Tarp and the auto bailouts set a particularly dangerous moral hazard in that it encourages corruption and also leads to nationalization of a large part of the American industrial complex.

As for the New Deal, I think that in retrospect most of what FDR did during the thirties greatly prolonged both the length and the depth of the Great Depression. Amity Shlaes book "The Forgotten Man" fairly clearly illustrates how much damage a government run amok can do when it starts overly tinkering with the economy.

10-31-2009, 06:49 AM
Wow, a rubuttal without any substance. Thats tooo funny. No wonder you couldnt answer my questions. As for FDR, since it is obvious that Obama wants to follow the same course FDR took, it is wholly relevant. Those who do not follow history are doomed to repeat it.

10-31-2009, 06:53 AM
I seriously doubt, in fact I know, that you have not provided anything that surpasses the depth of the knowledge that I possess because I have failed to find it anywhere on this forum.

Why are you talking about the NEW DEAL and FDR?

We're in the 21st Century or haven't you noticed?

Oh, your knowledge doesn't come from a school you attended but from a group of Austrian economic thinkers.

We're impressed.

And, what knowledge would that be?

It has somehow evaded us.

Most probably because you don't possess any in-depth knowledge.

In any event, don't lelt us stop you from continuing to attempt to convince us that you possess something.

Whatever that might be.
And I said that my philosophy comes from the Austrian school, not my knowledge. Learn how to read for comprehension. I am not impressed with your so called intellect.