Topic: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich: Warren Buffett (Read 6641 times)

Sorry. I confused you with FlipPro as you jumped in right where he left off.

I don't mean anything by hoarding, as I never mentioned it or referenced it, nor do I have much interest in discussing it. Sorry.

Now you will explain what you mean by hoarding? Or will you change the subject again?

Excellent. Keywords are "Steady state economics" and "Ecological economics".

Fair enough.  This is a valid point.  I'll add it to my list of topics to research.

Let's not argue semantics. The point of my post is to demonstrate that conventional economic theory uses a mathematical model that does not account for the limitations as dictated by physics, ecology, etc.

lol

So I should have said "develop" the economy.  Is this where jgraham shows up and begins to spew autistic arguments on semantics?

That's the third time you've accused me of being AyeYo, despite being corrected on your delusion each time. And you usually throw in an insult along the way, such as using the term troll. That makes you one of the biggest trolls that ever slumbered through this forum, and a hypocrite to boot.

I cited an article related to your claim about growth. I in turn requested the same from you.

I dont discuss with trolls, AyeYo.

Feel free to cite some white papers which demonstrate a well thought out economic model illustrating your beliefs. In the mean time, I'll point you here: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

This is a fallacy on how you understand growth (growth can be consuming less resources) and in what you say about interest rates (you dont need growth to return interest rates, its just the present system that produces that effect).

+1
Eternal growth is simply not compatible with sustainable development.
Only bankers need indefinite growth because without it interest rates would eat up all available capital.

This is what your typical economist believes, or more accurately, is his only solution to prosperity, although it is flawed at the most fundamental level.

You are talking about spending not investing.  Remember, if we are to believe Keynes: saving = investment.  It's in his little equation thing on page 29 of General Theory.  If you're not a Keynsian, that's fine.  I think most economists would agree with this, even the Austrians.

Creating jobs is very easy to do, any fool with a few trillions of dollars can employ massive amounts of people (I'm not calling Obama a fool).  But where does the money come from?  We're 14 trillion dollars in debt with 61 trillion in unfunded liabilities, how can you seriously think that massive amounts of more spending is going to fix things?  Isn't this what we have been doing for the past few decades?  Or is simply a matter of spending "in the right places"?

What needs to happen is to actually grow the economy.  This won't happen by moving money from one part of the economy to another and assuming that more government spending will magically fix things, but by saving capital so entrepreneurs can have money to start new businesses that will then employ and grow the economy.  We need less consumer debt and more business debt.  

Also, at this point am I to assume you have no idea what "hoarding" means and are just using the word because it creates FUD validating your position?  I'm not trying to be harsh, but I've asked you politely three times to define this term you are using because I am genuinely trying to understand your concern.  If you can't or won't that's your prerogative but at least answer me.

Edit: P.S. If you respond to this I may not get a chance to reply for a few days as I will be out of town.  Don't think it's because I got scared off. 

That's EXACTLY what the President want's to do! The President has said tirelessly that he wants a new bill that would fund trillions in new high tech infrastructure projects. You know how many jobs could be created with just one bill of this magnitude? I will give you a brief example and peg it to this forum since it's an IT oriented community. If the President is able to get an investment bill through the Republican congress (doubtful unless we rise together), that would mean tons of brand new state of the art schools will be built. These schools will all heavily revolve around technology, and they will need tech guys like us at all levels to wire/connect/repair/diagnose these brand new schools, the will be good paying jobs for us. Our classrooms are crowded, kids are being stuffed into rooms like chickens in cages, and not only that, the schools are crumbling right underneath them. This is just one sector of the economy that an investment bill would positively affect. But we need to be realistic, the money isn't going to fall from the sky, and we can't keep cutting till there's no social security or medicare left.  There needs to be progressive change, but Republicans won't allow it, and people like you facilitate them by being completely unrealistic to the situations around us.

We need to close tax loop wholes for corporations. That alone will solve massive problems.

But Republicans? They won't even accept 10-1 cuts to revenue increases.

http://soullfire.xanga.com/754006530/republican-prez-candidates-reject-101-spending-cuts-to-tax-increase-ratio/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKzGZj32LYc&feature=player_embedded

No, my advice is to invest.  Do you think SPENDING will fix everything?  Are you going to answer the question about how you define hoarding?

So you think when over 20% of the population is out of work (counting underemployed), and everything is at the cheapest it has been in over 50 years, your advice is to SAVE?

Again, please define what you mean by "hoard". How is it different an saving?

You know why this is happening? Yes, in the back of your mind you guess it right (even when you wont admit it ): government regulations.

What that article is not telling you is that most USA corporations have big piles of cash... but outside the USA. And why they dont bring the money back to the USA and invest? Because if they want to bring the money back to the USA they have to pay a tax. Because in most cases its not worth it they keep the money outside the USA and investment does not happen.


Btw, this is a distraction of the main topic. The fact that Warren Buffet profits from rising certain taxes and that he refuses to pay others, shows how hypocrite he is and how easy the progressives can be diluded into supporting personal agendas.

Corporations are hoarding their record profits. Collectivity they have enough money to invest and bring the unemployment rate down to 5%...

That is the truth..