kallend 2,182 #1 December 6, 2006 www.suntimes.com/business/161312,CST-FIN-fill06.article... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 December 6, 2006 And your point is....what? Trot that filly out and let's see how she moves...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 December 6, 2006 Where do I fit in? My wealth is in the negative by a few hundred thousand dollars... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #4 December 6, 2006 QuoteWhere do I fit in? My wealth is in the negative by a few hundred thousand dollars... Cameroon?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #5 December 6, 2006 QuoteAnd your point is....what? Trot that filly out and let's see how she moves... Thought it might make a good basis for a discussion. A change from religion and terrorists on planes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #6 December 6, 2006 It is easier to make money when you have money, more money makes more money. Mmmmm good!"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #7 December 6, 2006 Screw the poor - I gots ta git mine. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #8 December 6, 2006 Quote Where do I fit in? My wealth is in the negative by a few hundred thousand dollars... It's a difficult subject to discuss...your present accounts may sum to a negative but you have intangible assets (your education, your skills, your job etc) that play a huge role. The reason you were able to got a loan in the first place is because your lender believed in them. You'd have to read the study (I haven't) to figure out what the message is...the media seem to be strangling it pretty badly.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #9 December 6, 2006 I read the article. It adds more weight to my perception that Capitalism is not a long term stable solution. I don't know what's better...We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #10 December 6, 2006 <> Could I suggest an anarcho-cynicalist commune. We take it in turns to sort of act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #11 December 7, 2006 It's really generation spanning wealth that's the problem. I think we should just require that anyone with more than 2-3 million be forced to have at least one wife per million in cash. That should take care of itillegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #12 December 7, 2006 So if you taxed the wealth of the top 1% at 2.5% and directly paid off the bottom 50%, the bottom half would have twice as much wealth (2% of world wealth). What do you think the effect would be on their quality of life?My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #13 December 7, 2006 Quote What do you think the effect would be on their quality of life? They could afford more children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #14 December 7, 2006 QuoteQuote What do you think the effect would be on their quality of life? They could afford more children. Since when has poverty served to curtail excessive breeding amongst those with the least capacity to support the children?Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #15 December 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote What do you think the effect would be on their quality of life? They could afford more children. Since when has poverty served to curtail excessive breeding amongst those with the least capacity to support the children? (Order of Emotions)"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livetofall 0 #16 December 7, 2006 wow 15 posts allready without one Stalinist word about taking it back from the richwww.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #17 December 7, 2006 Quote Since when has poverty served to curtail excessive breeding amongst those with the least capacity to support the children? Seriously, wealthy societies tend to have sharply fewer kids--they're much more likely to survive and propagate the genes. economic speculation ensues: The effect on the poor would be negligible--there'd be a short period of high inflation in poor countries and a rapid return to something like the status quo. On a per-capita basis for the recipients it'd be not very much money, and as a lump sum payment they'd be hard pressed to capitalize it* and would probably spend much of it over time rather than investing. The influx of cash in local economies would drive up prices. Goods and housing would become more expensive and would outpace productivity gains for a while. There'd be a period of glee followed by a nasty hangover while productivity caught up naturally. * it's very hard to invest small sums, though it seems to be getting somewhat easier recently The middle class (no not the one that drives SUVs, but the class that's between the 1% that got taxed and the 50% that got paid) would get hosed to a lesser or greater extent. Worst off would be the people in the 51st percentile, just above the mark to have their wealth doubled...they might find themselves in the 20th or 30th percentile afterward. Meanwhile the top 1% would find themselves marginally worse off. Interest rates might go up a little (less savings to go around as loans), and it'd have a depressive effect on the economies they subscribe to--lower investment across the board because savings would be become more attractive. Could quite well cause a recession or two. Basically it would screw over lots of people to hardly any benefit. It was a loaded question...wealth is a terrible vehicle for social tinkering...you almost never see governments redistributing it directly for this reason. btw the paper is here. The per-capita wealth of the lowest 50% appears to be on the order of several thousand dollars per head, guestimating from a brief scan of the paper--it doesn't appear to say outright.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
