The economy would ...

[Butters 0]

... shoot through the roof tonight if the wealthiest top 5% of the world population donated, spent, etc... 50% of their wealth tonight (it's not like they couldn't live off of the other 50%).

Why don't they?

Would you?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Armour666 0]

Quote

... shoot through the roof tonight if the wealthiest top 5% of the world population donated, spent, etc... 50% of their wealth tonight (it's not like they couldn't live off of the other 50%).

Why don't they?

Would you?

Nope inflation would increase dramaticly and would push the merginal down eaven farther. and If the reach gave it away they would have it back in less then 5 years. It has beed showen 80% of lotery winners are bankrupt in 5 years or less there is a reason the rich are rich.

SO this one time at band camp.....

"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

... shoot through the roof tonight if the wealthiest top 5% of the world population donated, spent, etc... 50% of their wealth tonight (it's not like they couldn't live off of the other 50%).

Why don't they?

Would you?

Nope inflation would increase dramaticly and would push the merginal down eaven farther. and If the reach gave it away they would have it back in less then 5 years. It has beed showen 80% of lotery winners are bankrupt in 5 years or less there is a reason the rich are rich.

Well said. The only thing that would shoot through the roof would be inflation.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Butters 0]

Quote

Nope inflation would increase dramaticly and would push the merginal down eaven farther. and If the reach gave it away they would have it back in less then 5 years. It has beed showen 80% of lotery winners are bankrupt in 5 years or less there is a reason the rich are rich.

So they don't and you wouldn't because it would cause inflation to soar (and you would only get 80% of your wealth back in 5 years).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Nope inflation would increase dramaticly and would push the merginal down eaven farther. and If the reach gave it away they would have it back in less then 5 years. It has beed showen 80% of lotery winners are bankrupt in 5 years or less there is a reason the rich are rich.

So they don't and you wouldn't because it would cause inflation to soar (and you would only get 80% of your wealth back in 5 years).

That proves how bad of an investment it would be. Why would I throw $100M into something that would only return $80M? All while causing the basic costs of everything to climb exponentially.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nope inflation would increase dramaticly and would push the merginal down eaven farther. and If the reach gave it away they would have it back in less then 5 years. It has beed showen 80% of lotery winners are bankrupt in 5 years or less there is a reason the rich are rich.

So they don't and you wouldn't because it would cause inflation to soar (and you would only get 80% of your wealth back in 5 years).

That proves how bad of an investment it would be. Why would I throw $100M into something that would only return $80M? All while causing the basic costs of everything to climb exponentially.

Maybe you want to make the poor even poorer by raising the costs of everything ...

PS: What do you believe would happen if the wealthiest top 5% of the world population destroyed (not donated, spent, etc...) 50% of their wealth tonight?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[SpeedRacer 1]

This whole thread demonstrates the fallacy of the belief that the solution to curing poverty is just to re-distribute little green pieces of paper.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,121]

>Why don't they?

Why don't you? If you can afford to skydive you're arguably among the richest 5% of people in the world - and you can certainly live off the other half of your riches.

[Butters 0]

Quote

This whole thread demonstrates the fallacy of the belief that the solution to curing poverty is just to re-distribute little green pieces of paper.

I have been told ...

Quote

The economy would shoot through the roof tonight if the wealthiest top 5% of the world population donated, spent, etc... 50% of their wealth tonight (it's not like they couldn't live off of the other 50%).

And asked ...

Quote

Why don't they?

Would you?

By people who believe that re-distributing little green pieces of paper will cure poverty. This whole thread was to get the opinions of others (to help me make my opinion).

My current opinion is that re-distributing little green pieces of paper may decrease poverty in the short term but will increase poverty in the long term and thus it is not the answer to curing poverty.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Butters 0]

Just to add a little fuel to the fire ...

Quote

The collective net worth of America's leading plutocrats rose $290 billion to $1.54 trillion

... and that is just America's leading plutocrats.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

... and that is just America's leading plutocrats.

If Pluto was a dog, then what the hell was Goofy?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

... and that is just America's leading plutocrats.

If Pluto was a dog, then what the hell was Goofy?

Reminds me of the joke about Mickey divorcing Minnie.

"I didn't say she was crazy, your honor. I said..."

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

... shoot through the roof tonight if the wealthiest top 5% of the world population donated, spent, etc... 50% of their wealth tonight (it's not like they couldn't live off of the other 50%).

Why don't they?

Would you?

Nope inflation would increase dramaticly and would push the merginal down eaven farther. and If the reach gave it away they would have it back in less then 5 years. It has beed showen 80% of lotery winners are bankrupt in 5 years or less there is a reason the rich are rich.

Yep, the decrease in total savings would be bad. Less money to lend, interest rates up, inflation up. No good.

And on that lottery winners being losers; I think the correct timeframe is 2 years, not 5. I saw a 60 Minutes show once where they had a guy who had won multi-millions TWICE - and he was broke.

Most people who do not manage large amounts of money have, well . . . no ability to manage large amounts of money. It is the difference between the proles and the merchant & entreprenuerial classes.

Proles imagine getting a big chunk of money and immediately think of how they will spend it. It's like they have a wish list in their brain and already have planned what neat laundry list of consumables they will buy when they win.

People who have money, or who have managed big chunks of it think first of how they will invest, preserve, and grow the money.

It is a difference in mindset that is not easily changed. A paycheck-to-paycheck mentality is not changed overnight by a windfall. It may temporarily eliminate the need for a paycheck, but if it doesn't change the mindset (which it usually doesn't) the person will eventaully find themselves back in the paycheck-to-paycheck behavior.

How many others have seen this personal and up close? Had an aquaintance in college that got a $60K persinal injury windfall. Not a fortune, but you'd think he would have had something to show for it by the end of that summer. Nada, nothing, zip, zero. By fall he was begging to get his pizza delivery job back.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Butters 0]

First argument:

Quote

Yep, the decrease in total savings would be bad. Less money to lend, interest rates up, inflation up. No good.

Second argument:

Quote

And on that lottery winners being losers; I think the correct timeframe is 2 years, not 5. I saw a 60 Minutes show once where they had a guy who had won multi-millions TWICE - and he was broke.

Most people who do not manage large amounts of money have, well . . . no ability to manage large amounts of money. It is the difference between the proles and the merchant & entreprenuerial classes.

Although both arguments may be valid, I believe the first argument is better than the second argument. Thanks ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

... shoot through the roof tonight if the wealthiest top 5% of the world population donated, spent, etc... 50% of their wealth tonight (it's not like they couldn't live off of the other 50%).

Others have talked about the inflationary results. I'll talk about liquidity. The billionaires out there didn't get rich by putting most of their fortune into savings accounts.

Gate's selling half his stake in Microsoft, aside from panicking the investors, is pretty much impossible to accomplish. The size of his stake is too large.

You can't sell half a mansion, either, and there isn't a market for half the super mansions out there.

[kallend 2,158]

I see that being a mere billionaire is no longer enough to get you on the Forbes 400 list.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

... shoot through the roof tonight if the wealthiest top 5% of the world population donated, spent, etc... 50% of their wealth tonight (it's not like they couldn't live off of the other 50%).

Others have talked about the inflationary results. I'll talk about liquidity. The billionaires out there didn't get rich by putting most of their fortune into savings accounts.

Gate's selling half his stake in Microsoft, aside from panicking the investors, is pretty much impossible to accomplish. The size of his stake is too large.

You can't sell half a mansion, either, and there isn't a market for half the super mansions out there.

Selling is not donating, spending, etc...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Selling is not donating, spending, etc...

You can't give 100 shares of MSFT to someone. Well, you can, but if the goal is the help the poor, they need cash, not stock that gives a dividend once every few years.

And you can't spend 100 shares of stock either. Again, it needs to be turned into a cash asset.

[vortexring 0]

Apart from myself, did anyone ever become seriously rich, retire, and then happily disappear into obscurity?

Where are they? Dissolved within their obscurity?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[nanook 1]

You give people money who don't know much about it (for instance, the poor), they will soon be penniless again. Again the lottery types. It's easy to make or receive money; it's hard to keep it. it costs to spend it, make it, save it, transfer it. I believe the poor tend to think of money as something to spend only. You give them money, they will not try to maintain it.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Butters 0]

Like I stated earlier ... I posed the statement and questions not because I believe the statement but because someone posed the statement and questions to me and I was looking for other opinions.

Quote

You give people money who don't know much about it (for instance, the poor), they will soon be penniless again. Again the lottery types. It's easy to make or receive money; it's hard to keep it. it costs to spend it, make it, save it, transfer it. I believe the poor tend to think of money as something to spend only. You give them money, they will not try to maintain it.

Ok, let's assume the wealth that is donated, spent, etc... by the rich goes to the poor. Your argument for the rich not donating, spending, etc... their wealth to the poor is because the poor will not maintain it?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[nanook 1]

Your opinion I mostly agree with. . .

Quote

Ok, let's assume the wealth that is donated, spent, etc... by the rich goes to the poor. Your argument for the rich not donating, spending, etc... their wealth to the poor is because the poor will not maintain it?

Why give hard earned money to people who don't deserve it? It's cosmically wrong and cruel.

Yes. It's a waste to give money to anyone whose habits did not get them out of the poverty level in the first place. There's reasons why people are poor in the U. S. You are either unimaginitve or lazy, made major life mistakes in your teens and decided not to rebound, or lack of knowledge and/or dicipline. Or persuit of happiness does not equate a high total worth. Some people like to work for a living.

The money will disappear. So not only will the distribution of wealth will momentarily decrease the poverty level (also decrease the high income level), but the poor will soon lose it again (the saying "the fool and his money is soon parted" is pretty old) the newly upper-middle class will be rich again and the entitlement equalibrium will be restored. Then the poor will be even more disillusioned because they cannot understand why they can't be rich, claiming the rich are holding them down and "they are getting richer on our hard work" or such other ignorant phrase. Back to square one but more bad feelings.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Your opinion I mostly agree with. . .

Quote

Ok, let's assume the wealth that is donated, spent, etc... by the rich goes to the poor. Your argument for the rich not donating, spending, etc... their wealth to the poor is because the poor will not maintain it?

Why give hard earned money to people who don't deserve it? It's cosmically wrong and cruel.

Yes. It's a waste to give money to anyone whose habits did not get them out of the poverty level in the first place. There's reasons why people are poor in the U. S. You are either unimaginitve or lazy, made major life mistakes in your teens and decided not to rebound, or lack of knowledge and/or dicipline. Or persuit of happiness does not equate a high total worth. Some people like to work for a living.

The money will disappear. So not only will the distribution of wealth will momentarily decrease the poverty level (also decrease the high income level), but the poor will soon lose it again (the saying "the fool and his money is soon parted" is pretty old) the newly upper-middle class will be rich again and the entitlement equalibrium will be restored. Then the poor will be even more disillusioned because they cannot understand why they can't be rich, claiming the rich are holding them down and "they are getting richer on our hard work" or such other ignorant phrase. Back to square one but more bad feelings.

Well said.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[nanook 1]

. . .but, what also I believe in is leading them to the water. the govt does a little of this with pell grants and subsidized loans; the rich tend to offer scholarships in the field of their interest. It's one of the few places I have social leanings to. After all, if and when they move on up, they more than pay back the help given by contributing to the economy legitimately. govt gets theirs by their considerable increase of income getting taxed; the govt getting more back than what it invested. They earn it the way everyone else does. hard work, dicipline, knowledge.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[pirana 0]

Quote

. . .but, what also I believe in is leading them to the water. the govt does a little of this with pell grants and subsidized loans; the rich tend to offer scholarships in the field of their interest. It's one of the few places I have social leanings to. After all, if and when they move on up, they more than pay back the help given by contributing to the economy legitimately. govt gets theirs by their considerable increase of income getting taxed; the govt getting more back than what it invested. They earn it the way everyone else does. hard work, dicipline, knowledge.

More well said. It's the old give them a fish or teach them how to fish deal. If someone is starving, certainly handing them a fish is the humane, compassionate, and right thing to do (IMO). But if along with that you have not taught them to fish, then you've done nothing to solve the root cause.

For those that are accepting the fish, but resisting the teaching, FUCK 'EM. If after a couple assists, a person is able but not willing to improve their lot, then they have made their choice.

BTW, the rich do give away and donate pretty good chunks of change already. One thing you'll notice about most donations by the rich though is that they are tied, directly or indirectly, to efforts to actually exact long term remedies. Usually, the money must be used to effect meaningful change to behaviors or processes - not just pay the monthly bills. When I was involved in writing for donations, grants, etc for a non-profit educational organization every single potential donor we solicited specified this; that we used the funds for development or expansion of programs, not to pay the electric bill or feed the kids.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley