Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (157239)	5/13/2003 3:34:28 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

i said, <<my point is a marginal $ in the hands of someone who will actually buy stuff is better for the economy and job creation than a $ in the hand of some clown who will save or invest it>> you siad, "Recent history doesn't support that." if my statement isn't supported, in your view, then you MUST believe it is better to put the wealth in the hands of the wealthy (those that save and invest). Actually, disputing your statement in no way implies what he "must believe." You original statement is wrong in two ways - 1) in that it implies a short-term injection of cash into the hands of everyone does more to stimulate the economy than any other alternative, and 2) in that it claims the only alternative is to put the money "in the hand of some clown who will save or invest it." #1 is not supported by historical evidence from broad tax rebates as were tried two years ago and in the 1970s. #2 is simply the creation of a false dilemma. Bob