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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (13844)	9/23/2003 3:08:16 AM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

You have a fixed pie mentality. That may not mean anything to you, I assume you come from a different culture. You see society as divided into roles and classes with a limited capacity for wealth creation. In economic terms, you see diminishing returns to scale. That isn't necessarily the way it works. I won't get into it on this thread but goods tend to spawn complimentary goods. Each good offered on the market is a demand for other goods, so that the successful production of a good makes other productions successful. A growing economy follows a stochastic expansion path on which each additional production creates a market for already existing products and for the new products created at later points of time. Thus, the structure of markets tends to become more complex over time – producing increasing returns to scale.

To: Ali Chen who wrote (13844)	9/23/2003 11:16:00 AM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

If you force people to struggle too much, they may elect to take the wealth from you, by force. I don't think you want this to happen to you Well you've hit on the key reason that people still believe that redistributing income to the poor is something we want to do all evidence to the contrary. If you look at the growth in social programs for the poor since the 1960s you'll see that the growth and size of these programs matches the increase in the number of poor people as well as the sharp increase in violent crime and property crime over the last forty years. Meanwhile I know a great many people who, like myself, grew up extremely poor who did, in fact, escape poverty and are now very middle class. It is the struggle that gives your life meaning, seeing your dreams as a poor child come true due to your own effort. I don't think you want this to happen to you. I was mugged years ago by three kids from government subsidized housing. Almost every year I've lived in and around Baltimore something has happened. A car stolen, a rental property burglarized, house broken into, etc. In almost every single case (only one exception- where a middle class drug addict broke into our shed) where the perpetrator was caught it was someone who grew up in a family situation with some sort of government assistance. All were from single parent families or had grown up without parents. Why do you think that there is any connection between the obscure taxline "earned income credit" and the rate of reproduction in certain categories of population? I'm not saying people procreate with the idea that they'll get extra money back on their taxes, but I do know that people limit the number of children they have based on what they think they can afford to support. If you take away that limitation then there is little planning. Years ago I asked a good friend of mine if she was planning to have a second child and she said she really couldn't afford to. Then she added that the only friends she had who thought they could afford to have a lot of kids were the ones that were getting government assistance. She had to work for her money, so she decided to keep it at one. You have an enormous population that considers waiting until they are married or having a decent job as optional when having children. These people didn't come to this conclusion all by themselves, it was government policy which encouraged this.