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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (377477)	8/10/2010 1:44:03 PM
From: KLP	7 Recommendations Respond to of 793955

W h a t e v e r. You be the grasshopper and give your money to the poor, and know the government does that too. Just don't expect those of us who are ants to bail you out when you have no savings left. The grasshoppers will be partying on and maybe give you a hunk of cheese from the pantry. They got the cheese from the Government and food stamps.

To: Elroy who wrote (377477)	8/10/2010 5:09:11 PM
From: Maurice Winn	24 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793955

You have left out the big facts: <I'm not certain on the definition of velocity of money, but again intuitively it would seem taking $10 out of a well off person's bank account and giving it to a not so well off person (who will spend it within the month) would speed up the velocity of money. Again, I'm not sure on the larger economic affect, but it seems having a poor person spend $10 on food is better for the general economy than having the same $10 sit in the bank account of a better off person. > That's just theft, pure and simple, with no economic validity. So the $10 ends up with the person who produced the food. The person who had it no longer has it. The "poor" person got the food. Now what? The person who had the $10 isn't going to go to the trouble of earning another $10 because it will just be stolen again. The food producer won't produce more food for the poor person because they can't pay. So you end up with no production and all three in the economic system going hungry. What matters and was left out in your "intuitive" economic theory was motivation. What should happen is that the poor person gets hungry. Sees that the rich person has $10. Offers to mow their lawn for them or clean their roof or something to earn the $10. The rich person thinks that's a good idea because they want those things done. The poor person gets the $10 and buys the food. The food producer uses that $10 to buy something from the rich person who is obviously producing things that people want to buy. The money goes around much better like that. Or, to get the same $10 back, the poor person could help the farmer produce their crop and use that same $10 again to buy some more food. Simply giving out money does not create economic activity. The only way to "give it out" is to rob the rich person either directly or by dilution of their $10 by way of "quantitative easing" aka "money printing". It's amazing how strong the grip is of "intuitive economics". So-called "stimulus spending" will achieve nothing other than economic destruction. Mqurice