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: DMaA who wrote (377520)	8/10/2010 10:52:01 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 793919

I believe you are correct. Taking $10,000 and buying IBM stock probably doesn't do much good. Taking $10,000 and investing it in a small entrepreneurial enterprise does. Yeah, hopefully, if your enterprise does well. But that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm wondering if wealth distribution from holders of passive invested capital to, well, whoever receives these government payouts, is good or bad for the economy. It's whether me buying $10k of IBM stock or welfare recipients spending the same $10k (taken from me for example as a result of the Bush tax cut expiration) is better for the economy as a whole. It may just be shuffling the same cards around the table, but somehow them buying food and clothing (albeit with my money) seems better for the economy than me sitting in IBM stock. It seems regardless of where the money comes from, someone spending it on goods and services is better than someone else putting it in the mattress.