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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (70570)	6/29/2014 11:55:53 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

>> There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but I don’t buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my “manager pants.” I guess I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money away in savings, where it doesn’t do the country much good.<< LOL!! Hey, but earlier he said.... ........ And also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that the other 99.99 percent of Americans can’t even imagine. Multiple homes, my own plane, etc., etc. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht....... ***************************************************************************** So that's three cars, a few pair of pants and a few shirts, Multiple Homes, a Plane, and a large Yacht. Doesn't like he spends money just like the pitch-fork cry babies. When the "pitch forks come" the wealthy will just sail out of the harbor in their "Large Yachts" and take all their investment income with them. Set anchor in Singapore, or Dubai while the Pitch-Fork Cry Babies whine.. The masses will stand on the piers demanding their Yachts too!! He explains something that what divides the pitch-fork wielding masses and the large yacht owners. He SAVES a disproportionate amount of his earnings. This is WHY HE IS WEALTHY!! If he spent all his money, in the name of "helping the country", then he would no longer be WEALTHY. He would become a pitch-fork carrying member of the Democratic Party. The Liberals want everyone to spend every nickel they make and every nickel they can borrow, leaving people trapped in poverty for eternity. The Conservatives SAVE THIER MONEY, and therefore on their way to building wealth and the purchase of that large yacht. After the Liberals spend all their money, they turn to the Conservatives and demand a redistribution of the wealth the Conservatives SAVED because the Liberals Blew All their money on trinkets that end up in a Yard Sale in a year of two.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (70570)	6/30/2014 9:32:42 AM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

<What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let’s do it all over again. We’ve got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too.< Ah Ha! So we find his agenda!! So he is worried that unless the "income inequality" is resolved. Then people won't be able to buy his products. He inter-changes the terms "wealth" with "Income inequality" as if they are the same things. Giving un-skilled people more money, only gives you more poor people with IPhones. That fixes nothing, and the IPhone becomes a paper weight when the IPhone 3 is released. The way you create wealth is through SAVINGS and INVESTMENT. Instead of buying an IPhone when they came out, wouldn't someone had been better off buying AAPL stock when the IPhone first emerged? That's the difference between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy. Giving people more money so they can buy more stuff, may make them feel more affluent for a short period of time, but, it does not MAKE THEM AFFLUENT. It does not create wealth. <In 1992, I was selling pillows made by my family’s business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores across the country, ....snip.... Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy, was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends, both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was a guy you’ve probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I told both Jeffs that *I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time.* It just happened that the second Jeff—Bezos—called me back first to take up my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller.< No, No, No, the lucky part is that he HAD THE MONEY TO INVEST THAT HE HAD STARTED SAVING WHILE WORKING AS A PILLOW SALESMAN. If he had blown all his paycheck at the bar every weekend, then when the opportunity of a lifetime appeared before him, he would have had to PASS because he lacked the SAVINGS to take advantage of it. Similar story for me when I took $75,000 in savings in 1995 and put it in a stock of a little knows San Diego company called Qualcomm. If I had blown all my paychecks instead of saving, then that opportunity would have passed. I took the funds from the huge gains on Qualcomm and parlayed that into other investments which have returned more gains. My message to the "pitch-fork crowd".."You made poor decisions, I already have dual citizenship and the majority of my assets are not tied to the US. When you come after me with your "picth-forks". The only thing you are going to find is the "contrail" left behind as I "touchdown in my second country of citizenship".. So Long and Thanks for all the Fish". The disappearance of the"middle-class" runs in parallel with the disappearance of the idea of"family savings". Read the book... "The Millionaire Next Door". The take away from this story is.. I am buying stock in a "Pitch-Fork" company.. If the masses are going to take their money and buy pitchforks, then no reason I shouldn't take some of my SAVINGS and make a fortune off the masses buying "pitch-forks". And so it goes, PCSTEL

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (70570)	7/2/2014 12:21:30 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Economic Inequality of any degree doesn't make for a feudal society. A Feudal society involves political control over other people, not just some being rich and some being poor. The peasants can't leave the land, the baron owes service the the Duke who owes service to the King etc. Not because of ongoing voluntary transactions but because of hereditary political power and privilege. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they’d be able to afford his Model Ts. I don't know whether Ford really believed that, or he was just saying it for good PR. Either way the idea that the company could benefit by a raise causing more of its employees to buy the product, thus increasing sales more than the increase is cost, is nonsense on stilts. adamsmith.org Message 27092445 If we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression Destroy food when people are hungry, outlaw discounting or customer selection of which chicken they want to buy, impose high tax rates during a depression, put upward pressure on wages when there is massive unemployment... Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. Foolish, but not insane. Seattle already has high income and a high cost structure. $15 only takes out the bottom, not much of the economy. $15/hour minimum in rural Mississippi would be insane. The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of job growth by small businesses are San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage? Highest minimum wages are going to be in wealthy cities that can afford them to a greater degree. They can sustain the harm caused by the higher minimum wage, or if they are sufficiently wealthy it can even be above the market clearing wage for entry level labor and thus have little effect either positive or negative. Fifteen dollars isn't a risky untried policy for us. Yes it is (if not quite as risky as some might believe, and not nearly as risky as it would be elsewhere), its a 61% increase in the minimum that represents the policy they have already tried (and been harmed by, but been able to sustain the modest harm considering their generally strong economy). It makes perfect sense if you think about it: If a worker earns $7.25 an hour, which is now the national minimum wage, what proportion of that person’s income do you think ends up in the cash registers of local small businesses? Hardly any. That person is paying rent, ideally going out to get subsistence groceries at Safeway, and, if really lucky, has a bus pass. But she’s not going out to eat at restaurants. Not browsing for new clothes. Not buying flowers on Mother’s Day. Business selling less expensive products will lose more by a large increase in their wages, then they will gain in employee purchases. That doesn't just apply to an increase in one company like Ford's $5/day (although its stronger and more obvious in such situations). OTOH in one company situations, where wages are raised higher then competitors, there are also more potential from gain, less turnover and you get to out compete your competitors for the better employees if you pay more. If everyone has to pay more then the company doesn't become more competitive at getting and keeping employees.