Skip to main content

We have all heard it again and again. That the job creators are the backbone of the U.S. economy. That the individuals on welfare or employment insurance are the takers, the leeches of society that are the reason for our budget deficit. The horrible 47% that are just looking for a free ride.

We have also heard the term "Make your money work for you." Isn't it great that if you are fortunate enough to have money, that you can forego that whole "putting in a hard days work" and just let your electronic digits go to work, so you can go to the golf course and shoot a few holes while your money tirelessly slaves away to earn you your rightfully earned money.

How hard does a person on welfare have to work just to make at most $900 a month?
Well, they have to apply. Let's look at a welfare application to see how much paperwork is involved? http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/... . Then they have to do their monthly paperwork to keep making their paltry salary. It may not be a lot of work, but it's far more than a lot of CEO's do to make more than $900 dollars in one hour.

How about someone on employment insurance? They have to work for at least 20 weeks a year (real work....not imaginary work), they have to pay into the program, then they have to be laid off due to a shortage of work (no other reason for leaving will do), and then they have to fill out an initial application along with weekly submissions just to make 40-50% of their original earnings. And then of course if they come to the end of their allowed 26 weeks without finding work, it's either welfare or the streets. Wow....what a bunch of lazy mooches.

Now let's look at how much someone has to do to "make their money work for them?" If you want to do it online you can set up a direct investment account. Here is a site for setting one up. The process takes about 10 minutes to complete:
https://express.etrade.com/...

After that, all you need to do is put in money, read up on what stock you want to buy, and place an order. Or you can make a quick call to your investment broker and pay him a few bucks to do it for you. After that, voila.....your money is working for you. The only limitations to what you can earn is the amount you put in, and the performance of the stock.

So how hard do these "job creators" need to work to make money? A bit of mouse clicking on a computer, a few typed words, and voila!!! Just like that they are creating jobs.

So how many jobs do they create? When they buy stock in Apple when it's low, and then sell it off when it's high, does their investment lead to increased jobs at Apple? It could. Apple could use this money towards marketing, R&D, and other activities that lead to job creation. But since the stocks are usually only short term, selling them off as soon as they can make more money than they spent, realistically an individual who makes money off a trade did little more than swirl money around in a fake economy.
What really drives Apple is people buying Apple products. Who are most of those people? The real job creators. Those that work for a living, earn a real wage, and buy computers and phones. Regardless of the level or value of Apple's stocks, it can not make what people are not willing to buy.
So our job creator hasn't really done much of anything at all to contribute to jobs.

But they are paying taxes? So they contribute to society in that way right?
Yes, but considering capital gains tax is only 15%. That means that a "job creator" who let's his money work for him pays about half what a middle class person who has to actually perform labor does. And if the job creator has clever accountants who use a lot of loopholes and write offs they may find ways to pay far less than 15%.

So why are we essentially subsidizing job creators?

That supposed "mooch" who is supposedly the scourge of America is stealing from American tax payers by taking $900 dollars, that job creator who does nothing, but let's his money work for him cheats the American taxpayer out of $150,000 when he earns $1,000,000 of money by doing nothing at all.

There is a lot that needs to happen to fight inequality in America. But let's start by cutting subsidies off the real mooches of society. Those that barely do any real work, and pay far less tax. Not because of their talents, or their work ethic, or any other real traits they possess. Just because they were at some point fortunate enough, through birth or by luck to make the amount of imaginary digits to let the digits do the work so they don't have to.

If there was one very simple thing we could do to promote real jobs in the real economy, it would be to eliminate the subsidy we provide to the capital gains tax. If they at least eliminated it for investors that held the stock for less than a prescribed period of time, it would be a disincentive to invest in a stock just because the price may go up next week. It would be an incentive to invest in solid companies that make actual products and hires actual people to make things and provide services.

It would not eliminate all inequality in our society, but it would be a very solid start towards slowing the casino capitalism that is ruining the real economy.

Originally posted to Shawke on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 01:10 PM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  stock trading (25+ / 0-)
    When they buy stock in Apple when it's low, and then sell it off when it's high, does their investment lead to increased jobs at Apple? It could.
    Actually, no.  Apple got the money when the stock was first issued. For all it affects Apple subequently people might as well be trading baseball cards.
    •  Thank you for the comment (8+ / 0-)

      I was being pretty overly simplistic in the diary. There are ways companies can benefit from share price. They can do a buyback and a lower share price, and then reissue at a higher stock price raising revenues. But as a general yes, other than the possibility of raising money by issuing more shares due to greater demand, raising stock prices does little to benefit the company itself. Which plays into my overall point that stock market gambling has little to do with the real economy or jobs.

      •  Actually, companies are not allowed to allow (3+ / 0-)

        trades on their own shares to contribute to net income.

        •  That is correct. They can not own the shares. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JBL55

          They can buy them back though. At which point they can either retire the stock, or keep them as treasury stock to reissue at a later date.

          "Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But people who never quit, and never win are idiots"

          by Shawke on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 05:21:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  To clarify this point, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JBL55, yoduuuh do or do not

            treasury stocks do not earn dividends, can not be used for votes, and are not counted as outstanding shares. But they can be held none the less and then later sold at a higher rate than they were repurchased at to raise additional capital.

            So in this case saying they can't "own" the stock is kind of a technicality since they do sort of own it. It just doesn't count as a standard share as long it sits as treasury stock.

            It's the same as the stock the company has not yet sold when it first goes public.

            "Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But people who never quit, and never win are idiots"

            by Shawke on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 05:28:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Except (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JBL55, yoduuuh do or do not

        At that those singular moments, when for example a tech company does need to raise money so they can build say... a new factory, than the price of that stock does matter.

        Those day to day fluctuations have little inherent value, but their value IS to correctly set the equity or bond price, at that one magical moment.

        Im a big fan of the middle class. I agree with the idea that the wealthy are for the most part takers. But the markets do have value.

        There is a good reason why a new tech company will have to a much higher interest rate, than IBM. The markets in all their magic, set those prices relatively right.

        Additionally without capital available at critical junctures, companies fail. That means capital has value.  

        Either way ignoring all that. Just back to your first sentence. By your sarcasm you are implying that the capital providers are taking more than their fair share and that the poor are not.

        Why cant both be true?

        My perspective is that the middle say 74% are producing  all the vast majority of the value. The top 1% are producing value, but taking a vastly disproportionately large % and the bottom 15% are not producing nearly enough for their own survival

        Both are problems. Both need to be fixed.  

        •  I think your last point ignores an important (4+ / 0-)

          question. Why is the bottom 15% not producing enough to support themselves?

          Of course there may be some examples of fraud, or laziness. But really, in most cases of laziness, that individual is "taking" $900 a month at most from society. What is the wealthy CEO who is making $20,000,000 a year taking away from society by not paying a fair share to taxes (forgetting how ridiculous of a sum that is for one person to make in the first place).

          My point is that the bottom 15% combined, whether underproducing on purpose or not are not sucking away even close to as much as the top 1%.

          And to be more realistic, a much larger portion of the 15% are not underproducing out of choice. So addressing the problem has a lot more to do with our broken economic system than it does anything else.

          "Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But people who never quit, and never win are idiots"

          by Shawke on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 07:14:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  15:1 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JBL55

            I really have no justification for the exact % but really I think the total amount of miss allocation is about even for the top 1% and the bottom 15%.

            To be honest in our discussions we need to recognize both as problems.

            The republicans ofc are siding with the top 1% and the democrats for the most part side with the bottom 15%.

            The correct solution in this particular case is not dogmatic and siding with one side. But to recognize that both are problems are work towards a reasonable solution.

            No. It is not reasonable for Romney to be paying 14% taxes.

            No its not reasonable for my neice to have two kids by the time shes 15 and happilly expect the rest of society to pick up after her shit.  

            •  But to act as if (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JBL55, Ahianne, yoduuuh do or do not

              It is that full 15% is lazy or working the system in some way is repeating the right wing mantra. It is very likely a very small percentage of those on social assistance. And of those, the amount they are draining the system is minuscule in comparison to the wealthy.

              I don't disagree whether there is a problem, but the right wing inflate the abuses and dismiss the poor as worthless.

              If you do something that creates jobs, such as changes to the capital gains tax or direct stimulus spending, and we are closer to full employment, then it may be time to discuss getting people off assistance. But when there are tons of people competing for very few jobs, all the motivation in the world, including the threat of starving to death on the streets will not magically create jobs that don't exist.

              Until that time comes where enough jobs exist that these people could work if they wanted to....it really doesn't matter.

              The top one percent are pumping their money into a casino that does not create jobs. That is the problem. Not your niece getting a few thousand dollars to feed herself and her kids.

              "Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But people who never quit, and never win are idiots"

              by Shawke on Fri Dec 20, 2013 at 02:12:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Only 4.1 percent of Americans are on welfare. (4+ / 0-)

              And while many more receive SNAP benefits, the vast majority of them are working at jobs that don't pay enough.

              Here's the source for the 4.1 percent number, btw.

              Your niece is just one anecdotal example and in no way indicative of the whole.

              Your two posts reek of right-winger bs dressed up to seem "reasonable."

      •  Actually, this is a very important point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yoduuuh do or do not, Shawke

        because one of the major shibboleths that needs to be destroyed is that people in the financial system are creating jobs or creating wealth. The reality is they do neither; in fact, they are a net deficit to the rest of the economy. This point needs to be hammered home over and over again until the political power of Wall Street is annihilated.

        And buying and selling stock is the best example because it's the one the average citizen can most easily relate to. I found it amazing how difficult it is for people to accept the fact that buying stock in the stock market does not assist the company that issued the stock by so much as a penny. People soon enough understand it, once you can make them slow down and think through what happens in the stock market, but they just refuse to accept it. I think because it shatters a fundamental article of faith they have (or, hopefully, had) in American financial capitalism.

        A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

        by NBBooks on Fri Dec 20, 2013 at 09:31:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "take" and "make" are funny words. (9+ / 0-)

    Some people do not know what they mean. People who take orders are, obviously, takers. On the other hand, people who make people do things, are makers.
    See how that works?

    Much depends on preconceived notions. If one presumes, as classical economics does, that man prefers leisure and must be bribed to work, then the people who make people do things are, obviously, on the right side of morality, given that bribery is immoral. Which is why slavery was a moral system. Taking orders and doing what one is told is, after all, a virtue. Obedience. That the culture of obedience is coercive; that depriving one's fellow man of sustenance (food and shelter) unless he subordinates himself to another's demand, is evil because it violates the free will with which man is endowed by the creator, simply doesn't occur to people under the sway of the preconceived notion that they are doing good.

    That coercion is wrong is difficult to fathom since it seems to come so naturally.

    Anyway, there's no point in arguing with preconceived notions.

    Obamacare at your fingertips: 1-800-318-2596; TTY: 1-855-889-4325

    by hannah on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 01:30:16 PM PST

    •  A very astute observation (4+ / 0-)

      I thought it was quite interesting when Obama made his "you didn't build that" quote during the last election. It should have been an absolute hit with the people. And yet preconceived notion perpetuate that the person in charge, or the person financing the building are the ones responsible for the end result. Not the people who physically did the work.

      From a young age it made no sense to me that people that work physically hard make little money, while people that do little other than talk or tell others what to do make way more.

    •  Good distinction, hannah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shawke, JBL55

      These are the people who never give a thought about telling secrets in front of the hired help.  The help aren't thinking people, they are workers.  It's all in the perception.

      •  Yes, I prefer "preconceived notion" to (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shawke, caryltoo, JBL55

        "prejudice" because the latter refers to judgement, something that hardly ever happens in these brains. It's as if they operate on notions that arrived in their brains before they were even conceived. That is, they are absorbed from the ether and require no thought.
        They aren't based on any real experience, though they do affect behavior towards real people. Some people act like a mosquito seeking warm blood.

        Obamacare at your fingertips: 1-800-318-2596; TTY: 1-855-889-4325

        by hannah on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:01:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Coercion is a problem in many ways (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shawke

      The obvious is that one person has no right to force another person to do something.  Doing this implies that we are not all equal before the law.

      The unexpected problem is detailed in the work of behavior economists.  In the book, Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely shows that using money either as a reward or as a means to force people to do things results in poorer work.

      People do their best work under conditions that are significantly autonomous.  The research on this is now massive, consistent and compelling.  For a simple summary, read Daniel H. Pink's book, Drive.

      To go into this in more depth, look into the research of Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan (Self-determination Theory).

      "Trust only those who doubt" Lu Xun

      by LookingUp on Fri Dec 20, 2013 at 08:23:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  the worst takers of all (11+ / 0-)

    are Mitt Rmoney and the like - asset stripping and sending jobs off to China.  Even worse, loading up perfectly profitable companies with unsustainable debt, bankrupting them and actually destroying jobs.

    (Not all private capital is evil - some fund new enterprises.  But Romney not among those)

    •  Unfortunately the larger part of the finance world (4+ / 0-)

      just like Romney are not among those.

      It's frightening how much of quantitive easing has gone towards casino capitalism, and how little has made it's way to the real economy.

      •  How has QE done this? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shawke, JBL55
        •  I am not an economist so will not claim to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JBL55

          have an expertise on the subject. I read Krugman and other economists and do understand that under the current situation, and with the governments hands tied against doing other forms of stimulus, that QE has possibly stopped mass deflation during the last four years. But just looking at the evidence of the last 4 years, that the stock markets have boomed, and that workers wages and GDP has had little growth, I'd say it's fairly obvious where all the money created through quantitive easing has gone, and stayed.

          Once again, under the current circumstances I can't even say I'm against quantitive easing. But it does not seem to be the best way to me to boost an economy since it relies on trickle down theory. It has greatly the elite, and had little benefit to everyone else.

          Of course it's impossible to say how different things would look now if it hadn't been done. So it's really just conjecture.

          "Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But people who never quit, and never win are idiots"

          by Shawke on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 04:43:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you, that was my very first thought (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, Bluefin, wilderness voice

      It's only natural Romney would have accused others of being takers.  People like that will always tell you what THEY're really up to if you listen to what they accuse everyone else of doing.  Especially the Republican party, which has a special ability to look into their own hearts and there perceive the evil that lurks in others' intentions.

      ------
      Ideology is when you think you know the answers before you know the questions.
      It infests hollow spaces where intelligence has died.

      by Alden on Fri Dec 20, 2013 at 05:34:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  from memory, some time ago, I read an analysis of (8+ / 0-)

    the 1% which showed some 90% of them were "legacy" millionaires as opposed to "made" millionaires who had made their money vs inheriting it.  Of the 10%, it was determined that fewer than 4% of that 1% actually generated jobs (outside of jobs such as personal shoppers or housekeepers or dogwalkers) and of that 4% the majority of those had businesses that generated more than 100 jobs.

    So if the wealthy are generating jobs, it appears that it is only 4% of 10% of 1% are generating any jobs at all.  I believe if someone were to compute the amount of wealth held by the 1% vs the number of jobs they generate annually vs the number of jobs generated by various government initiatives that it would be determined that government initiatives are far more efficient in producing jobs for the 99% and that enriching the 1% so they will produce job is the most inefficient method of creating jobs

  •  A lot of investment is . . . (11+ / 0-)

    . . . merely casino betting on the direction of the market.  No productive work at all.

    I think that high marginal tax rates on such unearned income could force money into productive channels.

  •  Tell me that welfare application (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shawke, rmonroe, jan4insight, JBL55, Ahianne

    Isn't intentionally designed to be as confusing as possible.

    When I applied for medical assistance, my app was rejected multiple times because I wasn't providing enough "evidence" that I was poor enough to need it. Luckily, I was finally approved right before I broke my elbow, but man, that was a HUGE ordeal.

    Living is easy with eyes closed...

    by skybluewater on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 04:03:50 PM PST

    •  There is also an online application for welfare (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, JBL55

      as well as the .PDF one. I didn't go through it to see how bad it was. But that .pdf one is a nightmare. And yes, it does look purposefully difficult to dissuade someone, especially someone without an education from applying.

      "Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But people who never quit, and never win are idiots"

      by Shawke on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 04:06:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't understand the secondary stock market at (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shawke, JBL55

    all. I don't understand why we spend so much money regulating companies' financial statements. I don't see what it does for the US for a person who owns x% of company A to sell that percentage of company A to another person. I don't understand why the profits from this transaction are taxed at different rates from ordinary earnings. It makes no sense to me. The companies do not benefit. It is a zero sum game. I just don't get it. By all means, eliminate tax on dividends. That's cool with me (or eliminate the tax deduction for interest payments).

    But the entire NYSE, NASDAQ, all of it is just regularized gambling, and I just don't understand why it's such a big deal.

  •  Did you know that 'takers' is a race? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shawke, JBL55

    Last year I read 'Man's Search for Meaning' by Victor Frankl. He was one of the few holocaust survivors. His postwar credentials are quite impressive, look it up.

    In the book he describes how some of the Nazi soldiers, officers and guards would sometimes give to him and other prisoners items of food, cigarettes, boots, and so forth-a very risky move. Yet, these gifts vastly improved prison life in a death camp. Grom this experience Frankl therorized that the human race can be divided into two races of people-the decent, or undecent. That the race of a person has nothing to do with social rank, black, white, or whatever. he surmised a person is born one way or the other.

    If one buys into his theory (and I do) then one cannot change into either one or the other. Born a taker, always a taker. Same for givers. I believe him. And since he refers to it as a race then one cannot fundamentally change-one can gesture in either direction but at the core a horse is a horse is a horse.

    Shameless promotion is allowed. HousecallsHomeServices.com

    by PlanetTreasures on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 04:40:13 PM PST

    •  Your comment is interesting (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice, JBL55, Ahianne

      I'm not sure I agree though. Recent studies (which are always subjective I know) have shown that a rise in wealth can actually lead to a loss of compassion and a change in political beliefs.

      I think it's likely easier for a person to turn into an indecent than for an indecent person to turn into a decent one.

      I do however think people can change.

      Also I put a lot more stock into the nurture side rather than nature.

      It is interesting, when you meet a small child, no matter how young, you definitely see a personality. One that definitely stays with the child for their whole life. But how positive and negative traits evolve is very much a matter of the child's environment.

      Of course this is all just my opinion.

      "Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But people who never quit, and never win are idiots"

      by Shawke on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 04:50:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Look at the 1986 Tax reform act (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shawke, wilderness voice, JBL55, Bluefin

    Really.

    the 86 TRA did more to reduce the domestic investment landscape than nearly anything else in 30 years.

    .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 05:03:45 PM PST

  •  It has never made any sense to me .. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shawke, Ahianne, papercut, Bluefin

    ... that income from investment should be taxed at a rate different from any other income.

    I suppose an argument can be made that it encourages saving, but that should apply only to those below a certain income threshold.

  •  I always find these rants kind of droll. (0+ / 0-)

    A citizen who requires government aid to live is a cost upon the government.   He is not contributing to the fiscal welfare of the country.  A wealthy citizen who pays less taxes than perhaps the populace would like him to still pays for dozens if not hundreds of "takers."

    He's only not paying his "fair share" because we're defining "fair share" as whatever amount of his money we feel like taking.  If all citizens are equal, then the rich man is paying many times his "fair share."

    •  Well let's leave the rich vs poor argument for a (0+ / 0-)

      Minute then and ask the question, why should a man who works as an executive and earns 1 million dollars a year as income,  pay double the taxes of a man who makes one million a year from capital investments, and does almost no work at all?

      My comparison between the rich and the poor is heavily based on the fact that the ultra wealthy that make most of their money on capital gains, do little more work than someone on welfare, and yet are rewarded with massive tax breaks for doing so. At least all of the money a person on welfare makes he spends in the real economy. What percentage of a wealthy investors earnings goes towards purchases, and what percentage goes back into the gambling world of more investments?

      "Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But people who never quit, and never win are idiots"

      by Shawke on Fri Dec 20, 2013 at 07:57:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Risked versus unrisked income. (0+ / 0-)

        The general argument is that unrisked income (i.e. wages) doesn't involve possible loss of wealth.  Risked income (investments) are already penalized because individuals have limited ability to deduct losses, therefore they should get preferential tax treatment.

        Only long-term capital gains get preferential tax treatment, as an incentive to discourage volatility and encourage investment.  Short term gains (1 year or less) are taxed just like regular income.  Qualified Dividends get preferential tax treatment as part of what's basically an incentive for Americans to own American investments.

        I'm personally kind of agnostic on whether everything should be "income" and taxed at one flat rate, but there is a logic to the preferential tax rates.

        do little more work than someone on welfare,
        You're confusing "effort" and "work."  In terms of GDP and societal wealth, the rich do vast amounts of work and welfare recipients almost none.  To compare a person who spends 8 hours making a spoon, and another who spends 1 hour making an identical spoon, the first guy does 8x as much effort, but they both do the exact same amount of work.
        At least all of the money a person on welfare makes he spends in the real economy. What percentage of a wealthy investors earnings goes towards purchases, and what percentage goes back into the gambling world of more investments?
        Investments are the real economy.  They're how companies get financing, people save for retirement, and governments fund their expenditures.
        •  I have heard the risk argument several times..... (0+ / 0-)

          usually from Republicans. But since when is taking risks something we incentivize? Do we give tax breaks to people who win money at Vegas? The horse track?

          Those activities do no less to stimulate the economy (and maybe even more) than the gambling on Wall Street.

          I think you are confusing "work" with "productivity".

          If a person builds something by hand in 1 month, and another builds the same product in 1 day using machinery, has the person that worked for a month not worked? That seems pretty derogatory to people in the third world? Now I agree that a person on welfare has not done work by filling out forms. But neither has a guy who calls his stock broker, regardless of the effect.

          And I would hypothesize that often the welfare recipient does just as much for the economy as the investor. The welfare recipient spends the money he is given which enters the real economy and goes through the same multiplier effect as anyone else. He is a good little consumer who creates jobs. Yes.....even someone on welfare is a job creator.

          I think you are mashing up investment all into one product. Very little of trading is done that actually gives a company any money. Seed funding, IPO's, secondary offerings. These all give the actual company money. When someone buys a stock from someone else actually holding it, that does nothing at all for the company. If the result is an increase in share cost, it may allow the company to further leverage itself. But it does nothing for companies cash flow. Investors can swirl around their savings between different investments for years without actually contributing to a single item being built.
          That isn't even talking about shorting stocks, derivatives, CDS's, gold investment, currency trading, and the myriad of other financial instruments that do nothing at all.

          "Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But people who never quit, and never win are idiots"

          by Shawke on Fri Dec 20, 2013 at 01:40:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Risk" should be incentivized. (0+ / 0-)
            But since when is taking risks something we incentivize? Do we give tax breaks to people who win money at Vegas? The horse track?
            We're incentivizing people to use their savings which puts the money out in the economy, rather than sitting on it.  The worst place for you to keep your money, as far as the economy is concerned, is under your mattress.
            And I would hypothesize that often the welfare recipient does just as much for the economy as the investor. The welfare recipient spends the money he is given which enters the real economy and goes through the same multiplier effect as anyone else. He is a good little consumer who creates jobs. Yes.....even someone on welfare is a job creator.
            This simply isn't possible.  The welfare recipient isn't producing any goods. Consuming goods by itself does not enlarge the economy or enrich anyone. Society as a whole is not richer for him consuming goods, only poorer for what he consumed.
            That isn't even talking about shorting stocks, derivatives, CDS's, gold investment, currency trading, and the myriad of other financial instruments that do nothing at all.
            They're fiscal transactions, just like those in the "real" economy.  They may be a little more divorced from the actual production of goods than say, selling a car, but they enable the production of goods.
  •  How to rercognize the Takers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shawke

    Money is like blood. It must circulate in order to fulfill its function. The economic Takers are to the money as the leeches are to blood. How can you tell which are the greedy leeches? They are all swollen, purple and puffed up with blood. It is obvious. How do you recognize the economic leeches? They are all swollen up, purple and puffed up with money. Money that isn't circulating. They are the unhealthy ones - the takers - the addicts. They need some tough love. I'll be sharpening my guillotine waiting for the day we take back from the Takers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site