40 Billionaires To Give Away Half Their Wealth

Gavik

Registered Member
#32
Not to be too cliche, but a rising tide lifts all boats. In areas where there is a high population of rich, everyone benefits. The car salesman sells new cars with all the features instead of budget or used cars, the grocer sells more expensive meats and the waitress gets bigger tips.
False. Rich people already buy these things, with more money it's only logical to invest in things that most likely won't benefit anything local. Direct cash injection to the lower classes allow them to purchase the things you described and stimulate the economy.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#33
How does that picture prove or disprove anything? Does anyone seriously believe it isn't impossible to eliminate poverty?

I see Jeanie's point, it is sad that some people are dying for want of care while others are making more than enough to survive, but for the very most part people do make an living wage for honest work. There are certainly evils in the free market but there are evils in command and control economies as well. And a picture here or there doesn't prove or disprove anything.
------
False. Rich people already buy these things, with more money it's only logical to invest in things that most likely won't benefit anything local. Direct cash injection to the lower classes allow them to purchase the things you described and stimulate the economy.
But, direct cash injections (if I'm interpreting what you mean by that term) also leads to inflation, thus destroying it's intended benefit.
 
Last edited:

Chaos

Epic Gamer
V.I.P.
#34
How does that picture prove or disprove anything?
It neither proves nor disproves anything. It does, however, show a flaw in the theory. For instance:

Free healthcare: good for the people.
Shared wealth: good for the people.

Solitary wealth (per billionaire): does nothing for the people.

Do you start to see a pattern? Just curious.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#35
It neither proves nor disproves anything. It does, however, show a flaw in the theory. For instance:

Free healthcare: good for the people.
Shared wealth: good for the people.

Solitary wealth (per billionaire): does nothing for the people.

Do you start to see a pattern? Just curious.
No, it really doesn't. The saying implies as the economy gets better for some it raises the economy for all. Whether that's true or not is debateable, but as you admitted the picture doesn't disprove that. While it's true not all benefit from it the economy does rise to a higher standard of living, generally speaking.

EDIT: It should be pointed out your "pattern" is fallacious. The assumption that "free" healthcare is good for the people ignores all the cons of universal care, just as your "shared wealth" example does.
 
Last edited:

Chaos

Epic Gamer
V.I.P.
#36
No, it really doesn't. The saying implies as the economy gets better for some it raises the economy for all. Whether that's true or not is debateable, but as you admitted the picture doesn't disprove that. While it's true not all benefit from it the economy does rise to a higher standard of living, generally speaking.
Yes, it really does. The saying implies that the wealth of one man is as beneficial for the bum on the streets as it is for the man himself. It's not. That wealth is 99.99% luxury to the billionaire. The picture neither proves nor disproves anything, but it does make a point.

EDIT: It should be pointed out your "pattern" is fallacious. The assumption that "free" healthcare is good for the people ignores all the cons of universal care, just as your "shared wealth" example does.
Well, by shared wealth and free healthcare, I assumed you would realize that wasn't meant to be taken as "walk in to a clinic and get free medecine which is manufactured free of charge and nobody ever pays for and also walk out with a hundred bucks for free" or something silly like that. You're an intelligent guy. I figured you'd understand, my bad.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#37
Yes, it really does. The saying implies that the wealth of one man is as beneficial for the bum on the streets as it is for the man himself. It's not. That wealth is 99.99% luxury to the billionaire. The picture neither proves nor disproves anything, but it does make a point.
No it doesn't, I've already explained what the saying means. I don't feel like repeating myself. And it makes a pretty poor point.​



Well, by shared wealth and free healthcare, I assumed you would realize that wasn't meant to be taken as "walk in to a clinic and get free medecine which is manufactured free of charge and nobody ever pays for and also walk out with a hundred bucks for free" or something silly like that. You're an intelligent guy. I figured you'd understand, my bad.
Don't be flippant I know exactly what you meant which is why I said (I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself here) :

The assumption that "free" healthcare is good for the people ignores all the cons of universal care, just as your "shared wealth" example does.
I really hope I don't have to type it out again a third time.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
#38
But, direct cash injections (if I'm interpreting what you mean by that term) also leads to inflation, thus destroying it's intended benefit.
Not by just printing up more money. I suppose the term is a bit too narrow. My point is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to give the rich more money in the hopes that their spending will stimulate the economy. They didn't become rich by spending all their money on local shops and local jobs.
 

Chaos

Epic Gamer
V.I.P.
#39
No it doesn't, I've already explained what the saying means. I don't feel like repeating myself. And it makes a pretty poor point.
Only if you want to ignore it.

Don't be flippant I know exactly what you meant which is why I said (I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself here) :


I really hope I don't have to type it out again a third time.
Right, except it doesn't ignore all the cons. They were generic statements which are largely true - that doesn't mean I'm trying to pass them as gospel truth or say that they're without flaw.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#40
Not by just printing up more money. I suppose the term is a bit too narrow. My point is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to give the rich more money in the hopes that their spending will stimulate the economy. They didn't become rich by spending all their money on local shops and local jobs.
I agree with you in some respects. While I do think cutting taxes will allow them to spend more, that doesn't necessarily translate to they will.

I was watching some show the other day and somone suggested that if Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent it would lift the economy tomorrow in far greater terms than anything he's done in the past year and eight months. That is the very definition of wishful thinking in my opinion.
------
Only if you want to ignore it.
No, not really.

Right, except it doesn't ignore all the cons. They were generic statements which are largely true - that doesn't mean I'm trying to pass them as gospel truth or say that they're without flaw.
They were extremely generic statements, which is my point, they're fallacious.
 
Last edited:
Top