B
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Guest
Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 12:45 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Jerry Kraus wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 20, 10:21 am, "theloneranger...@aol.com"
> > > <theloneranger...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Yup.......Despite all the Democrat and Media Attempts to Talk DOWN the
> > > > Economy, it just keeps BOOMING Along..........Heehee.........Ain't It
> > > > GRAND?.........
> >
> > > > "Q3 GDP Growth Unrevised At 4.9%, In Line With Estimates
> > > > 12/20/07
> >
> > > > (RTTNews) - The Commerce Department released its final report on gross
> > > > domestic product in the third quarter on Thursday, showing that the
> > > > pace of GDP growth for the quarter was unrevised compared to the
> > > > preliminary estimate.
> >
> > > > The report showed that GDP increased at an annual rate of 4.9 percent
> > > > in the third quarter compared to the 3.8 percent growth seen in the
> > > > second quarter. Economists had expected GDP growth to remain unchanged
> > > > at 4.9 percent."
> >
> > > Top 1% controls 40% of wealth in the U.S. Top 10% controls three-
> > > quarters of wealth. Bottom 40% has 1% of wealth. Can you spell CLASS
> > > WAR?
> >
> > But how much "wealth" do the bottom 40% have? If the top people own a
> > lot of businesses, essentially they are investing, what harm is that to
> > the other people? Rich people are important to a properly functioning
> > economy. Someone has to be rich so all the money isn't spent on DVD
> > players.
> >
>
> The bottom 40% have no wealth. Virtually none. This is counter-
> productive.
>
The reason that the lower 40% don't have "wealth" is because whenever
they get a dollar, they spend it. So that's a problem to the extent that
that matters, or the extent that you might want them to have "wealth".
But you can't force folks to save money.
> They can't participate in the economy,
>
Buying more DVD players is participating in the economy.
> and they can't
> develop their own potential to participate in the economy.
>
Participate in what way? If they were productive, they'd have money. So
they aren't productive, by definition, they lack "wealth". Is this
because they are being systematically excluded or because they don't
have the potential to be productive? Perhaps there are gradations in
this.
> They can't
> make more than a subsistence income, which only allows them to
> survive, not develop or participate.
>
But how can it only be "subsistence" when they are buying DVD players?
There's something wrong, but I'm not sure you've put your finger on it
yet.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
>
> On Dec 21, 12:45 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Jerry Kraus wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 20, 10:21 am, "theloneranger...@aol.com"
> > > <theloneranger...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Yup.......Despite all the Democrat and Media Attempts to Talk DOWN the
> > > > Economy, it just keeps BOOMING Along..........Heehee.........Ain't It
> > > > GRAND?.........
> >
> > > > "Q3 GDP Growth Unrevised At 4.9%, In Line With Estimates
> > > > 12/20/07
> >
> > > > (RTTNews) - The Commerce Department released its final report on gross
> > > > domestic product in the third quarter on Thursday, showing that the
> > > > pace of GDP growth for the quarter was unrevised compared to the
> > > > preliminary estimate.
> >
> > > > The report showed that GDP increased at an annual rate of 4.9 percent
> > > > in the third quarter compared to the 3.8 percent growth seen in the
> > > > second quarter. Economists had expected GDP growth to remain unchanged
> > > > at 4.9 percent."
> >
> > > Top 1% controls 40% of wealth in the U.S. Top 10% controls three-
> > > quarters of wealth. Bottom 40% has 1% of wealth. Can you spell CLASS
> > > WAR?
> >
> > But how much "wealth" do the bottom 40% have? If the top people own a
> > lot of businesses, essentially they are investing, what harm is that to
> > the other people? Rich people are important to a properly functioning
> > economy. Someone has to be rich so all the money isn't spent on DVD
> > players.
> >
>
> The bottom 40% have no wealth. Virtually none. This is counter-
> productive.
>
The reason that the lower 40% don't have "wealth" is because whenever
they get a dollar, they spend it. So that's a problem to the extent that
that matters, or the extent that you might want them to have "wealth".
But you can't force folks to save money.
> They can't participate in the economy,
>
Buying more DVD players is participating in the economy.
> and they can't
> develop their own potential to participate in the economy.
>
Participate in what way? If they were productive, they'd have money. So
they aren't productive, by definition, they lack "wealth". Is this
because they are being systematically excluded or because they don't
have the potential to be productive? Perhaps there are gradations in
this.
> They can't
> make more than a subsistence income, which only allows them to
> survive, not develop or participate.
>
But how can it only be "subsistence" when they are buying DVD players?
There's something wrong, but I'm not sure you've put your finger on it
yet.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
