|
Message Removed
modified 23-Jan-16 21:33pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 23-Jan-16 21:33pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that was extremely fast to get my article reviewed and available.
Thanks to all. 
|
|
|
|
|
Next time, don't do this.
Newly submitted articles how up in the queue of everyone who can review and approve. It takes multiple votes (and time) to get that to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
I will never do that again. Thanks for letting me know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I bet the price remains the same... :CynicalOldFartSmiley:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
No, to maintain the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, when size shrinks, prices increase. 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Ah! Schrödinger's Consumer!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
No, that's the certainty principle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So?[^]
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
About time: he took the show back to being a silly kid's program. Not nearly as watchable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong with being rich. Rich is not a crime. Rich is not something to be ashamed of. Rich is not something to be fined for or penalized for.
However, Socialist pigs and bleeding heart liberals think there is something wrong with being rich and they play the poor card, every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: There is nothing wrong with being rich.
Yeah, there is! It takes money out of the economy. Economics 101 - the health of any economy depends on the free and continual circulation of money from consumer to producer to employee. Any long term diminishment of the money supply, from excessive imports to excessive saving, is damaging to the economy. Any damage to the economy will, by definition, affect the poorest first and most enduringly. If by 'rich' we mean those that hoard wealth, and we surely do since nobody gets on the rich list by having outgoings commensurate with their income, then there is absolutely no doubt that they are damaging the economy to which they are in a parasitical relationship. One does not need to be a socialist or a liberal to simply do the math!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
9082365 wrote: It takes money out of the economy.
Nothing compared to how much money the nanny state takes out of the economy. Don't be ridiculous. 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: Nothing compared to how much money the nanny state takes out of the economy
The state spends that money again within a short timeframe. Most rich peoples' billions just sit there on a bank account.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Sascha Lefèvre wrote: Most rich peoples' billions just sit there on a bank account.
Wrong. Most rich people's money is invested in various securities - shares, bonds, etc. Their money therefore stimulates the economy, just like anyone else's
Even if they were to keep all of their money in a checking account, the bank would lend that money out, and again - it would stimulate the economy.
Very few (if any) rich people bury their money in their back yard...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you're right there, of course. Except that banks don't even need your money to give someone else a loan. Kind of forgot my economy lessons.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Regulations require the banks to maintain a certain ratio of deposits to loans, so having more deposits enables them to make more loans.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK that ratio is own funds to loans (or deposits of own funds to loans), not deposits of customers money to loans (?)
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: Nothing compared to
There is now a substantial number of people whose wealth exceeds the GDP of a large portion of the world's sovereign states so it's kinda hard to view that as 'nothing' even if the rest of your statement made sense - it doesn't, obviously. Governments are probably the single biggest contributors to keeping money 'alive' within their own economies. I trust you've not been drawn in by Tony Blair's ridiculous portrayal of those receiving welfare as 'economically' inactive because it's a patent untruth. A far greater proportion of the income of those on welfare is returned immediately into circulation than that of any other group. They literally cannot afford savings!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, are you suggesting poverty is good for a healthy economy? What about the amount of debt the state incurs? Or when these same folks can't afford a 4k TV but borrow money and default on their loans? At least with being rich, you always buy what you can afford.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
