Whow, a huge opportunity missed for Purina shareholders. Think how Dog Chow would be flying off the shelves if Blodgett, Grubman, and Moonbeam (Newt) had been allowed these last years to peddle AIG, GSEs, and other bluer than blue blue chips to retirees! I say blame the liberals in Congress.
I think you mean the top 1%. If they did a keynsian spend, it doesn't do a hell of a lot in the long run, just like the rebates mean shit. I would hope they mostly keep the money in capital markets so that the productive few can have a pool of cash when they need it. Buying cars and ipods is necessary, but doesn't solve the problem. Ipods need to be affordable to everyone or it's futile.
Well, I was allowing for a bigger pool - still in the upper tier though. Maybe the problem is they don't have enough in the upper 5-1% so they are not spending it. :eek:
Most of the "upper 5%" got that way partly because they are financially conservative... not willy-nilly spenders. However, they do save and invest. That money makes its way into the economy to support economic activity.
Just because someone makes money, it should be considered as "undeserved fat"? If you really believe that, you might as well move into a trailer park and file for "benefits" now. No sense bothering with trying to accomplish anything.
Some of them are not fat-n-happy trust fund babies. But overall, shouldn't they be trickling down on everybody else now?
No. Do you think they are ignorant of shorting? Who is paying them to do what is in the best interest of the citizens? Who cares more about your money than you? Who cares less about others' money than you? You can't do business with people who don't have any money. If you're on a witch hunt, start with slick willy who signed the NAFTA treaty into law that increased our dependence on the world for our economic status. I could park there awhile... For some reason, you think the rich are contracted by the US government to step in and help out when times are hard, in exchange for them profiting handsomely when times are good. YOU'RE WRONG.
There is a fallacious built-in assumption that the top 1% are a static group (like the kennedys), most are not. Consider the fairness of whalloping someone who spent their lifetime building a business then sold it to retire. Those are the most hard hit targets of the left. It's quite simple really from Obama's point of view - taking money from 1% and giving it to the bottom 50% gets him a hell of a lot of votes. The problem is that does nothing to increase productivity which underpins the whole economy, it's a self destructive policy.