Simplified illustration:
A - Your company generates $1,000,000 in sales. As Bruce said, the CEO decides who is worth what amount and who gets how much. He keeps $500,000 for himself. He pays each of his 3 executive vice presidents $100,000. That leaves $200,000 to split among the 50 front-line revenue-generating employees.

B - Your company generates $1,000,000 in sales. As Bruce said, the CEO decides who is worth what amount and who gets how much. He keeps $100,000 for himself. He pays each of his 3 executive vice presidents $50,000. That leaves $750,000 to split among the 50 front-line revenue-generating employees.

I don't think I've said "equal", have I?

Eventually, if the disparity between rich and poor continues to increase, the climate will be similar to 1917 Russia and 1789 France.

UT, do you disagree that

You don't think Lookout will do the right thing?

I agree with him, so I'm not the worried one.

I can no more make someone be generous than I can make them be nice.

We are not talking about you making anyone do anything.

Spexx, your simplified illustration doesn't work in economics, because it only exists in a bubble, which is never *ever* the case in the real world. This is like physics teachers who simplify by saying "OK, if we don't have any gravity, we have no mass, and also we don't have any friction, NOW how would the items collide?" We could describe how the items would collide, but then put them back in a real world situation and they don't collide that way at all,... and in economics the real world is unavoidable.

I DO disagree, entirely, that "People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is." No, to suggest that shows a weak understanding of economics. (And that's not an insult. 99% of people don't understand economics.)

It is almost impossible to accumulate wealth without generating wealth. It is wealth generation that makes an economy powerful, to grow it so the rising tide lifts all boats. It is a faster and better road out of poverty to raise the standard of living so that the poor are in effect richer.

If you reinvest money into a venture, it is creating things. If you invest the money in the market, it is being used by other people to create things. Even if you put money into a simple index fund, that money is in turn being used in the market, in scores of ways that are invisible to the layman. This creation is what builds our modern society. And if you take money out of the economy and put it under a mattress? That would lower prices.

Believe me, or take Econ 101.

Yup. I've said as much in many ways.
Money makes money for others. Without the rich there would be no middle class, min. wage or charity.

Not hot and bothered in the slightest. I definitely do not fall into your category of "CEO" wealthy (since that seems to be your other synonym for "enough,") so you haven't actually suggested that I give anything to begin with. I give what I can to several different charities, just like you do. The difference between us is that I don't look at anyone else and try to determine if they've given enough or not.

And frankly, you've shown yourself to be quite ignorant of Christianity in the past, so I think I'll stick with my own interpretations of how it fits in with capitalism.

It was a long time ago, but I had good grades in two semesters of economics.

I don't dispute what you've said, above. I would offer that it doesn't matter whether one wealthy person does these things, or many less wealthy do them. One person can invest or spend $100,000, or 1000 people can invest or spend $100 each - the results will be the same.

How so?

Well, most recently, in the discussion about tithing and the economics of individual churches.


Additionally, a quick archive search of your posts including the word "Christian" will show you that almost every single post that isn't a denigrating joke (and don't think I'm complaining about the jokes, they're often funny) is bitching about how other people aren't behaving in a Christian manner. You do a lot of that, which is ironic.

That's true, but irrelevant to the subpoint. You're so attached to your original incorrect point that you're giving up the subpoint. Cool, let's return to your original point.

We're still at our impasse, the mystical CEO who pays his/her people twice, or something, of what the market will bear. Bear in mind that the CEO does not set his/her own salary, the board typically does that. Now, this mystical CEO -- let's say it's a he, and he's running a supermarket chain. He could set the price of a can of peas to $5.00. Why doesn't he do that? He'd sure make a lot more money for salaries.

wow, i never thought i would look forward to discussing anything with DLM until i tried to discuss something with spexxvet. At least tw is man enough to just walk away and ignore the questions rather than pretend he has answered the question in some cute intellectually lazy manner.

until spexx can come up with something more quantifiable than his warm fuzzy "you know" answers i'm done here. too bad, could have been an interesting discussion.

might i suggest calling him a communist sperm burper?

None of that illustrates an ignorance of Christianity, which is what you've said. I wouldn't be able denigrate, joke, or criticize, if I weren't knowledgeable about Christianity, would I?

BTW, my experience with church "collections" is absolute truth. Are you insinuating that I'm llying?