patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

The pool of capital chasing returns is ridiculously large, to the point where many government bonds have negative yields.

Private space programs like Spacex are long term stuff with no returns in the foreseeable future. I guess you could call that a charitable way to spend money. This is not an investment. This brings me back to my point: either rich people should spend most of what they have on charity or luxury or <>, or they should be taxed more.

Most investment returns are not negative. The presence of some negative rates is the result of what happens at the margin, not what happens to all the huge area leading up to that.

Lame. You understand the point, but avoid it by discounting my choice of using SpaceX as an example instead of addressing the point that investment in businesses and other things often has very positive effects.

IMO such aversion tactics are often the sign of fear.

I'd love to hear your explanation why you think rich people should spend their money on luxury instead of investing in business, infrastructure, research .... all those great things we do that are funded with capital :)

All you pro-tax/wealth re-distribution people, let me see if I understand you correctly:

* If someone is successful that's bad, they should be forced to share what they've earned.
* Socialism works, despite Venezuela, Cuba, China,the USSR, and every other attempt at it failing miserably.
* Taking money from individuals and giving it to the government will make things better, despite the fact that our government has the largest deficit in history, spends recklessly, and wages endless wars ever since 1913.

MrMagic says

$176,000 was spent on transportation.
$129,000 was spent on food, of which $78,000 was spent on food at home and $51,000 was spent eating out.
$108,000 was spent on insurance and pensions.
$31,000 was spent on apparel.
$49,000 was spent on entertainment.
$336,000 was spent on housing.
$36,000 was spent on cash contributions.
$71,000 was spent on healthcare.
The remaining $64,000 was spent in other areas.

That’s how a person bringing home a million bucks a year would spend their money if they subscribed to the exact same budget as the average American. A person prioritizing their spending like that is prioritizing in the exact same way the average American is, just with a bigger income to spend.

MrMagic says

Did you miss my post above that one?

Are you saying rich people spend their money this way?
Obviously it doesn't matter: people with that kind of revenues likely already have a large wealth, and are very likely to save huge sums, accumulating capital.
Just because they spend a lot doesn't mean they don't accumulate. The wealth of the richest people is growing fast.

NuttBoxer says

* If someone is successful that's bad, they should be forced to share what they've earned.
* Socialism works, despite Venezuela, Cuba, China,the USSR, and every other attempt at it failing miserably.
* Taking money from individuals and giving it to the government will make things better, despite the fact that our government has the largest deficit in history, spends recklessly, and wages endless wars ever since 1913.

Wow the strawmen....
No success is good, and should be rewarded by wealth. I don't subscribe to socialism.
Gov deficit:
- (1) is the source of money in circulation
- (2) can be closed by taxing back the same money, leaving plenty of wealth of successful people,
- (3) is often the source of long term sources of growth: Like infrastructures, like education, like the Internet... which was created and long financed by the government. like long term research often not done in private industry.

Hircus says

Lame. You understand the point, but avoid it by discounting my choice of using SpaceX as an example instead of addressing the point that investment in businesses and other things often has very positive effects.

IMO such aversion tactics are often the sign of fear.

I'd love to hear your explanation why you think rich people should spend their money on luxury instead of investing in business, infrastructure, research .... all those great things we do that are funded with capital :)

Investments are great. But you need to recognize a few things here:
- investment generally happens to answer end-demand: i.e. a human need, expressed in consumer demand. If consumers are starved of money, or living on debt, and spending as little as possible, then you destroy end-demand, and you destroy the need for investments in production, leaving only investments in debt financing consumption.
- So there has to be a balance. Today the fact that trillions are invested in negative yielding bonds, tells you that there is way too much capital relative to the needs for capital, and so not enough consumption.
- Furthermore, because most investments generate returns, the general tendency is that people holding some capital have exponentially growing wealth, while other people are struggling to get income from work. So the imbalance I've just described, with too much capital and not enough spending has a natural tendency to get worse and worse with time. This is why we are in a deflationary world where debts & inequalities are growing.
There aren't many way to rebalance this: either you tax the rich like crazy, or they at least accept to spend more. If they want to spend on rockets, then no objection from me. But it needs to be spent.

Heraclitusstudent says

No success is good, and should be rewarded by wealth. I don't subscribe to socialism.

If you want to re-distribute wealth from the rich, you're a socialist. If you advocated a flat tax, like sales, which already exists, then I'd believe you, but you obviously favor the ridiculously complex tiered structure we have today.

Heraclitusstudent says

Gov deficit:
- (1) is the source of money in circulation
- (2) can be closed by taxing back the same money, leaving plenty of wealth of successful people,

Wrong, the Federal Reserve is the source of of money in circulation, money that can only be created by selling bonds, thus guaranteeing that every dollar we print adds debt. This is how ALL fiat central banking systems work.

Heraclitusstudent says

- (3) is often the source of long term sources of growth: Like infrastructures, like education, like the Internet... which was created and long financed by the government. like long term research often not done in private industry.

I'm curious.. Where do you think the government GOT the money to finance these projects? They don't make any goods. Ahh, by taking it from us. So government takes, deficit grows, and that's prosperity?
Also, bullshit on only government funding long-term research. See PARC.

Note the free shit for people unwilling to work: