PDA

View Full Version : Interesting info I learn from a financial class


Lbedrock1
11-02-2004, 05:48 AM
If all the money in the world were redistributed to every individual (not family) how macuh money would we all have?............................................................................................... ............ Did you guess 12 miliion? Well, thats right we would all have 12 million dollars. Found the answer interesting.

Cochise
11-02-2004, 05:49 AM
If all the money in the world were redistributed to every individual (not family) how macuh money would we all have?............................................................................................... ............ Did you guess 12 miliion? Well, thats right we would all have 12 million dollars. Found the answer interesting.

.........link? :harumph:

tiptap
11-02-2004, 06:41 AM
If all the money in the world were redistributed to every individual (not family) how macuh money would we all have?............................................................................................... ............ Did you guess 12 miliion? Well, thats right we would all have 12 million dollars. Found the answer interesting.

IF TRUE it shows that if true Christian charity and work ethics were practice there would be no want. It is evidence that selfish possessive behavior means that most of us 95% have less. (If everyone had 12 million and acted like a fat ass that wealth would quickly inflate to be worthless. We still still need to work.)

Bob Dole
11-02-2004, 06:42 AM
Hip hip!

patteeu
11-02-2004, 06:49 AM
I'm going to have to see some support for that one. Unless by "to every individual" you mean "to every ChiefsPlanet member."

redbrian
11-02-2004, 06:50 AM
.........link? :harumph:

Yea my BS meter is pegging on this one, you need to present your facts and data on this one, sounds like typical BS spouted by some lib/socialist couldnít get a real job professor.

Just a word of advise never take what a professor says at face value, I once had a professor proclaim that the troops did not use drugs in Nam, her source was her husband, she spouted off a lot of other dumb stuff about Nam also, unfortunately for her 6 of us in class were not dumb 18 year old freshman but ex-military, and called her every piece of misinformation that she spouted.

Patriot 21
11-02-2004, 06:57 AM
If all the money in the world were redistributed to every individual (not family) how macuh money would we all have?............................................................................................... ............ Did you guess 12 miliion? Well, thats right we would all have 12 million dollars. Found the answer interesting.

Did they also teach you that if that did indeed happen, within just a few years the top 5% would probably have 90% again?

:hmmm:

Lbedrock1
11-02-2004, 08:27 AM
Yea my BS meter is pegging on this one, you need to present your facts and data on this one, sounds like typical BS spouted by some lib/socialist couldnít get a real job professor.

Just a word of advise never take what a professor says at face value, I once had a professor proclaim that the troops did not use drugs in Nam, her source was her husband, she spouted off a lot of other dumb stuff about Nam also, unfortunately for her 6 of us in class were not dumb 18 year old freshman but ex-military, and called her every piece of misinformation that she spouted.

As I said in my post I learned it in a financial class. If you don't believe it to be true then don't believe it because it is no skin off my back. It would be something interesting for you to either prove it right or wrong through your own research. Im not going out of my way to prove it to you because it is not going to happen. I posted it becuase I found it interesting.

Lbedrock1
11-02-2004, 08:32 AM
Did they also teach you that if that did indeed happen, within just a few years the top 5% would probably have 90% again?

:hmmm:
That might be true but it would then give you a better chance of being in the 5%. I found this so interesting because we have so many people in our country alone that have basic needs that are not met. Children uninsured which should never happen in America. Why has the caring for others in America gone so far from our hearts. Why does it take a tragedy like 9-11 to bring us together to act like we really care. If you made a billion would you pay a man a millions so he would not have to worry about taking care of his family? Well the top 1% wouldn't and they are not they are trying to make more and keep more.

redbrian
11-02-2004, 08:33 AM
As I said in my post I learned it in a financial class. If you don't believe it to be true then don't believe it because it is no skin off my back. It would be something interesting for you to either prove it right or wrong through your own research. Im not going out of my way to prove it to you because it is not going to happen. I posted it becuase I found it interesting.

I am only asking you for the source, did the prof spout this, was this in a text if so what is the name of said text, you are required to support your info, by providing the provider of this info.

Here is a source for you, read the "Millionaire Next Door", it will open your eyes to how those who have it and how they made it and keep it.

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2004, 08:33 AM
If all the money in the world were redistributed to every individual (not family) how macuh money would we all have?............................................................................................... ............ Did you guess 12 miliion? Well, thats right we would all have 12 million dollars. Found the answer interesting.

Run the numbers.... :hmmm:

6,500,000,000 times 12,000,000 equals:

$ 78,000,000,000,000,000 = money in the world, eh? :hmmm:

SOURCE, please?

KCTitus
11-02-2004, 08:34 AM
What kind of finance class teaches Socialism/Communism redistribution?

Did this finance class also talk about what would happen to the economy if all money in the world were given indiscriminately to everyone? What would the value of 12M in paper money be worth post re-distribution. Do you believe the store owner is going to let you purchase food/water with money that can be 'redistributed' at any time?

tiptap: there is plenty of charity to go around, the second part you mentioned in passing is lacking. Too many want things to be handed to them for nothing--it's a side effect of the socialist teachings that many are getting now a days.

alnorth
11-02-2004, 08:36 AM
What would you buy if you had 78 Quadrillion dollars?

Amnorix
11-02-2004, 08:41 AM
Total US GDP in '03 was $11 trillion, which gave us GDP per capita of a world-best $37,000.

That's GDP, which is really "wealth generated" so to speak. Total assets would of course be astronimically higher. $12M per person seems out of whack, however, unless you're counting assets such as all the oil buried in the Arabian peninsula or somesuch. :shrug:

Let me put it this way -- capitalism is well proven to be the best and most successful economic model. Inherent in capitalism is economic inequality among the individual members of society. That's just the way it is.

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2004, 08:43 AM
What would you buy if you had 78 Quadrillion dollars?

A lot of "Forties" and "hos," bro....and weed, you know, YO? :)

mlyonsd
11-02-2004, 08:44 AM
What would you buy if you had 78 Quadrillion dollars?

Mrs. Kerry a nice anniversary present.

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2004, 08:44 AM
...let me put it this way -- capitalism is well proven to be the best and most successful economic model. Inherent in capitalism is economic inequality among the individual members of society. That's just the way it is.

THIS is why YOU, of all the lefties here.....at least make sense, despite ideological differences you are not immune to the facts of life. :thumb:

alnorth
11-02-2004, 08:45 AM
I cant believe it. A democrat defending capitalism. That deserves a rep.

Amnorix
11-02-2004, 08:47 AM
What would you buy if you had 78 Quadrillion dollars?

A gorgeous Caribbean island populated by an amazing number of incredibly hot women and eunuchs as servants.

(err...don't tell my wife I said that...)

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2004, 08:48 AM
A gorgeous Caribbean island populated by an amazing number of incredibly hot women and eunuchs as servants.

(err...don't tell my wife I said that...)

THIS is the part of liberalism I can live with..... ROFL

Amnorix
11-02-2004, 08:54 AM
I cant believe it. A democrat defending capitalism. That deserves a rep.

Democrats do tend to believe in more economic regulation than Republicans, as a general rule. That does NOT mean we are socialists or communists.

I'm an ardent capitalist. I'm also fully aware that corporations are incredibly powerful entities capable of doing vast harm (and vast good). Primarily, however, they have no moral or social obligations, other than increasing shareholder returns, and must be limited by society so that their (perfectly healthy and beneficial) desire for wealth does not lead them to make decisions that are damaging to society overall.

Environmental regulations are the perfect example of this. I think we can all agree that the steel mills of Pittsburgh turning the Monongehela River into a toxic waste dumping pit (which is what they did back in the late 1800s) is NOT a good idea, and should NOT be allowed. This hurts corporate profits, of course, but society just can't allow a company to do that.

KCWolfman
11-02-2004, 09:18 AM
And that 12 mil would instantly have the value of approximately 200.00 each.

Supply and demand works in the confidence of the monetary sector as well.

Braincase
11-02-2004, 09:26 AM
Cool. I'd love to see Walmart open in Ethiopia.

KCTitus
11-02-2004, 09:29 AM
Democrats do tend to believe in more economic regulation than Republicans, as a general rule. That does NOT mean we are socialists or communists.

regulations, within reason, are ok, but regulation that is arbitrary or based upon questionable science is another thing. The converse here is true too, most people dont mind regulation--that does NOT mean that all republicans want to poison the water supply.

It's ironic that you pick Environmental regulations because I believe that many in the environmental movement use those regulations to usurp private property rights--a tactic of the socialists/communists.

What troubles me is 'regulation' or legislation that punishes companies for merely attempting to make a profit, like outsourcing--Kerry's legislation would punish 'benedict arnold' corporations for this phenomenon--this is is not wise legislation, rather it's a play to class envy. Rather than interfere, why not let the market solve this problem.

Democrats have never met a problem that didnt require a govt program.

Amnorix
11-02-2004, 09:44 AM
regulations, within reason, are ok, but regulation that is arbitrary or based upon questionable science is another thing. The converse here is true too, most people dont mind regulation--that does NOT mean that all republicans want to poison the water supply.

Nor did I say they did. What's "good" science or not needs to be decided by somebody, and it can't be the companies themselves because they'll always opt for less/no regulation. So of course we run into all kinds of issues that come up.

It's ironic that you pick Environmental regulations because I believe that many in the environmental movement use those regulations to usurp private property rights--a tactic of the socialists/communists.

Environmentalists can be a bit psycho, I think we can all agree on that. I posted an obvious an inarguable example. Whether some big development should be held up because it's the last refuge of the Farting Whizbee Bird -- that's different.

What troubles me is 'regulation' or legislation that punishes companies for merely attempting to make a profit, like outsourcing--Kerry's legislation would punish 'benedict arnold' corporations for this phenomenon--this is is not wise legislation, rather it's a play to class envy. Rather than interfere, why not let the market solve this problem.

Kerry is pandering to a certain subset of voters on this issue in a way that I do not particularly approve of.

Democrats have never met a problem that didnt require a govt program.

Sure we have:

abortion, sex, free speech and a whole host of other civil rights require LESS government regulation, not more.

NEVER FORGET -- Republicans want MORE regulation in certain areas (social issues), while Democrats want more regulation in other areas (economic matters). Don't take the high ground and pretend that you're for small government all around unless you're Libertarian.

KCTitus
11-02-2004, 09:53 AM
Sure we have:

abortion, sex, free speech and a whole host of other civil rights require LESS government regulation, not more.

NEVER FORGET -- Republicans want MORE regulation in certain areas (social issues), while Democrats want more regulation in other areas (economic matters). Don't take the high ground and pretend that you're for small government all around unless you're Libertarian.

Well, I am for smaller govt all around, so there... ;)

You are right, Democrats dont typically bother with the legislative process for their social issue legislation, they rely on the judicial branch to write those laws.

Amnorix
11-02-2004, 10:01 AM
Well, I am for smaller govt all around, so there...

You are right, Democrats dont typically bother with the legislative process for their social issue legislation, they rely on the judicial branch to write those laws.

Rely on the judicial branch to PROTECT them from overweening government regulation into our bedrooms and lives. But if the gubment wasn't messing around in the fugging bedroom to begin with, then it really wouldn't be much of an issue to begin with.

In 1968 the Supreme Court of the United States had to uphold the sale/use of CONDOMS in this country. 1968! Laws against CONDOMS!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Thank you Supreme Court

KCTitus
11-02-2004, 10:12 AM
Rely on the judicial branch to PROTECT them from overweening government regulation into our bedrooms and lives. But if the gubment wasn't messing around in the fugging bedroom to begin with, then it really wouldn't be much of an issue to begin with.

In 1968 the Supreme Court of the United States had to uphold the sale/use of CONDOMS in this country. 1968! Laws against CONDOMS!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Thank you Supreme Court

You know, the supreme court also upheld the 'seperate but equal' nonsense. Rather than use an anecdote from 40 years ago, let's talk about today instead...

Judicial activism is the sole home of the left because their agenda will not pass throught legislative process. It's selective and slanted to one's world view...tear down the sodomy laws in Texas (I agree'd with the decision btw) but they will uphold the gay marriage fiat from another state onto all states in the union.

You see it as protection as the judicial branch forces your moral values on me, oddly, I dont view it that way. I dont see why a community cant create it's own standards...

There are still counties in this US that are 'dry'...the prohibition ammendment has been repealed, why dont we go force them to sell alcohol? Because a vast majority of communites already do, and people will vote with their feet.

Saggysack
11-02-2004, 10:29 AM
Alright bitches. I'll take my 12M in Euros, please...

Cool, now I can make my very own island out of plastic pop bottles.

tiptap
11-02-2004, 10:57 AM
What kind of finance class teaches Socialism/Communism redistribution?

Did this finance class also talk about what would happen to the economy if all money in the world were given indiscriminately to everyone? What would the value of 12M in paper money be worth post re-distribution. Do you believe the store owner is going to let you purchase food/water with money that can be 'redistributed' at any time?

tiptap: there is plenty of charity to go around, the second part you mentioned in passing is lacking. Too many want things to be handed to them for nothing--it's a side effect of the socialist teachings that many are getting now a days.

I said that one/all would still need to work, that evenly distributed wealth 12 million would become worthless without that working effort and nowhere did I mention a socialist program that gives hand outs for nothing.

Wealth begins and ends with human effort/work. Despite claims of value for items, their worth are merely reflection of the effort we will trade for such items.

While Jesus claimed that the poor you will have with your always, he didn't say the hungry (he fed the thousands), the sick (he healed the multitudes) or the wicked (he reformed lives) can't be eliminated.

KCWolfman
11-02-2004, 11:01 AM
I said that one/all would still need to work, that evenly distributed wealth 12 million would become worthless without that working effort and nowhere did I mention a socialist program that gives hand outs for nothing.

Wealth begins and ends with human effort/work. Despite claims of value for items, their worth are merely reflection of the effort we will trade for such items.



Yup. Dollar bills are nothing but paper. If I have as much paper as everyone else in the world, then my paper has no value at all.

Mr. Kotter
11-02-2004, 11:03 AM
...While Jesus claimed that the poor you will have with your always, he didn't say the hungry (he fed the thousands), the sick (he healed the multitudes) or the wicked (he reformed lives) can't be eliminated.

I must have missed the part when conservatism said to "eliminate" these people.

I guess, asking them to help themselves, to educate themselves, to get job training, and to TRY to take advantage of the endless opportunities this country provides....real effort....is all most are asked to give.

I guess that's the same as "eliminating" them in the minds of some.... :rolleyes:

KCWolfman
11-02-2004, 11:09 AM
While Jesus claimed that the poor you will have with your always, he didn't say the hungry (he fed the thousands), the sick (he healed the multitudes) or the wicked (he reformed lives) can't be eliminated.
Actually, that is exactly what he said.

If "there will be poor always" then how can they be eliminated?