By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Millionaire tax! America only for now, so the rest of you millionaires in other coutries are safe!!!

Tagged games:

 

Hi Vgchartz millionairre! Do you want extra taxes?

Yes 31 54.39%
 
No 16 28.07%
 
I get paid in gum. 5 8.77%
 
(recycle) I am a meat popcycle. 5 8.77%
 
Total:57
Kasz216 said:
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Just as a side note ...

As I mentioned earlier, since 1980 100% of net job creation can be attributed to businesses that are less than 5 years old. If you dig further into these numbers, the vast majority of these jobs are created by entrepreneurial start-ups that demonstrate explosive growth. With how risky they are they can't raise money from a bank, with how small they're they have difficulty raising money through an IPO, and they are not well connected or politically important so they can't raise money from the government; and (therefore) they require venture capitalists to survive/thrive.

Being that large corporations tend to grow through M&A and not organic growth and therefore don't create jobs, the questions people should be asking themselves is "how do we create an environment where the next twitter/facebook/youtube/netflix will be created?" and not "how do we save bank of America/GM/Blockbuster?"


I can agree with that and guess what, very few of those business were started by millionaires, they were however as you demonstrate it, funded by venture capitalists...


How many venture capitalists aren't millionaires

VC far from represent the totality of their investments however...

How many hedge funds investors aren't millionaires ? ( and there's a lot more money into hedge than into VC).

PS : the most successfull companies of these last 20 years actually hardly needed VC funding by the way ( Google, Facebook). By the time the VC got in those companies were actually already so successfull tha the VC were tripping each others to get in...



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
mrstickball said:
richardhutnik said:

And looking at the bolded part.  IF you have a situation where consumers were overextended with debt, and they then acquire more money for lower costs, then you won't create new demand.  The end result, when the bills come do, and people fear for their lives that they could be out of work, you have what is going on now.  What is going on now is that growth is very weak, and will remain such.  It is likely this lower levels of demand will be sustained.  It gets down to a lower level, and savings increase.  The problem is then, there is a lack of demand to create new opportunities.  And if banks decide to restock and not lend, you don't even get new ventures launched at all, so consumers can't even see what else they would demand.  There ends up also being a level of despecialization happening, which also impacts things.  The American consumer, for example, decides to simplify and and get less things.  Things unwind.  And in all this, while this is going on, no one is sure what the heck the future holds, which causes even more contraction.

In this, thrift will go up, and you end up having a reshifting of values in society.   I would say that it would be worth studying the values of people who lived through the Great Depression ended up living and what they thought, because that is what one would expect to see out of Americans, and the rest of the world going this place forward.  Seeing people out of work for years, and knowing them, and knowing they are capable, does make one feel they need to stop spending in foolish ways, and figuring out how to pinch pennies.  Pinching pennies now is a trend seen in advertising today.

I agree. That is why its generally a good idea to save money, be thrifty, then spend money wisely. Although you have lower demand, the reality is that the jobs that are created are generally high-value jobs. In our consumerist society, jobs are generally plentiful for lower skilled labor: retail, fast-food, and the like.

My grandma and grandpa lived through the Great Depression, and since I've got older, I've talked to her extensively about it. It really impacted their values and how they managed their money - use it up, wear it out, make do, or do without. They turned off lights every time they left a room, only purchased new clothes when they absolutely needed them, and bought cars only when the last one died. Their family was one-income, and despite that (he worked as a general laborer at a power plant for ~30 years), they retired with approximately $1 million USD in assets.

Thinking about that and the massive growth of wealth and the middle class after WW2 and the depression, it makes a lot of sense. People came out of the Depression with the idea that they must conserve, so they did. When they conserved, they kept their assets, had little use of credit, and therefore kept their monies. Since that generation has passed away, values shifted to rampant consumerism, and now compound interest is wrecking peoples' lives, because they are transfering their wealth to those that loaned them the money. We've seen this through the savings rate plummeting since the 1970's, and eventually collapsed at the same time the housing bubble burst.

I'd imagine that going back to such a society would be difficult, but is needed. My opinion is that (as an American) that other Western societies are far more responsible with their credit, which ensures that the lower and middle class aren't transfering their wealth to the upper class. I know in my own life, I've focused on having as little debt as possible, and its made me pretty wealthy pretty quickly.

I am pretty sure if you took the factors that came after World War II, it led up to the situation that it had, which is probably abnormal and shouldn't be expected.  What you saw was:

* Frugality from being in a depression

* Development of community thrift and conserving in the name of a war effort.

* Large pent up demand coming off a war.

* Destruction of about every single manufacturing base outside of the United States, so America was the manufacturing center of the world.

 

Combine these factors together and you get levels of wealth not seen since, which led up to the 1960s, the Great Society and the belief that just enough government involvement (heck the U.S Government helped to win a World War) and there could be Utopia and no more world problems.  Just keep the tech coming and you will have the Star Trek Federation of Planets utopia (remember that world?) of Gene Roddenbury.  All that got lost in war after war after war.



Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Just as a side note ...

As I mentioned earlier, since 1980 100% of net job creation can be attributed to businesses that are less than 5 years old. If you dig further into these numbers, the vast majority of these jobs are created by entrepreneurial start-ups that demonstrate explosive growth. With how risky they are they can't raise money from a bank, with how small they're they have difficulty raising money through an IPO, and they are not well connected or politically important so they can't raise money from the government; and (therefore) they require venture capitalists to survive/thrive.

Being that large corporations tend to grow through M&A and not organic growth and therefore don't create jobs, the questions people should be asking themselves is "how do we create an environment where the next twitter/facebook/youtube/netflix will be created?" and not "how do we save bank of America/GM/Blockbuster?"


I can agree with that and guess what, very few of those business were started by millionaires, they were however as you demonstrate it, funded by venture capitalists...


How many venture capitalists aren't millionaires

VC far from represent the totality of their investments however...

How many hedge funds investors aren't millionaires ? ( and there's a lot more money into hedge than into VC).

PS : the most successfull companies of these last 20 years actually hardly needed VC funding by the way ( Google, Facebook). By the time the VC got in those companies were actually already so successfull tha the VC were tripping each others to get in...

So in otherwords, your completely changing your statements to fit your arguements?

Aside from which, i mean, you do know many venture capitalists are hedge fund managers right?



richardhutnik said:

I am pretty sure if you took the factors that came after World War II, it led up to the situation that it had, which is probably abnormal and shouldn't be expected.  What you saw was:

* Frugality from being in a depression

* Development of community thrift and conserving in the name of a war effort.

* Large pent up demand coming off a war.

* Destruction of about every single manufacturing base outside of the United States, so America was the manufacturing center of the world.

Combine these factors together and you get levels of wealth not seen since, which led up to the 1960s, the Great Society and the belief that just enough government involvement (heck the U.S Government helped to win a World War) and there could be Utopia and no more world problems.  Just keep the tech coming and you will have the Star Trek Federation of Planets utopia (remember that world?) of Gene Roddenbury.  All that got lost in war after war after war.

To be fair though, the boom essentially lasted until government intervened so heavily that markets had to react negatively. Look at all the horrible things Nixon did as president (price controls, gold standard, ect).

Although I agree that the demand from the war, as well as Bretton Woods helped out significantly, I still believe that if we had continued in the spirit of thrift and less government paternalism, we wouldn't have had the stagflation of the 70s and would of continued to grow the middle class.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball said:
richardhutnik said:

I am pretty sure if you took the factors that came after World War II, it led up to the situation that it had, which is probably abnormal and shouldn't be expected.  What you saw was:

* Frugality from being in a depression

* Development of community thrift and conserving in the name of a war effort.

* Large pent up demand coming off a war.

* Destruction of about every single manufacturing base outside of the United States, so America was the manufacturing center of the world.

Combine these factors together and you get levels of wealth not seen since, which led up to the 1960s, the Great Society and the belief that just enough government involvement (heck the U.S Government helped to win a World War) and there could be Utopia and no more world problems.  Just keep the tech coming and you will have the Star Trek Federation of Planets utopia (remember that world?) of Gene Roddenbury.  All that got lost in war after war after war.

To be fair though, the boom essentially lasted until government intervened so heavily that markets had to react negatively. Look at all the horrible things Nixon did as president (price controls, gold standard, ect).

Although I agree that the demand from the war, as well as Bretton Woods helped out significantly, I still believe that if we had continued in the spirit of thrift and less government paternalism, we wouldn't have had the stagflation of the 70s and would of continued to grow the middle class.

LBJ deciding to do Vietman and produce a perfect society locally was a driving factor in killing off Bretton Woods.  Back in the day, they declared war on Poverty.  That was the first post-WWII absurdity of something to declare war on.  It was followed up with wars on drugs and terror.  What happened was hubris of the times, believing everything could be perfected and overextending.  I recall seeing an article in Playboy magazine from the 60s where the belief was that all taxes could go away if you taxed religion, and legalized drugs, and maybe tax oil companies higher (I forget the third).  

It is also very likely stagflation couldn't of been avoided in the 1970s, because of the oil crisis resulted in prices spiking, and also economic slowdown.  This is independent of anything else, for the most part.  Well, America building the highway system, and also being a top oil exported, got America addicted to oil.