Trickle down economics is a lie, the proof !

[Yamato]

Yes, I agree with that. I certainly would make the trip rather than pay $5 extra dollars! But I can see this type of thing being valuable to the elderly who still live in their own place, people who cannot drive for whatever reason, etc. There are legitimate reasons why some people would find this type of service valuable.

Don't manage other peoples' time for them bro. Whether you agree with him or not is no basis for what we do with govt force in this case.

But you're right. I have no disagreement with your logic in this case. It raises the eyebrow when I have to hear people rationalizing that "there are legitimate reasons why some people..."

Not asking you in particular but asking in general: Why do wealthy people pay a hedge fund manager hundreds of thousands of dollars to invest their money? Don't they understand that they can log onto the internets and access such services for free? What, they can't find a brokerage or investment house to invest their money for them? Too stupid to do it himself? Too lazy? Or no, I suppose the rich guy is just too busy, right? "People are lazy" is just partisan kool aid depending on how it's used.

[Gromdor]

Don't manage other peoples' time for them bro. Whether you agree with him or not is no basis for what we do with govt force in this case.

But you're right. I have no disagreement with your logic in this case. It raises the eyebrow when I have to hear people rationalizing that "there are legitimate reasons why some people..."

Not asking you in particular but asking in general: Why do wealthy people pay a hedge fund manager hundreds of thousands of dollars to invest their money? Don't they understand that they can log onto the internets and access such services for free? What, they can't find a brokerage or investment house to invest their money for them? Too stupid to do it himself? Too lazy? Or no, I suppose the rich guy is just too busy, right? "People are lazy" is just partisan kool aid depending on how it's used.

Eh, you might be a little confused on how hedge funds work there, Yam. Hedge funds rely on sheer volume of cash to always make money and reduce risk. It can pursue investments that normal people can't and have little or no regulatory oversight. The manager generally gets paid a percentage or two of the funds worth as well as performance fees. You can't even get into a hedge fund unless you are an accredited investor making at least $200k by yourself or $300k with a spouse or have over a million net worth. Some require that you have at least $5 million.

[Yamato]

Eh, you might be a little confused on how hedge funds work there, Yam. Hedge funds rely on sheer volume of cash to always make money and reduce risk. It can pursue investments that normal people can't and have little or no regulatory oversight. The manager generally gets paid a percentage or two of the funds worth as well as performance fees. You can't even get into a hedge fund unless you are an accredited investor making at least $200k by yourself or $300k with a spouse or have over a million net worth. Some require that you have at least $5 million.

So what? Fees are premiums, like the higher prices at the convenience store. Why are they so lazy, why don't they jog to a bank? What does minimum initial investments at a hedge fund have to do with anything?

You're missing the point. The point is, who the hell am I to question the value of anything for someone else? My point is to MYOB broski.

[Einsteinium]

So what? Fees are premiums, like the higher prices at the convenience store. Why are they so lazy, why don't they jog to a bank? What does minimum initial investments at a hedge fund have to do with anything?

You're missing the point. The point is, who the hell am I to question the value of anything for someone else? My point is to MYOB broski.

I agree with you Yamato. If someone is willing to pay $15 for a $10 roll of quarters who are we to question it? Obviously to that person the extra $5 is worth it. The time saved/convenience/etc. to that person is worth more than the $5.

If someone is willing to pay exorbitant fee's to a hedge fund to have them manage their money, and the hedge fund only lets wealthy clients buy in, why should we care? That is free enterprise, that is capitalism. If you don't want to do it, then don't. Nobody is forcing you, and nobody should force you. Just like nobody should force others to NOT do these things. Either we have freedom of choice or we don't. There is no middle ground that I would be willing to huck half a horse for.

[Gromdor]

I don't disagree with the MYOB aspect. I was just trying to point out that you have the wrong idea on what a hedge fund was. It's not something you can just go and do by yourself.

[DieChecker]

Not asking you in particular but asking in general: Why do wealthy people pay a hedge fund manager hundreds of thousands of dollars to invest their money? Don't they understand that they can log onto the internets and access such services for free? What, they can't find a brokerage or investment house to invest their money for them? Too stupid to do it himself? Too lazy? Or no, I suppose the rich guy is just too busy, right? "People are lazy" is just partisan kool aid depending on how it's used.

Well for one thing, a hedge fund manager is educated and an expert (one would hope) in their services. What expertise does one need to sell or buy a roll of quarters? How much time does it take to go to the bank... 15 minutes? How much time does it take to manage a hedge fund account.... hours per day?

The two are not good matches. I'd also argue that the Rich are getting lazier. 100 or 50 years ago, that rich guy would have known a Lot about what he is investing in, today, I don't know, probably not so much.

[DieChecker]

I agree with you Yamato. If someone is willing to pay $15 for a $10 roll of quarters who are we to question it? Obviously to that person the extra $5 is worth it. The time saved/convenience/etc. to that person is worth more than the $5.

Doesn't that same logic apply to being lazy? If someone wants to spend extra money or go without to be lazy, then that is not a crime, right? I'm just pointing out that people get lazy, and that is fine, BUT... They also want to live that $100,000 lifestyle. But they can't, so they settle for soaking up as much FedAid as possible and remaining lazy. Lazy has started to become more desirable then Stuff.

[Yamato]

Well for one thing, a hedge fund manager is educated and an expert (one would hope) in their services. What expertise does one need to sell or buy a roll of quarters? How much time does it take to go to the bank... 15 minutes? How much time does it take to manage a hedge fund account.... hours per day?

The two are not good matches. I'd also argue that the Rich are getting lazier. 100 or 50 years ago, that rich guy would have known a Lot about what he is investing in, today, I don't know, probably not so much.

So you're questioning peoples behavior (calling them lazy) based on their expertise? Are you an expert? Or do you just rely on experts to make all your decisions for you, so I don't start questioning you? Sorry, but no.

It takes 15 minutes to go to the bank and 15 seconds to order quarters on Ebay. What is the malfunction here? Why do you, and who are you, to question how others exchange their resources? That's encroaching on their individual freedom. With all due respect, but how dare you sir.

[Einsteinium]

Doesn't that same logic apply to being lazy? If someone wants to spend extra money or go without to be lazy, then that is not a crime, right? I'm just pointing out that people get lazy, and that is fine, BUT... They also want to live that $100,000 lifestyle. But they can't, so they settle for soaking up as much FedAid as possible and remaining lazy. Lazy has started to become more desirable then Stuff.

I keep hearing people say this, but I only know of a couple people who I would classify as being like this. In my opinion, there will be lazy people who don't want to work no matter what we do. The only question is should society cut them off from all help (which leads to even more prostitution, drug dealing, burglary, etc.) or should society provide them with a basic income as a preventative measure to the other option. Or you can go the route that Hitler went and just attempt to kill all of those kinds of people 'for the greater good'. What do you find to be morally acceptable? I don't have a problem helping those people out as most of them are mentally ill or addicted to drugs. We could throw them in jail I suppose (first they have to commit a crime, see above), but housing someone in jail costs quite a bit more than welfare costs. What to do what to do...

Edited July 9, 2014 by Einsteinium

[DieChecker]

So you're questioning peoples behavior (calling them lazy) based on their expertise?

No.... Based on their lazy actions.

Are you an expert?

Yes. In some areas.

Or do you just rely on experts to make all your decisions for you, so I don't start questioning you? Sorry, but no.

In a lot of what I do, I do defer to experts. Experts on computers, experts on finance, experts on fixing things.... Ordering quarters online, or at the bank does not require expertise.

It takes 15 minutes to go to the bank and 15 seconds to order quarters on Ebay. What is the malfunction here?

One is an act of movement, and the other a act of non movement. People can do either, but without a doubt they would order them online for the reason of Not going to the bank. Which if they have 15 minutes either way, is lazy.

Why do you, and who are you, to question how others exchange their resources? That's encroaching on their individual freedom. With all due respect, but how dare you sir.

I don't care how they exchange their resources. I'm simply pointing out that some ways of exchanging resources is more lazy then others.

Edited July 9, 2014 by DieChecker

[DieChecker]

I keep hearing people say this, but I only know of a couple people who I would classify as being like this. In my opinion, there will be lazy people who don't want to work no matter what we do. The only question is should society cut them off from all help (which leads to even more prostitution, drug dealing, burglary, etc.) or should society provide them with a basic income as a preventative measure to the other option. Or you can go the route that Hitler went and just attempt to kill all of those kinds of people 'for the greater good'. What do you find to be morally acceptable? I don't have a problem helping those people out as most of them are mentally ill or addicted to drugs. We could throw them in jail I suppose (first they have to commit a crime, see above), but housing someone in jail costs quite a bit more than welfare costs. What to do what to do...

Well if you don't know any people like that, then 100% they don't exist.

I don't agree that people need to be cut off from aid. But I do think they should work for that aid and not have it handed to them for free. I'm not saying take the guy in a wheel chair and put a rake in his hands, I'm saying take the people who otherwise have nothing going on and are fit to work and put them to work. At least for several hours a week.

We should not promote and encourage and reward laziness. Which in many ways the Entitlement society we have today does encourage one to be lazy.

Where did I say kill anyone, or jail? I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth.

Here I complain about American Laziness and I get accused of wanting to Kill those living on Entitlement.

[Yamato]

I'm saying take the people who are fit to work and put them to work. At least for several hours a week.

Are you going to use the employment office and tie this exciting career opportunity to people on unemployment benefits?

How about starting a big CIA investigation into peoples private lives to find out how many quarters they're buying?

When you're "taking people" are you going to use county buses every week to pick them up and drive them to your workey work site? Like school buses or prison buses, or what?

Laziness and entitlement, while maybe showing a positive correlation, are two different things. People even use their work ethic as their excuse why they have an entitlement complex in the first place.

[DieChecker]

Are you going to use the employment office and tie this exciting career opportunity to people on unemployment benefits?

I'll work that into the Plan and send it to my Democrat Senator.

How about starting a big CIA investigation into peoples private lives to find out how many quarters they're buying?

What? No, no, no. The FBI does domestic investigation, the CIA is supposed to be for outside the borders.

When you're "taking people" are you going to use county buses every week to pick them up and drive them to your workey work site? Like school buses or prison buses, or what?

Prison Buses. They can't be transporting prisoners all the time, right? So, we'll use them for the road crews and such who are trying to earn their welfare.

Laziness and entitlement, while maybe showing a positive correlation, are two different things. People even use their work ethic as their excuse why they have an entitlement complex in the first place.

Hummmm..... Perhaps Congress could pass a Rider on a Law to define Laziness. You know, to allow the FBI to more easily determine who is lazy and who is actually needing aid. Or, maybe Obama can form a new Department? A department of Homeland Entitlement Defense, who's job would be to find people who are giving entitlements a bad name and give them a job in the government.

Edited July 9, 2014 by DieChecker

[Yamato]

Like health care, why do we need employment from the White House? Why does any President, whether wannabes like Mitt Romney or elected ones like Obama, have to control our job markets? You're trying to cure lazy people, democrats are trying to cure sick people. You both have the exact same ideas. Thank you, no. Although I can imagine the partisan barn burner it would be if the FBI was involved in the ACA.

[Jeremiah65]

Like health care, why do we need employment from the White House? Why does any President, whether wannabes like Mitt Romney or elected ones like Obama, have to control our job markets? You're trying to cure lazy people, democrats are trying to cure sick people. You both have the exact same ideas. Thank you, no. Although I can imagine the partisan barn burner it would be if the FBI was involved in the ACA.

Brilliantly stated Yamato.

In a similar train of thought...

The Democrats want to take my money and give it to poor people

The Republicans want to take my money and give it to rich people.

They both want to take my money!

[Einsteinium]

Well if you don't know any people like that, then 100% they don't exist.

I don't agree that people need to be cut off from aid. But I do think they should work for that aid and not have it handed to them for free. I'm not saying take the guy in a wheel chair and put a rake in his hands, I'm saying take the people who otherwise have nothing going on and are fit to work and put them to work. At least for several hours a week.

We should not promote and encourage and reward laziness. Which in many ways the Entitlement society we have today does encourage one to be lazy.

Where did I say kill anyone, or jail? I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth.

Here I complain about American Laziness and I get accused of wanting to Kill those living on Entitlement.

I never said that you said those things- I said those things. I was merely stating how society in different times and in different places has attempted to deal (unsuccessfully I might add) with this problem of 'those people'.

The problem is that the people living on entitlement often are almost always doing so for a reason other than laziness. The people doing it out of laziness are the minority. Mental illness, physical disability, those are the primary reasons for why a person lives on welfare entitlement. So you are proposing to revamp the entire system, to hire people to figure out the logistics of bringing people from all over the country in various places to various local worksites by bus, to 'work' in some fashion in order to earn their welfare benefits when perhaps only 10% of the people who live on welfare are capable of doing so? You will have to not only figure out how to transport them, what they will do for work each week, and how to keep track of their work, time, sick days, maternity leave, etc, but you will also have to figure out WHO exactly is capable of doing this. Now I suppose you want to drug test these potential workers as well? Well that is going to cost $$ also. Everything you are proposing is going to cost a significant amount of taxpayer money for probably a very minimal amount of work being done.

It would probably be cheaper to just keep the system we have currently then open that can of worms. Your goal may be noble, but I just am seeing increased costs with no real gain.

How about we raise the minimum wage so that people who work do not need these benefits? Most of the people on some type of welfare like food stamps for example, have minimum wage jobs that simply do not provide enough income for them to live on.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Einsteinium

[Yamato]

Seattle just raised its minimum wage to $15.00/hr. What's the minimum wage in Portland these days? Maybe I'm looking at DC too geographically, but maybe DC believes in bigger carrots and bigger sticks? Potentially noble I agree, and yet everything government does above board is paved with good intentions.

I can dream the impossible dream and wish other people could only stop drawing lines and playing favorites with force control, damnit.

[shrooma]

The Democrats want to take my money and give it to poor people

The Republicans want to take my money and give it to rich people.

They both want to take my money!

.

it doesn't matter who you vote for-

the government still gets in....

.

[Yamato]

.

it doesn't matter who you vote for-

the government still gets in....

.

With the exception of the legend Ron Paul.

[shrooma]

How about we raise the minimum wage so that people who work do not need these benefits? Most of the people have minimum wage jobs that simply do not provide enough income for them to live on.

.

our Govt. did that.

they raised our minimum wage by 19p, but told employers that they no longer had to pay their workers shift allowance or overtime rates.

result?

for an extra £6pw, most workers on minimum wage lost at least £40pw.

the introduction of a minimum wage in this country was the worse thing that could have happened.

why should an employer pay a worker £15ph when they can pay them £6.30?

wage slavery is still slavery.

.

Edited July 9, 2014 by shrooma

[Yamato]

What are some of the ramifications of your new program idea Diechecker? More govt drivers, wages and fuel expenses, more mechanical maintenance of buses, more p***ed people being herded through a system (and riding on prison buses, seriously?), more taxation, more crime, more criminal justice system expense, more rewards for lawyers, more prisons, more prisoners, less freedom, no thank you. Whenever you pay special attention to some identified group, you screw someone else over in the process. We don't need a more intrusive punitive government. We need government to get out of the way. We're not going to treat people like that in America, buddy. Not in this generation.

[Einsteinium]

.

our Govt. did that.

they raised our minimum wage by 19p, but told employers that they no longer had to pay their workers shift allowance or overtime rates.

result?

for an extra £6pw, most workers on minimum wage lost at least £40pw.

the introduction of a minimum wage in this country was the worse thing that could have happened.

why should an employer pay a worker £15ph when they can pay them £6.30?

wage slavery is still slavery.

.

What if they had raised it but kept shift allowances and overtime rates?

[shrooma]

What if they had raised it but kept shift allowances and overtime rates?

.

it would have been an improvement E, but it still wouldn't be enough to beat the poverty trap.

in Britain, the unemployed get their council tax paid, their rent/mortgage paid, and still get £72pw cash.

workers on minimum wage don't have £72 left after paying their bills, therefore there is no incentive to take a min. wage job, they're better off on benefits.

the living wage in the UK- the amount needed to pay bills, buy food, and still have some cash left- stands at £7.80ph.

the Govt knows this, but they themselves have set the min. wage at £6.30ph.

they are afraid of ruining their re-election chances by forcing employers to pay the living wage as minimum.

they're trying to cut the benefit bill, but they won't do it properly, instead, they're trying to force people off benefits (stopping payments for the slightest, unreasonable reasons) and into an unworkable situation.

catch 22 at its very worst....

.

Edited July 9, 2014 by shrooma

[White Crane Feather]

Well for one thing, a hedge fund manager is educated and an expert (one would hope) in their services. What expertise does one need to sell or buy a roll of quarters? How much time does it take to go to the bank... 15 minutes? How much time does it take to manage a hedge fund account.... hours per day?

The two are not good matches. I'd also argue that the Rich are getting lazier. 100 or 50 years ago, that rich guy would have known a Lot about what he is investing in, today, I don't know, probably not so much.

Don't be so sure. I once helped create a grading system for them, and after a six month regression analysis in their behavior vs what they were supposed to do, they all got Fs. It was so bad we had to eliminate the catagory discerning if they were going to stick to what their perspectus said they were about. Bottom line... Don't trust anyone on what they say they are about. Especially when it comes to money.

Edit--- it took six months to complete the project we actually regressed it back as many years as we could depending on how long the manager was in charge.

Edited July 11, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[Einsteinium]

Don't be so sure. I once helped create a grading system for them, and after a six month regression analysis in their behavior vs what they were supposed to do, they all got Fs. It was so bad we had to eliminate the catagory discerning if they were going to stick to what their perspectus said they were about. Bottom line... Don't trust anyone on what they say they are about. Especially when it comes to money.

Edit--- it took six months to complete the project we actually regressed it back as many years as we could depending on how long the manager was in charge.

Hedge fund managers overall have been shown to be no better at picking stocks than random chance. However, they have one thing going for them, when they announce they are buying a stock, other people follow suit, which then artificially inflates the price of the stock. But random chance over time has been shown to have equivalent performance to hedge fund managers.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/orlando-cat-better-chance-beating-201534412.html