6 ms·

You keep referring to the 'moneyed' as an alien entity when in reality it is a lot of index funds, pension funds, 401ks and what not. Are you saying there shou

by SubuSS 9y ago

You keep referring to the 'moneyed' as an alien entity when in reality it is a lot of index funds, pension funds, 401ks and what not. Are you saying there should be less/no return for investing your money? If so, how do you suppose we incentivize investments?

s73ver 9y ago
I didn't say there should be no return. Suggesting that is quite dishonest on your part. I merely stated that the bulk of reward should go to those who actually DO something, not those who's only contribution is already having money. Of course they should get a return on that money. It just shouldn't be the bulk of the reward.
- SubuSS 9y ago
  Boy aren't you looking to get offended :). I said less OR no return, since it wasn't explicit in your comments. Picking only parts that suit you is ginormously dishonest if my logical OR seems 'quite dishonest' to you :) But investors are actually doing something as well - they are putting their hard earned money towards a venture. And as it stands today, we have more need for capital than 'actual work'. So it gets rewarded more. In simplistic terms, If you want an investor to put his money into a business you are starting instead of buying up rare resources or hoarding his cash, you give up equity. And hence their reward are relative to the money they put in. I was just trying to see if you have any alternative plans to encourage such investment. This is back to basics economics as I know, but I don't know much there. Hence my query.
xenadu02 9y ago
The top 5% own >70% of all stock, so no it mostly isn't grandma's 401k or grandpa's pension. Half of all Americans don't own a single share of anything in any form.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  You have to admit, whether or not this was ever anyone's intent, from a social control perspective, tying your retirement to the health of the market is a real masterstroke.

by SubuSS 9y ago

s73ver 9y ago

I didn't say there should be no return. Suggesting that is quite dishonest on your part. I merely stated that the bulk of reward should go to those who actually DO something, not those who's only contribution is already having money. Of course they should get a return on that money. It just shouldn't be the bulk of the reward.

SubuSS 9y ago
Boy aren't you looking to get offended :). I said less OR no return, since it wasn't explicit in your comments. Picking only parts that suit you is ginormously dishonest if my logical OR seems 'quite dishonest' to you :) But investors are actually doing something as well - they are putting their hard earned money towards a venture. And as it stands today, we have more need for capital than 'actual work'. So it gets rewarded more. In simplistic terms, If you want an investor to put his money into a business you are starting instead of buying up rare resources or hoarding his cash, you give up equity. And hence their reward are relative to the money they put in. I was just trying to see if you have any alternative plans to encourage such investment. This is back to basics economics as I know, but I don't know much there. Hence my query.

xenadu02 9y ago

The top 5% own >70% of all stock, so no it mostly isn't grandma's 401k or grandpa's pension. Half of all Americans don't own a single share of anything in any form.

emodendroket 9y ago
You have to admit, whether or not this was ever anyone's intent, from a social control perspective, tying your retirement to the health of the market is a real masterstroke.