Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

On 11/9/19 1:27 AM, Roscoe wrote:
Â* Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking.Â* A billion
is a thousand thousands.Â* Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

Yes, they are hubs for economic activity. We all need them
for our jobs. And if you discourage them from economic activity by
taking the fruits of their labor from them,
they take their marbles and refuse to play with the rest
of us. And the rest of us are the ones that really get
hurt.

I work for a lot of rich people. One is a complete ass hole
and I no longer work for him. They rest are salts of the earth.

Do not envy anyone, O man, for their earthly, passing
happiness, for everything in the world is as the grass
and the flower of the field; do not envy the rich and
the glorious; do not envy those who are surfeited with
earthly pleasures; but sensibly imitate him who is adorned
with virtues. Do not desire authority, honor, any
advantages whatever; do not desire excellent dwellings
and buildings, or any other luxury; for all this
is temporary and corruptible, all is passing away
and quickly will vanish like smoke. Everything will
remain here, everything will be turned into dust
and ashes, for nothing is eternal on the earth. Only
be sensibly zealous for those things which are united
with the Lord or are deemed worthy of the grace
of the Most Holy Spirit; for whoever receives it will
be richer and more glorious that all the rich and
glorious.

--Saint Demetrius of Rostov

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 4:27:28 AM UTC-5, Roscoe wrote:
Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

Does anybody need anything but food, clothing and shelter?

Although I'm not as fond of billionaires as T, I recognize that they
provide a lot of economic benefit. I suspect they still would provide
a good deal of economic benefit if their tax rate was a wee bit higher.

People don't become billionaires because they like money. They become
billionaires because they like doing the stuff that makes them money.
If it was about the money, there are lots easier ways to do it than
starting Microsoft, Innovative Market Systems, or Apple.

Cindy Hamilton

Roscoe wrote:
Â* Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking.Â* A billion
is a thousand thousands.Â* Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

I think a billion is a thousand million. A thousand thousands is a
million. I hope you did not get this definition from Pocahontas.

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 4:27:28 AM UTC-5, Roscoe wrote:
Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

A billion isn't a thousand, thousands, that's a million. It's a thousand
millions.

On 11/9/2019 4:27 AM, Roscoe wrote:
Â* Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking.Â* A billion
is a thousand thousands.Â* Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

We need them to fund a remedial math course for you.

It takes a lot of work to become a billionaire and along the way most
have created jobs, invested in the start up of other companies and kept
the economy in good shape. Nothing is stopping you and I from doing the
same if we have the ability and courage to do so.

The tax code needs a big overhaul but adding a wealth tax is not the
right way. Wealth tax is punitive by jealous incompetents. Simply "I
don't have it so you don't deserve it"

Apply the same wealth tax standard to you. Since you have more than 10
other people in your town, we are going to make you pay up and give
money to them to equalize it. Even if you have to sell your car and
other possessions to come up with the money.

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 9 Nov 2019 06:23:44 -0600, Ken
wrote:

Roscoe wrote:
* Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking.* A billion
is a thousand thousands.*

Nope.

Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

I think a billion is a thousand million.

In Britain until 1974 or so, a billion wass a million millions. That
might be what confused Roscoe. Government usage was changed then to
what you said, with the hope that when others use it to mean a million
million, they will be explicit about that.

In the USA some other countries it's what you said.

A thousand thousands is a
million. I hope you did not get this definition from Pocahontas.

Just a semantic question for wheich you gave a pretty good answer, and
yet you had to add something unrelated and stupid.

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 03:27:23 -0600, Roscoe wrote:

Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

Speaking for myself, I don't need it.

On 11/9/2019 12:19 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 03:27:23 -0600, Roscoe wrote:

Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

Speaking for myself, I don't need it.


I read the question as "do we really need billionaires?" The answer to
me is yes. They have enough wealth to generated more wealth. It is
often said that you do not create wealth by distributing it. In the
extreme if we all had an equal share of the nations wealth there would
be no large investments in generating more wealth and we would stagnate.

On 11/9/2019 1:23 PM, Frank wrote:

I read the question as "do we really need billionaires?"Â* The answer to
me is yes.Â* They have enough wealth to generated more wealth.Â* It is
often said that you do not create wealth by distributing it.Â* In the
extreme if we all had an equal share of the nations wealth there would
be no large investments in generating more wealth and we would stagnate.

Well said. If we put in a wealth tax, where will it stop? It is like a
reverse pyramid scheme starting by confiscating a percentage of many
billions. When the well runs dry we increase the percentage and drop
the amount of wealth qualified to confiscate. When that runs dry, we
drop the levels again. The lion needs to be fed.

So the minimum wage works it way up to $28/hour but after redistribution
the top wage in the county will effectively be about $30.

I do think employers have a moral and ethical obligation to pay a fair
wage to the people that make then a success. Education and skills should
be rewarded.

On 11/09/2019 04:58 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 4:27:28 AM UTC-5, Roscoe wrote:
Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

Does anybody need anything but food, clothing and shelter?

Although I'm not as fond of billionaires as T, I recognize that they
provide a lot of economic benefit. I suspect they still would provide
a good deal of economic benefit if their tax rate was a wee bit higher.

People don't become billionaires because they like money. They become
billionaires because they like doing the stuff that makes them money.
If it was about the money, there are lots easier ways to do it than
starting Microsoft, Innovative Market Systems, or Apple.

If the Walton family weren't related to Sam Walton, where would they be?
If Soros wasn't a speculator who almost brought down the Bank of England
for his profit would he be sweeping out bathrooms in Hungary?

How about the Kochs? Old Fred was a colorful guy. While being sued for
patent infringement he set up refineries in the Soviet Union that didn't
recognize US IP rights. His disillusionment with Uncle Joe resulted in
his rabid anti-communism that he passed on along with the money. His
next stop was the Third Reich where he built a refinery to produce the
high octane fuel needed to keep the Messerscmitts in the air.

When the heat dies down he came back to the US. After he died, all was
not well in Koch land and the four brothers litigated against each other.

Sure, some billionaires made it through hard work and produced valuable
products. Some worked hard manipulating the markets with a flair that
would make a vulture gag. Some just won the silver spoon.

On 11/09/2019 07:05 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
It takes a lot of work to become a billionaire and along the way most
have created jobs, invested in the start up of other companies and kept
the economy in good shape. Nothing is stopping you and I from doing the
same if we have the ability and courage to do so.

Some have, and some have destroyed jobs in the US by moving
manufacturing plants and outsourcing jobs. Do you think those that got
rich in the shaky financial manipulations that almost brought down the
economy were beneficial? Do you think wealthy patent trolls are a good
thing?

On 11/9/2019 1:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/9/2019 1:23 PM, Frank wrote:

I read the question as "do we really need billionaires?"Â* The answer
to me is yes.Â* They have enough wealth to generated more wealth.Â* It
is often said that you do not create wealth by distributing it.Â* In
the extreme if we all had an equal share of the nations wealth there
would be no large investments in generating more wealth and we would
stagnate.

Well said.Â* If we put in a wealth tax, where will it stop?Â* It is like a
reverse pyramid scheme starting by confiscating a percentage of many
billions.Â* When the well runs dry we increase the percentage and drop
the amount of wealth qualified to confiscate.Â* When that runs dry, we
drop the levels again.Â* The lion needs to be fed.

So the minimum wage works it way up to $28/hour but after redistribution
the top wage in the county will effectively be about $30.

I do think employers have a moral and ethical obligation to pay a fair
wage to the people that make then a success. Education and skills should
be rewarded.

In our mobile society we are seeing rich and even middle class people
moving because of high taxes. This applies not only to our states but
also nations.

It may not be moral obligation but employers have to pay more to get
better employees. There was a story of a guy complaining that he had
been working 20 years at minimum wage. The comment was made that maybe
life was trying to tell him something.

Frank wrote:
On 11/9/2019 12:19 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 03:27:23 -0600, Roscoe wrote:

Â*Â* Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking.Â* A billion
is a thousand thousands.Â* Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

Speaking for myself, I don't need it.


I read the question as "do we really need billionaires?"Â* The answer to
me is yes.Â* They have enough wealth to generated more wealth.Â* It is
often said that you do not create wealth by distributing it.Â* In the
extreme if we all had an equal share of the nations wealth there would
be no large investments in generating more wealth and we would stagnate.

You touched on the major difference between someone who has money and
someone who does not. Simple logic dictates that simply working for a
living can be profitable, but either having additional people work for
you (aka start a business) or investing and having your money work for
you is the way to financial security. Many people are not willing to
take either risk. They just complain when someone else is successful.

micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 9 Nov 2019 06:23:44 -0600, Ken
wrote:

Roscoe wrote:
Â* Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking.Â* A billion
is a thousand thousands.

Nope.

Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

I think a billion is a thousand million.

In Britain until 1974 or so, a billion wass a million millions. That
might be what confused Roscoe. Government usage was changed then to
what you said, with the hope that when others use it to mean a million
million, they will be explicit about that.

In the USA some other countries it's what you said.

A thousand thousands is a
million. I hope you did not get this definition from Pocahontas.

Just a semantic question for wheich you gave a pretty good answer, and
yet you had to add something unrelated and stupid.


A little humor my friend. You need to lighten up.

In article ,
says...

How about the Kochs? Old Fred was a colorful guy. While being sued for
patent infringement he set up refineries in the Soviet Union that didn't
recognize US IP rights. His disillusionment with Uncle Joe resulted in
his rabid anti-communism that he passed on along with the money. His
next stop was the Third Reich where he built a refinery to produce the
high octane fuel needed to keep the Messerscmitts in the air.




The Kochs helped to put the company I worked for out of business.
Around 3000 people out of jobs in a small town area ( under 40,000
people each) of about 4 towns with in 20 miles.

They bought the company , let it run down and found some sucker group to
buy it. Stole much of the pension plan while at it.

The pensions and 401k plans of companies are something that needs to be
addressed. Even those of towns. Most are underfunded and some have
already gone away or been reduced very much. Just like the Ponzi scheme
of Social Security.

On 11/9/2019 2:04 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 11/09/2019 07:05 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
It takes a lot of work to become a billionaire and along the way most
have created jobs, invested in the start up of other companies and kept
the economy in good shape.Â* Nothing is stopping you and I from doing the
same if we have the ability and courage to do so.

Some have, and some have destroyed jobs in the US by moving
manufacturing plants and outsourcing jobs. Do you think those that got
rich in the shaky financial manipulations that almost brought down the
economy were beneficial? Do you think wealthy patent trolls are a good
thing?

Your point? There are criminals and unethical people everywhere but
that should not stop the rest of the population from success. Take away
the billions and they would still be nast.

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 03:27:23 -0600, Roscoe
wrote:

Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?
A thousand thousands is a MILLION.
It is a thousand MILLION that makes a billion, no?
1,000 is a thousand
1,000,000 is a MILLION
1,000,000,000 is a BILLION - at least in North America, today.
The following is gleaned from Wikipedia

1,000,000,000,000, i.e. one million million, or 1012 (ten to the
twelfth power) is the historic definition of a billion in British
English.

Other countries such as the United States use the word billion (or
words cognate to it) to denote the billions as 1,000,000,000. For
details, see Long and short scales – Current usage.

Milliard, another term for one thousand million, is still found
occasionally in English, and is very common in most other European
languages.[1][2] For example, Bulgarian, Catalan, Croatian, Czech,
Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, Georgian, German, Hungarian, Italian,
Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak,
Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, and Ukrainian — use milliard (or a
related word) for the short scale billion, and billion (or a related
word) for the long scale billion. Thus for these languages billion is
thousand times larger than the modern English billion. However, in
Russian, while milliard (????????) is used for the short scale
billion, trillion (????????) is used for the long scale billion.

Also, under HISTORY:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word billion was
formed in the 16th century (from million and the prefix bi-, "two"),
meaning the second power of a million (1,000,0002 = 1012). This long
scale definition was similarly applied to trillion, quadrillion and so
on. The words were originally French, and entered English around the
end of the 17th century. Later, French arithmeticians changed the
words' meanings, adopting the short scale definition whereby three
zeros rather than six were added at each step, so a billion came to
denote a thousand million (109), a trillion (1012), and so on. This
new convention was adopted in the United States in the 19th century,
but Britain retained the original long scale use. France, in turn,
reverted to the long scale in 1948.[3] In Britain, however, under the
influence of American usage, the short scale came to be increasingly
used. In 1974, Prime Minister Harold Wilson confirmed that the
government would use the word billion only in its short scale meaning
(one thousand million). In a written answer to Robin Maxwell-Hyslop
MP, who asked whether official usage would conform to the traditional
British meaning of a million million, Wilson stated: "No. The word
'billion' is now used internationally to mean 1,000 million and it
would be confusing if British Ministers were to use it in any other
sense. I accept that it could still be interpreted in this country as
1 million million and I shall ask my colleagues to ensure that, if
they do use it, there should be no ambiguity as to its meaning

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:59:24 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 11/09/2019 04:58 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 4:27:28 AM UTC-5, Roscoe wrote:
Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

Does anybody need anything but food, clothing and shelter?

Although I'm not as fond of billionaires as T, I recognize that they
provide a lot of economic benefit. I suspect they still would provide
a good deal of economic benefit if their tax rate was a wee bit higher.

People don't become billionaires because they like money. They become
billionaires because they like doing the stuff that makes them money.
If it was about the money, there are lots easier ways to do it than
starting Microsoft, Innovative Market Systems, or Apple.

If the Walton family weren't related to Sam Walton, where would they be?
If Soros wasn't a speculator who almost brought down the Bank of England
for his profit would he be sweeping out bathrooms in Hungary?

How about the Kochs? Old Fred was a colorful guy. While being sued for
patent infringement he set up refineries in the Soviet Union that didn't
recognize US IP rights. His disillusionment with Uncle Joe resulted in
his rabid anti-communism that he passed on along with the money. His
next stop was the Third Reich where he built a refinery to produce the
high octane fuel needed to keep the Messerscmitts in the air.

When the heat dies down he came back to the US. After he died, all was
not well in Koch land and the four brothers litigated against each other.

Sure, some billionaires made it through hard work and produced valuable
products. Some worked hard manipulating the markets with a flair that
would make a vulture gag. Some just won the silver spoon.


Not too many billions were earned totally ethically. More were
basically "stolen" - one way or the other.

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 13:39:12 -0600, Ken wrote:

Frank wrote:
On 11/9/2019 12:19 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 03:27:23 -0600, Roscoe wrote:

** Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking.* A billion
is a thousand thousands.* Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

Speaking for myself, I don't need it.


I read the question as "do we really need billionaires?"* The answer to
me is yes.* They have enough wealth to generated more wealth.* It is
often said that you do not create wealth by distributing it.* In the
extreme if we all had an equal share of the nations wealth there would
be no large investments in generating more wealth and we would stagnate.

You touched on the major difference between someone who has money and
someone who does not. Simple logic dictates that simply working for a
living can be profitable, but either having additional people work for
you (aka start a business) or investing and having your money work for
you is the way to financial security. Many people are not willing to
take either risk. They just complain when someone else is successful.


I don't (generally) buy lottery tickets or raffle tickets - but that
doesn't mean I'm not a gambler. Thirty years ago in August I went "all
in" on the biggest gamble of my life and have not taken a "pay cheque"
since.
It didn't make me rich. I could have lost EVERYTHING, but it kept
bread on the table and I "retired" debt free at 65, with a modest
house and 2 decent second hand vehicles and a small nest egg, that
along with my government pension SHOULD allow me to modestly live out
my remaining years - if I keep on doing a little bit of business for
the next few years and am careful.

On 11/9/19 4:27 AM, Roscoe wrote:
Â* Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking.Â* A billion
is a thousand thousands.Â* Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

If the rich didnt create all that wealth-€“ who would the liberals take
it from?

--
Weve transitioned from stigmatizing mental illness to accepting mental
illness to normalizing mental illness- and more recently, to celebrating
mental illness€¦..

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 3:22:41 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:59:24 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 11/09/2019 04:58 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 4:27:28 AM UTC-5, Roscoe wrote:
Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

Does anybody need anything but food, clothing and shelter?

Although I'm not as fond of billionaires as T, I recognize that they
provide a lot of economic benefit. I suspect they still would provide
a good deal of economic benefit if their tax rate was a wee bit higher.

People don't become billionaires because they like money. They become
billionaires because they like doing the stuff that makes them money.
If it was about the money, there are lots easier ways to do it than
starting Microsoft, Innovative Market Systems, or Apple.

If the Walton family weren't related to Sam Walton, where would they be?
If Soros wasn't a speculator who almost brought down the Bank of England
for his profit would he be sweeping out bathrooms in Hungary?

How about the Kochs? Old Fred was a colorful guy. While being sued for
patent infringement he set up refineries in the Soviet Union that didn't
recognize US IP rights. His disillusionment with Uncle Joe resulted in
his rabid anti-communism that he passed on along with the money. His
next stop was the Third Reich where he built a refinery to produce the
high octane fuel needed to keep the Messerscmitts in the air.

When the heat dies down he came back to the US. After he died, all was
not well in Koch land and the four brothers litigated against each other.

Sure, some billionaires made it through hard work and produced valuable
products. Some worked hard manipulating the markets with a flair that
would make a vulture gag. Some just won the silver spoon.


Not too many billions were earned totally ethically. More were
basically "stolen" - one way or the other.

Cite for us the many examples of American billionaires where they stole it.

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 12:08:13 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 9 Nov 2019 06:23:44 -0600, Ken
wrote:

Roscoe wrote:
Â* Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking.Â* A billion
is a thousand thousands.Â*

Nope.

Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

I think a billion is a thousand million.

In Britain until 1974 or so, a billion wass a million millions. That
might be what confused Roscoe. Government usage was changed then to
what you said, with the hope that when others use it to mean a million
million, they will be explicit about that.

WTF?




In the USA some other countries it's what you said.

wtF?




A thousand thousands is a
million. I hope you did not get this definition from Pocahontas.

Just a semantic question for wheich you gave a pretty good answer, and
yet you had to add something unrelated and stupid.

You have the monopoly on stupid.

Roscoe wrote:
Â* Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking.Â* A
billion is a thousand thousands.Â* Does anyone really need to be a
billionaire?


Hate to correct you, but a billion is a *million* thousands.

In article ,
says...
Not too many billions were earned totally ethically. More were
basically "stolen" - one way or the other.

Cite for us the many examples of American billionaires where they stole it.




Gates did with Microsoft.

He sold IBM on a system that he did not really have.

He markeded his system for $ 49.99 or so and Digital Research was about
$ 150.

He proceeded to almost steal much other softwear.

Walmart is doing similar things. They will make a contract with a
company to buy much more than the company can produce. The company
borrows money to expand. The next time Walmart cuts the price of the
contract. The company has to take that reduced price as they have to
pay back a big load.

If you look at the history of the 'giants' around the start of the
century you can see how they sort of stole the millions then which would
convet to billions now.

On 11/09/2019 01:05 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
The Kochs helped to put the company I worked for out of business.
Around 3000 people out of jobs in a small town area ( under 40,000
people each) of about 4 towns with in 20 miles.

That's just good business on the way to another billion.

On 11/09/2019 04:44 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
Walmart is doing similar things. They will make a contract with a
company to buy much more than the company can produce. The company
borrows money to expand. The next time Walmart cuts the price of the
contract. The company has to take that reduced price as they have to
pay back a big load.

I worked for a trucking company that hauled freight for Walmart. Walmart
has its own fleet but they have to bid against outside carriers and the
cheapest one wins. The company eventually lost the contracts. It didn't
matter how well you performed just how cheaply you would work.

In another context, I worked for a company that supplied the styrofoam
clamshells to McDonalds. If the price of crystal styrene dropped a penny
a pound, MickeyD was on the phone looking for a price cut.

I'm always curious where exactly the billions came from. Take Bill
Gates. I picking him since there's every indication he's a decent guy
that won the lottery. I believe most of his billions are in the form of
Microsoft stock. Exactly what does that mean? What does it mean when
Microsoft gets the JEDI contract and Gates' wealth goes up 3% while
Bezos' goes down 1%?

On 11/09/2019 01:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/9/2019 2:04 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 11/09/2019 07:05 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
It takes a lot of work to become a billionaire and along the way most
have created jobs, invested in the start up of other companies and kept
the economy in good shape. Nothing is stopping you and I from doing the
same if we have the ability and courage to do so.

Some have, and some have destroyed jobs in the US by moving
manufacturing plants and outsourcing jobs. Do you think those that got
rich in the shaky financial manipulations that almost brought down the
economy were beneficial? Do you think wealthy patent trolls are a good
thing?

Your point? There are criminals and unethical people everywhere but
that should not stop the rest of the population from success. Take away
the billions and they would still be nast.

So have 'most' created jobs and kept the economy in good shape? What
were they doing when the Fed had to bail out Wall Street? That is as
accurate as saying most Irishmen are drunks.

At one point, maybe in the last century, I would agree with you. However
currently the money is in the FIRE sector, most of which is unproductive
churning. The DOW sets new record; what does that mean?

On 11/09/2019 01:53 PM, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 11/9/19 4:27 AM, Roscoe wrote:
Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

If the rich didnt create all that wealth-€“ who would the liberals take
it from?


If the wealth is derived from trading in repos, where did it come from?
If the wealth came from manufacturing and selling umbrellas, where did
it come from? If a person made a billion selling umbrellas, maybe the
umbrellas are a little overpriced?

On 11/9/2019 9:11 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 11/09/2019 01:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/9/2019 2:04 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 11/09/2019 07:05 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
It takes a lot of work to become a billionaire and along the way most
have created jobs, invested in the start up of other companies and kept
the economy in good shape.Â* Nothing is stopping you and I from doing
the
same if we have the ability and courage to do so.

Some have, and some have destroyed jobs in the US by moving
manufacturing plants and outsourcing jobs. Do you think those that got
rich in the shaky financial manipulations that almost brought down the
economy were beneficial? Do you think wealthy patent trolls are a good
thing?

Your point?Â* There are criminals and unethical people everywhere but
that should not stop the rest of the population from success.Â* Take away
the billions and they would still be nast.

So have 'most' created jobs and kept the economy in good shape? What
were they doing when the Fed had to bail out Wall Street? That is as
accurate as saying most Irishmen are drunks.

At one point, maybe in the last century, I would agree with you. However
currently the money is in the FIRE sector, most of which is unproductive
churning. The DOW sets new record; what does that mean?

It means my 401k is looking good today. Could turn to crap tomorrow
though.

Even the billionaires are a lot of paper value, not real hard cash. If
there is a walth tax some will have a hard time making the payment.

I'm sure though, the lawyers and accountants are making plans to get
around it all. Suddenly some of the assets will be spun off to trusts
or some other organization that will become the owner of record for the
$20 million house. Maybe some guy in the Cayman Islands will own it.

Remove money from the picture. All.
What do you have?

"rbowman" wrote in message
...
On 11/09/2019 04:44 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
Walmart is doing similar things. They will make a contract with a
company to buy much more than the company can produce. The company
borrows money to expand. The next time Walmart cuts the price of the
contract. The company has to take that reduced price as they have to
pay back a big load.

I worked for a trucking company that hauled freight for Walmart. Walmart
has its own fleet but they have to bid against outside carriers and the
cheapest one wins. The company eventually lost the contracts. It didn't
matter how well you performed just how cheaply you would work.

In another context, I worked for a company that supplied the styrofoam
clamshells to McDonalds. If the price of crystal styrene dropped a penny a
pound, MickeyD was on the phone looking for a price cut.

But clearly McDs does provide lots of jobs and lots choose to
buy what they produce. In fact you can even make a case that
it does make sense to continue to be able to provide all those
jobs even if the Styrofoam operation does lose some to some
other operation which gets to produce the Styrofoam clamshells
instead and provides those jobs there instead.

I'm always curious where exactly the billions came from.

Currently mostly in the stock price of operations like MS, Alphabet,,
Facebook, Amazon etc. Still real money which does the pension
funds quite a bit of good for most who have a pension etc. And
in the case of those, for those who use those operations too.

Take Bill Gates. I picking him since there's every indication he's a
decent guy that won the lottery. I believe most of his billions are in the
form of Microsoft stock. Exactly what does that mean? What does it mean
when Microsoft gets the JEDI contract and Gates' wealth goes up 3% while
Bezos' goes down 1%?

Not a lot for the pension funds that hold them both.

Yes, there are certainly arseholes like Murdoch and Soros
that get stinking rich and arguably don’t contribute much
at all to society in the produces, but you can make a case
that system which produced the very viable USA economy
today inevitably must produce some arseholes and some
like Paris Hilton too. We havent worked out how to have
one without the other.

Even the state grabbing most of what the billionaires have
when they die doesn’t really work very well as can be seen
with western europe where they tried that for quite a while.
And may arguably be why almost all of the full
commercialisation of almost all technology happens first in
the USA now, with everything from McDs to MS to Amazon
and Facebook and Alphabet to Nike and Wal-Mart, Apple etc.

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:53:32 -0500, Wade Garrett
wrote:

On 11/9/19 4:27 AM, Roscoe wrote:
* Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking.* A billion
is a thousand thousands.* Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

If the rich didn’t create all that wealth-– who would the liberals take
it from?
It is inaccurate to say the rich "create" wealth. They "accumulate"
wealth

"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:53:32 -0500, Wade Garrett
wrote:

On 11/9/19 4:27 AM, Roscoe wrote:
Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

If the rich didn't create all that wealth-- who would the liberals take
it from?
It is inaccurate to say the rich "create" wealth. They "accumulate"
wealth

Some like Gates and Bezos do create wealth by
producing what some choose to use or consume.

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
says...
Not too many billions were earned totally ethically. More were
basically "stolen" - one way or the other.

Cite for us the many examples of American billionaires where they stole
it.

Gates did with Microsoft.

Nope.

He sold IBM on a system that he did not really have.

That's not stealing, that's just good business practice.

He markeded his system for $ 49.99 or
so and Digital Research was about $ 150.

That's not stealing either, just good business practice.

He proceeded to almost steal much other softwear.

Nope, just bought that operation, again just good business practice.

Walmart is doing similar things.

Nope, just very aggressive business practice.

They will make a contract with a company to buy
much more than the company can produce. The
company borrows money to expand. The next
time Walmart cuts the price of the contract.
The company has to take that reduced price
as they have to pay back a big load.

That's not stealing either.

If you look at the history of the 'giants' around the start
of the century you can see how they sort of stole the
millions then which would convet to billions now.

Even the most flagrant monopolistic practices arent really stealing.

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 14:39:43 +1100, "Ray" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:53:32 -0500, Wade Garrett
wrote:

On 11/9/19 4:27 AM, Roscoe wrote:
Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

If the rich didn't create all that wealth-- who would the liberals take
it from?
It is inaccurate to say the rich "create" wealth. They "accumulate"
wealth

Some like Gates and Bezos do create wealth by
producing what some choose to use or consume.
And they are the minority. Gates is also in the minority in how he
uses his wealth.

On 11/09/2019 07:27 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

It means my 401k is looking good today. Could turn to crap tomorrow though.

Back before the dotcom bubble burst I had a friend who was checking his
401 about every hour and rubbing his hands. He told me I was stupid to
have a stodgy old traditional IRA. I didn't even have to tell him to
STFU when the roller coaster started down. I didn't lose a dime.

Fact is I've never paid to much attention to money matters.

"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 14:39:43 +1100, "Ray" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:53:32 -0500, Wade Garrett
wrote:

On 11/9/19 4:27 AM, Roscoe wrote:
Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

If the rich didn't create all that wealth-- who would the liberals take
it from?
It is inaccurate to say the rich "create" wealth. They "accumulate"
wealth

Some like Gates and Bezos do create wealth by
producing what some choose to use or consume.

And they are the minority.

Yes, billionaires will always be a tiny minority.

It isnt clear that only a minority of billionaires do create wealth.

Gates is also in the minority in how he uses his wealth.

That's true, plenty of billionaires are only billionaires
in the sense that they own lots of stock in the operation
they produced. But producing that operation did produce
lots of wealth and almost always lots of jobs too.

Yes, some like Soros and Koch brats didn't.

On 11/09/2019 08:39 PM, Ray wrote:


"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:53:32 -0500, Wade Garrett
wrote:

On 11/9/19 4:27 AM, Roscoe wrote:
Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

If the rich didn't create all that wealth-- who would the liberals take
it from?
It is inaccurate to say the rich "create" wealth. They "accumulate"
wealth

Some like Gates and Bezos do create wealth by
producing what some choose to use or consume.

With the exception of some of the Amazon sponsored shows, Bezos doesn't
produce a damn thing. Don't get me wrong -- Amazon is my go-to source
for many things but they are just a highly efficient retailer. Even AWS
doesn't add anything to the mix other than a service.

Yeah, I'm a dinosaur and I never quite got the whole service economy
thing. Gates, or I should say Microsoft, does create software. Even that
is very intangible. I've been in the software game for about 40 years
and I'm not sure anything I've done was all that necessary or even had a
positive effect.

On 11/09/2019 10:47 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 14:39:43 +1100, "Ray" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:53:32 -0500, Wade Garrett
wrote:

On 11/9/19 4:27 AM, Roscoe wrote:
Bernie or Liz I think asked that and it got me thinking. A billion
is a thousand thousands. Does anyone really need to be a billionaire?

If the rich didn't create all that wealth-- who would the liberals take
it from?
It is inaccurate to say the rich "create" wealth. They "accumulate"
wealth

Some like Gates and Bezos do create wealth by
producing what some choose to use or consume.
And they are the minority. Gates is also in the minority in how he
uses his wealth.


I don't know if a lot of Mom & Pop operations would say Bezos is
creating much wealth.