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

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.

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 11/09/2019 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 11/9/2019 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.

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 9:11:30 PM UTC-5, 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. 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?

Absolutely, what an absurd question.


What
were they doing when the Fed had to bail out Wall Street? That is as
accurate as saying most Irishmen are drunks.

Actually, as I recall, some companies were taken over by other companies
back in 2008 when they failed. Do small businesses come to the aid of
their competitors or any other business for that matter? The local
baker is failing, does the auto dealer come help him?




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 that stock buyers are more aggressive than the sellers, that they
believe in the companies they are buying. And overwhelmingly they are
right and have been right, through most of history. The economy is growing,
GDP is growing, corp profits are growing. What planet are you on?

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 11/9/2019 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.

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 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 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 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?

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

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 9:15:39 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
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?

From performing an economic service.


If the wealth came from manufacturing and selling umbrellas, where did
it come from?

You can't be that stupid.



If a person made a billion selling umbrellas, maybe the
umbrellas are a little overpriced?

If they are overpriced then people would be buying the competitors
umbrellas. Free markets see to that.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 9:15:39 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
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?

From performing an economic service.


If the wealth came from manufacturing and selling umbrellas, where did
it come from?

You can't be that stupid.



If a person made a billion selling umbrellas, maybe the
umbrellas are a little overpriced?

If they are overpriced then people would be buying the competitors
umbrellas. Free markets see to that.

Its more complicated than that with the produce of a simple product
like that being able to produce a billionaire in the hands of some with
their competitors not able to achieve that sort of result. Quite a bit of
the time its as simple as producing a better product that appeals to
more than their competitors were able to do. Most obviously with
Coca Cola and Pepsi etc compared with the vast number of others
who also produced similar products. Same with McDs and Walmart,
all of which did better than the competition in very competitive industrys.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:01:54 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Its more complicated than that

Is it, you ridiculous auto-contradicting senile cretin? BG

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

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.

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.

"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 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.

On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 12:47:54 AM UTC-5, 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.

What complete BS. There are rich people all the way from Bezos down to
the local auto dealer or supermarket owner that have created a tremendous
number of jobs. And even the rich who inherited it and just sit on it,
where is it "sitting'? Typically in stocks and that capital is helping
to create more jobs. You sound like a bitter old fool who's envious
of other people's success. And Gates isn't the only billionaire that
has contributed a lot to charities, most have. Even the ruthless turn
of the century titans like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon contributed
enormous amounts to charity.

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.