"Self-Made"?? Yeah. Right.
ro...@telus.net
billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
the USA:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/secrets-self-made-ent-manage-cx_ll_richlist07_0920secretsqa.html
Of course, those who have been keeping up with the "Are the Filthy
Rich Necessary" thread will be aware that almost all the wealth of
almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of
unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of
land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and
dealing in these privileges.
I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real
estate." So without further ado, heeeeeerrre they aaaaaaarre:
1 Tim Blixseth: timberland, real estate
-- i.e., pure landowner privilege
Notice Blixseth's slightly too revealing response to Q 15:
Say you have $100,000 to invest: What do you do with it?
A: "Raw, undeveloped land out in front of the path of development."
2 Eli Broad: "investments" -- i.e., dealing in privileges
3 John Catsimatidis: oil, real estate, supermarkets
-- i.e., ownership of natural resources
4 Ken Fisher: money management -- dealing in privileges
5 B. Tom Golisano: Paychex -- Well! Actual productive work!
6 Harold Hamm: Continental Resources -- ownership of natural resources
7 Michael Heisley: manufacturing -- Productive work again!
8 Kenneth Hendricks: building supplies
-- Another one! Three producers out of eight so far!
9 Joseph Jamail, Jr.: lawsuits
-- hmmmm... transferring money from defendants to plaintiffs is not
productive
10 Ted Lerner: real estate -- ahhh, back to privilege...
11 Ronald Perelman: leveraged buyouts
-- "How to Destroy Productive Capacity for Fun and Profit"
12 Jorge Perez: condos -- i.e., landowning
Slightly too revealing answer to Q 10: When was the last evening that
hadn't been scheduled in advance? What did you do?
A: "Just today, one of the wealthiest families in Mexico came to Miami
and wanted to see me to see if we could develop their extensive land
holdings. Had a very productive and enjoyable three-hour lunch."
13 Richard Rainwater: real estate, energy, insurance
-- mainly natural resource ownership
14 Phil Ruffin: casinos, real estate
-- gambling monopoly privilege and landowner privilege
15 O. Bruton Smith: Speedway Motorsports -- oops! Actual production!
16 James Sorenson: medical devices, real estate
-- patent privileges and landowner privilege
17 A Alfred Taubman: real estate -- landowner privilege
18 Kenny Trout: Excel Communications -- MLM scam, not productive
19 Donald Trump: real estate
-- landowner privilege (especially property tax abatements)
20 Sanford Weill: Citigroup -- bank seignorage privilege
21 Mort Zuckerman: real estate, media
-- landownership and copyright privileges
Well, there you have it, folks. Just four of the 21 "self-made"
billionaires (out of the 400 on Forbes's list!) actually made the bulk
of their money through actual productive contributions. The rest were
all rent collectors or scammers of one stripe or another. The
productivity ratio is certainly worse in the full list of 400, many of
whom inherited or obtained their wealth by even less savory means.
-- Roy L
Vid...@tcq.net
> Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
> billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
> the USA:
>
thanks roy. i to have been pointing out in my own crude way to a few
conservatives/libertarians about the self made/rugged individual/self
reliant/self responsible/pull yourself up by your own bootstrap/many
born with a silver spoon self made wall streeters who have their hands
out begging for bailouts, or handouts.
these people seem to think that a million dollars meant they were
born into poverty, and not privilege, so anything they made after
that, well, you know, they are self made, snicker.
that a mixed economy means they get the bailout, while the others get
the stick.
Paul Maffia
> Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
> billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
> the USA:
>
> http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/secrets-self-made-ent-manage-cx_ll_richlist07_0920secretsqa.html
>
> Of course, those who have been keeping up with the "Are the Filthy
> Rich Necessary" thread will be aware that almost all the wealth of
> almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
> contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of
> unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of
> land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
> spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
> deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and
> dealing in these privileges.
>
> I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
> names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real
> estate." So without further ado, heeeeeerrre they aaaaaaarre:
You are the perfect example that proves the point that a little knowledge is
a dangerous thing. You display so little knowledge it is hilarious.
ruet...@outgun.com
> <ro...@telus.net> wrote in messagenews:4706e93f...@news.telus.net...
> > Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
> > billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
> > the USA:
>
>
> > Of course, those who have been keeping up with the "Are the Filthy
> > Rich Necessary" thread will be aware that almost all the wealth of
> > almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
> > contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of
> > unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of
> > land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
> > spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
> > deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and
> > dealing in these privileges.
>
> > I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
> > names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real
> > estate." So without further ado, heeeeeerrre they aaaaaaarre:
>
> You are the perfect example that proves the point that a little knowledge is
>
Care to actually address any of his ponts?
Davinchi
comments. There is one basic fact that cannot be ignored;
Even if the productive enterprise is not in question, there
is not a doubt that the 'self made' label is an abuse of
reality. In fact based reality anybody who manages to
become wealthy does so because of social and physical
infrastructure - the things in the commons, the benefits of
an ordered society, and the assets provided by government
for which we pay our taxes.
It's totally backwards that in the US the republicans that
don't even believe government should play a role and hold
power in providing government services. They don't believe
in the concept, and that is truly bad government.
Had enough? - vote for a Democrat, a Progressive, a Green,
or anybody but the CONservatives.
Not that the democratic party will be perfect, but I'd
rather support candidates who believe and fail some of the
time, than those that don't believe (and thus are just
abusing the public monies, trashing constitutional rights,
and kowtowing to the fundiementalist).
lysa...@comcast.net
claims to be Napoleon you would not engage in him in a discussion of
what went wrong at Waterloo. Would you?
Robert Solow on Rational Expectations. (a valid theory but the quotation
is hilarious)
Paul Thomas, CPA
<lysa...@comcast.net> wrote
> If you were sitting on a park bench and a man sits
> next to you and claims to be Napoleon you would
> not engage in him in a discussion of what went
> wrong at Waterloo. Would you?
Maybe you would. But when another man sits across from you and claims *he*
is Napoleon, which of the two is then the impostor?
Then again, it may be time to look around and see that 'this isn't any
park', but the courtyard of the nut house.
--
Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
1. All the DNA is the same.
2. There are no dental records.
--------------------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
ro...@telus.net
<pma...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>You are the perfect example that proves the point that a little knowledge is
>a dangerous thing.
<yawn> If you think a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, try
ignorance.
-- Roy L
Richard Eich
Paul Maffia
I was being considerate. But you have more than accurately just described
yourself, you are ignorant.
Steve
On 6-Oct-2007, ro...@telus.net wrote:
> Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
> billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
> the USA:
Those horrible, filthy, robber barron, scheming
making-it-off-the-labors-of-"the poor" dirt bags!
President Clintonskank will make sure THOSE bastards take it in the rear.
Or am I thinking of Barney Frank?
Dan in Philly
http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/secrets-self-made-ent-manage-cx_ll_richlist07_0920secretsqa.html
<snip>
Thanks for the summary.
I didn't read the article - it wasn't skim-friendly - but I'm curious about
some of these guys.
Several got rich in natural resources and real estate. But I doubt they did
it thru privilege. Privilege benefits the original owner, or someone who
inherited from the original owner. These guys presumably bought land at
market prices from the owners. So if these guys got rich, then maybe they
can spot a natural resource that is underpriced relative to its potential.
Like what Warren Buffet does with stocks.
Or maybe these guys bought rural land, then bribed the city council to get
it rezoned as suburban.
RE banking: banking is not privilege. There are thousands of banks, in a
competitive market, and entry is virtually free. If there was privilege,
then existing banks would prevent the entry of new banks (but they don't)
and existing banks would never go bankrupt (but they do).
Casinos are interesting. The government controls and limits entry, so I'm
surprised that anyone in the private sector could get rich in that business.
I figured the state government would tax them to the point where they could
just barely make a profit. But apparently the government of Nevada isn't
extracting all the rent from the casinos. (again I suspect bribes)
Lawsuits, insurance, and leveraged buyouts are just transfers of assets from
one person to another, except that there is a transaction cost. If these
guys got rich by being more efficient (i.e. lowering the transaction cost),
then great. If they did it thru sleazy b.s. then not so great.
Dan in Philly
Richard Eich
>
> On 6-Oct-2007, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
> > Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
> > billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
> > the USA:
>
> Those horrible, filthy, robber barron, scheming
> making-it-off-the-labors-of-"the poor" dirt bags!
That Randist strawman is alive and well, I see. (As are Ayn's
dittoheads.)
> President Clintonskank will make sure THOSE bastards take it in the rear.
> Or am I thinking of Barney Frank?
And an ad hominem to boot! Why embarrass yourself by publically
displaying that you have nothing to say?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>I didn't read the article - it wasn't skim-friendly - but I'm curious about
>some of these guys.
>
>Several got rich in natural resources and real estate. But I doubt they did
>it thru privilege.
They did, by definition.
>Privilege benefits the original owner, or someone who
>inherited from the original owner.
It can benefit anyone who has it.
>These guys presumably bought land at
>market prices from the owners. So if these guys got rich, then maybe they
>can spot a natural resource that is underpriced relative to its potential.
>Like what Warren Buffet does with stocks.
It's still dealing in privileges, not production.
>Or maybe these guys bought rural land, then bribed the city council to get
>it rezoned as suburban.
Quite likely.
>RE banking: banking is not privilege.
Right. Creating deposits ex nihilo is.
>There are thousands of banks, in a
>competitive market, and entry is virtually free.
Ah, no. And competition is irrelevant. Rent seekers do compete: for
rent.
>If there was privilege,
>then existing banks would prevent the entry of new banks (but they don't)
>and existing banks would never go bankrupt (but they do).
Nonsense.
>Casinos are interesting. The government controls and limits entry, so I'm
>surprised that anyone in the private sector could get rich in that business.
LOL!!
>I figured the state government would tax them to the point where they could
>just barely make a profit. But apparently the government of Nevada isn't
>extracting all the rent from the casinos. (again I suspect bribes)
No kidding.
-- Roy L
cpt banjo
> >Several got rich in natural resources and real estate. But I doubt
> >they did it thru privilege.
>
> They did, by definition.
Only by your definition, one which is hardly universally accepted.
> >Or maybe these guys bought rural land, then bribed the city council
> >to get it rezoned as suburban.
>
> Quite likely.
Quite unlikely. A city knows it can get more real estate taxes out of
improved land than it can out of raw land. It therefore has an
incentive to rezone the land for development and doesn't need to be
bribed.
>
> >Casinos are interesting. The government controls and limits entry,
> >so I'm surprised that anyone in the private sector could get rich in
> >that business.
>
> LOL!!
>
> >I figured the state government would tax them to the point where
> >they could just barely make a profit. But apparently the government
> >of Nevada isn't extracting all the rent from the casinos. (again I
> >suspect bribes)
>
> No kidding.
Nonsense. Nevada knows that if they tax too much, the casinos will
pass it on to their customers through higher prices. The customers
will then look to other places to gamble where they can get a better
deal. Besides, the casinos make money through sheer volume and from
people who have no clue when it comes to gambling (e.g., keno players
who are bucking a 25% house edge). It's never a good idea to kill the
goose that's laying the golden eggs.
Steve
On 8-Oct-2007, Richard Eich <richar...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> That Randist strawman is alive and well, I see. (As are Ayn's
> dittoheads.)
>
>
> And an ad hominem to boot! Why embarrass yourself by publically
> displaying that you have nothing to say?
........speaking of nothing to say...........
You miss Karl Marx, don't you?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>On Oct 9, 3:08 am, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:43:39 GMT, "Dan in Philly" <d...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Several got rich in natural resources and real estate. But I doubt
>> >they did it thru privilege.
>>
>> They did, by definition.
>
>Only by your definition, one which is hardly universally accepted.
Nevertheless, it is correct.
>> >Or maybe these guys bought rural land, then bribed the city council
>> >to get it rezoned as suburban.
>>
>> Quite likely.
>
>Quite unlikely.
No, it is virtually certain.
>A city knows it can get more real estate taxes out of
>improved land than it can out of raw land.
It also has more costs associated with it, and is almost always
opposed by the people.
>It therefore has an
>incentive to rezone the land for development and doesn't need to be
>bribed.
Then why didn't it rezone the land before the rich parasite bought it?
Stupid.
>> >I figured the state government would tax them to the point where
>> >they could just barely make a profit. But apparently the government
>> >of Nevada isn't extracting all the rent from the casinos. (again I
>> >suspect bribes)
>>
>> No kidding.
>
>Nonsense. Nevada knows that if they tax too much, the casinos will
>pass it on to their customers through higher prices.
No, stupid, they can't, because the supply of licenses is inelastic.
A higher tax on gambling monopoly privileges would just reduce the
obscene profits in the industry -- which not coincidentally, is
dominated by organized crime.
>The customers
>will then look to other places to gamble where they can get a better
>deal.
Disproved above. There are lots of other gambling venues, including
the Net. People still go to Vegas.
>Besides, the casinos make money through sheer volume and from
>people who have no clue when it comes to gambling (e.g., keno players
>who are bucking a 25% house edge). It's never a good idea to kill the
>goose that's laying the golden eggs.
Gambling doesn't lay any golden eggs. It just shears the sheep.
-- Roy L
cpt banjo
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:35:55 -0700, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com>
> wrote:
> >> >Several got rich in natural resources and real estate. But I doubt
> >> >they did it thru privilege.
>
> >> They did, by definition.
>
> >Only by your definition, one which is hardly universally accepted.
>
> Nevertheless, it is correct.
In your dreams.
> >A city knows it can get more real estate taxes out of
> >improved land than it can out of raw land.
>
> It also has more costs associated with it, and is almost always
> opposed by the people.
Nonsense. The developer is always responsible for constructing the
basic infrastructure (streets, sewers, utilities). The city always
takes into account its additional marginal costs in providing services
(police, fire) and compares it to the additional tax revenue it
projects it will receive.
> >It therefore has an
> >incentive to rezone the land for development and doesn't need to be
> >bribed.
>
> Then why didn't it rezone the land before the rich parasite bought it?
>
> Stupid.
Speak for yourself. Until and unless a developer shows up who's
willing to spend the money to do something with the raw land, there's
no need to rezone it.
> >Nonsense. Nevada knows that if they tax too much, the casinos will
> >pass it on to their customers through higher prices.
>
> No, stupid, they can't, because the supply of licenses is inelastic.
> A higher tax on gambling monopoly privileges would just reduce the
> obscene profits in the industry -- which not coincidentally, is
> dominated by organized crime.
You're living in the 40's and 50's. The suits of MGM Grand and
Harrah's now run things. This is not to say there's no corruption in
local government, but the days of Bugsy Seigel are over. And who the
hell are you to label anyone's profits "obscene"? No one forces
anyone to go to Vegas, and your inane rhetoric is merely symptomatic
of your paternalistic, statist attitude.
You know, H. L. Mencken once said that puritanismthe fear that
someone, somewhere, is happy. You strike me as someone who is deathly
afraid that someone, somewhere, has made a profit.
> >The customers
> >will then look to other places to gamble where they can get a better
> >deal.
>
> Disproved above. There are lots of other gambling venues, including
> the Net. People still go to Vegas.
That's because Nevada doesn't tax the casinos as much as you'd like it
to.
> >Besides, the casinos make money through sheer volume and from
> >people who have no clue when it comes to gambling (e.g., keno players
> >who are bucking a 25% house edge). It's never a good idea to kill the
> >goose that's laying the golden eggs.
>
> Gambling doesn't lay any golden eggs. It just shears the sheep.
It brings in lots of tax revenue to the city and state. It brings in
tons of tourists from all over the world, who spend their money in
Vegas. It has grown the Vegas economy tremendously. If you taxed the
hell out gambling, it would ultimately have an adverse impact on the
Vegas economy. Gawd, can you possibly be any denser?
Paul Maffia
news:1191974657....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 9, 5:51 pm, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:35:55 -0700, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>> No, stupid, they can't, because the supply of licenses is inelastic.
>> A higher tax on gambling monopoly privileges would just reduce the
>> obscene profits in the industry -- which not coincidentally, is
>> dominated by organized crime.
>
> You're living in the 40's and 50's. The suits of MGM Grand and
> Harrah's now run things. This is not to say there's no corruption in
> local government, but the days of Bugsy Seigel are over. And who the
> hell are you to label anyone's profits "obscene"? No one forces
> anyone to go to Vegas, and your inane rhetoric is merely symptomatic
> of your paternalistic, statist attitude.
>
> You know, H. L. Mencken once said that puritanismthe fear that
> someone, somewhere, is happy. You strike me as someone who is deathly
> afraid that someone, somewhere, has made a profit.
Not only that, Capt., he is also afraid that most of us who have wasted our
time dealing with his mental masturbation, are right.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>On Oct 9, 5:51 pm, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:35:55 -0700, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >A city knows it can get more real estate taxes out of
>> >improved land than it can out of raw land.
>>
>> It also has more costs associated with it, and is almost always
>> opposed by the people.
>
>Nonsense. The developer is always responsible for constructing the
>basic infrastructure (streets, sewers, utilities).
Nope.
>The city always
>takes into account its additional marginal costs in providing services
>(police, fire) and compares it to the additional tax revenue it
>projects it will receive.
Nope.
>> >It therefore has an
>> >incentive to rezone the land for development and doesn't need to be
>> >bribed.
>>
>> Then why didn't it rezone the land before the rich parasite bought it?
>>
>> Stupid.
>
>Speak for yourself. Until and unless a developer shows up who's
>willing to spend the money to do something with the raw land, there's
>no need to rezone it.
Why not rezone it anyway, and save the developer the bribes?
>And who the
>hell are you to label anyone's profits "obscene"?
The guy who understands economic rent.
>No one forces
>anyone to go to Vegas, and your inane rhetoric is merely symptomatic
>of your paternalistic, statist attitude.
No one forces people to eat sugar, either. But sugar quota holders
still make obscene profits.
>You know, H. L. Mencken once said that puritanismthe fear that
>someone, somewhere, is happy. You strike me as someone who is deathly
>afraid that someone, somewhere, has made a profit.
Do you know what rent is? Of course not.
>> >The customers
>> >will then look to other places to gamble where they can get a better
>> >deal.
>>
>> Disproved above. There are lots of other gambling venues, including
>> the Net. People still go to Vegas.
>
>That's because Nevada doesn't tax the casinos as much as you'd like it
>to.
No, because I don't advocate taxing more than the economic rent, which
by definition can't affect the price.
>> >Besides, the casinos make money through sheer volume and from
>> >people who have no clue when it comes to gambling (e.g., keno players
>> >who are bucking a 25% house edge). It's never a good idea to kill the
>> >goose that's laying the golden eggs.
>>
>> Gambling doesn't lay any golden eggs. It just shears the sheep.
>
>It brings in lots of tax revenue to the city and state. It brings in
>tons of tourists from all over the world, who spend their money in
>Vegas. It has grown the Vegas economy tremendously. If you taxed the
>hell out gambling, it would ultimately have an adverse impact on the
>Vegas economy.
But not if I only taxed the rent out of it.
-- Roy L
Davinchi
Roy, I like your position. the OP is obviously biased,
perhaps even brainwashed by the neo liberalist/Chicago
school dogma. A good review of "economic dark matter"
would be useful to Mr. Maffia.
--
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from
which they draw their gains.-Thomas Jefferson
--
###
zzbunker
> Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
> billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
> the USA:
>
But, how does that really matter?. Since the morons
in New York still think Thomas Edison was a self-made MILLIONAIRE.
When it was REALLY: neon, sodium, flourescent, laser lights,
LEDs, and Servo-Motors that made him a zillionaire.
>
> -- Roy L
Paul Maffia
message news:470d4262$0$20598$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
"Economic Dark Matters" conjured in the minds of morons like godroy and you
are useless for anything but the mental masturbation you boobs seem to
enjoy reveling in.
Davinchi
I suspect you think this because you have not studied the
subject fully. The issue is not academic, but a needed
inquiry as to values which make up our economy. Most
economics is a purely man made phenomenon, thus the inquiry
into economic dark matter can be useful if an interested
party were to study it after achieving a core competency in
economics as a science. I'm sorry you seem to disagree,
it's your loss.
Dan in Philly
"Davinchi" wrote in message ...
> Roy, I like your position. the OP is obviously biased, perhaps even
> brainwashed by the neo liberalist/Chicago school dogma. A good review of
> "economic dark matter" would be useful to Mr. Maffia.
I can't wait to hear the connection between economic dark matter (intangible
assets overseas) and Georgism (land rents).
Dan in Philly
Peder B. Pels
> <ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:4706e93f...@news.telus.net... > Forbes has kindly provided
> brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem) > billionaires from the 2007
> Forbes 400 list of the richest people in > the USA: > >
> http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/secrets-self-made-ent-manage-cx_ll_richli
> st07_0920secretsqa.html > > Of course, those who have been keeping up with
> the "Are the Filthy > Rich Necessary" thread will be aware that almost all
> the wealth of > almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual
> productive > contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the
> beneficiary of > unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private
> ownership of > land and other natural resources such as minerals and
> broadcast > spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating
> bank > deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating
> and > dealing in these privileges. > > I've included the source of these
> billionaires' fortunes after their > names, and added some explanation.
> Notice how many specify "real > estate." So without further ado,
> heeeeeerrre they aaaaaaarre:
>
> You are the perfect example that proves the point that a little knowledge
> is a dangerous thing. You display so little knowledge it is hilarious.
Ad hominems are not a valid form of argument. You were saying?
-- regards , Peter B. P. http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
"Blame freedom for the problems caused by its lack" <--- is the essence
of the arguments of most anti-libertarians.
Paul Maffia
message news:470d74c7$0$26386$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
The gibberish you morons spew out is more and more insane. If you had not
noticed all economics is man made. Dark Economics is a meaningless phrase
boobs like you create to indulge in your mental masturbation.
Davinchi
The dark matter that redistributes the surplus and much gain
from "growth" is the economic rent of land.
Hausmann, Ricardo and Federico Sturzenegger. "The Valuation
of Hidden Assets in Foreign Transactions: Why 'Dark Matter'
Matters." Business Economics 42.1 (January 2007).
Hausmann, Ricardo, and Federico Sturzenegger. "'Dark Matter'
Makes the U.S. Deficit Disappear." Financial Times, December
8, 2005.
Hausmann, Ricardo, and Federico Sturzenegger. "Global
Imbalances or Bad Accounting? The Missing Dark Matter in the
Wealth of Nations." Center for International Development and
KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series (CID-124 and
RWP06-003), January 2006.
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidpublications/darkmatter_051130.pdf
Form the Economist (must register)
http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5408129
Mr Cline agrees with the dark materialists when they say
there is “something misleading about calling a country that
makes money on its financial position the world's largest
debtor”. But sadly he does not think Americans can stop
worrying. After making $36.2 billion in 2004, America made
just $4 billion on its net foreign assets in the first three
quarters of 2005. If it continues on its present trajectory,
it will shell out about $190 billion in 2010, Mr Cline
calculates. Using Messrs Hausmann and Sturzenegger's
methodology, America's net foreign assets would then amount
to minus $3.8 trillion. A dark matter indeed.
Is 'Dark Matter' in the Deficit?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113952992119570152-SFRmVAq2szcqDqf3rDNNu3ui5Og_20060217.html?mod=blogs
Assuming Mr. Hausmann is correct, says Brad Setser, a former
Treasury economist and head of global research for the
Roubini Global Economics Monitor Web site, the U.S. still
isn't accumulating enough dark matter to keep up with the
growing trade deficit.
The Dark Matter in Economics
http://progress.org/2006/fold471.htm
Phantom GDP Meets Dark Matter
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_25/b4039009.htm
Summing up Dark Matter
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2006/06/summing_up_dark.html
Statistical Issues Related to Global Economic Imbalances:
Perspectives on "Dark Matter"
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/beapapers/0040.htm
http://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pl?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bea.gov%2Fbea%2Fpapers%2Fdarkmatter_10_2006.pdf;h=repec:bea:papers:0040
“U.S. Trade Deficit:Black Hole or Dark Matter”. Ian Sheldon,
Ph.D. Professor, OSU
Davinchi
It's simple, if you believe the assumptions to be rational.
http://www.stwr.net/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1114
Economists recognize that in competitive enterprise,
companies only
earn a normal profit, just enough to pay for average returns
to inputs, namely land, labor, and capital goods. Yet the
revenue from selling goods is much higher than the costs of
production for many firms. Where to does this revenue go?
Economists say the revenue goes to a "producer surplus."
This surplus, however, does not really go to the producers,
the entrepreneurs, owners of firms, workers, or producers of
capital goods. The answer, again, is economic dark matter,
which soaks up the surplus. But where is this economic dark
matter? What is it? Who owns it? Where does it show up
in GDP? Why can't we see it? Recently, several geoclassical
economists - Mason Gaffney, Nicolaus Tideman, Fred
Harrison, Michael Hudson, and others - have uncovered where
economic dark matter has been hiding. It turns out that
the dark matter that soaks up the surplus and much of the
gain from economic growth is the economic rent of land.
Actually, the existence of economic dark matter was proposed
over a hundred years ago by the American economist
Henry George. He discovered the "law of wages," whereby the
general wage level of an economy is set at the margin of
production, the least productive land. George theorized that
since the supply of land is fixed, when the economy
becomes more productive, wages rise somewhat as the margin
becomes more productive, but the extra productivity of
super-marginal land goes to land rent. Wages rise by less
than productivity because enterprise also has to pay for the
better capital goods, but the rent can rise by the amount of
productivity. We cannot directly observe economic land rent
because it is not the financial amount paid by a tenant to a
landlord, but the greatest amount that a tenant would pay for
the use of only the land, not including the building or the
labor services of a landlord. Just as astronomers detected the
existence of physical dark matter from its effects, the
above-mentioned economists have detected and measured
economic land rent from its effects. These effects are
hidden in interest, profits, and capital gains. The dark
matter that
is rent amounts to some 20 percent of national output, and
greatly effects the business cycle, the distribution of income,
and economic growth. Mason Gaffney has shown that lack of
recognition of economic dark matter was deliberate, as
the landed interests did not want the public to know that
rent has been soaking up the economic gains. So they merged
land into "capital," where rent hides in "returns to
capital," and indeed they call the whole system "capitalism."
Vid...@tcq.net
a true system of parasites. i watch as parasites argue for their very
existence on t.v. on health care in america. or providing energy, or
just about anything. insinuating we cannot live with out them.
if we got rid of the parasites that worm there way into just about
every transaction made in america. all would be rich. not the phony
gdp that goes to a few, but real wealth. we used to have it somewhat
under the new deal. but the parasites found a way to hijack
government, and they have a self reinforcing mechanism called the
conservative press.
Davinchi
And so it goes, your right about the GDP as a questionable
measurement, and your pretty damn close about the press. I
actually think the press is not so much "conservative" as
they are just plain gullible and quite inept (with a few
exceptions of course). But look how I get attacked for just
bringing up the "dare matter" subject. These Chicago school
neo-liberalist are just crazy with their dogma; Just
**another** case of being gullible and inept.
My brother used to tell me that "80 percent of people are
either idiots or asshole." I think the percentage keeps
going up every decade or so. I'm personally up to 85 or 90
percent on most days; Sucks for me that they keep dragging
me down, gotta fight it every day. This sub thread is just
another example.
Praise to all for the righteous acts of civility they do
every day.
--
It is not necessary to advertise food to hungry people,
fuel to cold people, or houses to the homeless.-John Kenneth
Galbraith
Let's do it anyway, and waste a lot of resources.
--
###
Vid...@tcq.net
<dotmulldrdo...@noat.nodotnodot.reversethis.liamg.com> wrote:
if they dared to turn on bill moyers, or now, or listened to thom
hartman, they would be embaressed, if possible, but they are not. they
simply do not care. they are paid millions a year to be inept, or
stupid, or corrupt.
But look how I get attacked for just
> bringing up the "dare matter" subject. These Chicago school
> neo-liberalist are just crazy with their dogma; Just
> **another** case of being gullible and inept.
>
the chicago school lives in whats known as a alternate reality. no
matter how big the debacle or failure, they are always right. just
look at chile.
> My brother used to tell me that "80 percent of people are
> either idiots or asshole." I think the percentage keeps
> going up every decade or so. I'm personally up to 85 or 90
> percent on most days; Sucks for me that they keep dragging
> me down, gotta fight it every day. This sub thread is just
> another example.
>
80% wanted to support the troops by liberating iraq. that statement
alone should tell you something.
> Praise to all for the righteous acts of civility they do
> every day.
>
christian whores and rent seekers.
Paul Maffia
"Davinchi" <dotmull...@noat.nodotnodot.reversethis.liamg.com> wrote in
message news:470e8fc1$0$7441$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> My brother used to tell me that "80 percent of people are
> either idiots or asshole." I think the percentage keeps going up every
> decade or so. I'm personally up to 85 or 90 percent on most days;
Yes, you sure are in that majority!
Dan in Philly
news:470e0903$0$20647$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Dan in Philly wrote:
>> I can't wait to hear the connection between economic dark matter
>> (intangible assets overseas) and Georgism (land rents).
> It's simple, if you believe the assumptions to be rational.
> http://www.stwr.net/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1114
> It turns out that
> the dark matter that soaks up the surplus and much of the gain from
> economic growth is the economic rent of land.
So: land is 'intangible" ??
And land is not part of foreign direct investment?
Dan in Philly
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>"Davinchi" wrote in message
Obviously you two are talking about different "economic dark matter"
coinages.
-- Roy L
Davinchi
Don't look now, the stupid police are knocking at your door.
I'm testing at MENSA levels, I don't worry about your punk
ass opinion at all.
Davinchi
economist that I follow are talking about. I was a student
of N. Tideman, so I read what I can about his research.
Same with most of my good Prof.s. Half the people who
troll this group haven't gotten past econ 101, so what can
you expect?
sinister
"Davinchi" <dotmull...@noat.nodotnodot.reversethis.liamg.com> wrote in
message news:470e0903$0$20647$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Dan in Philly wrote:
>> "Davinchi" wrote in message ...
>>> Roy, I like your position. the OP is obviously biased, perhaps even
>>> brainwashed by the neo liberalist/Chicago school dogma. A good review
>>> of "economic dark matter" would be useful to Mr. Maffia.
>>
>> I can't wait to hear the connection between economic dark matter
>> (intangible assets overseas) and Georgism (land rents).
>>
>> Dan in Philly
>
> It's simple, if you believe the assumptions to be rational.
>
> http://www.stwr.net/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1114
<snip>
But I thought "dark matter" in economics was related to trade imbalances and
foreign investment. For example, the lead sentence in
http://www.bea.gov/bea/papers/darkmatter_10_2006.pdf
reads: "There has been a large amount of recent interest in how the United
States can be the so-called world's largest debtor nation and at the same
time have a persistent surplus on income in its balance of payments
accounts."
Of course, that issue might have connections to land rent, but it's not
immediately obvious to me what the connection is.
Paul Maffia
message news:470f30d0$0$28810$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Oh right. And you graduated from one of the top internationally recognized
Universities and you majored in every subject imaginable. You also make
millions of dollars per year because you are so brilliant. And are so
handsome to boot that you can't leave the house because women mob you
immediately and strip you naked because they must have your body and your
genes to produce more supermen.
Get real, your writing displays an IQ no better than average and your grasp
of facts and reality are on a par with Eldon Warman.
Paul Maffia
news:2bfvg31j6130era9v...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:07:53 -0700, "Paul Maffia"
> <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>>> Don't look now, the stupid police are knocking at your door.
>>> I'm testing at MENSA levels, I don't worry about your punk ass opinion
>>> at
>>> all.
>>
>>Oh right. And you graduated from one of the top internationally recognized
>>Universities and you majored in every subject imaginable. You also make
>>millions of dollars per year because you are so brilliant. And are so
>>handsome to boot that you can't leave the house because women mob you
>>immediately and strip you naked because they must have your body and your
>>genes to produce more supermen.
>
>
It may or may not apply to you as well. But it is nothing more than a
mockery aimed at someone who claims a Mensa IQ while exhibiting one that, at
best, is no more than average.
patmp...@gmail.com
> billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
> the USA:
>
>
> Of course, those who have been keeping up with the "Are the Filthy
> Rich Necessary" thread will be aware that almost all the wealth of
> almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
> contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of
> unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of
> land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
> spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
> deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and
> dealing in these privileges.
>
> I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
> names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real
> estate." So without further ado, heeeeeerrre they aaaaaaarre:
>
The rent system is does not appeal to me but I don't see anything
fundamentally wrong with it. I can imagine no better system than
private ownership of land based on the "I was the first white person
here" principle with a certain amount of public land.
I do think it strange that rents should be taxed at a lower rate than
labor. I would prefer it to be the other way around. In particular,
I find strong tax preferment for income from increase in land values
to be poor policy. I'd rather a tax on absentee owners, even though I
am one. And very much in favor of an inheritance tax. It seems to me
that the dead are ideal candidates for taxation. And the idea that
the inheritor, who has done nothing whatsoever, should pay 0% tax
is..well, you can decide for yourself.
"The Natelys have never done anything for their money." --- from
Catch 22
Paul Maffia
news:1192222295.2...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> The rent system is does not appeal to me but I don't see anything
> fundamentally wrong with it. I can imagine no better system than
> private ownership of land based on the "I was the first white person
> here" principle with a certain amount of public land.
>
> I do think it strange that rents should be taxed at a lower rate than
> labor. I would prefer it to be the other way around. In particular,
> I find strong tax preferment for income from increase in land values
> to be poor policy. I'd rather a tax on absentee owners, even though I
> am one. And very much in favor of an inheritance tax. It seems to me
> that the dead are ideal candidates for taxation. And the idea that
> the inheritor, who has done nothing whatsoever, should pay 0% tax
> is..well, you can decide for yourself.
Rents are not now, nor have they ever been taxed at a lower rate than labor
under US income tax laws.
Paul Maffia
news:ourvg39tsi3p8r0na...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:45:26 -0700, "Paul Maffia"
> <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>><retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:2bfvg31j6130era9v...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:07:53 -0700, "Paul Maffia"
>>> <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Don't look now, the stupid police are knocking at your door.
>>>>> I'm testing at MENSA levels, I don't worry about your punk ass opinion
>>>>> at
>>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>>Oh right. And you graduated from one of the top internationally
>>>>recognized
>>>>Universities and you majored in every subject imaginable. You also make
>>>>millions of dollars per year because you are so brilliant. And are so
>>>>handsome to boot that you can't leave the house because women mob you
>>>>immediately and strip you naked because they must have your body and
>>>>your
>>>>genes to produce more supermen.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh that was me. You're getting us confused. ;_>
>>
>>It may or may not apply to you as well. But it is nothing more than a
>>mockery aimed at someone who claims a Mensa IQ
>
>
> American satire.
There you go making asinine ASSumptions again. Nothing I have said allows
for any sane person of average or better intelligence to conclude (as you
have moronically do) that I am or am not a Conservative or Liberal.
Putting that matter aside, Garrison Keillor may or may not be a good
humorist or satirist, depending on your tastes in humor and satire. That
hardly makes anything he said about satire from a conservative as a
conservative or a liberal as a liberal of any value, because either
persuasion has nothing directly to do with satire.
Personally, I find Mr. Keillor boring. But so what? All that says, is that I
don't care for him. It says nothing good or bad about him nor does it say or
imply anything good or bad about me.
When you grow up and hopefully acquire a functional knowledge in the
subjects you comment on, you might have something of value to say. Until
then, you are a satire of yourself and an example of the poor general status
of education today.
Davinchi
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:33:19 -0700, "Paul Maffia"
> reflect the death of American satire." You only worked extra hard to
> underline my point. LOL.
Damn your right. I LOL at Mr. Maffia's weak inductive
arguments. Talk about a waste of space.....
ro...@telus.net
<dotmull...@noat.nodotnodot.reversethis.liamg.com> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> Obviously you two are talking about different "economic dark matter"
>> coinages.
>>
>yeah, well I'm talking about the "dark matter" that
>economist that I follow are talking about. I was a student
>of N. Tideman, so I read what I can about his research.
You have a big leg up on the great majority, who have learned from no
one but the servants of privilege.
>Same with most of my good Prof.s. Half the people who
>troll this group haven't gotten past econ 101, so what can
>you expect?
My expectations decline with every passing year....
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
That is, like everything else you have said, flat false. The
increases in capitalized land rents that constitute real estate
capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than labor income, where they
are even taxed at all.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>The rent system is does not appeal to me but I don't see anything
>fundamentally wrong with it.
Have you read "Progress and Poverty"? It's available online, and no
one who has not read it can claim to be informed on the issue of rent.
>I can imagine no better system than
>private ownership of land based on the "I was the first white person
>here" principle with a certain amount of public land.
Now that's what I call a lack of imagination....
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<pma...@centurytel.net> wrote:
><retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>> Garrison Keillor was right. Today's conservatives reflect the death of
>> American satire.
>
>There you go making asinine ASSumptions again. Nothing I have said allows
>for any sane person of average or better intelligence to conclude (as you
>have moronically do) that I am or am not a Conservative or Liberal.
>
>Putting that matter aside, Garrison Keillor may or may not be a good
>humorist or satirist, depending on your tastes in humor and satire. That
>hardly makes anything he said about satire from a conservative as a
>conservative or a liberal as a liberal of any value, because either
>persuasion has nothing directly to do with satire.
>
>Personally, I find Mr. Keillor boring. But so what? All that says, is that I
>don't care for him. It says nothing good or bad about him nor does it say or
>imply anything good or bad about me.
>
>When you grow up and hopefully acquire a functional knowledge in the
>subjects you comment on, you might have something of value to say. Until
>then, you are a satire of yourself and an example of the poor general status
>of education today.
My nomination for Unconscious Self-Portrait of the Month...
-- Roy L
patmp...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:51:35 -0000, patmpow...@gmail.com wrote:
> >The rent system is does not appeal to me but I don't see anything
> >fundamentally wrong with it.
>
> Have you read "Progress and Poverty"? It's available online, and no
> one who has not read it can claim to be informed on the issue of rent.
>
Yes I have read that. I last visited this group about seven years ago
and the discussions were exactly the same. It could easily be seven
more years before I come again.
Paul Maffia
Trying to prove a 100% accurate statement of mine by more moronic gibberish,
does nothing for your cause.
forbi...@msn.com
> I last visited this group about seven years ago
> and the discussions were exactly the same. It could easily be seven
> more years before I come again.
Have you come up with a mutually agreeable path through this impasse?
ro...@telus.net
>On Oct 13, 5:22 pm, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:51:35 -0000, patmpow...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >The rent system is does not appeal to me but I don't see anything
>> >fundamentally wrong with it.
>>
>> Have you read "Progress and Poverty"? It's available online, and no
>> one who has not read it can claim to be informed on the issue of rent.
>
>Yes I have read that. I last visited this group about seven years ago
>and the discussions were exactly the same. It could easily be seven
>more years before I come again.
The truth will not be changing in the interim.
-- Roy L
Davinchi
>
> My expectations decline with every passing year....
>
> -- Roy L
I know what you mean.......
Dave
Davinchi
And the evidence of your claim is what?
Individual long term capital gains are a maximum of 15% .
Personal income taxes are usually higher than that ($7,551
USD puts one in the 15 % bracket).
I can't seem to find any justification the the previous
statement was "100% accurate". Please do explain.