by Sixstrings » Thu 29 Jan 2009, 22:42:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')ood point. I'm certainly no fan of Citibank, but this strikes me as something that could have saved or even created jobs at Falcon and their suppliers.
I don't think the people in Congress understand an economy. They seem to jump on corporate jets because that's something they can comprehend.
It is true, of course, that in a market economy the luxuries of the rich do in fact provide jobs for the workers who provide those luxuries.
But the more that wealth gets concentrated into the hands of the few, the more problems set in. You see, a wealthy person can only consume so much. Its the consumption that creates jobs, remember. So, the extra money that the rich person could never manage to use for consumables gets plowed into the markets.
Capital investment is crucial, of course. But there is a point when it's too much. When too many rich are throwing too much money into the markets (vs. using that money for consumption) then all they end up doing is creating asset bubbles which then burst.
Now that I'm thinking about this, it occurs to me that the real problem is that investment money chases the highest yield possible, and that's what creates the bubbles. We really need more money in old-fashioned savings accounts. (and commercial and municipal bonds -- this is here money is needed, not a huge Google stock bubble)
So in hard times, no, we really do not need the rich to save the economy by living the high life. It would be more effective to distribute the wealth downwards.. send out stiumulus checks to the poorest of the poor.
The poor would actually spend every last red cent, which would create and support jobs. The poor will not plow the money into the markets and create bubbles.