Online Now 1245

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Walton Family has 1 out of every 1000 dollars in America

  • OK..historically speaking the Waltons don't even rank in the top 10 of the richest Americans in history (% of wealth of GNP). So this BS about wealth being concentrated in their hands is total bull..when you look at the history of the US. We have had people far wealthier who have controlled far more of the total GNP. The Rockefellers controlled 1/65th...funny how they don't have nearly that kind of wealth anymore. You see wealth has a way of changing hands from generation to generation. Most fortunes are lost over 3 generations. And someone else becomes the next wealthy person. Its part of what makes our country great.

    Here is the list. (the Walton fortune comes in at #14) (Sam Walton owned it all) 1/275th of GNP. You will also notice that the vast majority of the list are people who where alive in the 1800s and early 1900s. Present day wealthy is not even close to the wealth that once was in the US.

    http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2006/07/29/the-wealthy-100-a-ranking-of-the-richest-americans-past-and-present/

    The authors of this book chose to compare the individual’s wealth to the nation’s Gross National Product.

    So, for example, the richest man ever in America was John D. Rockefeller, whose wealth was 1/65th of the U.S. GNP when he died. Bill Gates, on the other hand, only had wealth amounting to 1/425th of the U.S. GNP when this book was published several years ago. Here is Klepper and Gunther’s list:
    Rank/ Name/ Born/ Died/ Wealth in 1000s/ Ratio(Wealth:
    GNP)
    1. John D. Rockefeller 1839 1937 $1,400,000 65
    2. Cornelius Vanderbilt 1794 1877 $105,000 87
    3. John Jacob Astor 1763 1848 $20,000 107
    4. Stephen Girard 1750 1831 $7,500 150
    5. Andrew Carnegie 1835 1919 $475,000 166
    6. A.T. Stewart 1803 1876 $50,000 178
    7. Frederick Weyerhaeuser 1834 1914 $200,000 182
    8. Jay Gould 1836 1892 $77,000 185
    9. Stephen Van Rensselaer 1764 1839 $10,000 194
    10. Marshall Field 1834 1906 $140,000 205
    11. Henry Ford 1863 1947 $1,000,000 231
    12. Andrew W. Mellon 1855 1937 $350,000 258
    13. Richard B. Mellon 1858 1933 $350,000 258
    14. Sam M. Walton 1918 1992 $22,000,000 275
    15. James G. Fair 1831 1894 $45,000 280
    16. William Weightman 1813 1904 $80,000 286
    17. Moses Taylor 1806 1882 $40,000 286
    18. Russell Sage 1816 1906 $100,000 287
    19. John I. Blair 1802 1899 $60,000 289
    20. Cyrus Curtis 1850 1933 $174,000 320
    21. Edward Henry Harriman 1848 1909 $100,000 322
    22. Henry H. Rogers 1840 1909 $100,000 322
    23. J.P. Morgan 1837 1913 $119,000 328
    24. Col. Oliver Payne 1839 1917 $178,000 337
    25. Henry C. Frick 1849 1919 $225,000 351
    26. Collis Potter Huntington 1821 1900 $50,000 374
    27. Peter A. Widener 1834 1915 $100,000 387
    28. James Cair Flood 1826 1888 $30,000 405
    29. Nicholas Longworth 1782 1863 $15,000 411
    30. Philip Danforth Armour 1832 1901 $50,000 413
    31. Bill Gates 1955 $15,000,000 425
    32. Mark Hopkins 1813 1878 $20,000 446
    33. Edward Clark 1810 1882 $25,000 458
    34. Leland Stanford 1824 1893 $30,000 462
    35. William Rockefeller 1841 1922 $150,000 493
    36. Hetty Green 1834 1916 $100,000 498
    37. James J. Hill 1838 1916 $100,000 498
    38. Elias Hasket Derby 1739 1799 $800 515
    39. Warren Buffett 1930 $12,000,000 532
    40. Claus Spreckels 1828 1908 $50,000 554
    41. George Peabody 1795 1869 $16,000 556
    42. Charles Crocker 1822 1888 $20,000 608
    43. William Andrews Clark 1839 1925 $150,000 609
    44. George Eastman 1854 1932 $95,000 611
    45. Charles Tiffany 1812 1902 $35,000 616
    46. Thomas Fortune Ryan 1851 1928 $155,000 633
    47. Edward Stephen Harkness 1874 1940 $155,000 643
    48. Henry M. Flagler 1830 1913 $60,000 651
    49. James Buchanan Duke 1856 1925 $140,000 652
    50. Israel Thorndike 1755 1832 $1,800 674
    51. William S. O’Brien 1825 1878 $12,000 696
    52. Isaac Merritt Singer 1811 1875 $13,000 709
    53. George Hearst 1820 1891 $19,000 712
    54. John Hancock 1736 1793 $350 714
    55. John W. Garrett 1820 1884 $15,000 715
    56. John W. Mackay 1831 1902 $30,000 718
    57. Julius Rosenwald 1862 1932 $80,000 726
    58. George F. Baker 1840 1931 $100,000 758
    59. George Washington 1732 1799 $530 777
    60. Anthony N. Brady 1834 1913 $50,000 781
    61. Adolphus Busch 1839 1919 $50,000 781
    62. John T. Dorrance 1873 1930 $115,000 786
    63. George Pullman 1831 1897 $17,500 835
    64. Robert Wood Johnson, Jr. 1893 1968 $1,000,000 864
    65. Horace E. Dodge 1868 1920 $100,000 889
    66. John F. Dodge 1864 1920 $100,000 889
    67. J. Paul Getty 1892 1976 $2,000,000 893
    68. William Aspinwall 1807 1875 $4,000 913
    69. Johns Hopkins 1795 1873 $10,000 944
    70. John Werner Kluge 1914 $6,700,000 952
    71. Samuel Colt 1814 1862 $5,000 966
    72. James Stillman 1850 1918 $77,000 989
    73. William Collins Whitney 1841 1904 $23,000 993
    74. William Thaw 1818 1889 $12,000 1040
    75. Paul G. Allen 1953 $6,100,000 1046
    76. Cyrus McCormick 1809 1884 $10,000 1072
    77. Arthur Vining Davis 1867 1962 $400,000 1103
    78. Thomas H. Perkins 1764 1854 $3,000 1116
    79. Joseph Pulitzer 1847 1911 $30,000 1142
    80. Daniel Willis James 1832 1907 $26,000 1169
    81. Howard Hughes 1905 1976 $1,500,000 1190
    82. Frank W. Woolworth 1852 1919 $6,500 1214
    83. John McDonogh 1779 1850 $2,000 1278
    84. Samuel Slater 1768 1835 $1,200 1312
    85. August Belmont 1816 1890 $10,000 1313
    86. Benjamin Franklin 1706 1790 $150 1320
    87. Sumner Murray Redstone 1923 $4,800,000 1329
    88. Capt. Robert Dollar 1844 1932 $40,000 1451
    89. Richard Warren Sears 1863 1914 $25,000 1457
    90. H.L. Hunt 1889 1974 $1,000,000 1474
    91. Jay Van Andel 1924 $4,300,000 1483
    92. Richard M. DeVos 1926 $4,300,000 1483
    93. Henry Phipps 1839 1930 $60,000 1506
    94. Lawrence J. Ellison 1944 $4,300,000 1519
    95. Ronald Owen Perelman 1943 $4,300,000 1519
    96. Peter Chardon Brooks 1767 1849 $1,300 1646
    97. Charles W. Post 1854 1914 $22,000 1656
    98. Samuel I. Newhouse 1895 1979 $1,500,000 1681
    99. William Wrigley, Jr. 1861 1932 $34,000 1707
    100. David Packard 1912 1996 $3,700,000 1724

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by lars 3 years ago

  • lars said... (original post)

    OK..historically speaking the Waltons don't even rank in the top 10 of the richest Americans in history (% of wealth of GNP). So this BS about wealth being concentrated in their hands is total bull..when you look at the history of the US. We have had people far wealthier who have controlled far more of the total GNP. The Rockefellers controlled 1/65th...funny how they don't have nearly that kind of wealth anymore. You see wealth has a way of changing hands from generation to generation. Most fortunes are lost over 3 generations. And someone else becomes the next wealthy person. Its part of what makes our country great.

    Here is the list. (the Walton fortune comes in at #14) (Sam Walton owned it all) 1/275th of GNP. You will also notice that the vast majority of the list are people who where alive in the 1800s and early 1900s. Present day wealthy is not even close to the wealth that once was in the US.

    Are you seriously trying to argue that wealth inequality in the US doesn't exist today... by comparing it to the robber baron era of US history? confused

  • Ming...did you read the original report from the article you cited ?? Here is an exerpt:

    GE’s 2010 Annual Report states: “GE’s effective tax rate is reduced because active business income earned and
    indefinitely reinvested outside the United States is taxed at less than the U.S. rate. A significant portion of this
    reduction depends upon a provision of U.S. tax law that defers the imposition of U.S. tax on certain active financial
    services income until that income is repatriated to the United States as a dividend. . . . This provision, which expires
    at the end of 2011, has been scheduled to expire and has been extended by Congress on six previous occasions,
    including in December of 2010, but there can be no assurance that it will continue to be extended. In the event the
    provision is not extended after 2011, . . . we expect our effective tax rate to increase significantly.”

    I also call into question the reports assertion that GE had a negative 45% tax rate from 2008-2010. At $10.5 Billion dollars in domestic profits...that would mean the US government would have had to have provided GE with 4.75 Billion dollars in income tax returns. That has not happened. Instead what has occurred is the report includes the deduction of previous "dubious" tax claims from the current tax year to reach the negative tax rate. So, what actually has occurred is that GE, in previous years, claimed on their return to have overpaid income taxes. The difference between what they paid and what they stated on their return that they owed wasn't actually paid to the IRS since it was in dispute. In 2010, the IRS ruled that GE was accurately deducting the "dubious claim" thus they over claimed their tax owed in the previous year. Since, they over claimed in a previous year, they are allowed to claim the overstatement as a tax benefit in the current year. GE had 3.2 billion in tax benefits in 2010....which were simply corrections for stating higher taxes owed than actual in previous years. However, since GE never paid those disputed taxes (they would have had to, with penalties and interest, had the IRS rules against their "dubious" claim)...the IRS did not refund them any money. GE will actually pay a small amount in US income taxes for 2010....certainly not a negative tax rate by any reasonable definition.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by DeputyMSU 3 years ago

  • DeputyMSU said... (original post)

    Ming...did you read the original report from the article you cited ?? Here is an exerpt:

    GE’s 2010 Annual Report states: “GE’s effective tax rate is reduced because active business income earned and indefinitely reinvested outside the United States is taxed at less than the U.S. rate. A significant portion of this reduction depends upon a provision of U.S. tax law that defers the imposition of U.S. tax on certain active financial services income until that income is repatriated to the United States as a dividend. . . . This provision, which expires at the end of 2011, has been scheduled to expire and has been extended by Congress on six previous occasions, including in December of 2010, but there can be no assurance that it will continue to be extended. In the event the provision is not extended after 2011, . . . we expect our effective tax rate to increase significantly.”

    I also call into question the reports assertion that GE had a negative 45% tax rate from 2008-2010. At $10.5 Billion dollars in domestic profits...that would mean the US government would have had to have provided GE with 4.75 Billion dollars in income tax returns. That has not happened. Instead what has occurred is the report includes the deduction of previous "dubious" tax claims from the current tax year to reach the negative tax rate. So, what actually has occurred is that GE, in previous years, claimed on their return to have overpaid income taxes. The difference between what they paid and what they stated on their return that they owed wasn't actually paid to the IRS since it was in dispute. In 2010, the IRS ruled that GE was accurately deducting the "dubious claim" thus they over claimed their tax owed in the previous year. Since, they over claimed in a previous year, they are allowed to claim the overstatement as a tax benefit in the current year. GE had 3.2 billion in tax benefits in 2010....which were simply corrections for stating higher taxes owed than actual in previous years. However, since GE never paid those disputed taxes (they would have had to, with penalties and interest, had the IRS rules against their "dubious" claim)...the IRS did not refund them any money. GE will actually pay a small amount in US income taxes for 2010....certainly not a negative tax rate by any reasonable definition.

    Offshore tax havens are a different issue. Your said that US corporations are moving jobs overseas for tax reasons but they are not moving jobs to the Cayman Islands for instance, and the US cannot compete with 0% corporate tax rates nor would we want to.

    And I'm not saying that taxes aren't involved in the phenomenon but rather they are not the primary reason for it. I would say that higher growth potential in these emerging economies is much more attractive for investors than slightly lower taxes. If you look at where the most overseas investment from US corporations are going, it is not to the countries with the lowest corporate tax rates rather it's to the countries with the largest growth potential. Don't you think that's a pretty clear indication that growth potential is more important than tax rates?

  • I never said that US corporations are moving jobs overseas for tax reasons. What I have said is that US multinational corporations are not repatriating foreign earnings due to our higher corporate income tax rate. Because those funds are abroad, these companies have less money to invest domestically that could be helping our economy.

    As to your question regarding tax rates and growth potential...I would think any good business would take into account both factors. If the Cayman Islands had a great growth opportunities, then investment would flow there over other areas with similar growth and higher taxes.

    And why can't and why wouldn't we want to compete with 0% corporate income tax rates ? Corporations create wealth and economic prosperity. Why would we want to have any unnecessary impediments toward creating wealth and prosperity ? Why not just tax individuals when that wealth and prosperity is realized ? Why is it that companies MUST be taxes ? I would probably only advocate taxing companies on earnings that they send overseas. My goal is to have the most investment possible in the US...which would create the most economic benefit....which will help everyone in the long run. Taxing higher income individuals doesn't kill job growth nearly as much as does business/corporate taxes.

  • DeputyMSU said... (original post)

    Your view could not be more wrong when it comes to the corporate tax rates. It is our high corporate tax rates that encourage companies to invest overseas. The federal corporate tax rate in the US is around 35%. This rate is similar to the rates in Brazil and India (China's rate is lower...around 25%). But in the US, you might also pay a State Corporate Income tax. So the corporate rates in the United States are actually higher than in the nations you mentioned.

    But the bigger issue is that the US taxes US multinational foreign earnings at the full corporate tax rate. Meaning that if a US company attempts to repatriate foreign earnings, those earnings would most likely be taxed twice (Once by the corporate tax of the nation where the earnings were made and a second time by the US corporate rate when bringing that money on shore).

    The return overseas is not always great, as you have suggested. If it were, then US multinational companies would not be sitting on piles of foreign cash looking for places to invest. There are many more opportunities here in the United States. However, the US multinationals do not want to lose 35% of their money repatriating those profits.

    I believe we need to lower the tax burden on corporations in the US. But we certainly need to address the policies that double tax foreign corporate earnings which provides the companies with incentive to keep those earnings abroad. If you want to tax wealthy individuals more to pay for decreasing the corporate taxes...that is fine by me.

    Didn't the US offer some sort of tax holiday a few years ago to repatriate profits?

    From what I remember not too many companies with overseas profits actually took advantage of it.

    Are you also aware that many countries will also double tax you if you try to move it out of their country? India is one example. We were told by our CEO that our company would be hit with an 18% tax bill by the Indian government if we were to move our profits out of India. This is on top of the tax already paid for those profits. I'm sure India isn't the only country who does this.

    So yeah, there's a lot more to this than simply US corporate tax rates. And as Ming pointed out most corporations don't pay anywhere near that rate. (You know the same arguments conservatives use when they say no one paid 90% back in the 50's.)

  • MSULordyoda said... (original post)

    So yeah, there's a lot more to this than simply US corporate tax rates. And as Ming pointed out most corporations don't pay anywhere near that rate. (You know the same arguments conservatives use when they say no one paid 90% back in the 50's.)

    I have no problem with companies paying a low or zero effective tax rate. I would have a problem with a company having a true negative tax rate.

  • MSULordyoda said... (original post)

    Didn't the US offer some sort of tax holiday a few years ago to repatriate profits?

    From what I remember not too many companies with overseas profits actually took advantage of it.

    Well, hey used the money to buy back shares of their own stock to raise their value for the sole benefit of their shareholders, NOT to invest in new businesses or jobs. So yeah we have evidence that a tax holiday won;t result in increased investment or jobs in the US. That fact leaves me skeptical about the effectiveness of lowering the corporate tax rates here in the US to create jobs.

    As always I am swayed more by history and empirical evidence than economic theory. Too many people are willfully ignorant of the former and suffer from an overabundance of the latter.

  • ming said... (original post)

    Are you seriously trying to argue that wealth inequality in the US doesn't exist today... by comparing it to the robber baron era of US history? confused

    Of course I'm not arguing that wealth inequality doesn't exist. My point exactly the opposite. It always has existed in America. Historically, today its not even close to being the worst in our history as a nation. We have done just fine over those 200+ years with much higher inequality. This is not something new and its not a problem that has to be solved. We always have inequity in wealth..but the people who actually have the wealth changes significantly from generation to generation. That is what makes us unique..every generation has new opportunities for people to become wealthy.

  • lars said... (original post)

    Of course I'm not arguing that wealth inequality doesn't exist. My point exactly the opposite. It always has existed in America. Historically, today its not even close to being the worst in our history as a nation. We have done just fine over those 200+ years with much higher inequality. This is not something new and its not a problem that has to be solved. We always have inequity in wealth..but the people who actually have the wealth changes significantly from generation to generation. That is what makes us unique..every generation has new opportunities for people to become wealthy.

    The fact that it exists isn't the problem. The fact that it has grown to extreme levels is. And comparing it to levels last seen in the late 1800's and early 1900's doesn't really help your argument as few would consider those eras exemplary. Arguably the best years in American history were during the periods of least wealth inequality. You know, the period when American emerged as a super power? Just because America didn't collapse under high inequality doesn't mean that it's the ideal model. In fact we have ample evidence showing that America thrives best with far less wealth inequality than what we have now.

    As for your canard regarding social mobility, I have already posted facts that disprove that notion in another thread you were involved in. Obviously you chose to ignore it and retreat back to your bubble. So once again, the US has less social mobility than many other western economies. The idea that anyone can "make it big" and "live the American dream" is far less true than many people think and becoming less true by the day.

  • TrapperGus

    spartanMF said... (original post)

    Yur all just jealous.

    No we all just want the economy to run at an optimum operation point for the amount of captital in the country...with the capital tied up in the wealthy's bank accounts and not being productively used and with the starvation wages being paid to most of the country the speed that money changes hands has been slowed down sigificantly...thus the volume of transactions is slow...this s caused becuase the people who would spend the money do not have any money to spend...we don't care about people being wealthy except how it affects the economy which is poorly with the existing situation...

    Lurking on tRCMB since 1996

  • Madhatter536 said... (original post)

    Bestial, please ignore failureman's lame attempt at humor. He has the reading comprehension of a 5 year old.

    I haven't been on Wells Hall in probably 2 or 3 years. I'm glad things haven't changed and people are still changing the names of other posters to something they deem to be insulting and thus making them feel better about themselves. What a wonderland of intellectualism.

  • TrapperGus said... (original post)

    No we all just want the economy to run at an optimum operation point for the amount of captital in the country...with the capital tied up in the wealthy's bank accounts and not being productively used and with the starvation wages being paid to most of the country the speed that money changes hands has been slowed down sigificantly...thus the volume of transactions is slow...this s caused becuase the people who would spend the money do not have any money to spend...we don't care about people being wealthy except how it affects the economy which is poorly with the existing situation...

    But it's a false argument to blame the state of the economy on the wealthy. And that somehow income redistribution into the hands of the govt would solve it.

    This post was edited by lars 3 years ago

  • Natron tSpartan said... (original post)

    I haven't been on Wells Hall in probably 2 or 3 years. I'm glad things haven't changed and people are still changing the names of other posters to something they deem to be insulting and thus making them feel better about themselves. What a wonderland of intellectualism.

    I was simply returning the favor. If it upsets you, leave the thread.

  • TrapperGus

    lars said... (original post)

    But it's a false argument to blame the state of the economy on the wealthy. And that somehow income redistribution into the hands of the govt would solve it.

    Well that really makes the case that your trying to make now doesn't it?

    It is clearly logical that if the wealthy have money they have much less incentive to put that money back into the economy quickly as opposed to the other 95% of the population which is pretty much living paycheck to paycheck...therefore the concentration of the total wealth all in the hands of the top 1% or top 0.1% slows down the speed in which money folws through the economy thus reducing economic activity...very logical and the Austrians would be proud of me...

    edit - Also if you're fond of cooralation arguments there is a direct cooraspondance between the health of the economy in GDP growth and tax rates...the higher the tax rates on the wealthy the higher the growth rate of the GDP...

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by TrapperGus 3 years ago

    Lurking on tRCMB since 1996

  • ming said... (original post)

    The fact that it exists isn't the problem. The fact that it has grown to extreme levels is. And comparing it to levels last seen in the late 1800's and early 1900's doesn't really help your argument as few would consider those eras exemplary. Arguably the best years in American history were during the periods of least wealth inequality. You know, the period when American emerged as a super power? Just because America didn't collapse under high inequality doesn't mean that it's the ideal model. In fact we have ample evidence showing that America thrives best with far less wealth inequality than what we have now.

    As for your canard regarding social mobility, I have already posted facts that disprove that notion in another thread you were involved in. Obviously you chose to ignore it and retreat back to your bubble. So once again, the US has less social mobility than many other western economies. The idea that anyone can "make it big" and "live the American dream" is far less true than many people think and becoming less true by the day.

    Well you know lars wants to go back to the days of the "company store." That's his wet dream for the US. He'd rather it actually be like the days of the Robber Barons where instead of a few hundred uber wealthy individuals like today, it's only a few dozen.

  • TrapperGus

    MSULordyoda said... (original post)

    Well you know lars wants to go back to the days of the "company store." That's his wet dream for the US. He'd rather it actually be like the days of the Robber Barons where instead of a few hundred uber wealthy individuals like today, it's only a few dozen.

    We are pretty much there right now...so he should be very happy...

    Lurking on tRCMB since 1996

  • TrapperGus said... (original post)

    Well that really makes the case that your trying to make now doesn't it?

    It is clearly logical that if the wealthy have money they have much less incentive to put that money back into the economy quickly as opposed to the other 95% of the population which is pretty much living paycheck to paycheck...therefore the concentration of the total wealth all in the hands of the top 1% or top 0.1% slows down the speed in which money folws through the economy thus reducing economic activity...very logical and the Austrians would be proud of me...

    edit - Also if you're fond of cooralation arguments there is a direct cooraspondance between the health of the economy in GDP growth and tax rates...the higher the tax rates on the wealthy the higher the growth rate of the GDP...

    What do you think the wealthy do with their money? Stick it under a mattress? No..they INVEST IT. They put into businesses..buy businesses..start new businesses..buy real estate..buy stocks (buying businesses)...buy bonds (fund the govt and business). All of these actions put MONEY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY and produce jobs and income for people. So stop with the false assumption that the wealthy don't put their money back into the economy. You have to spend your paycheck at Walmart to put money back into the economy.

    This post was edited by lars 3 years ago

  • lars said... (original post)

    What do you think the wealthy do with their money? Stick it under a mattress? No..they INVEST IT. They put into businesses..buy businesses..start new businesses..buy real estate..buy stocks (buying businesses)...buy bonds (fund the govt and business). All of these action put MONEY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY and produce jobs and income for people. So stop with the false assumption that the wealthy don't put their money back into the economy. You have to spend your paycheck at Walmart to put money back into the economy.

    Which economy? Are the American people supposed to be grateful that wealthy US investors are creating more jobs and income for the Chinese for example?

    The Rich Are Moving More Money Overseas - T

    If there is one overwhelming investment trend among the American rich, it is capital flight.Rather than investing in the U.S., they are putting more and more of their money abroad.Associated PressThe U.S.S. Capital heads out for foreign markets.A new survey by the Institute for Private Investors of families with $30 million or more of investible assets showed that the families have one third of their assets overseas. One in five wealthy families� has more than half their investments overseas. �Most of them are buying overseas stocks, while they also are buying into hedge funds and private equity with exposure abroad.Additionally, wealthy investors are moving away from the U.S. dollar. The IPI study showed that one quarter of respondents are managing currencies or hedging currency risk.Spectrem Group, of Chicago,� shows a similar outmigration of money from the rich. More than 60% of investors with $25 million or more are investing overseas, Spectrem found.You can�t blame them, of course. Capital follows growth, and the strongest economic growth is in the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations and other emerging markets. Some may talk about the broken of the American rich, who are taxed at low rates on capital gains and dividends in order to encourage them to invest in the U.S. and create jobs.Yet the rich don't sign any social contracts when they get rich. And so far, the flight of wealthy investors hasn�t stopped the U.S. stock market from roaring back to life after the recession.� In fact, wealthy investors are at the forefront of the current tech bubble.Since the wealthy control an ever larger share of the country�s wealth and investments, their aversion to the U.S. could create a vicious cycle�the wealthy don�t reinvest in the U.S., so the U.S. suffers from underinvestment and slower job creation, which slows economic growth and drives the wealthy to invest even more overseas.What do you think would reverse the overseas investment craze of the rich?

    http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/05/18/the-rich-are-moving-more-money-overseas/

    More Wealthy Investors Investing Abroad - NYT

    The slow recovery has prompted more rich Americans to diversify beyond their own borders, something well-off foreigners have long been doing.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/your-money/20wealth.html
  • ming said... (original post)

    Which economy? Are the American people supposed to be grateful that wealthy US investors are creating more jobs and income for the Chinese for example?

    Well that certainly puts a dent into lars' theory.

    I'm also curious as to how buying existing shares of stock is actually investing in a company. If I buy 100 shares of Apple from lars, how am I directly benefiting Apple in that transaction? And if turn around and sell those shares for a profit, how again does that directly benefit Apple? The only ones making money here are the brokers, lars and me. Where does Apple gain any money on this?

  • ming said... (original post)

    Which economy? Are the American people supposed to be grateful that wealthy US investors are creating more jobs and income for the Chinese for example?

    Why single out the rich. Its actually all those people who shop at walmart because they can get cheap chinese goods that sends far more money overseas. If people just stopped buying stuff from walmart, foreign big screen tvs, Korean cars and all the other stuff made in cheap labor markets. So if when you take that money from the rich and give it to those walmart shoppers..even more of it will wind up in the same place..over in china. Smart thinking.

    This post was edited by lars 3 years ago

  • MSULordyoda said... (original post)

    Well that certainly puts a dent into lars' theory.

    I'm also curious as to how buying existing shares of stock is actually investing in a company. If I buy 100 shares of Apple from lars, how am I directly benefiting Apple in that transaction? And if turn around and sell those shares for a profit, how again does that directly benefit Apple? The only ones making money here are the brokers, lars and me. Where does Apple gain any money on this?

    see the post above on Ming's genius theory.

    Second..selling buying and selling shares on the secondary market..benefits all investors in Apple because it creates a market for them, it potentially increases the value of their investment. When they sell, they take that money and invest it other places or spend it. Finally, there is a huge industry of brokers, bankers, investors, financial brokerages that employee millions of people that are rewarded and given jobs and paychecks as a result. Furthermore, the rich provide funding for new companies with IPOs so that the next Apple can become reality. (See things like facebook). Without the rich that would have never become much of anything.

    Stop the rich from investing..and that all goes away.

    This post was edited by lars 3 years ago

  • lars said... (original post)

    Why single out the rich. Its actually all those people who shop at walmart because they can get cheap chinese goods that sends far more money overseas. If people just stopped buying stuff from walmart, foreign big screen tvs, Korean cars and all the other stuff made in cheap labor markets. So if when you take that money from the rich and give it to those walmart shoppers..even more of it will wind up in the same place..over in china. Smart thinking.

    Maybe Chinese made goods are all they can get because the corporate overlords don't make anything in this country anymore because the corporate overlords wanted more for themselves and sent the manufacturing to China instead of paying decent wages to make things here. It's damn hard to buy American, though a lot of us try, when companies that used to make things in America now manufacture in China and bring it back here to sell, at the same price as when it was made here. They save manufacturing costs, but DON"T pass the savings on to the consumer, they keep the difference and put it in their own already fat pockets. It IS the rich who are to blame, not the middle class. We can't buy what isn't available. And it isn't available because of the GREED of the rich.

  • Madhatter536 said... (original post)

    Maybe Chinese made goods are all they can get because the corporate overlords don't make anything in this country anymore because the corporate overlords wanted more for themselves and sent the manufacturing to China instead of paying decent wages to make things here. It's damn hard to buy American, though a lot of us try, when companies that used to make things in America now manufacture in China and bring it back here to sell, at the same price as when it was made here. They save manufacturing costs, but DON"T pass the savings on to the consumer, they keep the difference and put it in their own already fat pockets. It IS the rich who are to blame, not the middle class. We can't buy what isn't available. And it isn't available because of the GREED of the rich.

    no

    You're really on quite the little roll today, aren't you? Did the doctor change your meds or something?