Using the new Yahoo site is a problem so had to open up a new topic. When you repeat something I have said you should give an explanation. Do you think the top 1% should have more and more money. What happens when those at the bottom have no money. Should they just die and decrease the surplus population? Maybe it would be better to change the rules so we have a better distribution of the wealth.
W2B,........Some believe in laissez-faire economics and the law of the "invisible hand" where some seek out wealth to benefit themselves, but, in doing so, unintentionally benefit many others. Look at Bill Gates, one of the world's richest men and how Microsoft has changed the way the world runs. You need to clarify what you mean by "rules", I was not aware that rules were in place for wealth distribution in the US. The Obamas have a net worth of $6.8M, maybe you could suggest that the Obamas redistribute their wealth. Heck, they don't have to pay rent or pay for food, electricity, heat or transportation. When they go on vacation, they go first class plus. I travel coach, maybe Obama should let me travel on Air Force1 with him, another form of redistribution. I did try to respond earlier, but failed, navigating Yahoo is above my pay grade ........................Kid
Obama is not classified as the top 1%. You need more than 6.8M to get there. The RULES are the laws which were made to allow the top 1% to accumulate most of the money. I am reminded of one of the rules every year I file my taxes. Why is the percent I am paying higher than the percent that Warren Buffet pays? Maybe we should go back to the tax rates in 1960. Any thing earned over $400,000 was taxed at 91%. Why do they allow these corporations to hide their gains oversea? If they loose their money they cry to the FED and the FED takes money away from me with Zero interest rates and gives it to the banks. Can't you see what is going on. It is destroying our country. Congress keeps pushing the trickle down theory and it doesn't work. You give these boyz more money they do not create more jobs at least not in my country. Why don't you explain to us why the top 1% deserve all the money. Do you think they work harder than their fathers so they should be worth so much more than the worker? Do think people who shuffle around pieces of paper should make more money than someone who makes a actual product? Tell us why they are entitled to all the money.
A term coined by economist Adam Smith in his 1776 book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". In his book he states:
"Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."
Thus, the invisible hand is essentially a natural phenomenon that guides free markets and capitalism through competition for scarce resources.