Redistribution of money? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...l-After-Raising-Over-150-Million-In-September
how is 39% a majority. clearly the rich spend more per capita, but if the "rich" are the top 5% and then there is everyone else--everyone else spends more (61%).
so to be clear, your argument is that because the lower 95% (which of course includes half of the top richest 10%) spend more than 5% that the rich are not the biggest spenders? is this something i really need to explain to an adult, that rich people are rich and they buy more stuff than poorer people? if the rich are not the biggest spenders, then in what sense are the poor worse off, if they consume at the same rate? this discussion is ludicrous on so many levels. its like talking to a partisan 5 year old retard. who exactly are you claiming spend more than the top 5%? saying "everyone else combined" is like saying a marathon winner is not the fastest marathoner because he can be beaten by a relay of 500 sprinters.
not very rich, because the rich are that way because of mutual voluntary exchange. if you want, for example, people to be banned from buying ipads for fear it makes apple execs too rich then you could. but what you would be ignoring is that trade is for mutual benefit. some people will always have more to offer the market, and they will be rich. the poor should be glad these people exist, because like i said, they have more to offer the market.
If you wipe out the economic activity of the bottom 5% the GDP is effectively unchanged. If you wipe out the economic activity of 5% around the median, you still have a growing economy. If you wipe out the economic activty of the top 5% GDP is 39% smaller.
Of course. If they account for less than half of consumer spending, then they are not the "biggest". Of course, but they don't spent the most because there are a lot more "poorer" people.
and the strongest man on earth is not the strongest because 10 people combined are stronger. the stupidity of your point makes me want to weep for you.
Weep for yourself junior, or just save your haughty sneers for the children. Your example is a invalid comparison. The proper comparison is who can lift more weight, 1 very strong man or 9 average men. Olympic weightlifters can clean and jerk well over 200 kg. The average college age man can clean and jerk about 100kg. So the powerful one can lift 200 kg but is lesser than the 9 who can lift 900kg. Likewise, the rich one consumes lesser than the average 9 consume.
Why would it be a valid point when I showed you the strongest man, for you to disagree and bring out 10 dudes and say they are stronger. Rich people consume more. Take any group of people, the richest group consumes the most. That what rich people are, consumers. How could I be discussing this. MLU disputes things with me because I make him look stupid, I expect you to just ignore nonpoints.