Firing poor-performing federal government workers just made easier by Trump

[Guisslapp]

Or maybe it explains his current billionaire status. Your post could actually explain a lot. You shouldn't allow your envy of the super wealthy to eat ate you to the point that you're filled with hate like you are. You should study economics a little. Perhaps you'd better understand how individual wealth is necessary for a capitalist system to work.

Actually, that is a pretty revealing to how little you understand capitalism. It is capital that makes capitalism work, not individual wealth. A helpful primer on the difference:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp.../#74c0a8c73dc0

Sure Trump took advantage of the bankruptcy code and capitalism to amass a balance sheet worth of assets (including capital) that is now worth an estimated 3.1 billion. Is that how we measure success? Personally, if I had gained all that by breaching agreements and taking food out of the mouths of others by sheltering my assets using bankruptcy laws and unethical dealings with insiders (the mafia and mafia-made men) to gain access to exclusive infrastructure deals and FHA-funded apartment complexes, I would feel pretty dirty about my wealth. But Trump and I have different views on personal integrity and success.

So at a low point Trump was about 5 billion in debt and now up 3.1 billion in the black. A lot of people relied on his representations that he would pay them for their work or repay their bonds or loans and he left them high and dry. When you have access to the resources that he has, I am not sure I would call that success. When you have access to a lot of resources, your gain potential is that much greater and if you are willing to take 6 do overs, you are bound to get it right at some point. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut sometimes.

[techman05]

I never said he doesn’t know proper grammar, only that he doesn’t use it. You don’t have to speak or write eloquently to be smart.

[dawg80]

It's both.

Capitalism is the application of capital, which is: money, assets, resources, and labor. It does not preclude the use of individual wealth. But, it does not require it either.

When I worked for a Fortune 50 corporation I "applied" capital, managed it, but it certainly was not my individual wealth. Back then, and it's been 30+ years ago, I made a nice salary, with good benefits, of $40K+ and I managed many $millions in company assets. One time I had checks made out to the company in my company truck's glove compartment (locked up) that totaled $3.7 million. Had to detour when in route to the regional office to deal with an emergency and left the truck parked on the side of the road, locked up of course, with the checks inside. It was only a brief stop....thankfully. Made me nervous, and besides, the accounting department was waiting on me so they could process the checks and get them deposited before the bank closed.

Today, among other things, I deal in real estate, sometimes using only my individual "wealth." Of course those deals are measured in the $100Ks, not $millions. Because of my real estate activity, it creates jobs and opportunities for independent contractors to use their capital to make money for themselves. That's how it works....

And, I am trying to get a small business launched that could be worth $billions some day. Right now, I (we) get very little support, and actually we get push back from those who are threatened by the possibilities. If we become successful, after all these years of struggle, then suddenly libtards will paint us as evil and greedy and selfish. OMG! a corporation with money!! The epitome of pure evil.

I'll just build a castle with a moat filled with sharks with laser beams on their heads.....and live happily ever after.

[Guisslapp]

King’s sat on unproductive “wealth” for a millennia until they started experimenting with its use as capital.

[Guisslapp]

And even though king’s used wealth to fund imperialism, wealth, itself, was not what unlocked capitalism’s potential.

Productive use of capital fundamentally is about credit. Credit is an ancient idea, and has even received scorn in religious texts, including the Bible. But credit is what enables leverage and growth.

Credit wasn’t nearly as popular in pre-enlightened times because credit is about trading your present wealth against someone’s future wealth and no one would lend against the future unless they had a reason to expect that the person they were lending to had a brighter future than their present. Why would you for So credit doesn’t really flow (on an aggregated basis) unless there is an optimism that the future will be brighter than the present.

Capitalism only works because capitalists believe in a brighter future and are willing to provide credit. If at some point people stop believing in the brighter future, capitalism will collapse.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

He doesn’t know basic grammar, so what is his excuse?

Says the one that loves a Pelosi speech.

[brtransplant]

King’s sat on unproductive “wealth” for a millennia until they started experimenting with its use as capital.

This is another telling statement that makes me believe that the root of your Trump hate is your envy of individual wealth. It's a very common trait among liberals and communists.

[brtransplant]

And even though king’s used wealth to fund imperialism, wealth, itself, was not what unlocked capitalism’s potential.

Productive use of capital fundamentally is about credit. Credit is an ancient idea, and has even received scorn in religious texts, including the Bible. But credit is what enables leverage and growth.

Credit wasn’t nearly as popular in pre-enlightened times because credit is about trading your present wealth against someone’s future wealth and no one would lend against the future unless they had a reason to expect that the person they were lending to had a brighter future than their present. Why would you for So credit doesn’t really flow (on an aggregated basis) unless there is an optimism that the future will be brighter than the present.

Capitalism only works because capitalists believe in a brighter future and are willing to provide credit. If at some point people stop believing in the brighter future, capitalism will collapse.

The productive use of capital is NOT fundamentally about credit. Credit is a major tool used in capitalism, but PROFIT is what capitalism is fundamentally about. A man that is willing to work his fields 12 hours a day will likely EARN more of a return than someone that works his fields only 6 hours a day. This likely means that the man working 12 hours a day will be able to accumulate more personal wealth than his lazy neighbor. Of course, to a communist, that makes him an evil SOB.

[Guisslapp]

The productive use of capital is NOT fundamentally about credit. Credit is a major tool used in capitalism, but PROFIT is what capitalism is fundamentally about. A man that is willing to work his fields 12 hours a day will likely EARN more of a return than someone that works his fields only 6 hours a day. This likely means that the man working 12 hours a day will be able to accumulate more personal wealth than his lazy neighbor. Of course, to a communist, that makes him an evil SOB.

You should go back to school. There was stagnant growth back when people were working their fields for long hours. Profit is a key piece of capitalism, but it is not a new thing.

For most of history the economy stayed much the same size. Yes global production increased, but this was due mostly to demographic expansion and the settlement of new lands. Per capita production remained static but all that changed in the modern age. In 1500, global production of goods and services was equal to about $250 billion; today it hovers around $60 trillion. More importantly, in 1500, annual per capita production averaged $550, while today every man, woman and child produces, on the average, $8,800 a year. What accounts for this stupendous growth?

[JuBru]

Artificial inflation of value.

[dawg80]

Credit has opened up the full throttle capacity of capitalism. But, it's not, in itself, part of the fundamental core of capitalism. Maybe I didn't say that well....what I mean is "capitalism" is the manipulation (not a bad term) of capital. It's the "use of" assets, money, resources, and labor. Credit offers fast lane access to aspects of capitalism. While not a core component of capitalism, per se, it has accelerated the growth of it because it allows more people to participate, which is a good thing.

That farmer toiling in the fields for 12 hours a day can try to save a little money, hoping some day to accumulate enough wealth to buy another 40 acres, and then hire help. OR!!! he can access credit, use someone else's money to buy more acres, and make the growth of his enterprise happen NOW! That is what credit has done for capitalism.

[brtransplant]

You should go back to school. There was stagnant growth back when people were working their fields for long hours. Profit is a key piece of capitalism, but it is not a new thing.

For most of history the economy stayed much the same size. Yes global production increased, but this was due mostly to demographic expansion and the settlement of new lands. Per capita production remained static but all that changed in the modern age. In 1500, global production of goods and services was equal to about $250 billion; today it hovers around $60 trillion. More importantly, in 1500, annual per capita production averaged $550, while today every man, woman and child produces, on the average, $8,800 a year. What accounts for this stupendous growth?

My argument is that capitalism is not fundamentally about credit. Credit certainly gives one the ability to do things immediately rather than later (buying a home, for example), but capitalism is not BASED on credit.

The worlds current financial condition where credit is concerned will indeed bring the whole system down some day, but that is due to the absolute insane abuse of credit that has taken place, not because of capitalism.

[Guisslapp]

My argument is that capitalism is not fundamentally about credit. Credit certainly gives one the ability to do things immediately rather than later (buying a home, for example), but capitalism is not BASED on credit.

The worlds current financial condition where credit is concerned will indeed bring the whole system down some day, but that is due to the absolute insane abuse of credit that has taken place, not because of capitalism.

Before the modern era economic growth was virtually nonexistent despite profit incentive. In most cases, money could represent and convert only things that actually existed in the present. This made it very hard to finance new enterprises… The way out of the trap was discovered only in the modern era, with the appearance of a new system based on trust in the future. In it people agreed to represent imaginary goods – goods that do not exist in the present – with a special kind of money they called ‘credit’. It’s founded on the assumption that our future resources are sure to be far more abundant than our present resources. A host of new and wonderful opportunities open up if we can build things in the present using future income.

[Guisslapp]

But capitalism is not about profits. It is about the PRODUCTIVE REINVESTMENT of profits, which only happens when we collectively believe in the idea that the future will ever be brighter so that we extend credit to each other.

[techman05]

Somebody send a doctor on a house call, I am agreeing with Guiss again.