Could a coordinated effort by the billionaires inject enough mojo into the market to help revamp the economy?

It seems that artificial stimuli got us into the trouble to start with.

However, it seems to me that billionaires could conspire to get rid of the fear factors that are holding back our economy.

What would be their incentive?

It not only could, it would. 5% of the population OWNS 90%+ of the total money in circulation.

So the economy is already so off-balanced, that the regular work-force can't change it, they need more money.

Give a minimum-wage worker 2-3 extra dollars an hour, and they'll SPEND IT, give a millionaire/billionaire another tax-break, and they'll stock-pile more money.

The Top 1% should become a Top 10-15% again(like it was in the 70s) because economy is like a Cardiovascular system, you need enough life-blood(money) in circulation to have it live.

BQ1: Not likely, the rich want to protect their money, that's why today's 'crisis' is being paid for by the middle-class(they lost 20-25% of their economic power, the Elite has never made more money, as quick as they did since 2008).

BQ2: Simple, higher minimum wage. Even the lowest earners should be able to live a decent standard-of-life.

BQ3: Yes, the government would love to(it'd make them look good), the politicians are bought, and paid for, by the super-rich, so they won't criticize anything they do.

It could probably help, darling.

BQ: Some billionaires already do coordinate their giving - Warren Buffett and Bill Gates come to mind - but they focus their efforts on eradicating diseases throughout the world and aren't focusing on just this economy. Other billionaires - like the Koch brothers and other right-wing contributors - aren't giving anything away unless they get more, in the way of influence, lack of regulation, or political power for it, so it's utterly unlikely they'd coordinate to do more than their current strategy to take over the government.

BQ2: I'm no economist, darling, but for maximum impact, it seems clear to me that they have to make sure that the least economically healthy among us are able to pay their bills and buy goods and services. One way would be to promote raising the minimum wage - which, as Chris Rock points out, merely means they can't legally pay you less - and another way might be to enthusiastically back universal post-secondary education or a national health care service. Each of those would give those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder a leg up and free up more money into the economy.

BQ3: I would hope that the government would regulate such efforts to make sure that no one is left out of the benefits, and that public safety and health are protected. That is, after all, the job of government, to protect the lives, health, safety, and well-being of its citizens. I would also hope that the government would form partnerships with such an effort to join in the programs being advocated.

And for your listening pleasure, this one reminds me of billionaires like the Kochs and Trump -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-P2qL3qkzk

((( < I > )))

Sure, but since they are the ones that caused this mess, what interest would they have for doing anything about it?

Just look at such billionaires as the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, T. Boone Pickens, Stephen Schwarzman, Donald Trump, etc. These have all backed the Republican Party's deliberate efforts to prevent the recovery and to bring the American government to its knees

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13581-republican...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/10/0...

It isn't their money that is needed, it is their influence over what Congress does and doesn't do. Not getting a budget agreement and going into sequestration alone is a major economic loss:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/sequestra...

Then there were all the Republican efforts to prevent the government extending the debt ceiling, extending unemployment benefits, etc.

No, because the billionaires will not coordinate with one another.

BQ1 Zero likelihood.

BQ2 I dunno...maybe a score of billionaires could finance a project to open a resort on the moon. That would require several new technologies and create a lunar tourist industry. Additionally, the technologies might be enable us to begin exploiting asteroids, if there are any usable elements out there besides iron. Not sure we're having an iron shortage, and that's what they're mostly made of.

BQ3 Of course the government would figure out a way to tax and/or regulate the idea into utter impracticality.

Remember the good old days when one yacht was enough for a billionaire? Now - they seem to need a fleet.

All right - I'm generalizing - I'm sure not every billionaire is greedy - but that's what it comes down.to: pocketing more profit instead of putting it back. Better incentives for workers, whether it's raises, hiring more people, better equipment, better health care, company growth, etc. You just don't really see that return investment into the companies anymore. Too many corners are cut to save a buck that's only going into the owner's pockets. They don't like risk anymore.

Nothing is really going to work until they want to invest some of that profit into truly making it work for them again.

Oh - and investors have to stop whining about when they take a loss. Stocks are nothing more than a gamble. We all know this. You don't get your money back at the casino - why should you expect it to be different if you take a hit on a bad investment?

It takes money to make money. And if they're not putting it out, then no one is going anywhere.

The "something for nothing" attitude is killer. Literally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5BfUO2MWIs

(((((((< I >)))))))

Affiliate marketing is the best way of making money online. Website which ask for a initial payment before geeting the job, most of them are fake! You can learn how to make money online with affiliation marketing for free here http://moneyonline.toptips.org/

You will find a lot of interesting informations.

30. Previous to the convention most females had decided on who they would vote for. I'm certain that no smart woman would trade their vote when you consider that a spouse thinks her husband is a remarkable husband, father, son and so on. It just does not equate to the necessary skills for strolling a nation. Mrs. Romney's opinion of her husband should surely hold no weight closer to swaying any individual's vote. Why do I consider that Ann Romney wishes to be First girl much more than Mitt want to be President? That just possibly your reply to No. 2. Wasn't it Mrs. Romney who said that releasing extra tax returns (these previous to the Romney's 2010 return) would cause Mitt Romney extra harm than the flack and suspicion he'll acquire and has got via now not releasing those returns. What are they so afraid of? Obviously, the IRS would have caught anything in those early returns that could "now" be regarded illegal but anything must be in those returns that may make Romney's credibility tremendously suspect. We breathlessly look ahead to the discharge of the Romney 2011 revenue Tax Return. Might his failure to unlock that return be due to an additional amnesty on Off Shore bills for 2011. So far, Romney is the only President in to produce just one year of Tax returns when you consider that 1984. A number of reasons why Romney may not be releasing his tax returns. And please, no remarks in regards to the President releasing his university file. No longer one US President or Presidential Candidate has ever been requested to supply their institution transcripts and none have. All of our school records are blanketed and can only be released with a Subpoena or with your written permission. Did Romney take potential of the 2009 Amnesty plan which advantages offshore account holders? If he did; if now not for the Amnesty plan, failure to file these accounts on his tax returns is a federal crime. For simply how a long time would Romney have failed to record those offshore bills? Was once Romney equipped to scale back his tax liabilities by using claiming a excessive current price for inventory he donated to charities that he bought at very low prices? (certainly one of his Bain techniques was once to create more than one stock courses for businesses he received that allowed him essentially to control costs by using assigning debt to one category and assigning gains to an additional.) Is there is something in those returns that might show he used to be concerned in Bain Capital decisions after his supposed retroactive retirement of 1999? Sorry, i guess I got somewhat off subject.

Fortunes are being made from the recession. Besides, their money is already "injected" into the economy, as investments. The rich do not keep their money under their beds, or even in banks. They don't really even have all that money we think they do. They have "assets" which collect interest.

Capitalism is failing. The religion of consumerism is failing. The need for greed is failing. I'm only worried about what may be next. It has to be something completely new. Or it will just be a rerun.