I get your point, though I was referring more to the deregulation that allowed the entire mess to happen in the first place. That was a policy born in the Thatcher/Reagan era.

If you owed the money in your bank account, then if they earn money off it, then they have to give you the money. — Antidote

That's why banks usually pay you interest or at least provide free services, such as transfers. If the contract doesn't say you get a share of the profits, then they don't "have to" give it to you.

Sadly, when you deposit the money, it's theirs, and you are now their debtor. This is how banks work. Sadly, most people do not know this and therefore carry a terrible liability with no reward. — Antidote

Are you by any chance confusing debtor and creditor here? Because otherwise this seems to be nonsense.

Those holding the wealth do not give it away to the poor, who are in greater need of it. In fact, the wealthy then pay "accounts / advisors" to tell them what to do with it to make sure they don't lose it. These "experts" are no more then people who understand the law, and therefore how to circumvent it. Otherwise, the wealthy would pay more in tax, but they don't, they pay less. If I am an employee on PAYE, I have no control over my tax, in fact, I don't even see it. If I am a Director, I can manipulate my tax liability to almost zero. In the form of dividends. Until 4 years ago, a Director dividend was balanced by what they call "tax credit". Dividend tax was 20%, tax credit was 20%. I don't need my accountant to tell me that means I used to pay nothing in tax on dividends. — Antidote

This is all true, but I don't see what this has to do with wealth. It's simply the darker side of human nature at work. It's not like wealthy people are a different species that looses all empathy with other humans. It's just easier to justify actions that only negatively impact humanity as an abstraction instead of actual people you know.

No, I was describing assets. There are 4 elements to a financial statement. Income, Expense, Assets, Liabilities. The difference between income and expense is called "cash flow", beit negative or positive. Assets are considered "long term" or "fixed". There's plenty of info out there on this, so little point me repeating it. People who sells assets do so to raise "capital" or/and to reduce liabilities. — Antidote

Yeah, I am pretty sure I know what a balance sheet is. You'd list everything that could be sold for money right now as an asset. Like the building your factory is located in.

Your mixing two things together that are not mixed. Your car gets "YOU" to work, you earn the money, not the car. If your friend gives you a lift to work, your car has not contributed to you "earning money". They are not the same thing. — Antidote

But if I were to open a business, which involves me driving to clients, I could transfer the car to the company and it'd be listed as an asset.

I'm sorry, but you missed the "elephant in the room". WW1 was nothing in comparison to WW2 for the US economy. — Antidote

I gave a single example to illustrate why I am rejecting your claim. Regardless of the exact long term effects WW2 had on the US economy, single examples aren't sufficient to justify your original claim that wars are good for the economy. Your analysis would have to be a lot more thorough.

But for the economy, its very good or they just wouldn't go to war in the first place. Every countries economy is the "crown jewels" and therefore all decisions are made with this in mind. — Antidote

Right. You'd first have to establish that wars are fought only for economic reasons. You could start with any of the two world wars.

That's why banks usually pay you interest or at least provide free services, such as transfers. If the contract doesn't say you get a share of the profits, then they don't "have to" give it to you. — Echarmion

Do you imagine the 0.01% interest is what your bank is making on the what was your money, but is now their money? Like I said, give them a call and ask them. We don't need to keep going round in circles on it, because you can the answer conclusively by asking them.

Are you by any chance confusing debtor and creditor here? Because otherwise this seems to be nonsense. — Echarmion

I can safely say then, you have not owned your own business if this makes no sense to you. That's how business works. What do think the financial advisors get paid for? Don't tell me, arranging mortgages right?! Sorry I'm teasing.

It's not like wealthy people are a different species that looses all empathy with other humans. — Echarmion

True, they aren't a different species, and many will optionally choose to pay more tax because they morally sound, and like sleeping at night with a clearer conscious. Just have a look at which companies choose to run out of Ireland, our Jersey where the tax laws are very favourable. Also, what do think "off shore bank accounts" are all about? Why do you think the wealthy got "really anxious" when they talked about "transparency" of these bank accounts? It's because there is a lot of wealth hidden in them.

Yeah, I am pretty sure I know what a balance sheet is. — Echarmion

If you read that correctly, you would have noticed I said, "Financial Statement" not "Balance Sheet". They are two different things. The balance sheet is an accountant produced statement and does not included "Income, Expense, Assets and Liabilities" crossed. I feel like I'm just giving you free training here. Would you mind donating some money to me for this? Lol, I'm kidding.

But if I were to open a business, which involves me driving to clients, I could transfer the car to the company and it'd be listed as an asset. — Echarmion

Would you give your car to the business for free? Or would you want a few quid for it? Lets say you want £1000 for it at £100 per month. So on one side, it would be listed as an asset "Car" worth £1000, depreciating each year, etc etc. to zero value. On the other, it would be listed as a "liability". The business now owes you £100 per month. If the car fails before you've paid it off, now you have a liability with an unexpected zero-valued asset. Sad times. As an example of course.

Actually, worse than this, now the business owns the car, your tax code will go negative, for fun, lets same your tax code with now be "K1500". The K means negative, so before you earn any money, you now owe the tax man £1500 each year. Of course, we are assuming the business has "assigned" the vehicle to you, being a car, they would probably have to. You tax code would have been, say L1200 of whatever. So before having the car assigned, you would have been able to earn £12,000 tax free. But not now, now you owe them. You will also need to complete a P11D etc etc. Oh and fuel too, who pass that? You or the business? If the business pays, now you gotta pay the tax man a bit more because you see, that's classed as a benefit so you gotta pay tax on that.

The truth is, company car's are now taxed so badly, that most businesses would rather give you the money to buy one, and then you own it and fuel it, etc etc. So the tax laws have encouraged the opposite of what your suggesting. But I digrest... a lot.

wars are good for the economy. — Echarmion

Google it. There's isn't an economist in the planet that is going to say war is bad for the economy.

Right. You'd first have to establish that wars are fought only for economic reasons. You could start with any of the two world wars. — Echarmion

There not fought just for economic reason, but the economy will always be considered and those economies can boost "production" by having a war. If you Google, how much are America spending on military hardware these days? Especially when a "super fancy missle" can cost up to a million dollars of more these days.

Those companies that are solely serving the Military are dependent on the military, and the military on them. If I had a company supplying helicopters, I will also be supplying upgrades, training manuals, etc etc. Do you think the military will say, "no wars on at the moment guys, we don't need any helicopters for now". The business would be bust and the military would have a load of helicopters that have no manufacturer. Instead, they sit around a board room table and say, "Ok, military guys, we are getting short on funds, so let's start a project." We'll upgrade all such as such group of helicopters, or whatever. And the news will report, "Our great military are keeping us all safe by performing a safety upgrade to all our old stuff and making it all shiny and new again."

Unfortunately, its all very much smoke and mirrors. Not just America, everywhere. You think you're not being told the truth, and of course you're not. National security is at stake, you only know what you need to know, like the rest of us.

The reality is that the vast majority of purchase and expenditures in 1st world nations are already above and beyond the purely "material", but fall into the category of "higher mental wants", such as houses, automobiles, education, internet access, etc etc.

As an example, if we use the Sentinelese tribe as a frame of reference, who live as close to nature as supposedly possible using presumably Stone Age technology, it's easy to demonstrate that material needs (other than perhaps in "absolute poverty scenarios" such as 3rd world countries racked by fame and warfare), material needs are at the very bottom of the hierarchy, with most people's "basic material needs" in 1st world countries already being more than met.

Hence why "relative poverty" is something of an illusion or myth, since it isn't based on accounting or what the money or possessions actually add up to or equate to, but is rather solely based on arbitrary income statistics or comparison of fixed salaries or amounts in a "vacuum".