Trickle down economics is a lie, the proof !

[Perceptivum]

What people want is the United States government to solve all of life's problems, regardless of who is in the White House. Meaning, whether we have a Republican, Democrat, or a third party President, the U.S. population as a whole wants that political regime to solve problems, e.g., unemployment, healthcare, education, homeland security, immigration, etc. But it doesn't work. Come on people - wake up - the current paradigm is the wrong way to go.

What we need to do is get back to the united States; remember how we started? It was State governments which took the majority of the responsibility and the federal government, i.e., Washington D.C., was only in the background to provide a military, foreign relations (e.g., trade), and assist with inter-commerce. We need to look to the states that are doing well on their known, e.g., Texas, and foster this kind of thinking. On a state level, trickle-down economics works. On the macro-level you merely find greed. It's on the state level where economic policies (e.g., trickle-down economics), education reform, and healthcare reform work. It can work on the state level too for immigration and homeland security (i.e., let the border states with Mexico & Canada have responsibility and sole authority over the border).

We need a President who will relinquish authority back to the Governors, back to the States!! We need to allow States to govern and the states who are doing well should be modeled. This is where change and progress will really come from; this is where the middle class can have a resurgence. The state level is where it'll all happen.

[questionmark]

What people want is the United States government to solve all of life's problems, regardless of who is in the White House. Meaning, whether we have a Republican, Democrat, or a third party President, the U.S. population as a whole wants that political regime to solve problems, e.g., unemployment, healthcare, education, homeland security, immigration, etc. But it doesn't work. Come on people - wake up - the current paradigm is the wrong way to go.

What we need to do is get back to the united States; remember how we started? It was State governments which took the majority of the responsibility and the federal government, i.e., Washington D.C., was only in the background to provide a military, foreign relations (e.g., trade), and assist with inter-commerce. We need to look to the states that are doing well on their known, e.g., Texas, and foster this kind of thinking. On a state level, trickle-down economics works. On the macro-level you merely find greed. It's on the state level where economic policies (e.g., trickle-down economics), education reform, and healthcare reform work. It can work on the state level too for immigration and homeland security (i.e., let the border states with Mexico & Canada have responsibility and sole authority over the border).

We need a President who will relinquish authority back to the Governors, back to the States!! We need to allow States to govern and the states who are doing well should be modeled. This is where change and progress will really come from; this is where the middle class can have a resurgence. The state level is where it'll all happen.

You forgot a decisive clause in your first sentence which should read: What people want is the United States government to solve all of life's problems, regardless of who is in the White House without costing anything.

Because there are solutions, just no willingness to pay for them.

[DeWitz]

Trickle down economics has worked and does work. This book is only selling because it feeds liberals what they want to hear instead of fact.

Throughout history, capital accumulation has yielded growth in living standards that people in earlier centuries could not have imagined, let alone predicted — and it wasn’t just the owners of capital who benefited. Future capital accumulation may or may not increase the capital share of output; it may or may not widen inequality. If it does, that’s a bad thing, and governments should act. But even if it does, it won’t matter as much as whether and how quickly wages and living standards rise.

Once again, this is just another "problem" that somehow can only be solved by stealing wealth from one group of people and giving it to another. Weird, that every single problem in the world can be solved that way, huh?

Who do you think you are revolting against, if more government is your only answer for everything?

I respectfully disagree, but that's probably because I'm poor due to my genetics and/or my lack of ambition and/or overwhelming market forces (the ol' "Invisible Hand of the Free Market).

[Guest]

What people want is the United States government to solve all of life's problems, regardless of who is in the White House. Meaning, whether we have a Republican, Democrat, or a third party President, the U.S. population as a whole wants that political regime to solve problems, e.g., unemployment, healthcare, education, homeland security, immigration, etc. But it doesn't work. Come on people - wake up - the current paradigm is the wrong way to go.

What we need to do is get back to the united States; remember how we started? It was State governments which took the majority of the responsibility and the federal government, i.e., Washington D.C., was only in the background to provide a military, foreign relations (e.g., trade), and assist with inter-commerce. We need to look to the states that are doing well on their known, e.g., Texas, and foster this kind of thinking. On a state level, trickle-down economics works. On the macro-level you merely find greed. It's on the state level where economic policies (e.g., trickle-down economics), education reform, and healthcare reform work. It can work on the state level too for immigration and homeland security (i.e., let the border states with Mexico & Canada have responsibility and sole authority over the border).

We need a President who will relinquish authority back to the Governors, back to the States!! We need to allow States to govern and the states who are doing well should be modeled. This is where change and progress will really come from; this is where the middle class can have a resurgence. The state level is where it'll all happen.

They want a bit of fairness - that's all. Only idiots want the Government to solve all their problems.

And incase you didn't notice - your not living in the 1700's anymore.

Br Cornelius

[Leonardo]

Trickle down economics works perfectly fine...

...until people become involved.

[Gunn]

What people want is the United States government to solve all of life's problems, regardless of who is in the White House. Meaning, whether we have a Republican, Democrat, or a third party President, the U.S. population as a whole wants that political regime to solve problems, e.g., unemployment, healthcare, education, homeland security, immigration, etc. But it doesn't work. Come on people - wake up - the current paradigm is the wrong way to go.

What we need to do is get back to the united States; remember how we started? It was State governments which took the majority of the responsibility and the federal government, i.e., Washington D.C., was only in the background to provide a military, foreign relations (e.g., trade), and assist with inter-commerce. We need to look to the states that are doing well on their known, e.g., Texas, and foster this kind of thinking. On a state level, trickle-down economics works. On the macro-level you merely find greed. It's on the state level where economic policies (e.g., trickle-down economics), education reform, and healthcare reform work. It can work on the state level too for immigration and homeland security (i.e., let the border states with Mexico & Canada have responsibility and sole authority over the border).

We need a President who will relinquish authority back to the Governors, back to the States!! We need to allow States to govern and the states who are doing well should be modeled. This is where change and progress will really come from; this is where the middle class can have a resurgence. The state level is where it'll all happen.

Well that sounds good. But what happens when the wealth hoarders start trying to hoard all the money again on the state level, like they're doing now playing Monopoly on the national level?

Also, in relation to that, what about high inflation to the consumer on the state level? How do we stop greedy merchants from continuously raising prices to eventual ridiculous amounts, over a long term, like it is now?

[acidhead]

They want a bit of fairness - that's all. Only idiots want the Government to solve all their problems.

Br Cornelius

Fairness. What is fair? Could you define what is fair and how this fairness can be achieved without the use of GOV intervention?

[acidhead]

The title of the OP's Time article reads: Here's Why This Best-Selling Book Is Freaking Out the Super-Wealthy

Just curious...

What's the purpose of a title such as this? Why is it used as the title? Does it spark a flame in the tummy of the reader who feels they are in the groups of have-nots?... those who compare themselves with those who have much-to-much while they are left with much-to-little? Is it a veiled threat to those, the title regards as the 'super-wealthy', to be fearful of the information this 'best selling book' provides to the un-wealthy?

Or does it simply yet again prove that 'we want what we feel we cannot have' and we will lie, cheat and steal to obtain what others before us have achieved regardless of the consequences which undoubtedly occur in the process of obtaining super-wealth?

By no means am I under any illusion that the theory of side-supply economics (trickle theory) doesnt funnel the majority of wealth to the top. What I do believe is an illusion, held by many, that the 'super-wealthy' should be held responsible for their own irresponsible poorly thought-out choices made in the discourse of their lives. That they, the have-nots, never have had a chance nor a voice to curb any effects of economic market behaviour.

The choice is yours. It always has been your choice.

Edited April 25, 2014 by acidhead

[Beany]

Well that sounds good. But what happens when the wealth hoarders start trying to hoard all the money again on the state level, like they're doing now playing Monopoly on the national level?

Also, in relation to that, what about high inflation to the consumer on the state level? How do we stop greedy merchants from continuously raising prices to eventual ridiculous amounts, over a long term, like it is now?

I have my doubts that state government is any better than the federal government, or that state politicians are any better or more honorable than their brethren at the federal level. Look at McDonnell, the former governor of Virginia, Rob Blagojevich in Illinois, Leland Yee in California, John Corzine in New Jersey, New York state assemblywoman Diane Gordon, what the city council did to the city of Bell in California, the mayor of Charlotte, Patrick Cannon, Texas Cameron County commissioner Ernie Hernandez ...... Greed and human nature are not transcended by size.

[Beany]

Trickle down economics has worked and does work. This book is only selling because it feeds liberals what they want to hear instead of fact.

Throughout history, capital accumulation has yielded growth in living standards that people in earlier centuries could not have imagined, let alone predicted — and it wasn’t just the owners of capital who benefited. Future capital accumulation may or may not increase the capital share of output; it may or may not widen inequality. If it does, that’s a bad thing, and governments should act. But even if it does, it won’t matter as much as whether and how quickly wages and living standards rise.

Once again, this is just another "problem" that somehow can only be solved by stealing wealth from one group of people and giving it to another. Weird, that every single problem in the world can be solved that way, huh?

Who do you think you are revolting against, if more government is your only answer for everything?

I didn't see the trickle-down theory work during those 8 or 10 years the top 2% got those tax breaks, nor did it work during the Reagan years. And I think average wages in the US have actually gone down over the past 20 years, while at the same time the gap between the wealthy and the middle class keeps growing. And no, I don't look for statistics or evidence to support my theories, I look for statistics and evidence to formulate an educated theory. Believe it or not, I'm not the only liberal who does this. I know for a fact that there are at least 3 of us. (that's a joke, folks.) One of the best things I ever did was take a semester long class in critical thinking at the local college. I'll have to tell you I often have these internal arguments with myself, my emotions telling me one thing, and my mind another. It's always so tempting for me to ditch the critical thinking give in to the emotional appeal. But it's like that 3rd double shot of tequila that one will always regret in the morning. And I know this from experience.

[acidhead]

Beany,

You mention the gap between the middle class and wealthy is growing. What is considered wealthy? Billionaires.. millionaires. .. those earning $388k per yr? The definition seems to differ depending on who one asks.

And why have wages remained stagnant or decreased in recent decades? Because of tax breaks? Really???

Do GOV programs plus GOV regulations effect the domestic growing gap of income and wage growth?

[Space Commander Travis]

I have my doubts that state government is any better than the federal government, or that state politicians are any better or more honorable than their brethren at the federal level. Look at McDonnell, the former governor of Virginia, Rob Blagojevich in Illinois, Leland Yee in California, John Corzine in New Jersey, New York state assemblywoman Diane Gordon, what the city council did to the city of Bell in California, the mayor of Charlotte, Patrick Cannon, Texas Cameron County commissioner Ernie Hernandez ...... Greed and human nature are not transcended by size.

Oh dear, yes, it's just one more layer of self-interest, self-promotion and one more opportunity to get power over people, isn't it, only these people usually see it as just a springboard for bigger & greater things. I don't think just devolving more power to lower level Politicians will do anything to solve the basic problems with government and the political industry. Again, like with many other things, in theory, as it was originally planned, it may be a good & noble idea, but because Politics has become a profession, it's really no better than federal govt.

[Guest]

The title of the OP's Time article reads: Here's Why This Best-Selling Book Is Freaking Out the Super-Wealthy

Just curious...

What's the purpose of a title such as this? Why is it used as the title? Does it spark a flame in the tummy of the reader who feels they are in the groups of have-nots?... those who compare themselves with those who have much-to-much while they are left with much-to-little? Is it a veiled threat to those, the title regards as the 'super-wealthy', to be fearful of the information this 'best selling book' provides to the un-wealthy?

Or does it simply yet again prove that 'we want what we feel we cannot have' and we will lie, cheat and steal to obtain what others before us have achieved regardless of the consequences which undoubtedly occur in the process of obtaining super-wealth?

By no means am I under any illusion that the theory of side-supply economics (trickle theory) doesnt funnel the majority of wealth to the top. What I do believe is an illusion, held by many, that the 'super-wealthy' should be held responsible for their own irresponsible poorly thought-out choices made in the discourse of their lives. That they, the have-nots, never have had a chance nor a voice to curb any effects of economic market behaviour.

The choice is yours. It always has been your choice.

All the evidences shows what wealth band you were born ion will be the wealth band you die in, that shows systematic wealth inequality. That might be fine if it was a stable situation but as this study shows - it progressively gets worse which leads to social instability. Its not about blaming anyone - its about what will be the consequences of doing nothing about it. The history books tell us that revolution is the consequence. Would it not be far better to solve the problem at root rather than waiting for a convulsion of violence to do it for us ?

Br Cornelius

[preacherman76]

I have my doubts that state government is any better than the federal government, or that state politicians are any better or more honorable than their brethren at the federal level. Look at McDonnell, the former governor of Virginia, Rob Blagojevich in Illinois, Leland Yee in California, John Corzine in New Jersey, New York state assemblywoman Diane Gordon, what the city council did to the city of Bell in California, the mayor of Charlotte, Patrick Cannon, Texas Cameron County commissioner Ernie Hernandez ...... Greed and human nature are not transcended by size.

Its not that local government isnt just as coruptable. Its that its more easy to hold local government accountable.

[Beany]

Beany,

You mention the gap between the middle class and wealthy is growing. What is considered wealthy? Billionaires.. millionaires. .. those earning $388k per yr? The definition seems to differ depending on who one asks.

And why have wages remained stagnant or decreased in recent decades? Because of tax breaks? Really???

Do GOV programs plus GOV regulations effect the domestic growing gap of income and wage growth?

Didn't mean to imply that the wealth gap was caused by tax breaks, sorry that's what you got out of it. I don't know whether government regulations are one of the factors in causing the gap. Are you implying that it is? Thought I'd clear this up, because of the earlier misunderstanding. If so, I'd love to see the information that caused you to reach that decision. I don't know what the official designation is of wealth in the US, found this table on the web site Who Rules America.com. I'm sure you could find variations based on how the information was compiled & manipulated, but this is most likely pretty close to average:

Table 1: Income, net worth, and financial worth in the U.S. by percentile, in 2010 dollars

Wealth or income class Mean household income Mean household net worth Mean household financial (non-home) wealth Top 1 percent $1,318,200 $16,439,400 $15,171,600 Top 20 percent $226,200 $2,061,600 $1,719,800

[Beany]

Its not that local government isnt just as coruptable. Its that its more easy to hold local government accountable.

I don't know, the city council of Bell got away with it for years, as did some if not most of the other state or municipal employees. You know what's scary? The thought that these are only the ones we know about. I know where I live there have been all manner of people ripping off the taxpayers, people working on water boards, local tax offices, schools, law enforcement, I'm no longer shocked by it. I don't think government of any size causes this or that it would be less prevalent in small government, I think it's personal greed and lack of any moral integrity. It might be easier to keep an eye on what's going on locally, but do you think there's inherently more trust for people who are a part of our community that possibly isn't justified? Geez, I'm so cynical! The scale of theft might be smaller, but then so is the municipal/state environment.

[acidhead]

All the evidences shows what wealth band you were born ion will be the wealth band you die in, that shows systematic wealth inequality. That might be fine if it was a stable situation but as this study shows - it progressively gets worse which leads to social instability. Its not about blaming anyone - its about what will be the consequences of doing nothing about it. The history books tell us that revolution is the consequence. Would it not be far better to solve the problem at root rather than waiting for a convulsion of violence to do it for us ?

Br Cornelius

News flash! No economic system ever existed has provided the majority of people the best opportunity to rise from poverty then the free market system. Does this system guarantee everybody will join the 1%? Of course not... is that what you want in life? To be filthy rich? while its obviously true the middle class has shunk its also a fact that more people have risen from poverty globally then at any point in history right now.

As long as there is food on the table and a roof over your head there will be no revolution. Occupy wallstreet protesters proved lack of support doesn't exist. Most couldn't answer why they were protesting and what their demands are.

What are your demands Br?

I know what my demand is. And it has nothing to do with camparing myself to anybody else on earth. I dont care if a one percent exists. I look after myself. I dont need a fancy jet or a mansion to live in. Means nothing to me. All I care about is my own personal health. That's number one priority. People have never had it so good as it is today in all of history. They need to stop comparing themselves to others and take a good long hard look in the mirror.

So what is my demand? What am I p***ed off about? What affects my life?

-Inflation.

Forty yrs ago $100 bought what $20 buys today. Why? Because of GOV monopoly on currency.

How can this be solved? -Repeal legal tender laws allowing private currency competition

Protect the purchasing power in the value of currency and I'll use that currency and you won't hear a complaint from me.

[Guest]

i want people to have a job,home, healthcare, adequate food, security and a secure retirement. The disparity in wealth means that is not happening for a growing minority of people. These are the poor dispossessed who up until recently had all of the above, these are the people who will revolt. These are the people who just want a decent standard of living - not to be rich - but see it as a vanishing possibility.

it is not jealously of the rich i am talking about, its about growing hardship for a majority.

Br Cornelius

[Space Commander Travis]

So what is my demand? What am I p***ed off about? What affects my life?

-Inflation.

Forty yrs ago $100 bought what $20 buys today. Why? Because of GOV monopoly on currency.

Because that's what Economies depend on in order to grow, and in the Capitalist principle of perpetual growth that's what it's all about. Governments don't want there to be no inflation, since if people are paying more for things that means that there's more money coming in to the Economy, = Growth. Governments were getting really worried during the Great Economic Crisis that inflation might stop altogether. That's not what they want.

[Guest]

inflation is part of the deal with money lent into existence at interest. if you don't like it then change the economic fundamentals. That would also mean dropping the concept of perpetual growth. All things i would strongly advocate as part of a package of solutions.

Failure to understand the fundamentals of the economy generally means you fail to address the real problems. i don't see anyone stepping up to the plate and offering to administer money without interest at source, so i fail to see how removing the government monopoly would change much.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 27, 2014 by Guest

[lisaloveslilia]

Once again, this is just another "problem" that somehow can only be solved by stealing wealth from one group of people and giving it to another. Weird, that every single problem in the world can be solved that way, huh?

Exactly!!! The banking industry, for example!

[Guest]

There are many things which could be done to change the rules which would not involve taxing. Its just sloganering to suggest there is only one solution on offer.

Br Cornelius

[RAOK]

Trickle down economics is a myth - The statistical evidence proves it - (at least until some other economist provides a different set of stats to the contrary). But whether that happens is largely irrelevant, what counts is perceptions and the pereption is that it does NOT work and that the gap between the richer and the poorer is getting bigger. The perception (rightly or wrongly) also suggests that when the ecomonic model stumbles, as it has recently, that governments implement policies such that it is those who have gained least suffer the most (in relative terms).

Trickle down economics is a myth, perpetual growth is potentially a dangerous, perhaps an unsustainable requirement for our current economic model.

One more global economic stumble and perhaps Br. will see the revolution. Without a crisis I suspect most people will continue on.

Surely the great minds of today can come up with a better econmic model that the outdated crumbling model with have now.

Edited April 27, 2014 by RAOK

[lisaloveslilia]

I understand the concept of what "Trickle down economics" was supposed to accomplish. But it just hasn't happened and anything called "trickle down" sounds condescending and insulting...just the way its labelled. Like, some people will get the flood, while others will get those few little drops that trickle down the cliff. Open your mouth wide...you don't wanna miss it. Thats the only water you'll get, while the folks at the top are guzzling it and carrying it away in barrel loads!

[acidhead]

Because that's what Economies depend on in order to grow, and in the Capitalist principle of perpetual growth that's what it's all about. Governments don't want there to be no inflation, since if people are paying more for things that means that there's more money coming in to the Economy, = Growth. Governments were getting really worried during the Great Economic Crisis that inflation might stop altogether. That's not what they want.

Of course it does. I'm talking about how quickly its rising.

The rate of inflation exceeds the growth in the current economy. There is a horrible imbalance. This is the problem the 99% have with inflation. Look at fuel costs as the main indicator. Its doubled in cost since 2008-09.

Central banks try to hit target ranges of 2-3% per year. The numbers are fraudulent. They exclude fuel and food prices. It's bs. It's totally obvious.

CB interest rates are still at historic lows and who benifits? Not the average consumer, the 99%. We suffer from high prices because there has been no growth related inflationary effects. Only the top has benifited from the growth of the money supply.

If the rate of inflation matched the growth of the money supply more individuals would experience economic growth as a result.

This is the problem I have with inflation today. The current rates are bogus numbers. Same with the GOV saying the recession is over... that's the same as calling a woman half pregnant. There has been no recovery. It's a cover up. Unless a liquidation of the market is allowed to happen... a correction.. the same mentality of perpetual bailouts of two-bigs will continue and the 99% will suffer from inflationary effects.